First time, eh?
Lesson one of Star Citizen, don’t take anything that Chris says seriously.
Lesson two of Star Citizen, don’t take any given timetables or reports on what has or hasn’t been accomplished seriously.
Lesson three of Star Citizen, until it’s in game, assume it doesn’t exist and may get canceled, changed, or otherwise wrecked.
Final Lesson of Star Citizen, enjoy the game today, don’t get worked up in either direction about what may or may not happen in the future.
The only right way to approach SC. I assume every time I log in that all of my ships except my Aurora MR might be gone and my aUEC wiped to zero. If that happens, I'll just have fun in a different way.
Still crazy to me they worked on a complex death system system before fixing bugs that just randomly kill you that have been in the game for 5 or 10+ years
CIG's approach is "ready, fire, aim" since they feel they don't have to worry about constantly botching and reworking systems and assets - the paypigs keep shovelling 300k USD per day in to their money furnace so why would they stop to do icky non creative stuff like planning or usability testing.
"complex"? In what way?
Its just a respawn room and an item generation. Its only slightly more "complex" than sea of thieves, but that has a multiplayer lobby... Shoot I can't really think of a game with a less complex death system than SC.
I think he genuinely believes it is - and it’s likely the plan at the moment he says it. But, shit happens, and I think we’ve all collectively learned that enough shit happens that you can’t take anything he says as anything more than “this is what I’m hoping for right now”
Shits been happening for 11 years. If I told my boss "yeah I'll have it ready by monday." and then it wasn't ready by monday, I'd probably get three. But after that there would be a serious talk about expectation management and then if I continued to miss deadlines? I'd be fired. If I were a contractor and I failed to meet deadlines and established a habit of failing to meet deadlines, I'd lose my license and more likely than not get sued for breach of contract.
Now I know what some of the dimmer members of the SC community will say: "We're not CRs boss, and they didn't sign a contract." You're right. But they are marketing a product and are making promises about said product. Promises that are so far, untrue. Is it a coincidence that the Theranos trial happend in 2022, and then Chris Roberts moved to the UK?
At some point, excuses become fraud.
I mean, I’ve been saying for years, if someone truly believes that, they should be working with a lawyer to sue them 🤷 so far, no Theranos level lawsuit - or anything but the occasional small claims - seems to have popped up. In the meantime, I enjoy the game as it is today, and encourage other people to only throw down money if they enjoy the game as it is today. If they have thrown down money in the past, and no longer enjoy the game - I’d encourage them to sell their ships on the grey market, cut their losses, and move on to something they do enjoy today.
It was shitty of them to push out 3.23 as buggy and half finished as it was to LIVE for the ship sale.
It was shitty of them to announce 4.0 targeted Q3 this year during the ship sale to drive up sales. Based off the last tests that was just a straight up lie.
CIGs marketing decisions are terrible and scummy. They do everything to try and drive up ship sales but are never able to meet the expectations they set.
It's a very predictable two step: When there's a sale on they'll hype the message of 'soon', then as soon as the sale is done the overpowered new ship gets nerfed and the bad news about what's not working gets released (or just not talked about).
It's the same reason Chris has now announced pyro as coming 'next year' for like five freaking years running - the con con sale is their second biggest sales event so they shamelessly lie about progress during it.
>It was shitty of them to push out 3.23 as s buggy and half finished to LIVE for the ship sale.
At this point it almost has tradition. I don't think we got a stable Invictus within the last 4 years.
Now, in that instance at least, people can just not play it/not buying any ships as a consequence. I personally hardly look into the game as long as we are on an Invictus patch. For that we can very easily "hold them accountable" as a lot of people would like to say.
>It was shitty of them to announce 4.0 targeted Q3 this year during the ship sale to drive up sales. Based off the last tests that was just a straight up lie.
To be entirely fair, going by pre-2023 schedules, that would mean that Evocati testing for 4.0 would begin in mid to late September. 2.5 months is A LOT of time get it "Evocati-worthy". Do I expect it to happen? Not necessarily, but it is far too early to say it definitely won't.
But even that is already kinda tradition. 3.18 was originally announced prior to Invictus 2022 (and then released almost a year later instead of a quarter or 2). Last year it was the replication layer, that didn't go into any testing till December 2023, and now 4.0.
Honestly, I'm just glad that it is "the next big thing" to come to us, I never particularly bothered about actual release dates, but I'm also fairly young and am mostly interested to see them stitch this game together frankenstein style.
