Talk:Star Citizen

Fundraiser

I removed this edit because I don't see what the point is in constantly updating the donation count in this manner without proper, non-primary sources indicating why the increase is notable. The text says that on X, the funding surpassed Y, and yet we keep updating it. It seems a bit advertise-ish and just unnecessary. Eik Corell (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a rather interesting discussion here regarding this ever-updating source of income as well as the lack of non-PRIMARY sources. There's no resolution or consensus, but it definitely relates to this instance as well.

As to the actual question of whether this information is necessary - I'm on the fence. One the one hand, now that it's the largest-funded-by-crowdsourcing project ever, the exact number is rather unnecessary. However, it is still a rather large sum of money. I think the best compromise would be to find a recent source that gives verification to something around the $140mil mark and leave it at that (i.e. we don't need to know the exact value they've raised). Primefac (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I think there's a point where it should be recognized that crowdfunding has ceased or shifted to outright commercial sales. My understanding is the game sells access to various ships and the like now. I'm not sure that can quite be called crowdfunding. Unfortunately, I doubt there's a clear source to back my view. -- ferret (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive. I'll be putting this on the main page as a better ref. Primefac (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

And yet again, the article is citing a primary source for the funding... 86.128.242.86 (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe it's all in the act of transparency, if we stop caring how much has been raised by the backers - they will stop reporting it - but the entire premise of the game is to re-invest all "income" back into the game - thus the funding is crowdsourced and not from a publisher. people update it every million dollars because back when it started each million raised was a bit of a surprise and a new stretch goal to go with it. whilst the stretch goals have stopped this hasn't stopped CIG from expanding the scope and features of the game. Scottym90 (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia's role is to assist CIG in accumulating funding for their game. It isn't. Article content, including any commentary regarding funding, is based around what external sources find significant, and not on what effect publicising such data might have on 'stretch goals', or on what individual contributors to the encyclopaedia 'care about' it. 86.128.242.86 (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I only stated it was in the interest of Transparency. none of the published data has any effect on stretch goals or funding. simply updating the amount the game has raised is updating the article. If you state how much the game has raised, why is wrong to update these numbers? Scottym90 (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The numbers are unverified by any external source. Wikipedia is not here to provide a mirror of CIG's website. The article uses far too much primary-sourced publicity material as it is. This is an unreleased game from a new publisher, and the only reason there is an article on it at all is because of the coverage by external sources. If promotional claims (which clearly include funds raised through preorders) cannot be externally sourced, they don't belong in the article. 86.131.45.144 (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Glaring omission?

Out of long-forgotten interest in Space Sim games, and recently remembering about them, I've been reading as many sources about this game as I could (which I first thought sounded promising). Now, I'm shocked that this article has no reference whatsoever to the absolute controversial gong show the development of this game has become. While I'm not invested either way, this seems... strange? There are plenty of RS; the existence of the controversy doesn't seem controversial....

104.128.253.11 (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I was surprised by that too! I think any reference to controversy has been deleted by the game's fans as being insufficiently sourced. I get the impression that if someone did try to add any coverage of it, they'd have to litigate every word they wrote. Not worth my time TBH. Jfsupeene (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Just post requests for additions, with proper reliable sources, to the talk page and it'll get worked in. -- ferret (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of 'reliable sources', is it really Wikipedia policy to use a game developers own PR hype regarding as-yet entirely unverifiable future plans as sources for assertions in Wikipedia's voice regarding what finished game content will consist of? This would be questionable enough in relation to an established developer with a history of actually releasing products they had previously described, and CIG has no track record whatsoever. 86.128.242.86 (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no such policy. Reliable secondary sources are by far preferred to primary sourcing. That said, covering the developers plans is fine. It doesn't need to be in a void though without any of the secondary reporting being covered. -- ferret (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between reporting that a developer intends to do something and reporting that it is going to happen. This article does the latter repeatedly, based solely on CIGs own PR. 86.128.242.86 (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I get you. The article isn't protected or anything though. Be WP:BOLD. Just move slow, follow sources and make sure to keep a neutral view point. I also recommend making edits in batches or paragraphs. This way if someone disagrees with a part of your edit, they revert just that instead of the whole thing. -- ferret (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

What is controversial about the development? the fundraising method? or the outspoken trolls? there is plenty of drama surrounding the game but it doesn't seem appropriate to start listing each individual drama. Scottym90 (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is above bribery and corporate donation. 2/6/2019

