Support NeoGAF

[fireflame]

After years of development, in 2017 Star Citizen is still a project in development. Something that is completely to be expected, will say fans, as this is one of the most ambitious projects ever made by an independent company.

Time has seen many complaints raise however, but it is not easy to discuss about them in a context where fans and people who doubt sometimes clash in very spectacular ways. Some points however , could be defined as a common ground for debate.

The game has reached incredible heights in funding, and this is certainly not ending. Despite this incredibly high budget, we keep However seeing virtual ships sold for hundred of dollars. This point is something that clearly makes me question the ethics surrounding the developmenet of the game.

I feel that if another company was sdoing the same thing, it would probably be heaviliy criticized for selling DLCS for an alpha game, but since it is an indie game developped with "passion", some fans are willing to give this approach a free pass.
The incredible amounts of eature promised is worrying, and when i think about Star Citizen's development, i cannot helpt but think about Danaids' jar, which will never be filled and need more liquid, the liquid being in that case cash flow and development time.

We cannot deny the company communicates-alot- on the development, but yet it does not answer all questions. A common concern is the impact Star Citizen will have on the credibility of future ambitious indie projects. Even if the game goes gold, i feel this will not absolve the studio from all its mistakes, and questionable marketting strategy.
Years ago people considered 2017 as a date for a possible release, now some players are speculating on year 2020...

Do you think that Chris Roberts handled Star Citizen in a way that respects ethics and players?

 

[Peltz]

I have less of an issue with them asking for funding and more of an issue with those willing to throw irresponsible amounts money into the project.

Is it unethical to market something aggressively and sell virtual goods that may not exist? Maybe, yes. But I think it's way worse to get pulled into the hype and not see through the bullshit.

 

[nOoblet16]

I'm sure this thread is going to end well.

As for the ships, well if people want to spend money on something knowingly then it's their decision really. CIG isn't forcing people to pay for the ships and more importantly how much money do these high level payments even generate ?

 

[GHG]

I have less of an issue with them asking for funding and more of an issue with those willing to throw irresponsible amounts money into the project.

"Irresponsible"

Irresponsible in what sense? If somebody puts say $1000 into the game how do you know if that's an irresponsible amount for them or not? Do you know the ins and outs of the finances for each individual who has put something into the game?

For some individuals spending just $10 on a game can be irresponsible dependant on their circumstances. Just because you are personally uncomfortable with the amount of money some people are putting into the game it doesn't automatically make it irresponsible.

 

[Ganyc]

Do you think that Chris Roberts handled Star Citizen in a way that respects ethics and players?

yes, like every other kickstarter project.

it's no p2w and you only have to buy the base game, nothing more. People who want do support the project however, have more than enogh ways to do so.

 

[Marcel]

I think there could be constructive dialogues if the "sides" in this issue didn't retreat to the usual argument trenches anytime the subject of Star Citizen's budgeting and management came up.

"You just want another TORtanic"

"I found Derek Smart's alt account"

"Chris Roberts is a hack fraud"

And so on. More perspective is needed and definitely less petty, emotional arguments.

 

[Vegetable Lasagna]

"Irresponsible"

Irrisponsible in what sense? If somebody puts say $1000 into the game how do you know if that's an irresponsible amount for them or not? Do you know the ins and outs of the finances for each individual who has put something into the game?

For some individuals spending just $10 on a game can be irresponsible dependant on their circumstances. Just because you are personally uncomfortable with the amount of money some people are putting into the game it doesn't automatically make it irresponsible.

Maybe he should have used "idiotic" instead of "irresponsible."

 

[GHG]

Maybe he should have used "idiotic" instead of "irresponsible."

Hypothetical situation:

If I have a 100k in the bank and decide to spend 1k on a videogame project I'm passionate about and enjoy who are you to call me an idiot?

People spend their own money how they want and when they want.

 

[DJwest]

"Irresponsible"

Irrisponsible in what sense? If somebody puts say $1000 into the game how do you know if that's an irresponsible amount for them or not? Do you know the ins and outs of the finances for each individual who has put something into the game?

