3 ms·

This title is clickbait and hyperbolic. It's not even a half built game, it's pre-alpha, in development, "early access". Almost everyone who pledged money shou

This title is clickbait and hyperbolic. It's not even a half built game, it's pre-alpha, in development, "early access". Almost everyone who pledged money should know that. Fans who donated $77M did so to support the development of the game, with the hope that it would one day be complete and live up to their expectations. People who bought some of the more expensive ships didn't do it just to get the ship. It's like those expensive dinners where you pay $250 per plate. It's not worth that much money of course, but you're doing it to support a cause (whatever it may be). Also, an interesting note: CIG employs over 300 people working on Star Citizen at the moment. They also publish monthly development status reports which are interesting to read. Disclaimer: I pledged $60 during the kickstarter and have closely followed the development of the game.

kidmenot 12y ago
> This title is clickbait and hyperbolic. That's precisely why I have been skipping entries pointing to Wired for a good while now, and haven't looked back ever since. Their articles are worth next to nothing.
brudgers 12y ago
The title attracts eyeballs, no doubt. The article gives Chris Roberts, the game, and the company a fair shake. It explains who Chris Roberts is, his track record as a game developer, and what he is trying to achieve. The article also explains who has given the money, why they have given it, and what they have received in exchange for it. It lets an active enthusiastic supporter explain the state of the game play and provides company produced promotional materials to accompany the article. The only suggestion of a harsh judgement is that the success of funding might be fuelling feature creep and delaying shipment. At no time does it suggest there is a scam: the worst implication of the article is that some backers/fans may have unrealistic expectations of their role in the project. So is the title linkbait? Not really because "this guy" and "buggy half built game" have no context without reading the article. And the referent for "this guy" comes after the description of the game...and the embedded primary trailer. Disclaimer: I looked it with my eyes outside the circle of wagons.
dang 12y ago
> This title is clickbait and hyperbolic. If you or anyone can suggest an accurate, neutral title, we'll change it.

kidmenot 12y ago

> This title is clickbait and hyperbolic. That's precisely why I have been skipping entries pointing to Wired for a good while now, and haven't looked back ever since. Their articles are worth next to nothing.

brudgers 12y ago

The title attracts eyeballs, no doubt. The article gives Chris Roberts, the game, and the company a fair shake. It explains who Chris Roberts is, his track record as a game developer, and what he is trying to achieve. The article also explains who has given the money, why they have given it, and what they have received in exchange for it. It lets an active enthusiastic supporter explain the state of the game play and provides company produced promotional materials to accompany the article. The only suggestion of a harsh judgement is that the success of funding might be fuelling feature creep and delaying shipment. At no time does it suggest there is a scam: the worst implication of the article is that some backers/fans may have unrealistic expectations of their role in the project. So is the title linkbait? Not really because "this guy" and "buggy half built game" have no context without reading the article. And the referent for "this guy" comes after the description of the game...and the embedded primary trailer. Disclaimer: I looked it with my eyes outside the circle of wagons.

dang 12y ago

> This title is clickbait and hyperbolic. If you or anyone can suggest an accurate, neutral title, we'll change it.