Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   The Game Room (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   Star Citizen is the Future of PC Gaming, and it's Free to Play this week (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=772015)

defenderofjustice 10-13-2015 02:29 AM

Star Citizen is the Future of PC Gaming, and it's Free to Play this week
 
If you are a gamer and haven't heard of Star Citizen, then you might be interested to hear about it... or even play it. With over 1 million people playing it currently, and with it raising almost $94 million for its development, it's looking to be a very impressive game.

In a nutshell, it has these qualities:
- open-world
- seamless transitions
- space MMO
- Single player campaign (so something similar to Mass Effect)
- FPS elements (real-time combat)
- Multi-crewed spaceships (fly ships with friends or AI)
- Living economy based on player interaction


They are currently doing a "free flight" promotion that allows you to try out their space combat module. Here's how to access it:


This game is the most crowdfunded anything to ever exist. I think it's going to be the next big PC game.

If you disagree, then say why. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about the game, as I have been following it since it started development in 2012.

Anyone else been following Star Citizen?

Oakminster 10-13-2015 02:52 AM

Reported.

madsircool 10-13-2015 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oakminster (Post 18768298)
Reported.

Why? This is The Game Room and this post is helpful.
Quote:

Originally Posted by defenderofjustice (Post 18768269)
If you are a gamer and haven't heard of Star Citizen, then you might be interested to hear about it... or even play it. With over 1 million people playing it currently, and with it raising almost $94 million for its development, it's looking to be a very impressive game.

In a nutshell, it has these qualities:
- open-world
- seamless transitions
- space MMO
- Single player campaign (so something similar to Mass Effect)
- FPS elements (real-time combat)
- Multi-crewed spaceships (fly ships with friends or AI)
- Living economy based on player interaction

They are currently doing a "free flight" promotion that allows you to try out their space combat module. Here's how to access it:


This game is the most crowdfunded anything to ever exist. I think it's going to be the next big PC game.

If you disagree, then say why. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about the game, as I have been following it since it started development in 2012.

Anyone else been following Star Citizen?


Quartz 10-13-2015 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by defenderofjustice (Post 18768269)
Anyone else been following Star Citizen?

Yes. It's becoming a bit of a joke for selling ships and being nowhere near complete.

Grumman 10-13-2015 04:26 AM

I very much hope that Star Citizen is not the future of PC gaming. One, there's an incredible amount of bloat in the art assets that would make it impossible for me to download it, let alone play it. I would much rather have a game with "good enough" graphics that is relatively lightweight and runs well than one that subscribes to the All The Pixels! mindset. Two, it is the most crowdfunded anything ever. There is obvious appeal to being able to foist all the risk off onto the customer, but as a customer I'd obviously much prefer that they have a working product before they ask me for $100, let alone $1,000.

lisiate 10-13-2015 06:40 AM

Hmm? Have the developers burnt through their $90 million already? Time to rope in some more suckers?

Ike Witt 10-13-2015 09:08 AM

$90+ for an in game ship? Is that for real? Pay to win is no way to make an MMO.

Johnny Bravo 10-13-2015 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madsircool (Post 18768313)
Why? This is The Game Room and this post is helpful.

Because it's a spammer trying to get people to use a referral lin

You can just go to the base link and register, though.

A quick search showed that he put up the exact post on Amazon's forums and it got deleted fairly quickly. He's just trolling for referral in-game money.

Skywatcher 10-13-2015 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ike Witt (Post 18768732)
$90+ for an in game ship? Is that for real? Pay to win is no way to make an MMO.

Nor is spam to win.

Teuton 10-13-2015 11:39 AM

I actually have Star Citizen (I got a free key with a graphics card purchase). My advice at the moment to anyone looking is to hold back until they actually provide some of the promised features - at the moment, all it currently is is a context-free fly with your spaceship.


I'll give them one thing - whilst you can pre-buy a bigger ship before the launch, all the ships are promised to be available in game with in-game cash, similar to the new Elite.

And, frankly, I think the arrival of Elite has stolen Star Citizen's thunder.

Also note that buying an expensive ship doesn't even let you fly it yet - only a couple of the ships are available to fly currently.

((also, at the very least, those links should be taken out))

DigitalC 10-13-2015 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ike Witt (Post 18768732)
$90+ for an in game ship? Is that for real? Pay to win is no way to make an MMO.

Those are the cheap ones. They have ships up to 2500, and packages up to 15000. For a game that does not and seems unlikely to exist.

Gothic 10-13-2015 11:44 AM

It's spam. Try putting the weekly Robert's Industries e-mail you get into your blocked senders list. I look forward to playing the game, but their marketing is sleazy.

