Star Citizen: Call For Transparency, Refund Demands Increase

[Kursah]

@Vayra86
Since you objected to my post jesting about RSI/CIG's many offices, let's discuss this, shall we?
It has become apparent that $130M later, the company is still in need of cash.
I've seen the arguments defending the existence of multiple offices around the globe, and so I'll just set that aside and ask you to defend the need for Chris Roberts to travel to each location every 3 weeks or so on our money.
Can you explain why in the age of web-conferencing and remote desktop access, why Chris cannot supervise the whole operation from an office inside his multi-million dollar mansion paid for by us Backers?
Please, go ahead and explain.

Leaders cannot always rely on Skype, VPN tunnels and RDP, they also make in-person visits on regular intervals for face-time, old-school effective management and administration and to keep the relation, repsect and trust of staff intact. There's more to it than just showing up, many things can be handled better in-person than over screens and remote connections, even in this day and age, and even with game development. That likely holds true with CIG as well. Not that I agree with having several remote offices, I do agree with regular visits and am surprised he only does 3-week intervals...I'd be doing weekly regardless of what nay sayers cried or speculated or claimed, don't like what I do? Don't invest in my game. So be glad you're not paying me to run the show. Someone passionate about a project should want to be directly and regularly involved at a level Skype, RDP and VPN tunnels cannot provide. Period.

I want the higher level of finish, polish and quality that something hand crafted and babied from the leader to the janitor can only accomplish in-person. Building and maintaining a solid team that is positively reinforced, and can provide a quality product after years of development. It makes sense to me, at least in my perspective...but what I see could be very flawed from your perspective. I don't want a disconnected leader that only runs the show from Skype, no thank. If CR is not visiting his offices in-person, he's not doing his job for himself, his company or his investors (you and I).

At this rate, I could easily imagine all the nay-sayers claiming what a failure CR was if all he did was Skype meetings from home and played proxy boss and rarely visiting his offices...I really don't see him gaining some folks' favor no matter what he does, says or chooses. Those reading this, if you're one of them, then why not demand a refund? That is one of the loudest statements you can make, pulling your funding because you've lost faith in the project and leadership.

 

[Ungari]

@Kursah
Thanks for participating in the discussion in a constructive manner, I wish others would follow suit.

While I agree that in person meetings are important for team building and management, Chris does not have to visit these offices as frequently as he does. Let's face it, the Jet Set lifestyle he leads is super fun!

I do not want a refund, I want both of these games to some day be released, especially Squadron 42 which was promised in 2015, and was supposed to finally Demo'd at the last conference.

Unfortunately, the events of the past several days indicate the development of SC and SQ 42 is very much in jeopardy if the company has already spent the bulk of the $130M, with dissatisfaction among the Backers at 50%, compounded by a slew of refund demands from Concierge level customers.

 

[erocker]

Unfortunately, the events of the past several days indicate the development of SC and SQ 42 is very much in jeopardy if the company has already spent the bulk of the $130M, with dissatisfaction among the Backers at 50%, compounded by a slew of refund demands from Concierge level customers.

You're literally making things up and spreading false information. Also, basing "Backers" off of a forum poll is ridiculous. You're spewing the same false garbage that I see on Reddit all the time. You seem to have no goal on accomplishing anything here.

 

[Bryce C]

So something I'd like to contribute to this.
Recently I bought the Mustang alpha and numerous months after they released it they still haven't fixed it.
I can barely walk into my ship without it shooting me into space.
Some may say I just have to deal with it, and find a way to just get in the seat.
It's still beyond broken.
I truly think they should sort their priorities, it's absolutely insane how they just continually release ships and fail to fix what they've broken.
,
This is something similar to what I had a little while ago on the RSI forums.
I am immediately stormed with many who say something alone the lines:
"You get what you pay for",
"You can still fly it, why are you complaining?"
"You can just scrap it and get another ship with credits" (which by the way, isn't possible with the credit return value of the mustang alpha
.
Here are some direct posts:
LINK TO FORUM POST:


"Every single ship has had some kind of associated game-breaking bug at one point or another. If you like the Delta, at least theoretically, then keep it. You're testing an alpha. Expect bugs. Expect your pressing pet issue to be low priority until it isn't. Save yourself from the flavor-of-the-month melt shuffle if you have the willpower..."