For some individuals spending just $10 on a game can be irresponsible dependant on their circumstances. Just because you are personally uncomfortable with the amount of money some people are putting into the game it doesn't automatically make it irresponsible.

I don't understand why people don't get this. $1,000 is a lot for me but is nothing to a lot of people. I'm also assuming that all the people who are pouring money in this project are adults who can make their own decisions. It's a gamble, and everyone knows it. If the game ends up disappointing, they'd have nobody to blame but themselves.

 

[mnannola]

The only thing I really have a problem with is how it seems they grossly underestimate completion dates. They estimated that 3.0 would be done LAST fall. As we are seeing now, there is no way they were anywhere close to having 3.0 done when they made those claims.

If they had a zero percent chance of making 3.0 for fall, why would they state that? Only two real options here:

1. Horrible project management skills - They thought somehow that 3.0 was going to be done, even though the underlying technology, planets, ships etc were not anywhere near ready.

OR

2. Shady business practices - In order to sell ship packages etc and drum up business, they said 3.0 was going to be ready even though they knew that wasn't the case. They intentionally misled the public in order to make money.

I would hope that #1 was the case here and they are just incompetent. I think there is a chance it was #2 though, just by looking at how far they were away from shipping 3.0 at the time they made that claim.

 

[jakonovski]

Hypothetical situation:

If I have a 100k in the bank and decide to spend 1k on a videogame project I'm passionate about and enjoy who are you to call me an idiot?

People spend their own money how they want and when they want.

We all know that there's a bunch of people who spent money they really shouldn't have on SC.

 

[Peltz]

"Irresponsible"

Irresponsible in what sense? If somebody puts say $1000 into the game how do you know if that's an irresponsible amount for them or not? Do you know the ins and outs of the finances for each individual who has put something into the game?

For some individuals spending just $10 on a game can be irresponsible dependant on their circumstances. Just because you are personally uncomfortable with the amount of money some people are putting into the game it doesn't automatically make it irresponsible.

I'm not judging anyone on an individual or holistic basis. I'm saying don't fall for the hype. That is all.

Hypothetical situation:

If I have a 100k in the bank and decide to spend 1k on a videogame project I'm passionate about and enjoy who are you to call me an idiot?

People spend their own money how they want and when they want.

I didn't call anyone an idiot. No need to be defensive.

We all know that there's a bunch of people who spent money they really shouldn't have on SC.

Yea probably. Not everyone falls into this bucket, but I assume some do.

 

[fanboi]

The only thing I really have a problem with is how it seems they grossly underestimate completion dates. They estimated that 3.0 would be done LAST fall. As we are seeing now, there is no way they were anywhere close to having 3.0 done when they made those claims.

If they had a zero percent chance of making 3.0 for fall, why would they state that? Only two real options here:

1. Horrible project management skills - They thought somehow that 3.0 was going to be done, even though the underlying technology, planets, ships etc were not anywhere near ready.

OR

2. Shady business practices - In order to sell ship packages etc and drum up business, they said 3.0 was going to be ready even though they knew that wasn't the case. They intentionally misled the public in order to make money.

I would hope that #1 was the case here and they are just incompetent. I think there is a chance it was #2 though, just by looking at how far they were away from shipping 3.0 at the time they made that claim.

I think one and scope creep.

 

[Chumley]

Is it unethical to market something aggressively and sell virtual goods that may not exist? Maybe, yes. But I think it's way worse to get pulled into the hype and not see through the bullshit.

I think the company wielding the pent up demand the way they are (with unreleased items that get delayed) at these prices is absolutely unethical, and the only actual defense of it requires moral relativism.

 

[PedroLumpy]

A while back some people wanted a refund because they donated(?) money before everything ballooned into a much bigger game. I believe they honoured the refund request. As long as that continues, I would consider them 'being ethical'.

To the larger question of the project as a whole.... I dunno. You look at the situation, and it seems absurd. Scope creep, delays, more and more microtransactions. But their players seems informed and onboard with it all.

<shrug> I dunno.

 

[Ivory Samoan]

The lure of 3.0 has been immense since it was teased...I was always leaning towards #1, but if I'm being completely honest with myself, I'm kind of leaning towards #2 now.