The Hamster King 10-13-2015 11:57 AM

As a professional game developer, I don't have a good feeling about Star Citizen. I'm obviously not in a position to know about the internals of their development process, but the little bits I've heard make me nervous.

For example, a recent article mentioned Roberts staying up late coding. That's a red flag. The creative lead on a $94 million project should NOT be coding. There are WAY more important things for him to be doing. I've been the creative lead on large projects, and there's no way you can operate as an effective leader if you're wasting time on line production tasks. That little detail suggests a problem with micromanagement or inexperience with managing a big team.

I also get the feeling that a lot of work is going into promotional materials to keep the cash flowing in. It's really easy for teams to get trapped in a bad demo cycle where they're constantly building stuff to promote the game, while neglecting to actually make the game. Again, I don't have evidence that this is what's actually happening with Star Citizen, but I've seen it happen before and the flash-to-substance ratio of what they're showing to the public is worrisome.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing implodes next year. Hopefully for everyone who put money in it, I'm wrong. The concept is indeed very cool.

Kinthalis 10-13-2015 12:04 PM

I too worry about the whole demo cycle here.

They should NOT have been so focused on releasing these piecemeal modules. All they've done is exacerbate the image of the game as "incomplete".

Aside from this possible issue, I think the main problem is an image one. Because it's a crowd sourced game there's been a huge need to be transparent about development, but maybe the process has become too transparent.

Every arm-chair developer out there can complain and nitpick the process and the current level of progress to death. Imagine if we had this level of insight into... well just about ANY AAA game out there?

We've had people like Ken Levine (Bioshock) and many others come out and say, that games are sometimes utter, disastrous messes until mere months before release. But the masses don't understand that, and they don't understand how long it takes to make a game of this scale, nor how much money is required.

I think there's also a weird backlash from the mainstream against a company and a game that didn't go through the "Regular" publisher channels - couple it with it's no minced words about it: this is a PC game through and through, and the whole thing appears to rub some people the wrong way.

Teuton 10-13-2015 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kinthalis (Post 18769290)
I think there's also a weird backlash from the mainstream against a company and a game that didn't go through the "Regular" publisher channels - couple it with it's no minced words about it: this is a PC game through and through, and the whole thing appears to rub some people the wrong way.

I'm not sure about this, there have now been some very successful crowd-funded games - Minecraft, Pillars of Eternity, that other one - and they don't seem to be suffering from this.
I don't think the backlash against Star Citizen is because it's a PC game that's gone through different channels to get published, I think it's because, as Quartz says above, they are charging a lot of money for something that's not appeared yet.


Elite: Dangerous has gone from funding to release to nearly the first expansion in less time than Star Citizen has been being built.

DigitalC 10-13-2015 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kinthalis (Post 18769290)
Aside from this possible issue, I think the main problem is an image one. Because it's a crowd sourced game there's been a huge need to be transparent about development, but maybe the process has become too transparent.
, nor how much money is required.

I think the main problem is massive overspending leading to a pyramid scheme type business cycle where you need to keep raising money to fulfill previous promises. They seem to be severely mismanaged by someone with a massive ego who simply wasn't up to the task of delivering a triple A 100 million dollar budget game.

Tom Scud 10-13-2015 02:03 PM

Which is of course something people have also achieved through conventional funding schemes (see Schilling, Curt).

Simplicio 10-13-2015 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigitalC (Post 18769637)
I think the main problem is massive overspending leading to a pyramid scheme type business cycle where you need to keep raising money to fulfill previous promises. They seem to be severely mismanaged by someone with a massive ego who simply wasn't up to the task of delivering a triple A 100 million dollar budget game.

Yea, I don't think Star Citizen is a scam exactly. The developers appear to be honestly trying to develop a game. They just seem to be over their heads on the game-development side, while at the the same time, the success of their marketing and fundraising seems to have created a sort of self-perpetuating cycle thats become an end in itself.

On the other hand, there seem to be a bunch of people who like buying fake ships for a game that doesn't, and might never, exist, and are willing to pay a lot of money for them. As hobbies go, that's kinda weird, but I guess not really any weirder than, say, betting on horse-races or collecting Star Wars merchandise.

So maybe they are delivering a product of sorts, albeit one that's almost totally imaginary. Sort of like lotto tickets, the actual product you're buying is actually nothing, but some people have fun imagining how cool it could be if they really get to fly their awesome ship around space/win a million dollars. And that's what they're really buying.

The Hamster King 10-13-2015 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kinthalis (Post 18769290)
We've had people like Ken Levine (Bioshock) and many others come out and say, that games are sometimes utter, disastrous messes until mere months before release. But the masses don't understand that, and they don't understand how long it takes to make a game of this scale, nor how much money is required.