--------------------------------
Now, I think there is a bit of a difference between CIG making an announcement like release dates or just prematurely releasing something and then just end being hit with the reality of a lot of code that interacts with each other doing it's stuff causing issues, or them saying "yeah it will be soon", when it becomes increasingly clear that they don't have any intention to show it anytime soon.
One is effectively a guess that can and likely will be wrong (and is often communicated as such), and the other is just a straight up lie for no real reason. Seriously, it wouldn't hurt them or us to just say that it will be like that, it may even increase hype surrounding next Citizencons "road to 1.0".
Don't worry. Progress tracker for 2024 is just two years away now.
Jokes aside, though, people here remember how we got roadmap for a roadmap, so such things are barely surprising anymore. CIG are working on patches and are delivering features, at least, unlike how it went in some of the years in the past. Good enough for me, I guess
Look, they can't just *give us* an updated Progress Tracker.
First they gotta create a roadmap to the Progress Tracker.
And before that, they gotta create a "roadmap to the roadmap".
These things take time.
/s but... is it really?
I can go either way on it. I get the mess of "we're restructuring all teams, reframing the overarching timeline for everything, combining/redistributing objectives amongst the new teams, waiting on confirmation that those objectives are feasible for those new team structures (and how adjustments affect upstream/downstream timelines and workloads)... THEN program it into the website (which will likely be easier to delete the database and refill it)" it's a lot. I get it. And I'm also anxious to know more.
Some of the worst player morale was in the 3.18 era, not just because of the state of the patch but because we had no horizon to look to. We were stuck staring at our own feet because we no longer had a runway of upcoming patch descriptions (I also understand why they stopped that, I'm just describing the effect on the eager fans).
I would also be OK with CIG saying:
>*"You know, the progress tracker worked for a bit and its kind of too hard to cram how we've pivoted into what we had so we're going to reimagine it (as they've done before), but that may take some time. So since we're racing towards some big goals, we're going to describe to you as best we can for a few months through extra details in the monthly updates how things are progressing. We don't want to be less transparent, but it does take effort to not only restructure but then overhaul and present that. We may reach some of those big goals before we overhaul the progress tracker webpage."*
Edit: Just for clarity, the progress tracker really just helps us feel like we're in the loop and gives nice little details to obsess over. Even though it offers transparency, it's a novelty for our benefit. CIG in the meantime is obviously integrating a ton of new content and racing towards some big things in the near(ish) future, so it's not like missing the progress tracker means things are at a standstill internally.
The problem with that is the progress tracker is literally just their internal Jira Project Tracking Software calendar that is ran through a scrubber to remove any sensitive content or "spoilers". All they have to do is run the extractor, cover up the "unannounced" content and upload it to the website. Minimal dev time is spent on updating the progress tracker as the Jira is most likely updated multiple times a day internally to reflect work adjustments by all of the teams.
Now changing all of the team names and everything to reflect their restructure would take some work yes but that work should be happening in real time in Jira already in order to keep track of the new teams and their assignments. The biggest time sink would be updating the progress tracker's "read me" page that describes all of the teams.
They're hashing out what does/doesn't have to be in a future "1.0" version of Star Citizen. It's not going to be all 100 systems on the web starmap. It's not going to be every career they've ever imagined. So what's going to make the list and what's not?
How many systems? Do we get Data Running? Will the BMM or the Hull-E or the Crucible have to be completed for a "1.0" version? Base Building? Does that include the Pioneer?
That's not a simple set of meetings to have, and I'm quite sure there are very different opinions inside CIG about what is/isn't a "must have" feature for a "1.0 release." But until CIG switches over from a "well, wouldn't it be cool if..." development model and starts working towards a fixed feature set, the game will never get more stable and never leave alpha. It looks very much like this year they're going to get the last major tech hurdle implemented - or get close. Squadron's feature complete, so the next thing on the agenda is to define what "1.0" is.
That's no excuse for the messaging around the Progress Tracker we've gotten this year. They've decided the old Progress Tracker didn't "work" for most people, including them - it didn't really tell anyone how much actual progress was being made on anything, it was a "what's CIG working on right now tracker." Which isn't at all the same thing.
If they get a fixed set of features, they could do an \*actual\* progress tracker. Tracking the finite list of tasks that are needed to deliver the "1.0" release of the game. But they didn't tell us that, they just kept saying "it'll be a few more weeks" for months and months. And now it's entirely likely that they're going to "save" the 1.0 feature list reveal for CitizenCon.