I think Squadron 42 will put a lot of the controversy to rest on release, the key is, hopefully that is sooner rather than later.

 

[Peltz]

I think the company wielding the pent up demand the way they are (with unreleased items that get delayed) at these prices is absolutely unethical, and the only actual defense of it requires moral relativism.

I'm definitely not defending it. You're right.

 

[GHG]

We all know that there's a bunch of people who spent money they really shouldn't have on SC.

The same can be said for pretty much every product that's ever existed.

I'm not judging anyone on an individual or holistic basis. I'm saying don't fall for the hype. That is all.



I didn't call anyone an idiot. No need to be defensive.

I know, hence the reply wasn't even directed at you.

 

[Llyranor]

I had 425$ invested in SC (Constellation and Super Hornet). But at some point (missing their SQ42 deadline by 2 years, for starters) I slowly started to lose faith in the (mis-)management of the project and feature-creep (I didn't ask for a mediocre FPS component for my space sim, for example), and the team biting more than it could chew. The change in the TOS (no refund as long as the project is still being 'actively' 'worked' - which means the team could be developing it in perpetuity without concrete results and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it if you agreed to the new TOS) is what prompted me to get my refund last Fall. I hope the project eventually ends up good, but it wasn't worth gambling that much money to find out.

A while back some people wanted a refund because they donated(?) money before everything ballooned into a much bigger game. I believe they honoured the refund request. As long as that continues, I would consider them 'being ethical'.

In the old TOS, you could demand a refund if the project (squadron 42 being the main target at that point) wasn't released within 12 (later changed to 18 ) months of the initial projected release date (2014). The current TOS is that you can't ask for a refund as long as the devs are 'working on' the game. If you're using the alpha right now, you already agreed to the new TOS.

 

[Sarcastic Poster]

I have a huge problem with the constantly sliding release dates. If Squadron 42 isn't well-received though, I can imagine a lot of the hype dying on its arse.

 

[jakonovski]

The same can be said for pretty much every product that's ever existed.

This quite unique though, promise of future product at exorbitant prices. Some have said it's predatory, and I agree. The mobile game industry has shown that exploiting the whale is here to stay though.

 

[Ivory Samoan]

I had 425$ invested in SC (Constellation and Super Hornet). But at some point (missing their SQ42 deadline by 2 years, for starters) I slowly started to lose faith in the (mis-)management of the project and feature-creep (I didn't ask for a mediocre FPS component for my space sim, for example), and the team biting more than it could chew. The change in the TOS (no refund as long as the project is still being 'actively' 'worked' - which means the team could be developing it in perpetuity without concrete results and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it if you agreed to the new TOS) is what prompted me to get my refund last Fall. I hope the project eventually ends up good, but it wasn't worth gambling that much money to find out.

In the old TOS, you could demand a refund if the project (squadron 42 being the main target at that point) wasn't released within 12 (later changed to 18 ) months of the initial projected release date (2014). The current TOS is that you can't ask for a refund as long as the devs are 'working on' the game. If you're using the alpha right now, you already agreed to the new TOS.

I wasn't aware of that TOS change...that's pretty scary if I'm being honest. I've got 2 ships but must have missed that change: I got mine pretty early on though.

I really hope Squadron 42 is amazing, and it's out in 2018 (2014 being the original launch of S42 is quite a massive delay really).

 

[spindoctor]

I had 425$ invested in SC (Constellation and Super Hornet). But at some point (missing their SQ42 deadline by 2 years, for starters) I slowly started to lose faith in the (mis-)management of the project and feature-creep (I didn't ask for a mediocre FPS component for my space sim, for example), and the team biting more than it could chew. The change in the TOS (no refund as long as the project is still being 'actively' 'worked' - which means the team could be developing it in perpetuity without concrete results and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it if you agreed to the new TOS) is what prompted me to get my refund last Fall. I hope the project eventually ends up good, but it wasn't worth gambling that much money to find out.

I don't think they've ever denied a refund though. I have a friend who got a five figure refund just a few weeks ago. It's not that he lost faith in the project or anything (he still has four figures invested). He wanted the money back for personal reasons, and they agreed the first time he requested it. They did try and get him to change his mind afterwards (like all companies do) but ultimately they did refund the money when he didn't budge. This is why I was pretty skeptical of this week's drama about SC running out of money. They would not be refunding $10k+ amounts if it really was that dire.

