Fried Watermelon posted:

Fried Watermelon posted:

LCL-Dead posted:

Over a month since refund request was submitted.

33 days since I got anything other than an automated "We haven't forgotten about you!" reply to my ticket.

Is there anyone out there with a ticket number higher than 133k that's gotten their poo poo resolved yet?

SelenicMartian posted:

- Give me or I tell the principal you spit on me.

SneakyFrog posted:

i blow a football sized hole in your crotchal area. Then take your lunch money with my handy extendo gripper.

LCL-Dead posted:

Over a month since refund request was submitted.

33 days since I got anything other than an automated "We haven't forgotten about you!" reply to my ticket.

Is there anyone out there with a ticket number higher than 133k that's gotten their poo poo resolved yet?

CrazyLoon posted:

Should've kept: "Don't believe his lies" IMO, otherwise....drat son...

LCL-Dead posted:

Over a month since refund request was submitted.

33 days since I got anything other than an automated "We haven't forgotten about you!" reply to my ticket.

Is there anyone out there with a ticket number higher than 133k that's gotten their poo poo resolved yet?

thatguy posted:

As I'm lying on the floor I tell him, "I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you do or say you still won't be able to walk ever again."

joats posted:

Forrest: [running] I had run for 3 years, 2 months, 14 days, and 16 hours.
[he stops and turns around]
Young Man Running: Quiet, quiet! He’s gonna say something!
Forrest: That's him in the wheelchair.

Reddit, what are some red flags you saw but ignored? Do you regret that decision? posted:

When you're the only one trying to repair a relationship and they've obviously cashed out.

When someone has wronged you and doesn't do anything to make up for it or try and fix things.

When someone lies and misleads you and leads you on.

When you already turned your back on them because they weren't there for you, but you give it another go because you love them.

When this has all happened before but each time you think it will be different, that they'll be different.

When you let all this happen because you don't have anyone else.

aoxo posted:

I think it's a less balanced article than most here seem to think.

I'd like to preface my post by saying that while I follow the game's development and own a copy of it, I'm not a massive fan of it. I'm still pretty on the fence.

Okay, so, this article has innuendo spread right throughout. It starts off in the title and continues in the first sentence. For starters, why Star Citizen is "controversial" is (I think) two-fold, but the article begins with the assumption that SC itself is controversial, rather than asking why it has attracted controversy. This may just be a matter of semantics, but it's a leading statement. When you read the title your mind is lead straight to, "Star Citizen is controversial".

In the first paragraph, after the question of "What is Star Citizen?" the response is "Well, that’s a question with a least two answers". I suppose that's relatively innocent, but coupled with some other comments, like this one in the third paragraph ("Star Citizen reads like an attempt to combine almost everything games have ever done") it again leads the reader to believe that Star Citizen is (in concept at least) more complicated than it really is, which very easily helps fuel the "too ambitious" or "feature creep" arguments later presented. It's very subtle, and, again, may simply be a matter of semantics, but I think ultimately it skews the perceived meaning of what's being said and the general (and wider reaching) tone against Star Citizen (side-note: the mere fact this article is written to defend/explain SC suggests that there are reasons to be "against" [or for] SC which I think only lends more credence to the "SC is controversial point made above).

Continuing on, not all games are clear cut, but they certainly have core game play features, so why suggest SC is any different and that what it is is hard to explain? What would you call GTAV? IS it a driving game? Action game? Shooter? Adventure game? Open-world? With the re-release/release of the enhanced/PC versions of GTAV is it now a first person shooter also? I understand the point - Star Citizen aims to be many things, but just as Grand Theft Auto is an action-adventure game, so too is SC a space sim game. Starting off with "well I can't even explain it" isn't, in my opinion, the most balanced and fair way to present it.

I think it then provides some misinformation by talking about the different "modes". This in general, as with most SC articles, starts to show a lack of familiarity with SC and it's development. Unless I am misunderstanding, these "modes" are mainly the modules, which, aside from the public nature of early access, don't differ too much from the different stages any other company would go through when designing and developing different game play mechanics. Using GTA as an example again, I'm very sure that the people dealing with character movement, weapon stats, etc were separate to those working on vehicle physics/stats. I don't want to go into this too much because I don't how how different CIG is working to a "normal" company.