I've been making games professionally for 20 years. My current job is unfucking fucked projects, so I'm very familiar with normal development chaos.

As I said above, I have no facts to back this up. I don't know anything about their development practices aside from tiny snippets I've read in the press. But my gut instinct is they're in trouble: Premature focus on making things pretty. Potential micromanagement. Development spread across a large number of remote teams. Lots of money spent on high-priced voice talent.

Also, what they've released so far doesn't seem like the sort of thing that builds toward their MMO goal. 4-player games require a different server architecture than 32-player games, and 32-player games require a different server architecture than 1000-player games. Releasing a dog-fighting module for a small number of players actually hurts them in the long run because it locks them into a variety of decisions (server architecture, data packet structure, poly counts, physics simulation, control mechanics) that won't scale up to a persistent world. It feels like stopgap to keep backers from freaking out instead of a natural step toward building the game they promised.

The whole thing just smells wrong to me. Maybe they're super-clever and I'm full of shit. If they do release an amazing game over the next two years I'll be happy to come back to this thread and admit it.

muldoonthief 10-13-2015 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Scud (Post 18769710)
Which is of course something people have also achieved through conventional funding schemes (see Schilling, Curt).

Is borrowing/stealing $75 million from taxpayers a conventional funding scheme?

Skywatcher 10-13-2015 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teuton (Post 18769204)
I'll give them one thing - whilst you can pre-buy a bigger ship before the launch, all the ships are promised to be available in game with in-game cash, similar to the new Elite.

And, frankly, I think the arrival of Elite has stolen Star Citizen's thunder.

Unless Star Citizen's circumstances significantly change in the next couple of months, Elite's expansion certainly will.

Battle arenas and players participating in the actions of major political powers are already in. Ground-based combat and multiplayer crews are definitely coming. Wouldn't be surprised if player-operated bases are planned for next year.

Kinthalis 10-13-2015 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Hamster King (Post 18769822)
I've been making games professionally for 20 years. My current job is unfucking fucked projects, so I'm very familiar with normal development chaos.

As I said above, I have no facts to back this up. I don't know anything about their development practices aside from tiny snippets I've read in the press. But my gut instinct is they're in trouble: Premature focus on making things pretty. Potential micromanagement. Development spread across a large number of remote teams. Lots of money spent on high-priced voice talent.

Also, what they've released so far doesn't seem like the sort of thing that builds toward their MMO goal. 4-player games require a different server architecture than 32-player games, and 32-player games require a different server architecture than 1000-player games. Releasing a dog-fighting module for a small number of players actually hurts them in the long run because it locks them into a variety of decisions (server architecture, data packet structure, poly counts, physics simulation, control mechanics) that won't scale up to a persistent world. It feels like stopgap to keep backers from freaking out instead of a natural step toward building the game they promised.

The whole thing just smells wrong to me. Maybe they're super-clever and I'm full of shit. If they do release an amazing game over the next two years I'll be happy to come back to this thread and admit it.

Well even if they do, that wouldn't necessarily mean you were wrong about their situation today.

I certainly don't know either, and I agree that some of these decisions they've been making don't seem conducive to the end game being what they've described ot the fans.

I do hope it comes together eventually. I don't think it will next year, I think 2-3 years is more likely.

I would say you should offer them your services, except I know you work for Sony and you'd make it a PS4 exclusive ;p

Kinthalis 10-13-2015 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skywatcher (Post 18769977)
Unless Star Citizen's circumstances significantly change in the next couple of months, Elite's expansion certainly will.

Battle arenas and players participating in the actions of major political powers are already in. Ground-based combat and multiplayer crews are definitely coming. Wouldn't be surprised if player-operated bases are planned for next year.

Wait what? Ground combat and multiplayer crews are coming to Elite? Haven't checked in on that game since my flight stick broke a few months ago. This is news to me. I guess I'm going to have invest in a new one.

Skywatcher 10-13-2015 03:50 PM

Yep. Elite: Dangerous: Horizons, the paid expansion coming in time for the holidays, will have vehicular ground combat and (ISTR) commander avatars. A recent newsletter featured an image of a multiplayer bridge, not sure if this will be part of Horizons or soon after.

Idle Thoughts 10-13-2015 04:04 PM

Mod Notes
 
I have taken out all links to the site. This is, without a doubt, spam. Helpful or not, it still falls under the definition of spam and also intends to further someone's cause by bringing them in money and traffic.

Don't spam with those links again, defenderofjustice, or you will be banned. Only reason you're not being banned as a spammer automatically is because some people think your info is/was helpful and it's spawned some discussion. At this message board, though, that is clearly spam. I'm sure if someone really wants to know where they can register and use codes or pay for the stuff, they can easily find it via search engines.