Plot

The lead gives some details on setting, in a very loose form. Is enough information available to build a single paragraph plot section regarding the setting and basic premise? -- ferret (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that there is too much detail - much of it contradictory. Over the years CIG have given all sorts of descriptions of the game, and of the players role within it. Trying to summarise it, and make some sort of sense, would probably involve WP:OR. 86.128.242.86 (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead

I undid this edit because the source (Chris Roberts) verifies a switch to Lumberyard and this part of the sentence was about disclosure of the engine switch which is also covered in the source. The reason for removing it: "Lumberyard did not cause delays, internally the engine is still known as Star Engine. CryEngine and Lumberyard are the same engine with minor differences." has nothing to do with it at all and is factually wrong. --Skyrant (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Skyrant

Squadron 42 release date

Question for user Skyrant: Where on the homepage does it say a 2017 release date? I can't find it. If it really were in any shape to be released this year, the devs are being uncharacteristically quiet about it. For that matter, even if CIG claims it's coming out 2017, why is Wikipedia obligated to take that at face-value? They've missed every single release date so far. Jfsupeene (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

As an update, I did find where "2017" appears on the SQ42 homepage. However, I follow the reddit for this game and nobody there seems to think it's coming out in 2017, and several backers have mentioned being disappointed at the lack of updates. I don't think the website can be taken at face value in this context. Jfsupeene (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Reddit is not a reliable source. The homepage of the developers of SQ42 is a reliable source. It does not matter what you think when this will release. The official Homepage of the developers says 2017. Skyrant (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The only thing I could find was a single small graphic with "2017". That's not quite the same as a confirmed release date. The homepage is a WP:primary source so extra care must be taken to avoid WP:original research. -- ferret (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The same is true for all Movie homepages, or movie trailers or other game homepages. They show a "small graphic with [insert year]" and that has always been interpreted as release year. In any case, it is more reliable than what someone thinks or what reddit speculates. There are more sources incl. Chris Roberts confirming it in an interview with German Magazine Gamestar Skyrant (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The Squadron 42 homepage is not a reliable source, per WP:SELFSOURCE. It is self-serving, since that website is designed to sell pre-orders. More importantly, CIG has a well-established track record of missing dates, so extra skepticism is warranted. They haven't shown any evidence that the game is near release- there's no public alpha or beta, or even a demo video or marketing campaign. To put it mildly, there is reasonable doubt that the game is coming out in 2017.

The "other source" you mentioned is just the publisher, again, but this time the claims are being made in a magazine instead of a website. It's still a primary source. I think it's important we sort this out here without edit warring- this article still seems like it takes place in an alternate reality, in part because it uncritically repeats the publisher's claims at face value. Jfsupeene (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The Article cites Chris Roberts saying it will release in 2017 just not early in the year. It does not matter what you or reddit believe. The Chairman and the Homepage say 2017 and that is the end of it. If you revert or delete any more sourced edits like you just did again with The Pledge i report you for vandalism. If you want to re-order chronologically Then RE-ORDER and don't delete. Just because you think it is irrelevant does not make it so. For a Crowd funded Project the Pledge of the Developer is relevant and displayed on their Homepage! Skyrant (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Skyrant, please stop completely undoing every edit to this article for minor things. If you disagree with a part of a larger edit, just reinsert that one piece yourself. I've done it for you in regards to the Pledge paragraph. As information, I'm an administrator and do not see anything Jfsupeene has done as constituting vandalism (Actually read WP:Vandalism). Edit wars take two, so any edit war notice would be issued to both of you. -- ferret (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

To ferret and anyone else following: any reason why I shouldn't remove the "2017" dates again? So far the only argument against I'm hearing is that "the Chairman says 2017 and that's the end of it," which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Jfsupeene (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

(Reverted 1 edit by Jfsupeene (talk): Please read WP:Primary sources. The developer is not inherently unreliable. (TW)

Hi ferret, like I said above, I think this specific developer is inherently unreliable. I'm not saying EVERY game developer is unreliable, which I know isn't policy. There are lots of sources on the article and the talk page that question Chris Roberts/CIG's credibility. There's also a pretty basic pattern: they said the game would come out in 2014, and it didn't. Then they said it would come out in 2015 and it didn't. Then they said it would come out in 2016 and it didn't. Now they seem to be saying it's coming out in 2017.

What reason do you or anyone else have to think this game is being released in 2017? --Jfsupeene (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Jfsupeene, the key here is presenting what can be sourced. We can source that the developer currently "claims a 2017 release". That's all we have to say though. We don't have to say "is announced for a 2017 release" or "will be released in 2017". -- ferret (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Well, ok, great, but now the article says the game "is slated for a 2017 release." And in the sidebar, it just says the release date is "2017" with no qualifiers. It seems like you agree that that's misleading, so why did you revert my edit? If you think it's worth pointing out that "the developer claims a 2017 release" then couldn't you add that language? Instead of just reverting my edit?