I think the rest of the article is pretty much more of the same - it tries to give a quick run down of what SC is, what it wants to be, what CIG is, how it works, etc but doesn't really provide genuine details (and by genuine I mean "fair"). As usual, a huge focus is put on being able to buy "virtual" ships. There are three parties at fault for this: CIG who insist EVERY ship MUST go up for sale, the "take my money" backers who keep buying ships despite already owning several, and then those who don't own the game and have no stake in it, but who are adamant that any purchase of "virtual" items means pay-to-win, despite not having any understanding of the context of the ships or the purchases themselves. To explain my understanding of this point: what's better: a supercar or a minivan? The supercar, says the racer; the minivan, says the parent with four kids.

There are several allusions as to the current success of SC by gauging it against former suggested release periods. As we all know, none of these was ever set in stone. Does that entirely defend the delays? I say no, of course not. I remember when Arena Commander was first delayed - everyone tried to defend it by saying that the server back end was done which meant they could make "more" progress, but what we ended up with was still extremely limited. If anything, the delay should have provided us with more, which means the initial release date could have never been met. But all of this ignores the point that this is a work in progress where - as is acknowledged - the scope of the game is increasing as more money comes in, as the team becomes more experienced and as development rolls on. Asking whether it is "good" or not is also a bit misleading. There are many games out there in "Early Alpha" which are awful and have been for years coughDayZcough which do not garner anywhere near the same criticism or attention that SC does. SC has had steady and relatively constant updates and progression and recently and the near-future I think we're all expecting a lot more. Whether they hit the vaguely-suggested-though-never-even-hinted-at-let-alone-stated dates is anyone's guess, but after CitCon we know what to expect (and with some other speculation some are expecting even more). Which, compared to DayZ as mentioned before, will be a huge amount of progression and far more than DayZ has made since it's initial stand-alone release nearly two years ago.

I think from there on the article just neglects to mention the role of "the media" in all the supposed controversy surrounding the game and gives far too much credence to detractors. The Derek Smart stuff had been going on for a while, but it wasn't until the Escapist made claims of racism and embezzlement that anyone outside the SC community even took notice - and that was just at the Derek Smart stuff, that doesn't include the new racism/embezzlement "controversy" that was sourced by, yup, "the media". The article goes up and down like a see-saw (teeter-totter for you yanky doodles) between defending SC and making thinly veiled criticisms. Claims of "overt expenditure" and that concern is "not without merit" seem to suggest that there is something to be worried about. But why? Because people paid money up front?

No one likes what-about-ism, so hold on to your butts, but what about all the games with pre-order bonuses (which is a ghastly enough practice) which are delayed or fail to deliver? GTAV was delayed numerous times across each of the release stages - the original release, then the enhanced version, and then the PC version and that was with a 300 million dollar budget. Star Citizen always aimed to be a fully fledged PC game pushing hardware to its limits and as funds came in the scale, scope and grandeur were set to increase with it. I really don't think that having celebrity voice actors is a point to make in an article about "controversy" and yet it found its way in there as another thing to niggle at. The paragraph seems to say "oh but that's not detracting from making the actual game" while at the same time saying tutting at the "overt expenditure" as if they are Drug Cartel kingpins throwing money in the streets and eating diamond encrusted caviar.

I feel like I'm ranting a bit now so I'm going to stop.

mormonpartyboat posted:

For over a thousand years, Roman conquerors returning from the wars enjoyed the honor of a triumph - a tumultuous parade. In the procession came trumpeters and musicians and strange animals from the conquered territories, together with carts laden with treasure and captured armaments. The conqueror rode in a triumphal chariot, the dazed prisoners walking in chains before him. Sometimes his children, robed in white, stood with him in the chariot, or rode the trace horses. A slave stood behind the conqueror, holding a golden crown, and whispering in his ear a warning: that's him, in the wheelchair.

LCL-Dead posted:

Over a month since refund request was submitted.

33 days since I got anything other than an automated "We haven't forgotten about you!" reply to my ticket.

Is there anyone out there with a ticket number higher than 133k that's gotten their poo poo resolved yet?

SneakyFrog posted:

elbows bend and are funny. its a fun word to say until it sounds weird.

Incombibulator posted:

Q: What do you call a Spanish pointy-projectile launcher...?

AP posted:

Not that I've seen Derek mentioned 7 more but I think implied most were leaving over the Christmas holidays, so not public yet. Octopode could probably check rsi accounts but not sure he reads the thread anymore and checking linkedin is too much effort for me.

Ursine Catastrophe posted:

i hope this thread redeems itself via a dsmart/lowtax collaboration where dsmart makes a post of "in 24 hours I'll post my lawsuit details", and lowtax puts up the paywall 23 hours later


lowtax lowtax lowtax