3 ms·

Star Citizen started development in 2011. They started crowdfunding four years ago. Hell, studios and companies come and go in that timeframe and they still hav

Star Citizen started development in 2011. They started crowdfunding four years ago. Hell, studios and companies come and go in that timeframe and they still haven't released the full, finished game that they promised their backers would get released two years ago. [1] People's criticism isn't that they're releasing Alphas. Sure, they have been pretty consistently. It's instead that that's all they've been releasing. There hasn't really been any indication of a coming final release, and timelines keep on being shifted out. [1]: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen/description https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen/descri...

scrollaway 10y ago
I was one of the first few hundred backers for the game, I'm well aware when they started crowdfunding :) People complaining that they're late, have too much scope creep, aren't releasing good enough content, etc; all these are valid (albeit completely irrelevant to HN) complaints. But the comments I'm seeing here are essentially just people disliking the game/the company because they're making money "unfairly". I would simply dismiss them as trolls were they not written by regulars and long timers. Lumberyard being adopted by a AAA studio is huge news and instead of discussing that, people are shitting on the game. Like, what?
- mynameisvlad 10y ago
  I wouldn't really go so far as saying those comments are irrelevant in a topic about the game. Tangentially relevant? Sure, I'll give you that. The topic is about Star Citizen and their engine switch, not about the game not being released. But people are interested in discussing all aspects of the game/company, both good and bad, and a topic that is at least partially relevant is better than, for example, a link about an NTP server costing $500/yr. If it were in that topic, then sure, I'd say irrelevant. :) I mean, I've seen plenty of tangentially related comments on HN across topics, companies, and products, and people never complain that it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. As long as it has some relevance, it seems to be fine.

scrollaway 10y ago

I was one of the first few hundred backers for the game, I'm well aware when they started crowdfunding :) People complaining that they're late, have too much scope creep, aren't releasing good enough content, etc; all these are valid (albeit completely irrelevant to HN) complaints. But the comments I'm seeing here are essentially just people disliking the game/the company because they're making money "unfairly". I would simply dismiss them as trolls were they not written by regulars and long timers. Lumberyard being adopted by a AAA studio is huge news and instead of discussing that, people are shitting on the game. Like, what?

mynameisvlad 10y ago
I wouldn't really go so far as saying those comments are irrelevant in a topic about the game. Tangentially relevant? Sure, I'll give you that. The topic is about Star Citizen and their engine switch, not about the game not being released. But people are interested in discussing all aspects of the game/company, both good and bad, and a topic that is at least partially relevant is better than, for example, a link about an NTP server costing $500/yr. If it were in that topic, then sure, I'd say irrelevant. :) I mean, I've seen plenty of tangentially related comments on HN across topics, companies, and products, and people never complain that it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. As long as it has some relevance, it seems to be fine.