Star Citizen's Squadron 42 Delayed to 2017

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

ebalosus:
Curious how this article is still up but not the one linked near the bottom...

Why is that curious? Was Squadron 42 not delayed into 2017? Is there anything factually wrong with this article?

Hell, even the sentence where the now-removed article is linked is factually correct. Star Citizen has had a number of development woes.

Avnger:

ebalosus:
Curious how this article is still up but not the one linked near the bottom...

Why is that curious? Was Squadron 42 not delayed into 2017? Is there anything factually wrong with this article?

Hell, even the sentence where the now-removed article is linked is factually correct. Star Citizen has had a number of development woes.

That was my main point: where did those articles go? Not only them, but also the clarification on where they got their sources, and a podcast wherein they talk about said woes. Hopefully Derek Smart will shed some light on what's going on...

ebalosus:

Avnger:

ebalosus:
Curious how this article is still up but not the one linked near the bottom...

Why is that curious? Was Squadron 42 not delayed into 2017? Is there anything factually wrong with this article?

Hell, even the sentence where the now-removed article is linked is factually correct. Star Citizen has had a number of development woes.

That was my main point: where did those articles go? Not only them, but also the clarification on where they got their sources, and a podcast wherein they talk about said woes. Hopefully Derek Smart will shed some light on what's going on...

Again, and?

Star Citizen has fallen into development hell as far as anyone but its rabid fanbase cares. Articles that ended up sourced to standards were pulled, and those that were sourced stayed up. That's how shit works. What exactly are you trying to get at? A biased source doesn't mean it's wrong, and an article being pulled isn't proof its content wasn't true ;)

Also it's not like Chris Roberts has any more credibility than Smart; they're both self-aggrandizing scam artists.

>Articles that ended up sourced to standards were pulled, and those that were sourced stayed up.

Wat? So articles that were well sourced were pulled, and those that weren't stayed? Isn't that like having a news site made up entirely of speculation and not actual news.

>A biased source doesn't mean it's wrong, and an article being pulled isn't proof its content wasn't true ;)

Y'know, for such a pro "muh journalistic integrity site," they sure-as-shit don't stand behind said journalists when there is controversy...but nobody should be surprised, given what happened back in 2011.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here