 

[Llyranor]

I don't think they've ever denied a refund though. I have a friend who got a five figure refund just a few weeks ago. It's not that he lost faith in the project or anything (he still has four figures invested). He wanted the money back for personal reasons, and they agreed the first time he requested it. They did try and get him to change his mind afterwards (like all companies do) but ultimately they did refund the money when he didn't budge. This is why I was pretty skeptical of this week's drama about SC running out of money. They would not be refunding $10k+ amounts if it really was that dire.

I got my refund fairly easily too (back in the Fall). It only took a few email exchanges. Did your friend accept the new TOS though? If he did and still got a refund, that's pretty fair of them, and actually gives me more faith in the project than if they just trapped people into it.

 

[Vegetable Lasagna]

Hypothetical situation:

If I have a 100k in the bank and decide to spend 1k on a videogame project I'm passionate about and enjoy who are you to call me an idiot?

People spend their own money how they want and when they want.

Opinions man. I'm sure I do plenty of things you might find idiotic. And if I was throwing hundreds or thousands at a kickstarter project, ran by Chris Roberts of all people, that would hopefully be one of them. Doesn't matter how much expendable income I have. Still would be idiotic.

 

[Chumley]

I had 425$ invested in SC (Constellation and Super Hornet). But at some point (missing their SQ42 deadline by 2 years, for starters) I slowly started to lose faith in the (mis-)management of the project and feature-creep (I didn't ask for a mediocre FPS component for my space sim, for example), and the team biting more than it could chew. The change in the TOS (no refund as long as the project is still being 'actively' 'worked' - which means the team could be developing it in perpetuity without concrete results and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it if you agreed to the new TOS) is what prompted me to get my refund last Fall. I hope the project eventually ends up good, but it wasn't worth gambling that much money to find out.

In the old TOS, you could demand a refund if the project (squadron 42 being the main target at that point) wasn't released within 12 (later changed to 18 ) months of the initial projected release date (2014). The current TOS is that you can't ask for a refund as long as the devs are 'working on' the game. If you're using the alpha right now, you already agreed to the new TOS.

Wait a minute, you can't get refunds now for orders past the $45 tier? Are you serious? This shit is a pre-order for virtual items that haven't been released. That is completely indefensible.

 

[Jackpot]

I would like to know how much creating new ships to sell is slowing down the development of the game. Concepting, modelling, texturing, animating, all the unique screen interfaces, programming each point of control... producing a ship is not exactly some tiny side-project.

 

[Sad Affleck]

I paid for the basic level and I mostly care about Squadron 42 so I don't have a huge stake in the ongoing development of the game. I do find it distasteful that they are selling virtual goods worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars for an MMO mode that isn't even close to complete.

It all hinges on CIG's ability to deliver. I believe most backers are aware of the risks but they want to give the game the best possible chance at success.

 

[mercenar1e]

We all know that there's a bunch of people who spent money they really shouldn't have on SC.

CIG is granting refund requests to anyone that asks.. if they regret backing the project they can go down this route.

 

[kutthoat5150]

If CIG released SC with Chris's original vision of just SP with no MMO concept with the current funding they have, people would still be very pissed. I wouldn't even say full development started until well into 2014 as that's when they started to get a decent sized staff

 

[Akronis]

I paid for the basic level and I mostly care about Squadron 42 so I don't have a huge stake in the ongoing development of the game. I do find it distasteful that they are selling virtual goods worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars for an MMO mode that isn't even close to complete.

It all hinges on CIG's ability to deliver. I believe most backers are aware of the risks but they want to give the game the best possible chance at success.

Pretty much this.

 

[Sloane]

Only time will tell. I love the ambition of the project and I still believe they can achieve what they set out to do despite not having "invested" any money into it yet. But gaming desperately needs more ambition so whatever it takes in my book.