"Draw a pentagram on the ground, light 7 space candles, and chant "Praise be to Silas" 3 times. Then crouch and enter.

60% of the time, it works every time."

"I think the Mustang Delta is Fantastic and buggy..."

"If you're unhappy don't spend any more money.

Assuming you're a big boy, manage your money how you see fit. Don't go blaming others for you not understanding getting into a game that is fluid and developing. No one made you spend your money, be a little more wise in the future as to what you buy and don't buy.

Be a grownup. "

And as a side note, a bunch of my posts were completely deleted by the moderators.


Terrible response by those who are so biased to the point they can't see past reason.

SO YES, it be nice for people to get their refunds.
If people can't use them properly, but this,
This, is just simply holding people back from doing so.

 

[Ungari]

I did not make up the RSI Forums topics, poll, or the results.
While I understand that the official RSI Forums are truly bad, if anything the results were probably skewed by the CIG PR Sockpuppets that pose as Backers. However, the usual suspects were amazingly absent from that thread, which goes to my assertion that they and the Mods were told to lay off due the the OP being a $6K Concierge.

The numbers don't lie:

With this many respondents, the numbers are actually a good sample size for the 1.5M Backers, and so then certainly representative of the those Backers who are actively following the development and playing the Alpha.

I also did not make up the posts by the $15K Concierge who was "livid" over not getting his promised Polaris discount, or over the fact that CCU has now been devalued. Nor did I make up the many posts of Backers who posted their desire for refunds.

So, when I say the development of the game is in serious jeopardy due to the disapproval of the existing customers, that is my assessment based on these events.

More concerns in this discussion about the slowing and decrease in revenues at the 18:26 mark of the video:

 

[Vayra86]

I did not make up the RSI Forums topics, poll, or the results.
While I understand that the official RSI Forums are truly bad, if anything the results were probably skewed by the CIG PR Sockpuppets that pose as Backers. However, the usual suspects were amazingly absent from that thread, which goes to my assertion that they and the Mods were told to lay off due the the OP being a $6K Concierge.

The numbers don't lie:

With this many respondents, the numbers are actually a good sample size for the 1.5M Backers, and so then certainly representative of the those Backers who are actively following the development and playing the Alpha.

I also did not make up the posts by the $15K Concierge who was "livid" over not getting his promised Polaris discount, or over the fact that CCU has now been devalued. Nor did I make up the many posts of Backers who posted their desire for refunds.

So, when I say the development of the game is in serious jeopardy due to the disapproval of the existing customers, that is my assessment based on these events.

Numbers are great at showing whatever the hell you want. With a 50/50 split I think a game like this, which is still in development of Alpha, is doing extremely well in terms of 'backer faith', but in the end a poll like this has no merit.

Poll ANYTHING and you can word and position any poll about the exact same question in two different ways, and I can guarantee you I can give you 25/75 results on either side of the argument. Watch House of Cards and you'll learn something about public opinion and more specifically, how polls can be manipulated, or watch 'Wag the Dog' and you can see how stupid those masses you are vigorously quoting right now, really are.

First off, if you backed 15k into a crowdfunding project like this, you just spent 15k on a video game purchase. You did NOT INVEST 15K IN A GAME. Investments are made with a return on the investment, or at least a very educated guess that you will see that, or at least some return on your investment. The return on investing 15k on a game though, is simply entertainment. The bottom line, no matter how many hangars you fill with ships, is that you spent 15k on entertainment that hasn't been created yet and you will be getting the exact same return on investment that I did, while I spent 35 euro on a starter package. Who's got the good deal here, really? If you really still feel like defending these total nuts, be my guest, but no single serious investor in the world would consider you sane.

The fact that your quote speaks of 15k 'in wages' made me lol. Some people have too much money for their IQ - and those quotes are the best proof anyone could offer. They don't prove anything else whatsoever, and I stand by my first, lengthy post in which I have lost any respect for you on this subject.

My conclusion hasn't changed and will become even more consistent when you then reply with 'look at Chris, he's living the jet set life'. Do I care? Should we care? Has Chris suddenly become a political figure whose salary is paid with taxpayers' money? Or have a few idiots just invested waaay too much in nothing else but a great, great promise on something they really like?