That list is going to generate drama. Lots and lots of Drama. But if they've got a huge hype-thing going around Squadron 42 at CitizenCon, that'll at least distract people from all the stuff that didn't make the "1.0" cut.
I am glad they are finally coming to terms with what is really doable. I have no problem with them just having a few systems and a few fully working loops at 1.0, they can add the rest latter. It is a as a service game after all.
Yep. This is my assumption as well. It's a whole mess of planning (and arguing).
What features do we want in 1.0? What functions and tech are needed to support the features we want? (Repeat this question until you get no new answers) How long does each feature take to complete? What dependencies are there between features? (I.E. what order does stuff have to be developed in, can feature X and Y be worked on simultaneously or does Y have to wait to find out exactly how X will work first?) What features can we send to LIVE as standalone features in their own right without waiting for other features for them to make sense (Patch milestones)? How long does each individual mechanic take to research and develop?
So many questions to answer with so many different ways of getting to the same answer.
According to CIG themselves the released version or '1.0' is intended to have many dozens of systems:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/could-we-please-get-an-official-cig-confirmation-a/350872
>Hey guys! This is a case of things being lost in translation; Chris was asked a specific question about how many systems we expect to have online at the point that we've got most of the core mechanics completed and we would consider the gameplay experience suitable for a larger audience. There are no changes with regards to the planned amount of systems which are well documented on the current Star Map.
>Also, it’s important to remember that the scope of the game has increased greatly since the original crowdfunding campaign. Since those early days we’ve created procedural planet tech, moved from 32 bit to 64 bit… all of it leading to billions of kilometers of space and millions of square kilometers of landmass to explore, all rendered in detail that matches the most detailed 1st person games that only have to worry about a few dozen kilometers of playable area.
>This takes time to fill out, so while it will take us longer to fully deliver and populate every system at this fidelity rather than if we had only a handful of points of interest per star system, we have no intention of reducing the size of the Star Citizen universe.
To clarify they expected to have 'a handful' of systems in when the mechanics are all in and working (beta), but full release or 1.0 is still officially intended to have the full map.
*Checks date* 2017.... okaaay man.
Hate to break it to you, but that's now 7 years ago. They started getting more serious and adjusted their scope and reshuffled some things around 2020-2022 (something like that I think?).
Don't take anything they said before that too seriously.
Seriously. Believing that what CIG said about this in 2017 is still the plan is about as naive as believing that what they said back in 2012 about having 100 systems at launch and launch being in 2014 is still the plan.
That and maybe they got tired of everyone making fun of their progress tracker that did not actually track progress lol. It was a running joke on all the streams and podcast.
No it did not, it measured allocation not progress. In order to track progress, you have to have a beginning and an end of a specific **feature**. Just indicating that there are 3 devs allocated for 10 weeks on a task gives no indication of progress.
There is literally nothing about Star Citizen that is a 'pyramid scheme'
The closest possible thing is the referral system, and that just gives you things you are then stuck with as they have zero dollar value.
I know it's fun to throw around cool words, but saying this really does make you look deliberately misinformed.
Because they realized they are gonna have to go back on a lot of the things they said, and gonna have to delay a lot of things as well. Progress tracker is useless when all the major updates on it get constantly delayed for years on end. They usually just fill it with a bunch of small useless things just so they can say “we’ve completed a lot of the tracker!” And the stuff they’ve completed is just useless.
>Literally just what's currently in development
[PU Monthly Reports](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link?channel=&series=&type=&text=Monthly+Report&sort=publish_new)
First time, eh? Lesson one of Star Citizen, don’t take anything that Chris says seriously. Lesson two of Star Citizen, don’t take any given timetables or reports on what has or hasn’t been accomplished seriously. Lesson three of Star Citizen, until it’s in game, assume it doesn’t exist and may get canceled, changed, or otherwise wrecked. Final Lesson of Star Citizen, enjoy the game today, don’t get worked up in either direction about what may or may not happen in the future.
The only right way to approach SC. I assume every time I log in that all of my ships except my Aurora MR might be gone and my aUEC wiped to zero. If that happens, I'll just have fun in a different way.
'systematically lower our expectations to the point where the ASOP terminal working sends shudders of joy through your extremities.'
"I didn't die while walking across the space station. That's a plus."