On a broader note- do you really think *every* claim made by CIG/Chris Roberts *has* to be repeated uncritically in this article? They have made a massive number of claims about what the finished game will look like and when it will come out, far more than are catalogued here. I'm talking huge in-depth lists of wildly ambitious statements about trading and the economy and AI and ship repairs and space combat, none of it backed up by finished product. --Jfsupeene (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I felt the edit needed considerably more work, which I just attempted, including rearranging it quite a bit, including recovering the interview source you removed. Let me know your thoughts. As for "uncritically" repeating claims, I think its perfectly relevant to at least state the current claim (While culling out past claims that no longer apply). We don't need a running log of them, I agree there, but representing at least the "current" plan is valid. -- ferret (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree, your way looks good. One minor nitpick: the infobox says a 2017 release date. I'll try and do some work on the article that doesn't involve release dates. And, sorry if I was sharp earlier, I'm not a morning person :) --Jfsupeene (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Pledge paragraph

If you would, please use this section to discuss the pledge paragraph that is currently being edit warred between Jfsupeene and Skyrant. At this point, there's enough reverts that I will issue edit warring notices next. Discuss the content first and come to an agreement either to leave it alone or make changes both editors can accept. -- ferret (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I was deleting this paragraph because I think it sounds non-neutral. The tone makes it sound like a condemnation of the developer, rather than a factual reporting of events. My attempt at replacing it was: "Star Citizen was announced in 2012 with an estimated release date of 2014, and has since been delayed repeatedly" (keeping all the citations). I didn't reference "the pledge" because IMHO it's marketing-speak, similar to what many other companies employ about "the customer is our highest priority" and all that. But we can add a reference back in if Skyrant feels it should be there.

In general, I'm deleting content for two reasons. I think some of the text is chronicling twists and turns that just aren't that interesting to the average reader. I prefer to condense that, to put the emphasis on where the game is right now rather than how it got here. Also, I'm removing some of the claims the developer has made about promised features that will be in the game "eventually." Chronicling an endless series of promises, from people who are actively raising money, seems unencyclopedic when there's reasonable doubt about whether those promises will be fulfilled. If that content should be added back in, I think it should be in its own section, instead of distracting from the story of the game's development. If there's an established WP policy for this situation, then of course I'm happy to follow that instead! --Jfsupeene (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

No issues with most of your edits. It's this one paragraph that has been focused on by Skyrant as well (Not counting the release date stuff in the above section). I believe it's worth mentioning, but it also needs a rewrite, as it has at least one awkward sentence that is making a statement as fact, when it's attempting to describe Roberts' position. -- ferret (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Since we've had a few days to cool down, I'm gonna take a shot at this rewrite. Jfsupeene (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

New York Times on Star Citizen

"Video Game Raised $148 Million From Fans. Now It’s Raising Concerns." [1] 31.48.240.84 (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Added to refideas above, until someone can work it in. -- ferret (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggested expansion of reception section - criticisms

Or, alternative to the heading, absorption of the reception section into Development. The game hasn't been released and it seems odd for there to be a separate reception section to it. In any case, hardly anyone familiar with the Star Citizen development is unaware of the very loud voice of Derek Smart in particular, but this page doesn't mention his (rather aggressive) commentary. I suspect if I made a change directly it may initiate a bit of drama so I would like some suggestions on how to proceed? I was thinking of adding something like this, possibly at the end of the current development section: "In 2015, the technical feasibility of the then-current scope, and the ability of the developers to produce the game, was called into question by game developer Derek Smart (source, probably URL:http://dereksmart.com/2015/07/interstellar-citizens/)." Other sources may be included to elaborate on the nature of the controversy thus caused. I figure that regardless of what one thinks of the controversy, the fact that it is so prominent deserves at least some mention on the page. Osmanthus22 (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

"Pre-release reception" is often covered by Wikipedia and typically as a reception section like this. As for Derek Smart, he himself is not a reliable source in our eyes, and would be a primary source for himself basically. We'd need a secondary source that has covered his involvement/criticisms. Just quick example, but something like Polygon, Rockpapershotgun, etc. -- ferret (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks on both points, that makes a lot of sense. I'll look for some sources like this. Osmanthus22 (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Osmanthus22: I went ahead and added a few sentences based on the wording you suggested. Rentier (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this, of course I wasn't able to follow up on what I'd intended. From what Ferret said, it seems to me that these sources are also appropriately reputable. Osmanthus22 (talk) 04:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Linux compatibility source?

