![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
The specific games aren't really relevant. M76's argument seemed to be that until he can play a game on his own hardware he can't be convinced that it really, truly exists. I'm saying that logic is faulty. It's like some weird adult-video-game-object-permanence thing. [Dammit, now I'll probably spend the next hour trying to find a better analogy.]
Because he limited the possibilities to two when there's no evidence to support that limitation. It's a false dichotomy. The likelihood is that there is at least one other option. It doesn't matter what that option is, merely that it exists. Pretend I suggested something other than abuse of refunds if that's what you're getting hung up on. Maybe it was an invasion of fluffy pink unicorns that ate the support staff and pooped out rainbow unicorn poop if that makes you feel better. The point is that the two options presented are not the only two options.
An MMO is not a sandbox. A sandbox for example is garry's mod, or the unreal editor, where you have no goals, and no narrative. Open world games are often erroneously called sandbox games, but they're not actually that in technical term. Don't try to muddy the waters. We're discussing both. Because both of them are late, and both of them are in bad shape. And I'm assuming that SQ42 is not further ahead than Star citizen. What do I base that on? That any game features and mechanics they implemented for SQ42 should've made it's way into the alpha already. But I again emphasise, I want SQ42 done, And I couldn't be happier than to be proven wrong about it.
Yes I know how long it takes in proportion of the entire development of a game. Why is it so hard to believe, that someone posting on a forum would have insight into game development? If making the basic game mechanics takes 6+ years there is no hope for a final game any time soon. You can't build the walls before the foundation is finished. Look this s my last and final attempt at explaining this.
I have a reasonable expectation that it exists, as the development team already released two games, that were functional and it didn't take them 10+ years and 200+ million USD either. But if shadow of the tomb raider was developed by an upstart, with a bad history of feature creep, and had an MMO version co developed with it that would be in the same state as star citizen is now, I'd have every reason to be sceptical about the single player game built by the same team on the same game mechanics.
I suggested alternative interpretations to illustrate the logical fallacy. I really can't explain this any more clearly.
No. I pointed out a logical fallacy and said there are more than two explanations. Then I offered a what if to illustrate that hey, it might be other things, such as x or y. You then got weirdly obsessed with one of those what ifs and seemingly overlooked the core point and made it entirely about a hypothetical. I still have no idea why.
And as discussed earlier, this doesn't appear to be a policy decision as some people are still getting refunds. The details aren't clear, but yes, a policy change denying refunds would be a shitty move.
Okay, cool. So we can agree that SC is not a sandbox, then? I was trying to roll with your assertion that SC is, if we also describe similar games the same way. Apologies for the confusion.
It's not that you have insight I find unbelievable, but that you claim to have so much. It's the specific claims that concern me. "If making the basic game mechanics takes 6+ years there is no hope for a final game any time soon." Agreed! It's still probably three years out (which I think qualifies as "not soon"). But you've also claimed it shouldn't have taken those six years so far, which seems to me a step too far. I can’t fathom such certainty. The best I can do is say that, yes, it probably could have taken less time. I’m not bold enough or arrogant enough to say how long because I don’t actually know how much time was required, having never done that specific work myself.
I think hardcore fans have this weird lifestyle which revolves around Star Citizen as a concept and not so much a finished game. I suspect more than a few would actually be disappointed by a finished release, because then the unwelcome masses would invade their little cul . . . *cough* . . . club.
I actually don’t mean my question to come off as accusatory or anti star citizen. I’m legit excited even if they can only deliver SQ42. I grew up as a young kid playing WC and I loved it. Pretty sure I played it on an old windows 3.1 box my parents had but it may have been later on my p166 box.
For a game of this scope I'd say that if it's not released by 2025, hardcore fans may want to raise an eyebrow.
2025 so that means a 13 year development cycle? I'm really just trying to figure out what the timeline looks like for the hardcore fan.
YOU SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH ABOUT THE GREATEST GAME EVER.....well I was gonna say released, but oh well.Some of the graphical effects in the game already look bad, this would be a disaster to release in 2025. They will need to push it back to 2026 so they can redo the engine
Policy doesn't always mirror a TOS, though. We have an example of that without even looking beyond this story; CIG/SC's TOS describes a 14-day refund policy while the company actually employs a 30-day window. So yes, a policy change to deny refunds would be shitty. No, such a change in policy has not occurred, either in the TOS or in actual practice.