I love btw how you jump from 'forum poll' to 'representative research for the entire backer population'. It signifies the level of nonsense this discussion has escalated into. People start seeing connections and suddenly think they know statistics. LMAO. Please back that up with a paper before you shout nonsense. For example, how many of the 1.5M backers that have invested 35-40 EUR in the game, are regular forum visitors? I know for one that I'm not one of them, and I'm sure there's a large group among the 1.5M that also has a life beyond Star Citizen - and that's the group this poll is missing entirely, not without coincidence the largest and most homogenous group of them all.

Get a life - or go watch that series and the movie I posted in here, gives you something to do and may give you another POV on this whole discussion and the way you are escalating it here. You should really stop doing this, because in a few years' time you'll be looking back on this in disgust of yourself.

 

[Vario]

http://www.idigitaltimes.com/no-man...y-leaves-hello-games-work-star-citizen-568549

 

[Slizzo]

Not worried about this as I didn't pledge. But I still do watch it from time to time.

 

[Ungari]

@Vayra86
Why should I care? Why should you care? Should we care?
Did you even back this game?
The answer is YES if you want this game to ever be developed.
If you reread what I posted about the poll numbers, I said that the number of respondents was a good sample number for the number of backers, but even more so for those that actually follow or play the game.
Just look at the methodology from political polls and you'll see what a good sample is for millions of people.
I'm not surprised you declined to defend Chris Roberts' Jet Set lifestyle, because it's indefensible.
Any one who backed this project should be concerned about customer dissatisfaction and decreasing revenues, because it jeopardizes it's completion.

 

[Kursah]

The only problem I see with your perspective of them jeopardizing completion, is the HUGE loss of income potential that they'll otherwise gain from a completed, fully-featured, well-polished product that could garner good reviews. That would net a far larger post-release following than it has gained (in record numbers) for pre-release. I feel you see CR and crew as riding this wave until it hits shore and peacing out...I respectfully disagree as I view it as them taking their time and paying attention to details, promises, capabilities and what they need to do and change to make the game work for an actual release at the level of quality they want to release it. Last thing we need is SC to be released and garner the hate and negativity that NMS has due to lacking features, quality, content, etc.

Not saying they won't burst their bubble before the project reaches gold or the shelves...I can't predict that, but I really feel like that's not what's going to happen here. Nor do I agree with picking apart the CIG and CR expenses to try and justify for them what they're spending and why they're spending it...traveling is traveling...I already stated I think 3-week visits is too distant...and I'd do weekly if it were me so odds are my costs would be more than CR's in that respect though I might have chosen not to have 4 offices dotting the planet either. Maybe my internal focus to be more positive rather realitstic/pessimistic has led me to this...but also seeing that they're continually communicating and showing what they're working on. The fact the project is still alive means they're still spending money and have money to spend. Which they should.

Regardless of how we view their expenses, if they push out a product that has the quality they seem to be striving for, with the scope and options they keep touting and "featuring", the $130+ million here might be a drop in a pond if they have a successful release. Imagine the millions more that will buy it at full retail price (come on...console and PC gamers recently paid around $100 for the new CoD...so this is not far fetched) for the best Space Sim/Space FPS/Space MMO around... well I still have hopes for Elite being the best space sim, but SC can take the last two. Frankly I prefer Elite's flight model still...maybe its more the control scheme than the actual physics modelling for space flight TBH.

Either rate...folks should care, but I it's going so far negative that the perspective of which is actually happening is getting overshadowed by overpowered negative speculation. That can also be reversed by fuzzy glasses and too much belief that they're doing everything right. They might not be, but I don't see them doing everything wrong either.

 

[GhostingWolven]

So I bought Star Citizen in January 2016. It was THE first game I bought for my newly built desktop after adding games I already owned from steam. I watched videos of games during my free-time on campus and Star Citizen was the biggest deal and I knew I had to get it. I played Elite Dangerous on the Xbox One in November 2015 and thought it was absolutely bare and lacked content, and looking back ED is slightly more playable than No Man's Sky, but with their new full-priced DLC for planetary interaction after paying $35 for the base game I decided ED was trash and was exceptionally EXCITED to move to Star Citizen. Except, Star Citizen turned out to be more of a cash grab than ED.