 

[Akuun]

deleted

 

[PeterVenkman]

I paid for the basic level and I mostly care about Squadron 42 so I don't have a huge stake in the ongoing development of the game. I do find it distasteful that they are selling virtual goods worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars for an MMO mode that isn't even close to complete.

It all hinges on CIG's ability to deliver. I believe most backers are aware of the risks but they want to give the game the best possible chance at success.

This, so much. 45$ is a small risk for me for something that could be great. If it works, awesome - I'm left with the game I wanted and maybe more importantly a funding option that doesn't involve publishers. If it doesn't? Then I'm out 45$.

Personally, I always saw the ships as a thing they threw on so people who wanted to help support the project got a cool in game item, but that it was really just that - a way to successfully crowdfund on the AAA level. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't feel burned like other people do. Yet.

 

[Pepboy]

Do you think that Chris Roberts handled Star Citizen in a way that respects ethics and players?

I think it's about the same level as a f2p mobile game. Not something to praise, but if people want to waste their money I guess its okay.

In a f2p game you usually are putting money in for a chance to win something, in this case, the uncertainty is more about what the final game would be like.

The other big issue is how CIG is going to keep funding 400 people once the game is released. Because there's some quote about CIG no longer selling (these) ships after release, I think a lot of players will be surprised when the next expansion once again allows pre-orders for ships. Basically I think Chris Roberts might fulfill his literal promises but probably break the spirit of them.

edit: case in point regarding borderline deception (sticking cancellations of refunds into an updated TOS without people realizing):

Wait a minute, you can't get refunds now for orders past the $45 tier? Are you serious? This shit is a pre-order for virtual items that haven't been released. That is completely indefensible.

 

[Eumi]

I'm not sure it's a question of ethics. Star Citizen is offering stuff for stupidly high prices sure, but as far as I'm aware it isn't holding anything hostage behind them, is it? Like, there's no "buy this stuff or the game is doomed" narrative. So long as everyone who buys them is clear that they may never get to play the game, I'd say it's ethically sound.

However I do find it a little off. I dunno what you have to think of your product to sell stuff to the level they have for a game only in alpha.

Also I'm laughing at OP's paragraph about other companies being criticised if they did this, as if SC isn't already heavily criticised to the point where there are a bunch of people almost hoping it'll fail.

 

[CopperPuppy]

I think the company wielding the pent up demand the way they are (with unreleased items that get delayed) at these prices is absolutely unethical, and the only actual defense of it requires moral relativism.

This succinctly states how I feel about the situation as well.

It's odd to see people go to bat for CIG while shitting on other devs whose practices are different only in degree if not in kind.

 

[PedroLumpy]

In the old TOS, you could demand a refund if the project (squadron 42 being the main target at that point) wasn't released within 12 (later changed to 18 ) months of the initial projected release date (2014). The current TOS is that you can't ask for a refund as long as the devs are 'working on' the game. If you're using the alpha right now, you already agreed to the new TOS.

Thanks for clearing that up! I didn't really know the specifics.

 

[jakonovski]

CIG is granting refund requests to anyone that asks.. if they regret backing the project they can go down this route.

Not according to the TOS as far as I know. Giving refunds regardless in any kind of scale makes no sense, so I'll take any stories of such with a pinch of salt.

 

[Mister_Bubbles]

What is going on with this influx of Star Citizen concern trolling? Is Derek Smart stirring up a rabble on twitter again or something?

 

[WalTech]

The only thing I really have a problem with is how it seems they grossly underestimate completion dates. They estimated that 3.0 would be done LAST fall. As we are seeing now, there is no way they were anywhere close to having 3.0 done when they made those claims.

If they had a zero percent chance of making 3.0 for fall, why would they state that? Only two real options here:

1. Horrible project management skills - They thought somehow that 3.0 was going to be done, even though the underlying technology, planets, ships etc were not anywhere near ready.

OR

2. Shady business practices - In order to sell ship packages etc and drum up business, they said 3.0 was going to be ready even though they knew that wasn't the case. They intentionally misled the public in order to make money.

I would hope that #1 was the case here and they are just incompetent. I think there is a chance it was #2 though, just by looking at how far they were away from shipping 3.0 at the time they made that claim.

