EggsAisle posted:

what the gently caress is "fud" and why are backers so hung up on it?

trucutru posted:

Come Wait My Lord!

Tippis posted:

It's a sales strategy employed to ensure that existing customers don't jump ship to a competing product. It was heavily employed by IBM back in the day, when clones of their mainframes and workstations started to appear and, rather than trying to sell (or… gasp! improve) on their own product, IBM sales people would remind their customers that “oh, but that's such a small and untested company that it'll probably go out of business” or “sure, they're compatible now but will it actually keep up with developments?” and so on. By spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about those competitors and the long-term reliability and viability of their products, IBM tried to make sure everyone stayed with them, even when there was little real reason to do so.

It may not surprise you that the citizens have fundamentally misunderstood and continuously misuse the term to simply mean “saying scary things about a product.” The fundamental aspects are there: CIG can trivially be accused of not having any long-term viability as a company; it's easy to point to SC and demonstrate that it's not keeping up with development; and the amount of evidence to support the fear that it will never come out is staggering. However, there is no sales pitch; there's no competing product that you should go to instead because of all that; and it's all based on actual past performance, rather than some nebulous assumption about the future, so the whole point of FUD is quite simply missing.

FUD isn't negativity — it's negativity with a purpose and preying on not just ignorance but on the unknowable, which essentially means that the only FUD-like claims we see surrounding this project is when SC is compared to, and is claimed to be poised to beat the snot out of, already released games that will die horribly whenever SC is released so therefore you should back SC rather than those silly losers.

Mr.PayDay posted:

So after having ignored this mess of a project for like 4- 5 months, how often did we have to reset the "days since CIG hosed up" counter to zero? Weekly?
When will be the next big show or convention where Crobbers will show new "ingame"(LOL).avi videos and fake demos? Don't wanna miss the hilarity!

Not a Sperg on Reddit posted:

Oh my sweet summer child. 3.0 is not going to silence the critics, 3.0 as it gets delayed and trimmed back is going to be gasoline on the flame. It will release and really not be that big of a deal, because the key features that were going to make it so impactful have been pruned and delayed.
It will be a few more bones on the skeleton of a game that is SC Alpha 2.6. But what was promised for 3.0 was flesh on the bones, and that is now simply not going to be true, lobbies will still be limited, the world will still be just one planet and a few moons. This would not be an issue if this was just 2.7, but it's not just 2.7 its 3.0 and 3.0 has been the subject of hype both from the community and the developers for nearly a year now. "3.0 is the patch that is going to prove all the critics wrong!" And its going to be nothing much really, a few more ships, a couple moons and a rudimentary missions and trade system. 3.0 is the patch everyone has been telling everyone to hold out for, 3.0 is the patch that's going to change things. And 3.0 is going to be just another alpha iteration. The letdown is going to be crushing for all the people who only sort of pay attention to the game, and if history is any guide, 3.0 is going to be conveniently delayed until Citcon or some other media/hype related date and, the nothing will be rolled out with great fanfare, silence on the status of SQ42 and of course, a sale! A sale for another big ship, probably its will go on sale slightly before the announcement that Sq42 will not be out in 2017 either and a sheepish deflection of the reality that the actual major content feature of 3.0, the Crusader system, with multiple planets and enough space to get truly lost in won't be coming in 2017 either.

3.0 is not going to silence the critics, it's going to silence even more long suffering defenders of this game who will no longer in good conscience be able to recommend that people buy in. 3.0 is not going to be the beginning of the game, or the beginning end, it's going to be yet another mile marker in development terms and the monotony with which it passes is going be the cue for both another round of media criticism and perhaps the biggest community shitstorm yet. The pot of community patience is beginning to boil over, everyone knows it, and when it's made clear that yet again the hype is hollow and there is no substance people are going to be intensely disappointed.

trucutru posted:

Every 2-3 weeks a new schedule pushing everything back 2-3 weeks is uploaded, this is good for SC.

EggsAisle posted:

what the gently caress is "fud" and why are backers so hung up on it?

Xaerael posted:

Reminder.

CCP>CIG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEgUL_QrNtI

Sillybones posted:

What is CCU?

Golli posted:

I bet the $5 CCU tax is a way to try and re-categorize existing technical debt to a $5.5million asset, perhaps as collateral for a loan.

And lol at any institution that would fall for it.

Tokamak posted:

Scruffpuff posted:

It's a cross-chassis upgrade ticket that gives you the flexibility to swap out your poo poo Mustang* for a totally pimp Mustang* with racing stripes and an automated dildo with <USE> functionality and all you have to pay for is the difference in price.

*Game does not exist.

A zero-dollar CCU lets you swap between ships of equal value.

This is a feature that any other game would consider something you could just build into the game and it be a feature. CIG built it with future monetization in mind. And as with most things Roberts related, the future is now! It'll now cost $5 for a ticket, which means you can bet your bottom, your middle, and most of your top dollars that CIG is about to release a flurry of concept ships that are identical to every ship they have currently, but with one distinguishing feature that spergs crave, wringing that extra $5 - multiplied not by every backer, but by every ship.

CIG is like a loving glossary of confidence scam techniques.

Golli posted:

I bet the $5 CCU tax is a way to try and re-categorize existing technical debt to a $5.5million asset, perhaps as collateral for a loan.

And lol at any institution that would fall for it.

Virtual Captain posted:

CCU is $5 you give CIG that lets you upgrade your ship, just to get the honor of paying them the difference in ship prices.
Its incredible how intricate their site shop mechanics work, meanwhile actual game mechanics get added once in a blue moon and break horribly.

Virtual Captain posted:

I don't understand CCU enough to comprehend how sad this is.


CCU is $5 you give CIG that lets you upgrade your ship, just to get the honor of paying them the difference in ship prices.
Its incredible how intricate their site shop mechanics work, meanwhile actual game mechanics get added once in a blue moon and break horribly.


https://twitter.com/Toshi_TNE/status/863118949235519488

Sillybones posted:

My attempt at understanding: You pay $5 to be allowed to buy ship skins? Then you still need to actually go and buy the ship skins. And you lose your old skin when you switch?

EggsAisle posted:

what the gently caress is "fud" and why are backers so hung up on it?

AP posted:

Moma even bought the last ship whatever the hell it was called and you'd assume with him posting here he'd be wise enough to know better.

MedicineHut posted:

That is because MoMA is Toast, you silly goose. As a poxy paralegal there, he has a vested interest.

Tijuana Bibliophile posted:

I don't think anyone in the actual know have bought even one tiny $120 ship since like 2015

happyhippy posted:

Imagine how fast you can go with those nipple jets!