I have put around $150 into SC, starting with the mustang starter pledge, moving on to the aurora LN, then the Cutlass (don't get me started on the problems with that thing) and now I'm sitting on a Freelancer MIS. I waited from January 2016 until near the end of this year just to get a SPACE STATION made out of ROCKS that aren't even unique to what we already have! We waited nine or ten months just to see one new space station that is absolutely trash content-wise, ballistic weapons get bugged and then watch CR lie about 2.6 and 3.0. We have all these videos showcasing awesome content we may never see. I want to go planetside and fight that giant sandworm, and I SEE the video right there, the content exists! Why, if 2.6 is supposed to be about items and other fixes, am I seeing what appears to be a really well-developed 3.0 when I can't even play the 2.6?! The game has been in development for 4 years now and has the graphics of all the next gen equipment but the content of a game being developed in 2008. To me that just proves that all the money we give them goes to upgrading their hardware just so they can dish out more ships to boost sales to go buy more hardware.

If you want to wait then that's fine, that's your choice. If 2.6 doesn't come out by March next year or if it comes out by then and their new idea of "we will keep everyone updated with internal information regarding progress" doesn't satisfy me then I will be getting a refund from CR and CIG and will go buy whatever the newest Xbox One game is at that time.

 

[Iceni]

I'm not worried at all about the current progress. I pledged way back and only just missed out on a golden ticket by a day or so.

The problem atm isn't lack of content or lack of transparency. The company in my mind is doing things correctly, I would much rather wait a few years to have the full game in all it's glory. Than have some half baked compromise sooner. You only need to look at what was planned for freelancer, and the released game to see how destructive speeding up development can be.

 

[Ungari]

Interesting take on reddit addressing questions about the current rate of funding; whether it will be more or less than last year, and can they sustain the income in 2017:
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5d4i2l/can_star_citizen_continue_its_funding_momentum/

I don't know if playable content from 2.6 to 3.0 will be enough to fuel enough new customers, plus drive additional purchases from existing customers. Hopefully, it will be.

However, I do agree with this Backer that the pool is finite, and the future income must come from finished product sales such as SQ42:

The "infinite backers" hypothesis strikes again. The Idea that potential backers are not a limited demographic, but rather that there is an infinity of them. Which means if CIG got X backers last year, they can get the same number or more next year too! Because there are infinite people willing to back Star Citizen, you see! Or otherwise, that existing backers have an infinite spending potential. If a percentage of backers pitched in 100$ this year, they will next year too! and then next year! Because they have an infinite potential to increase their pledges every year, you see!


In reality: There is a limited pool of PC gamers who are willing to pledge money, and when it comes to SC, what often takes a relatively large amount of money, to a game in development. The size of the pool is unknown, but what is known, is that every time we pump some more out of that pool, the pool dwindles. Not magically stays where it was or magically increases. There is a given number of people in the world who think "I'm going to give my money to a pre-alpha stage space sim playable on PC" and every time someone acts on it, the number of available backers goes down.


Furthermore, most existing backers are not whales. They either can't or won't keep "paying CIG's salaries" with meaningful sums in every single year. The majority of people probably have some package and a budget they're sticking to. There is also a limited pool of existing backers who can both afford and want to pay extra money every time CIG does a new ship sale ( Since they are already entitled to anything developed for the games themselves ). And every time that pool of people makes a purchase, the percentage of them who can afford to or want to make yet another purchase in the future dwindles as well.


No, OP, the "infinite backers" hypothesis is not grounded in reality. You can't predict all future income based on past income. CIG's funding isn't exponential, it's more like a bell curve. And eventually, the decline of the bell curve will start being noticed. While that's a certainty, but in pure speculation, yes, it can take 1 year, or maybe it will be 5 years ( Since we don't know the size of the pool, and therefore we don't know the curve of the bell. While we do know that pools dwindle when you take something out of them, and therefore the reduction will be noticeable at some point ). But since Star Citizen already has so much publicity and so many backers, it makes sense to estimate that we are at the peak of the bell curve, not at the bottom of it.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Squadron 42 is still a long ways off. It doesn't even appear in their production schedule. I think the MMO component will officially launch first.

 

[Ungari]

Squadron 42 is still a long ways off. It doesn't even appear in their production schedule. I think the MMO component will officially launch first.

If that is true, this is a change in plan as SQ42 was supposed to come first as it should be much easier to complete and doesn't require netcode for mp.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

If SQ42 was first, it would be like Freelancer where it's a great campaign but the moment you're done with the campaign, you realize there isn't much else to do except find some prototype weapons.