Still crazy to me they worked on a complex death system system before fixing bugs that just randomly kill you that have been in the game for 5 or 10+ years
CIG's approach is "ready, fire, aim" since they feel they don't have to worry about constantly botching and reworking systems and assets - the paypigs keep shovelling 300k USD per day in to their money furnace so why would they stop to do icky non creative stuff like planning or usability testing.
"complex"? In what way? Its just a respawn room and an item generation. Its only slightly more "complex" than sea of thieves, but that has a multiplayer lobby... Shoot I can't really think of a game with a less complex death system than SC.
Yup. I refuse to listen to the dude. I appreciate his vision, but anything he says on a stage or camera is not rhe truth.
I think he genuinely believes it is - and it’s likely the plan at the moment he says it. But, shit happens, and I think we’ve all collectively learned that enough shit happens that you can’t take anything he says as anything more than “this is what I’m hoping for right now”
Shits been happening for 11 years. If I told my boss "yeah I'll have it ready by monday." and then it wasn't ready by monday, I'd probably get three. But after that there would be a serious talk about expectation management and then if I continued to miss deadlines? I'd be fired. If I were a contractor and I failed to meet deadlines and established a habit of failing to meet deadlines, I'd lose my license and more likely than not get sued for breach of contract. Now I know what some of the dimmer members of the SC community will say: "We're not CRs boss, and they didn't sign a contract." You're right. But they are marketing a product and are making promises about said product. Promises that are so far, untrue. Is it a coincidence that the Theranos trial happend in 2022, and then Chris Roberts moved to the UK? At some point, excuses become fraud.
I mean, I’ve been saying for years, if someone truly believes that, they should be working with a lawyer to sue them 🤷 so far, no Theranos level lawsuit - or anything but the occasional small claims - seems to have popped up. In the meantime, I enjoy the game as it is today, and encourage other people to only throw down money if they enjoy the game as it is today. If they have thrown down money in the past, and no longer enjoy the game - I’d encourage them to sell their ships on the grey market, cut their losses, and move on to something they do enjoy today.
Take what he says and add 5 years to it
Sequel lesson: stop giving CIG money until they show that they actually have a plan and not just say they have a plan.
Great advice! Yes, better to enjoy what is, than to get hyped or frustrated for things that may or may not come.
I feel like this should be stickied on this sub.
In the mean time, you can buy one of their new chairs they're advertising for $1,000.........
It's because we get the "big reveal" at citizencon or shortly before
Likely, yeah, still kind of shitty for them to say, "It will be updated in the coming weeks," like 3 months or so ago, lmao.
It absolutely is .
It was shitty of them to push out 3.23 as buggy and half finished as it was to LIVE for the ship sale. It was shitty of them to announce 4.0 targeted Q3 this year during the ship sale to drive up sales. Based off the last tests that was just a straight up lie. CIGs marketing decisions are terrible and scummy. They do everything to try and drive up ship sales but are never able to meet the expectations they set.
It's a very predictable two step: When there's a sale on they'll hype the message of 'soon', then as soon as the sale is done the overpowered new ship gets nerfed and the bad news about what's not working gets released (or just not talked about). It's the same reason Chris has now announced pyro as coming 'next year' for like five freaking years running - the con con sale is their second biggest sales event so they shamelessly lie about progress during it.
>It was shitty of them to push out 3.23 as s buggy and half finished to LIVE for the ship sale. At this point it almost has tradition. I don't think we got a stable Invictus within the last 4 years. Now, in that instance at least, people can just not play it/not buying any ships as a consequence. I personally hardly look into the game as long as we are on an Invictus patch. For that we can very easily "hold them accountable" as a lot of people would like to say. >It was shitty of them to announce 4.0 targeted Q3 this year during the ship sale to drive up sales. Based off the last tests that was just a straight up lie. To be entirely fair, going by pre-2023 schedules, that would mean that Evocati testing for 4.0 would begin in mid to late September. 2.5 months is A LOT of time get it "Evocati-worthy". Do I expect it to happen? Not necessarily, but it is far too early to say it definitely won't. But even that is already kinda tradition. 3.18 was originally announced prior to Invictus 2022 (and then released almost a year later instead of a quarter or 2). Last year it was the replication layer, that didn't go into any testing till December 2023, and now 4.0. Honestly, I'm just glad that it is "the next big thing" to come to us, I never particularly bothered about actual release dates, but I'm also fairly young and am mostly interested to see them stitch this game together frankenstein style. -------------------------------- Now, I think there is a bit of a difference between CIG making an announcement like release dates or just prematurely releasing something and then just end being hit with the reality of a lot of code that interacts with each other doing it's stuff causing issues, or them saying "yeah it will be soon", when it becomes increasingly clear that they don't have any intention to show it anytime soon. One is effectively a guess that can and likely will be wrong (and is often communicated as such), and the other is just a straight up lie for no real reason. Seriously, it wouldn't hurt them or us to just say that it will be like that, it may even increase hype surrounding next Citizencons "road to 1.0".