the article states that star citizen and squadron 42 will be released to Linux as well as windows but I can't find any sources explicitly stating that it does ABrown_CIG was cited as saying (Vulcan) opens the door for a single graphics API that could be used on all Windows 7, 8, 10 & Linux

could being the operative word here

84.84.246.136 (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The article currently supports it with this source where Roberts said it would be officially supported. -- ferret (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Legal troubles

It appears that CIG are being sued by Crytek over alleged breach of contract and copyright issues relating to Star Citizen. A developing story, currently getting significant coverage in multiple gaming news websites: e.g. [2][3][4] Probably best to wait until the situation is a bit clearer, but should probably get at least a mention in the article. 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:BD16:4BA6:9D15:21E7 (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Now reported by the BBC. [5] 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:A802:F10B:4418:2A44 (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

If you'll write it up and tell me where you'd like it added, I'll edit it in. -- ferret (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I could do that myself, couldn't I? The article isn't protected. I'm inclined to wait a bit though, to see whether there is more mainstream media coverage, and perhaps more in the way of detailed analysis: At the moment, all the sources are simply echoing the Crytek filing and CIG's response, with little in the way of indication as to how significant it could be. I suspect that we may get a bit more in-depth commentary later. As for where to add material on this, a 'legal issues' subsection at the end of the 'development' section would seem reasonable. We may also have to reword parts of the existing content too, since it currently makes assertions about some of the things Crytek are in dispute over: e.g. when exactly the switch to Lumberyard took place (they seem to be claiming that CIG are still using Crytek code).

Incidentally, the section about the '3.0 alpha' is badly out of date: several planned features have been dropped, and the 'detailed schedule report' has turned out to be more or less irrelevant, since the scheduled dates were hopelessly optimistic, and '3.0' still hasn't been released to backers in general. Finding a third-party source to adequately explain the current state of development may be difficult though, and it might be better to simply remove the section, since it is clearly wrong, and because Wikipedia isn't obliged to echo CIG's unreliable claims about scheduling. The article would be a lot better if it had less about what CIG says it is going to do (which changes regularly) and more about what they have actually done. (same person here as IP 2A00:23C1... above: had to change WiFi network) 86.179.216.162 (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Assumed article was protected haha. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned it (lawsuit) seems like something getting legitimate coverage. Be WP:BOLD when you're comfortable with the level of coverage. As for the 3.0 stuff, if it's sourced to primary source (CIG) and since been cut, just remove it. If it's well sourced by secondary sources might need to ponder more. -- ferret (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

A article explaining the legal issues in more depth: [6] From the look of it this case may raise issues of broader consequences for the video game industry. Worth watching for further developments, even if we don't add more coverage immediately, though the next thing to watch out for will be CIG's legal filings in response to Crytek's claims: as a matter of course we should include both, per WP:NPOV. 86.130.97.28 (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Star Citizen edits explanation

I believe this needs discussed as the objectivity and accuracy of Wikipedia articles, at least to me, is paramount. I was unaware articles written in personal opinion and not containing complete factual information were now regarded as a source for Wikipedia pages. In my edit I removed reference to a piece written on Ten Ton Hammer entitled "Stop Funding Star Citizen". In the first couple sentences the author writes the phrase "A fool and his money are easily parted.” Then goes on to say "I think the situation the game currently finds itself in is both ludicrous and scandalous". This is just in the first paragraph. The article is filled with nothing but "I think" and attacks on the game. This is not objective information, but subjective opinion.

The second article cited is an an informational piece on Chris Roberts experience in the industry with an explanation of the game as it was in 2014. It shouldn't be linked to a sentence that reads "The game's developers have attracted criticism for continuing to raise funds enthusiastically while failing to meet project deadlines, as even that sentence is subjective in its description.

The third portion has the sentences "From the outset, Chris Roberts, the game's lead developer, pledged to treat every customer with the same respect as a publisher. However, he has been late to disclose major events like an engine change and missed release estimates." While the pledge Chris Roberts made is accurate and factual, the bit about him being late to disclose what the writer himself deems as important information is subjective. Indeed the very page the editor links points to Chris explaining the changes in exactly the same way he always does, with none of the comments below saying anything about it being late or being lied to in any fashion. In addition, none of the information the editor added is about the game itself. If it needs to be printed, it should be on Chris Roberts page, not the Star Citizen page as the edits are about Mr. Roberts.