This is the part to me that CIG really treads the line between shady and not. It's a double-edged sword as well, because if it's not shady, then it speaks to a deep level of incompetence or mismanagement.

If they had that presentation at Gamescom last year and showed all the fancy stuff they were doing, knowing full well that it wasn't anywhere near ready to go for 2016, then they lied and the money they raised from those promises is ill-gotten.

If, however, they really believed that the 3.0 patch would really be done by December of 2016, and now today, six months later it's still not going to be ready for at least a month or so, then there is some serious mismanagement going on. I know that creative endeavours can be really tough to pin down in terms of schedule, but SQ42 is almost three years late, and the pre-alpha 3.0 patch which was supposed to be out by Christmas of 2016 (which would have been late), is still not done.

Selling super-expensive ships is fine by me, however. We're all adults and responsible for our actions. However, if option #2 of mnannola's post is correct, then selling those ships based on promises you know to be untrue is most definitely shady as hell.

 

[Laiza]

Whether or not they misled the public intentionally or not is entirely immaterial to me.

Regardless of the intent, it's entirely on those making those investments to judge whether or not such claims are plausible. Outrageous claims tend often enough to be outrageous on their face, and I'm not exactly going to feel sympathetic to those who can't see past the veneer to consider the actual logistics involved before plopping down $5000 on the promise of a possible future product whose quality you have no control over.

I also really don't care about how other people spend their money anyway. I mean, obviously I'd prefer people put their money towards worthy causes and spend intelligently, but I have about as much power over that as I do the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. There's just no point getting worked up over it.

My assessment of CIG is that their deadlines are meaningless and that the project is likely to continue to be in a protracted development cycle for some time to come, and anyone who wants to see the whole thing come to fruition will likely get their wish... but several years out of date. I have no issue with this, but then, I'm not even following the project closely. I'm more interested in seeing the end result when all is said and done, and the amount of money poured into it to get there is none of my business, indeed.

 

[WaterAstro]

The first thing I didn't like about it is when they started CitizenCon.

Spending loads of money just to stroke your ego is not a good way to invest the money. They didn't even have much to show every single Con that couldn't be just done in some simple video.

 

[Sir Abacus]

CR's track record speaks for itself. Anyone who gives him money prior to completion of a project is a fool but as has been pointed out in the thread, it's their money so who cares.

If it comes out in a complete form I might buy it if it's as good as say Elite Dangerous who have built a solid foundation and are expanding piece by piece. But I'm not giving him a dime until it comes out in a reasonably complete form.

He's not a fraud. He's not a hack. He just gets up to his eyeballs in big ideas and is a perfectionist so his output is excruciatingly slow.

 

[CSJ]

Just wait until the game is out, oh my shit is it going to be a whine fest about "x has this" and "y has that" and the market getting screwed six ways to Sunday. Balance will be argued over endlessly until people accept that it's just the way it is.

 

[Outrun]

My primary issue with the game is how CR and CIG missed the schedule that they set themselves.

I don't think that Kotaku articles absolve them of anything.

Defenders will say that delays happen all the time in projects. I personally don't think CR is up to the task.

I also concerned with their management of this project.

Other than that, if people want to spend $1000s on ships, that is their money and business.

If the project as it is makes people happy, then all the power to them.

 

[sol740]

This thread is completely pointless, as most are in the middle waiting, and the extremes have made up their minds and dug in for the duration. We can't know for sure one way or the other, and so far all smoking guns have been planted, or ended up otherwise benign.

 

[mercenar1e]

Not according to the TOS as far as I know. Giving refunds regardless in any kind of scale makes no sense, so I'll take any stories of such with a pinch of salt.

i contacted CIG for a refund and they granted it in full.

 

[Outrun]

Not according to the TOS as far as I know. Giving refunds regardless in any kind of scale makes no sense, so I'll take any stories of such with a pinch of salt.

I got my refund for $400 CND a couple of months ago.

 

[Purple Cheeto]

Once it changed from an awesome space sim to an MMO, nope. Chris Roberts is in over his head and the whole thing is a cluster fuck of bad project management.

The fact that they continue to sell things that don't and probably won't ever exist is gross. Especially since they've yet to ship the original promise.