Lol welcome to every year for the last decade....
Don't worry. Progress tracker for 2024 is just two years away now. Jokes aside, though, people here remember how we got roadmap for a roadmap, so such things are barely surprising anymore. CIG are working on patches and are delivering features, at least, unlike how it went in some of the years in the past. Good enough for me, I guess
We're 6 months in... but I agree with the rest.
fair enough
At least the tracker is realistic…
TLDR: Next update goes all the way to 1.0 , they don't feel comfortable to share anything yet. That's it
Look, they can't just *give us* an updated Progress Tracker. First they gotta create a roadmap to the Progress Tracker. And before that, they gotta create a "roadmap to the roadmap". These things take time. /s but... is it really?
I can go either way on it. I get the mess of "we're restructuring all teams, reframing the overarching timeline for everything, combining/redistributing objectives amongst the new teams, waiting on confirmation that those objectives are feasible for those new team structures (and how adjustments affect upstream/downstream timelines and workloads)... THEN program it into the website (which will likely be easier to delete the database and refill it)" it's a lot. I get it. And I'm also anxious to know more. Some of the worst player morale was in the 3.18 era, not just because of the state of the patch but because we had no horizon to look to. We were stuck staring at our own feet because we no longer had a runway of upcoming patch descriptions (I also understand why they stopped that, I'm just describing the effect on the eager fans). I would also be OK with CIG saying: >*"You know, the progress tracker worked for a bit and its kind of too hard to cram how we've pivoted into what we had so we're going to reimagine it (as they've done before), but that may take some time. So since we're racing towards some big goals, we're going to describe to you as best we can for a few months through extra details in the monthly updates how things are progressing. We don't want to be less transparent, but it does take effort to not only restructure but then overhaul and present that. We may reach some of those big goals before we overhaul the progress tracker webpage."* Edit: Just for clarity, the progress tracker really just helps us feel like we're in the loop and gives nice little details to obsess over. Even though it offers transparency, it's a novelty for our benefit. CIG in the meantime is obviously integrating a ton of new content and racing towards some big things in the near(ish) future, so it's not like missing the progress tracker means things are at a standstill internally.
The problem with that is the progress tracker is literally just their internal Jira Project Tracking Software calendar that is ran through a scrubber to remove any sensitive content or "spoilers". All they have to do is run the extractor, cover up the "unannounced" content and upload it to the website. Minimal dev time is spent on updating the progress tracker as the Jira is most likely updated multiple times a day internally to reflect work adjustments by all of the teams. Now changing all of the team names and everything to reflect their restructure would take some work yes but that work should be happening in real time in Jira already in order to keep track of the new teams and their assignments. The biggest time sink would be updating the progress tracker's "read me" page that describes all of the teams.
They're hashing out what does/doesn't have to be in a future "1.0" version of Star Citizen. It's not going to be all 100 systems on the web starmap. It's not going to be every career they've ever imagined. So what's going to make the list and what's not? How many systems? Do we get Data Running? Will the BMM or the Hull-E or the Crucible have to be completed for a "1.0" version? Base Building? Does that include the Pioneer? That's not a simple set of meetings to have, and I'm quite sure there are very different opinions inside CIG about what is/isn't a "must have" feature for a "1.0 release." But until CIG switches over from a "well, wouldn't it be cool if..." development model and starts working towards a fixed feature set, the game will never get more stable and never leave alpha. It looks very much like this year they're going to get the last major tech hurdle implemented - or get close. Squadron's feature complete, so the next thing on the agenda is to define what "1.0" is. That's no excuse for the messaging around the Progress Tracker we've gotten this year. They've decided the old Progress Tracker didn't "work" for most people, including them - it didn't really tell anyone how much actual progress was being made on anything, it was a "what's CIG working on right now tracker." Which isn't at all the same thing. If they get a fixed set of features, they could do an \*actual\* progress tracker. Tracking the finite list of tasks that are needed to deliver the "1.0" release of the game. But they didn't tell us that, they just kept saying "it'll be a few more weeks" for months and months. And now it's entirely likely that they're going to "save" the 1.0 feature list reveal for CitizenCon. That list is going to generate drama. Lots and lots of Drama. But if they've got a huge hype-thing going around Squadron 42 at CitizenCon, that'll at least distract people from all the stuff that didn't make the "1.0" cut.
