Jump to content
Donut

Star Citizen Publicity

Recommended Posts

It seems that after this year's Citizencon, there seems to be a lot of positive vibes from people outside of the community and it's so refreshing. We're finally at a point where they can show off game mechanics and talk about development that doesn't make everyone's panties twist. Very enjoyable video and I encourage people to read through the comments to see some examples. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I saw that video commentary from Pretty Good Gaming last week. I was pleased to see a positive report about Star Citizen from a game review site that recognize.

It used to piss me off every time Gamespot reported on Star Citizen, because they wouldn't post any links to RSI or post any of CIG's pics or videos that show off the game -- like they would for ANY other video game. Instead, every single GameSpot article mentioned Star Citizen's funding milestones and there was an overtly cynical tone: "Can you believe how much money Scam Citizen has conned out of gamers?" Gamespot was shamelessly pandering to their audience, triggering all the haters and trolls, who reinforced Gamespot's critical slant against Star Citizen. However, ever since Star Citizen released Star Marine and all the videos for Alpha 3.0, GameSpot hasn't been reporting on Star Citizen nearly as much as they used to. Obviously all the progress and evidence that Star Citizen is a playable game runs contrary to GameSpot's blatant bias, which is why they're conspicuously silent.

Same with IGN, they've barely mentioned Star Citizen in the last 5 years -- which is ironic, because IGN introduced me to Star Citizen with an article featuring the early 3D model pics of the Constellation, during the Kickstarter campaign. After I saw the pitch video, I was immediately on-board and pledged for the Connie. I can't remember the last time IGN mentioned Star Citizen.

It's not surprising that IGN and GameSpot, the two online game review sites most corrupted by the big evil game publishers, are the sites that aren't covering Star Citizen, because it's not being funded or published by those big evil game publishers. They don't want it to succeed. Probably because they're so used to getting bribes in the form of big swag boxes that they shamelessly plug in their unboxing videos.

Whereas Pretty Good Gaming is the polar opposite. They criticize the big evil game publishers all the time, especially over loot boxes and micro-transactions. Their videos represent GAMERS, not the greedy gaming industry. I believe that's why they're so positive about Star Citizen, because it's different than other "AAA games", which are all about micro-transactions now. I also like that PGG's positivity is tempered by reasonable expectations. They're obviously not fanboys that think everything is perfect. They acknowledge that Star Citizen's development has suffered delays and feature creep. I respect their objectivity. I really hope that PGG makes another video when Alpha 3.0 is finally released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Reavern said:

It's not surprising that IGN and GameSpot, the two online game review sites most corrupted by the big evil game publishers, are the sites that aren't covering Star Citizen, because it's not being funded or published by those big evil game publishers. They don't want it to succeed. Probably because they're so used to getting bribes in the form of big swag boxes that they shamelessly plug in their unboxing videos.

This is not the first time I've heard that.  I heard one idea that floated around a few years ago, where people were saying that one of the reasons the big publishers wanted SC to fail was so that once the dust settled from the collapse, they could buy all the customised/bespoke tech for pennies on the dollar... and scoop up as many of these devs with cutting-edge experience as they could for their own projects.

Pretty shitty move if you ask me, when the alternative (which they'd never do) would bring them better PR and generate shitloads of goodwill towards them, which is to grow some balls, perform serious R&D and develop a competing product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Viral advertising threatens the existence of traditional media.  And these web sites are what stands as traditional media now-a-days.  Games like Star Citizen are a threat to their business model, because unlike most games, CIG doesn't need Gamespot and IGN to sell copies of itself.  Therefore if more games use the Star Citizen model to find success, Gamespot and IGN might go out of business.  It just makes business sense for them to spread FUD deliberately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find interesting (this year at least) is how little coverage there is.  Last year, everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, reminded their audiences that there was nothing from the Squadron 42 to show.  And boy did they criticize CIG for that.  That is why CIG released the footage a week later of them making the hard decision to cancel what they were going to show.  And I am surprised nobody is saying anything.  I think that their panel setup this year really negated a lot of the negativity with showing the progresses they are making in all aspects of the game.  And then the demo at the end to show off what is coming was impressive and possibly proof to show it is coming together now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

    • By Donut
         With the recent publicity surrounding Gamescom, HHSNBN tweets and multiple outlets attempting to write news artices about Star Citizen, I had to sit back and calm down about everything going on. This isn't the first time a very successful game was under tight scrutiny and plenty of people weren't giving a game worth its credit.
      I would like to present: World of Warcraft!
      The amount of negative publicity is very similar to how WoW was going before the official launch. Seeing Star Citizen trend on Facebook and every other comment look like a DS tweet with no actual facts behind them, figured I would show some light on this subject. The most successful game in history recieved very negative criticism.
      Here are some good examples:
      I had been playing EQ since '99. EQ2 and WoW came out at about the same time (Novemberish of 2004). I decided to give EQ2 a shot, as that's where my loyalties were. Played for about a month with some of my guildies and had enough. The game sucked (IMO). Buddy of mine switched to WoW a week or so after trying EQ2 and told me it was awesome. I made the jump to WoW in December of 2004 and haven't looked back.
      WoW was touted as the "EQ/EQ2 killer". It really was. I was highly skeptical at the time. Much like the "WoW killers" that have been released over the past several years, I didn't believe anything could dethrone EQ. I'm currently maintain a similar philosophy when it comes to WoW now. It's going to take a helluva game to dethrone WoW. Perhaps only Blizzard with a new IP can do it. There's just something magical about this game.
       
      I remember that many people were pretty skeptical and kind of groaned when they heard the news. MMOs at the time were pretty crappy and not very fun (Looking at you, Everquest and Asheron's Call). You only played those if you really really really wanted to play an MMO. So there was a sense that Blizzard was just going to add another crappy MMO to the mix. At the same time, there was definitely the contingent of Blizzard fans that was pretty excited for WoW from early on.
      I'd say it really exploded once it released and we all got to play it. It was amazingly easy to get started, and it was actually fun. Doing quests as your primary activity was, at the time, amazing. In games like EQ, you level up just by killing lots of monsters, they had quests but they were very rare. So a game with 5,000 quests at launch was mind blowing.
      Also, EQ and similar games were extremely punishing towards death. You could lose all your armor if you didn't recover your corpse. So, WoW's very light punishment for death was also mind blowing, it meant you could actually explore and have fun without being so stressed out.
      Anyway it became "the MMO that is actually fun to play" and it spread like wildfire just by word of mouth.
       
      Was hyped pretty well. Sony had just shot itself in the foot with the Gates of Discord expansion - a lot of us in uberguilds decided to quit the game at that point because of how bad it sucked and took them forever to fix things.
      That was around the time of WoW closed beta - and a good majority of us couldn't wait.
       
      All my friends and I played Warcraft for years (my friends, admittedly, were more heavily into than I was) and were super excited for it. At the time just before the release, we were all playing DAoC (I was an MMO newbie) and I was just getting really into it. Then WoW was released and everyone ditched DAoC. I was a high school kid that didn't have a job, so I couldn't buy myself a copy of the game and was really bitter that all my friends left me, so at first I really hated WoW.
      My friends kept talking about how great the game was. I was getting to the point of giving up on gaming for good, but then my boyfriend bought and paid for my own WoW subscription. I played hardcore for years, and up until about a year or two I have been off and on as casual.
       
      Also, here is an old article that very closely resembles the German PC Gamer article:
      https://images.nonexiste.net/popular/2012/08/28/exclusive-first-look-10-page-magazine-article-scans-previewing-wow-from-2001/
       
×