@mogan: Sure, it's not like it's in a GameSpot urinalist's job description that they are required to play the games they write about.
After all, food critics don't need to eat the food of the restaurants that they review, right? And movie critics don't need to watch the movies that they review either. It's not like being willfully ignorant about the topic you're writing about is a cardinal sin of a true journalist.
That's precisely why I refer to the hacks that write for Gamespot as urinalists.
Seriously, mogan, that has got to be dumbest argument I've ever read.
@geminij13: Ugh... you are so naive. When GameSpot chooses to post articles about Star Citizen's crowdfunding milestones, the subtext is always: "Fools and their money...". These funding announcements are the dinner bell for the Star Citizen Haters to descend and post the SAME THINGS they always do.
GameSpot will often use the funding milestones to slip in references to the Crytek lawsuit and any controversies it can dredge up.
Here's a quote from an article you linked. Really examine what is being communicated here:
"Star Citizen supporters can spend money on things like ships and ship upgrades, as well as various subscription packages and extras like ship and weapon skins, among other things. The game, which spans a single-player campaign, a persistent, shared multiplayer universe, and a head-to-head PvP game, is playable in various stages of development for backers.
Star Citizen is the most successful crowdfunded project of any kind in the history of crowdfunding. The game started its life on Kickstarter back in 2012--where it was enormously successful--before launching its own website to continue accepting funds from fans. The game originally had a $500,000 funding target, so the $250 million it's made now is 500X what it originally asked for."
Do you see what I mean? The article focuses on players spending money on in-game items, rather than any references to Star Citizen's GAMEPLAY EXPERIENCE: Combat, Trading, Mining, Exploration, Racing, Raiding, FPS, etc. Isn't that what gamers would want to know about? ... Nah, that's crazy!
The last paragraph is basically stating: "Star Citizen has raised plenty of money. Youdo not need to support it. Move on."
Have you ever noticed there's never a single reference to the writer of the article ever playing Star Citizen? NO!
Star Citizen has had a playable Alpha for 5+ years and no one at GameSpot has ever written about their impressions of playing the game, positive or negative. GameSpot even references Free Flights wherein they could play the game for FREE! So what is GameSpot's excuse for never playing Star Citizen?
@geminij13: Considering that Crytek has been teetering on bankruptcy for years, they wouldn't have the deep pockets necessary to make their lawsuit against CIG exceedingly expensive -- not like a big evil corporation would, by spending tens of millions of dollars on lawyers a year to bury their opponent in legal documents and court proceedings to bleed them dry. I'd guestimate the legal costs for Crytek and CIG are in the low millions, at most.
The settlement might've been reached just so Crytek didn't lose in court and be forced to pay CIG's legal fees. Presumably, Crytek got nothing and CIG just wanted the lawsuit over with because it was an unnecessary distraction and PR stain.
The fact that Crytek tried to dismiss their own case is strong evidence they couldn't afford to continue the legal battle any longer. They were basically calling "time out" so they could save money and wait until Squadron 42 was released to "prove" that it was a separate game from Star Citizen. We all know that's BS because countless games have a singleplayer campaign and a multiplayer online component. Only a fool would think Modern Warfare's multiplayer is a different game from MW's singleplayer campaign, or GTA Online is a different game from GTAV, or Cyberpunk 2077's announced MP component is a different game from its upcoming singleplayer campaign. That's how games have worked since even before game consoles were connected to the internet.
That part of Crytek's lawsuit was the most ridiculous because any gamer knows better. It's just a BS legal tactic to throw a bunch of crap against the wall and see if anything sticks.
@jsprunk: There are tons of previews and info about Star Citizen out there... most of which are self-published by Cloud Imperium Games because biased game journalist websites, like GameSpot and IGN, won't cover Star Citizen.
There are literally hundreds of videos on Star Citizen's official YouTube page that cover every aspect of the game you could possibly want to know about:
- Design & development of in-game collectibles: ships, starfighters, vehicles, weapons, body armour, and flight suits;
- Design & develop of locations: planets, moons, space stations, and outposts;
- Introduction of new game mechanics: Trading, Mining, Bounty Hunting, and Prison.
- Awesome CG trailers of the game and ships.
There are community updates multiple times per week (for the past 5+ years):
- "Star Citizen Live" for interviews with Chris Roberts and senior game designers;
- "Inside Star Citizen" for behind-the-scenes videos of CIG's studios;
- Q&A sessions, previews of upcoming updates, and gameplay captures;
- Livestreams from the multiple game conventions around the globe, every year.
All of this is readily available if you go to the Star Citizen official website. You'll just never know about if you only consume the game industry pablum spoonfed to you by shill gaming urinalist websites GameSpot and IGN.
@geminij13: I agree that Squadron 42 and Star Citizen will have a "soft release" because it's 2020 and no one buys PC games in a brick-&-mortar store anymore. BestBuy and GameStop shrank the size of their PC Game sections to a single shelf more than 10 years ago. Get with the times.
SQ42 and Star Citizen will have a soft release... at which time the shill game urinalists at GameSpot and IGN will do what the big evil "AAA" game publishers want them to: Tear apart the super-successfully crowdfunded, much-delayed, PC-only game from the upstart independent game developer.
Make no mistake, the big evil game publishers have a vested interest in Star Citizen failing because if it's successful, it would set a precedent for a AAA game being developed without the support of a "AAA" publisher. That's the last thing they want. They have to justify their own existence and the monopolies they have in the game industry.
Even if you don't believe that GameSpot shills for big evil game publishers, GameSpot's bias against Star Citizen is readily apparent because they only ever post negative stories, like the Crytek Lawsuit or when someone criticizes Chris Roberts, but they never post news, like when Star Citizen releases a major Alpha update (which they do quarterly) or a batch of new ships become flyable in-game -- yunno, the stuff GameStop would do for any "AAA" game... that buys ADS on their GD'd website!!!
@geminij13: Exactly, it's completely hypocritical for anyone who pre-orders or buys "AAA" games when they're released to criticize Star Citizen.
Neither Anthem nor Fallout 76 have never been "finished", or ever will be. But they still have their die-hard supporters, and a lot of gamers will still pre-order BioWare and Bethesda's next unfinished, buggy game.
So why are Star Citizen backers still the targets of unjust criticism?
Haters gonna hate, hypocrites gonna be hypocritical, and ignoramuses gonna be ignorant.
That could be the epitaph of the human race someday.
@kstaggs87: You are delusional if you think that Disney plans to spend 70+ billion dollars on 20th Century Fox and not make a sequel to the #4 and #5 highest grossing films that Fox has ever made.
Disney is evolving. They're not just about G-rated "family friendly" entertainment anymore. Disney has learned from their mistakes of the past by pigeon-holing themselves with the FF identity, which has raised controversy whenever they delved into "progressive" territory. Disney knows that inclusion is good and it doesn't pay to discriminate.
Also, Disney is acquiring 20th Century Fox for a reason, and it's not just about the film rights to the X-Men and FF franchises. Disney wants Fox's catalog of movies, knowing that many of them are R-rated. Disney needs a diverse catalog of movies for its video streaming service because even Disney knows that Disney, Pixar, MCU, and Star Wars aren't enough to compete with Netflix, which has eclipsed Disney as the largest media production company in the world. Disney needs those R-rated movies, past, present, and future. And Disney isn't stupid enough to "Disney-fy" them into G-rated movies.
To be fair, Fox already made that mistake and it failed miserably. It turned R-rated franchises like Die Hard, Alien, and Predator into PG-13 movies. Disney is smart enough to recognize why the PG-13 sequels failed and approve R-rated sequels.
Reavern's comments