Corvys (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Critical subjective content is allowed in articles, if you just remove things because they happen to be negative, then that's akin to censorship. Using this logic, then we should remove all positive reception too, right? That being said, I've gone ahead and removed or rewrote some of the claims, because they were either outdated or could be generalized without pointing out specific people. Hopefully this is a compromise, because I don't agree with just blanking the entire section. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the unfinished status of the game, subjective opinion is about all this article has to go on if it is to demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia standards. And it isn't difficult to locate material critical of the project, and of the long saga of missed deadlines in particular. Omitting any mention of it would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV policy. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

While I agree that removing any reference that criticizes the game is unnecessary, I would argue that an encyclopedia (as Wikipedia strives to be) is not about one person's opinion, regardless of which media outlet they write for. It's about factual accuracy, and whatever 'subjective' opinion a person may voice, it's important that we accurately present both sides of an argument. Since the Ten Ton Hammer editor linked to an article that apparently contradicts his claims, I suggest that we use that link and tack on a 'however' that cites the relevant and accurate version of Chris Roberts' announcements. 70.66.215.159 (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Remove Linux from the supported platforms

As much as I would like to see Linux in the list of supported platforms, I don't think it should be there.

Right now, Star Citizen is officially only supported on Windows. I think it's false to say that SC supports Linux because 4 years ago, they said they may do it one day (if all the stars are aligned). The article can keep the parts in the Development section where it says that the developers have stated they would like to port SC to Linux eventually, but right now, the facts are that SC has not been ported on Linux, it is not officially being ported either, and there is no official roadmap for it.

-- Creak (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• All announced/planned platforms belong in the infobox. "Speaking of Linux: Roberts reaffirmed that while Windows is the main targeted platform for Star Citizen, the game maker will also be officially supporting Linux." confirmed it's planned, so unless you have news of the port being cancelled, it shouldn't be removed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I've seen this article, but it's from 2014 and, today, SC is not officially released on Linux. If it was listed on the roadmap, it would be acceptable to list it in the supported platforms. Creak (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It not being currently released is not a factor for a platform's inclusion in the infobox; it being announced and/or officially planned to be released in the future is. However, you could make the case that at the time, claiming a Linux version was planned was only a potential suggestion riding on success of the Windows version, in which case maybe you are right. Have they not remarked on a Linux version at all since that article? EDIT: having looked into it more, it's apparently a "to-do" thing after the final version (Windows) is released, so I think we could just assume it's only was only a suggestion and not something they are actively working on. If nobody else disagrees, then I also support it should be removed from the article as a planned port. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Originally slated to release in 2014?

Which of the citations following this statement is supposed to support this?

I thought perhaps the Kickstarter listing, but the only mentions of 2014 I can see there are in the pledge tiers, which I thought were understood on Kickstarter to be dates for the specific rewards, hence why they often vary between the tiers. --Saerain (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It isn't hard to find evidence of Roberts giving a 2014 release date:

"Currently I've spent a year building the tech," he said. "It's going to be two years before we can go live." (Oct 2012) [7]

"Late 2014 is when Roberts hopes to launch Star Citizen."[8] (Oct 2012)

"Those who support the game early will get to play builds ahead of the release of the final version. Roberts hopes a year from now an alpha multiplayer version of the game will be available. This won't take place in the persistent universe, but will act like a World of Tanks battle session. 10 months after this release the alpha persistent world will launch, with the full game due out just over two years from now, at some point late 2014." [9] (Oct 2012)

“Our purpose today is to allow our fans to join us in this process early,” says Roberts. “It will likely be another two years before the full product is ready for release, but early backers will be able to play a version of the game a year from now.” [10] (Oct 2012)

86.148.84.151 (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• It should just say "full launch was anticipated for 2014", not that it was actually going to happen. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Game is "released" according to CIG

My edit that the game is currently not "upcoming" got reverted because it is classified as being "alpha". This is untrue since according to this talk from CitizenCon 2948 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqxmonfCwvM) Robert says that the MMO is a "persistent universe, there will be no reverts, no worry about it getting wiped. [...]When we get to full persistent and server meshing, that is our marker [for a full release, red.][...]We don't have a particular viewpoint of this is it, this is where we finish, now we call it done.".Mr seeker (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I mean, that basically goes against your edit. He said when they get to full persistent and server meshing that is the marked for full release.. he said that this week, so, clearly not there yet. Keep in mind that "released" doesn't mean "no longer in development, no longer supported" -- ferret (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)