I think Star Citizen does suffer from feature creep and mismanagement which is the reason why it is taking so long to release. I think they've also grown too big for their own good. The size of CIG is that of an AAA production studio and with that come all of the disadvantages (the best ideas aren't heard by management).


Target date for 2.6.0: December 8, 2016.

Work on 2.6.0 started on the same day this article was published (October 10, 2016):
Star Citizen's 'Squdron 42' Single Player Campaign Delayed Until Some Future Undefined Date

Cited reasons:
-pathfinding logic
-enhanced flight AI
-mission integration system

I don't think Squadron 42 will exist until at least version 5.0. 3.0 has a lot of AI and mission content but version 4.0 has Jump Points which is something all expansive space games require.

Ha, that article also uses the phrase "feature creep."

 

[Vayra86]

@Vayra86
Why should I care? Why should you care? Should we care?
Did you even back this game?
The answer is YES if you want this game to ever be developed.
If you reread what I posted about the poll numbers, I said that the number of respondents was a good sample number for the number of backers, but even more so for those that actually follow or play the game.
Just look at the methodology from political polls and you'll see what a good sample is for millions of people.
I'm not surprised you declined to defend Chris Roberts' Jet Set lifestyle, because it's indefensible.
Any one who backed this project should be concerned about customer dissatisfaction and decreasing revenues, because it jeopardizes it's completion.

Yes, I backed it quite early, back when LTI was still a thing. As much as I love supporting this project, I'm also a realist in knowing that it may very well be shooting too high to become a finished product. Backing is a show of faith in them doing the job. I haven't lost that faith yet, but at the same time also haven't seen it reinforced because of what's there today - they're making progress, but they've also still got some important hurdles to take. So I don't spend more on it. Really simple. It is what it is - a product in ongoing development of which we do not know the outcome. We only know what's been promised. We've bought a vague promise and that is all. People who are all up in arms now while that same product is still in active development.... well re-read my previous posts for that.

Also, you handily maneuver around the meat of my previous posts by saying I should care. Ask yourself this: does our 'caring' (which ends up being more of a thorn in the side of the developer than anything else, because it drains customer faith and therefore drains the funding available) really help us at all? Does trolling every reddit and sharing it across multiple websites add to the quality of the product? It does not - all it serves is the overblown emotions of a small group of big spenders followed by a throng of idiots who act like they're big spenders.

 

[erocker]

I don't think Squadron 42 will exist until at least version 5.0. 3.0 has a lot of AI and mission content but version 4.0 has Jump Points which is something all expansive space games require.

Squadron 42 isn't related/tied to the alpha versions of Star Citizen. Version 5.0 of the Alpha would most likely be out of Alpha. Optimistically, spring for SQ42.

 

[Ungari]

As a single player game, Squadron 42 could be a huge seller on par with Elder Scrolls vs. Skyrim.
I think the hurdle that is delaying this game is that they want the AI to independently live a 24/7 life off camera. I saw an interview where CR says that if you decided to follow the AI in the space station, you see them go do their scheduled activities.
Since the netcode is a huge obstacle in SC, it makes sense to produce SQ42 first so as to start making sales, and giving us Backers finished content while we wait for SC.

@Vayra86
The only thing I got from your posts is that you object to my discussion thread on the state of this project, plus your insults.
I don't see any "meat" in your posts, what you are referring to?

 

[Vayra86]

As a single player game, Squadron 42 could be a huge seller on par with Elder Scrolls vs. Skyrim.
I think the hurdle that is delaying this game is that they want the AI to independently live a 24/7 life off camera. I saw an interview where CR says that if you decided to follow the AI in the space station, you see them go do their scheduled activities.
Since the netcode is a huge obstacle in SC, it makes sense to produce SQ42 first so as to start making sales, and giving us Backers finished content while we wait for SC.

@Vayra86
The only thing I got from your posts is that you object to my discussion thread on the state of this project, plus your insults.
I don't see any "meat" in your posts, what you are referring to?

The 'meat', is that the influence of overactive backers who focus way too much on CIG's every move is detrimental to the game's development. The 'meat' is that these discussions on the status of an ongoing and actively developed project are entirely worthless and only serve to hurt the very thing you are trying to point out and prevent from happening. What you are doing is what people call a 'self fulfilling prophecy'. Reddit is also a very good driving force behind these prophecies, by the way, it's built on that principle and creates a nice bubble of universal truth around your own ideas on whatever subject.