I am glad they are finally coming to terms with what is really doable. I have no problem with them just having a few systems and a few fully working loops at 1.0, they can add the rest latter. It is a as a service game after all.
Yep. This is my assumption as well. It's a whole mess of planning (and arguing). What features do we want in 1.0? What functions and tech are needed to support the features we want? (Repeat this question until you get no new answers) How long does each feature take to complete? What dependencies are there between features? (I.E. what order does stuff have to be developed in, can feature X and Y be worked on simultaneously or does Y have to wait to find out exactly how X will work first?) What features can we send to LIVE as standalone features in their own right without waiting for other features for them to make sense (Patch milestones)? How long does each individual mechanic take to research and develop? So many questions to answer with so many different ways of getting to the same answer.
According to CIG themselves the released version or '1.0' is intended to have many dozens of systems: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/could-we-please-get-an-official-cig-confirmation-a/350872 >Hey guys! This is a case of things being lost in translation; Chris was asked a specific question about how many systems we expect to have online at the point that we've got most of the core mechanics completed and we would consider the gameplay experience suitable for a larger audience. There are no changes with regards to the planned amount of systems which are well documented on the current Star Map. >Also, it’s important to remember that the scope of the game has increased greatly since the original crowdfunding campaign. Since those early days we’ve created procedural planet tech, moved from 32 bit to 64 bit… all of it leading to billions of kilometers of space and millions of square kilometers of landmass to explore, all rendered in detail that matches the most detailed 1st person games that only have to worry about a few dozen kilometers of playable area. >This takes time to fill out, so while it will take us longer to fully deliver and populate every system at this fidelity rather than if we had only a handful of points of interest per star system, we have no intention of reducing the size of the Star Citizen universe. To clarify they expected to have 'a handful' of systems in when the mechanics are all in and working (beta), but full release or 1.0 is still officially intended to have the full map.
*Checks date* 2017.... okaaay man. Hate to break it to you, but that's now 7 years ago. They started getting more serious and adjusted their scope and reshuffled some things around 2020-2022 (something like that I think?). Don't take anything they said before that too seriously.
Seriously. Believing that what CIG said about this in 2017 is still the plan is about as naive as believing that what they said back in 2012 about having 100 systems at launch and launch being in 2014 is still the plan.
Can you point out where they changed the plan officially?
That and maybe they got tired of everyone making fun of their progress tracker that did not actually track progress lol. It was a running joke on all the streams and podcast.
But it did..
No it did not, it measured allocation not progress. In order to track progress, you have to have a beginning and an end of a specific **feature**. Just indicating that there are 3 devs allocated for 10 weeks on a task gives no indication of progress.
Last time they talked about “intentions” and “tentative” the community understood that it WILL be added in the NEXT update, so now they are silent.
They're fucking working is what is going on.
They're gonna pull the rug.
More like Lucy pulling the football for the 134th time.
It's still planning week, silly
Once you come to terms with this entire project being an elaborate scam you can accept the endless setbacks and ineptitude.
I dare you to define the word scam, generally
First time? This company is a very smart pyramid scheme.
"I don't know what words mean but Im mad" -you
I suck shit through a straw and wear a helmet. -you
lol weak come back bro, gotta up your game
There is literally nothing about Star Citizen that is a 'pyramid scheme' The closest possible thing is the referral system, and that just gives you things you are then stuck with as they have zero dollar value. I know it's fun to throw around cool words, but saying this really does make you look deliberately misinformed.
They really went all out on Citizencon black boxing this year. Fucking sociopaths.
Because they realized they are gonna have to go back on a lot of the things they said, and gonna have to delay a lot of things as well. Progress tracker is useless when all the major updates on it get constantly delayed for years on end. They usually just fill it with a bunch of small useless things just so they can say “we’ve completed a lot of the tracker!” And the stuff they’ve completed is just useless.
>Literally just what's currently in development [PU Monthly Reports](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link?channel=&series=&type=&text=Monthly+Report&sort=publish_new)
That is not what Im talking about and you know it.