Impatient and overly committed 'gamers' are very common these days, I've made myself guilty of the same on more than one to-be-released game in the past. The 'meat' and the moral of the story is that in the end all this activity serves no purpose whatsoever. We can keep guessing for another few months and keep linking every fart that flies around the internet with a new 'sensational' development regarding Star Citizen or CIG, but what is the point? Do you really think the game gets developed better, that funds will be handled better, or that this will urge CIG to give out refunds without any reservations?

The bottom line is that you've shown to be very good at avoiding this crucial question and only want to hear and see whatever confirms your own ideas about CIG or the game. And what I'm trying to convey, is that you should take a big, big step back from this because you're no developer, you're no investor, and you have virtually nothing to gain from any of this. What's more, there can only be losers here, nobody is going to win anything.

Now if that reality still eludes you after I and a few others literally spelled it out for you three times... I'm giving up.

 

[Ungari]

@Vayra86
Obviously, I disagree with your assertion that Backers expressing their dissatisfaction serves to hurt the development. I believe the opposite is true, and that the majority who gave their unqualified support for the project no matter what, has been responsible for reinforcing CIG's behavior. For example, the bait and switch tactics they have employed with the sales of ships where the brochure advertises a certain role and characteristics, but changes after the sale(think Cutlass, Avenger, Xian Scout). As long as people kept spending more and more money, CIG didn't care and showed a callous disregard for it's customers. Now, with backers closing their wallets and purses, or worse demanding refunds, CIG must now pay attention and change their behavior.

Why not quit acting like you are above the fray, and that you aren't concerned about the development? It's apparent that you are emotionally invested in this or you wouldn't be commenting on thread as many times as you have.

 

[Kursah]

As a single player game, Squadron 42 could be a huge seller on par with Elder Scrolls vs. Skyrim.
I think the hurdle that is delaying this game is that they want the AI to independently live a 24/7 life off camera. I saw an interview where CR says that if you decided to follow the AI in the space station, you see them go do their scheduled activities.
Since the netcode is a huge obstacle in SC, it makes sense to produce SQ42 first so as to start making sales, and giving us Backers finished content while we wait for SC.

But if they put more of their resources into SQ42, wouldn't folks be complaining even more if say MP wasn't even up to 2.5 even now because of it? Or if MP was still in 1.x because SQ42 was the priority? Sounds like too many steps back IMHO.

I bet there'd be more requests for refunds, more threads like this disappointed in CR and SC, more bickering, etc... Maybe my perspective is wrong...but how I see it, dumping more of their resources into SQ42 doesn't seem like the best move.

I could imagine the complaining and hate-posting/mail if we were having us test a limited storyline and a couple of missions while they test their system in SP, no MP, no player-to-player interaction...unless we were lucky enough they were testing the coop netcode, more limitations rather than the MP semi-freedom we have now...would it really be better? Would it really be beneficial to the SC community?

 

[alucasa]

This thread is like politics talk.

Each side is talking to a brick wall.

 

[Ungari]

But if they put more of their resources into SQ42, wouldn't folks be complaining even more if say MP wasn't even up to 2.5 even now because of it? Or if MP was still in 1.x because SQ42 was the priority? Sounds like too many steps back IMHO.

I bet there'd be more requests for refunds, more threads like this disappointed in CR and SC, more bickering, etc... Maybe my perspective is wrong...but how I see it, dumping more of their resources into SQ42 doesn't seem like the best move.

I could imagine the complaining and hate-posting/mail if we were having us test a limited storyline and a couple of missions while they test their system in SP, no MP, no player-to-player interaction...unless we were lucky enough they were testing the coop netcode, more limitations rather than the MP semi-freedom we have now...would it really be better? Would it really be beneficial to the SC community?

That is an interesting perspective.
However, since SQ42 was originally targeted for 2015, then 2016, and now indefinitely, I don't think that halting work on it now will make SC come along any faster.
I think that releasing SQ42 would not just reinvigorate existing Backers, but draw new customers who if they like the game, will also pledge for SC.
We will wait to see after the year's end where the funding lies, but if it is true that we have reached the apex of the curve, releasing this standalone game will provide an income stream that will help continue development.

 

[P4-630]