I've also taken the links out of others posts, don't link to it, please...but I'll leave this thread open for any further discussion.

Skywatcher 10-13-2015 04:10 PM

According to this, the steep cost of Horizons is actually for a group of four expansions.

The Hamster King 10-13-2015 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kinthalis (Post 18770052)
I do hope it comes together eventually. I don't think it will next year, I think 2-3 years is more likely.

The question is, do they have the money to sustain themselves that long? If they were working for a deep-pocketed publisher, they would have a well to go back to. I'm not sure how long their donor base is willing to wait.

They're in a weird bind. If they show the public anything that doesn't look amazing, they run the risk of turning off the crowdfunding tap. So there's a built-in incentive to promise more and more and dig themselves into a deeper hole.

Quote:

I would say you should offer them your services, except I know you work for Sony and you'd make it a PS4 exclusive ;p
:D

MichaelEmouse 10-13-2015 04:46 PM

I'm sure Randy Pitchford will be there to buy the IP and finally release it for us. : )



Quote:

Originally Posted by The Hamster King (Post 18769822)
Premature focus on making things pretty. Potential micromanagement. Development spread across a large number of remote teams. Lots of money spent on high-priced voice talent.

What is the sequence their focus should have followed?

Teuton 10-13-2015 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skywatcher (Post 18770154)
According to this, the steep cost of Horizons is actually for a group of four expansions.

It's a bit of a hijack, since it's about Elite and not Star Citizen, but I'm not terribly happy about being asked to pay again for stuff that was in the original crowdfund I bought into.

Skywatcher 10-13-2015 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teuton (Post 18770278)
It's a bit of a hijack, since it's about Elite and not Star Citizen, but I'm not terribly happy about being asked to pay again for stuff that was in the original crowdfund I bought into.

Pretty sure all Elite expansions are free for those who were in on the original beta. I bit the bullet and got the Season Pass, which is basically the same thing for those who weren't in on the original beta.

Skywatcher 10-13-2015 05:10 PM

That should have been Lifetime Season Pass. Edit window closed.

Teuton 10-13-2015 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skywatcher (Post 18770320)
Pretty sure all Elite expansions are free for those who were in on the original beta.

If this is true (I was), then I would be less unhappy

Skywatcher 10-13-2015 05:27 PM

Confirmed: Alpha/Premium Beta backers also have the lifetime pass. Standard Beta backers do not.

Skywatcher 10-13-2015 05:38 PM

Perhaps discussions of Elite should be taken over here.

The Hamster King 10-13-2015 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse (Post 18770263)
What is the sequence their focus should have followed?

1. Create concept pieces to establish a visual target.
2. Create a crude set of gameplay assets for development and testing
3. Get the foundations of the engine sorted, particularly with regards to server/renderer/physics. This gives you a sense of polygon/texture/effects budgets.
4. Iterate on the game to make it fun to play. Use this information to iterate your gameplay assets. Do ships have distinctive silhouettes? Does your damage model look right in-game?
5. Execute a vertical slice. Build out a narrow bit of the game to high quality. Verify your previous assumptions. Get production metrics for asset production. Adjust scope accordingly.
6. Ramp up to full production. Hire a bunch of artists or bring an outsourcing house into the picture. Start building the game for real.

If you start making final art too soon you find yourself throwing away a lot of work. If you start SELLING final art too soon you find yourself locked into decisions that hurt you when you try to get the game to actually play the way you want.

Jophiel 10-13-2015 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kinthalis (Post 18769290)
I think there's also a weird backlash from the mainstream against a company and a game that didn't go through the "Regular" publisher channels

Seems that crowd funding doesn't even raise an eyebrow these days. In fact, I've noticed a few games seem to be going that route when you'd think they could easily secure "traditional" funding today. Divinity: Original Sin 2, for example.

From the sound of it, the criticism about Star Citizen seems to be the enormous amount of money they've taken in but not really "justified" via results. Maybe that's part of the sausage making process of video games but there's also enough failed games that it's legitimate to question it, especially as they continue to pass the hat for more funding via what may be virtual swampland.

Mnemnosyne 10-13-2015 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jophiel (Post 18770576)
Seems that crowd funding doesn't even raise an eyebrow these days. In fact, I've noticed a few games seem to be going that route when you'd think they could easily secure "traditional" funding today. Divinity: Original Sin 2, for example.

A proven studio using this kind of funding seems good to me in the sense that it gives them more freedom to make a good game. Especially if it's a studio that's proven itself able and willing to just deliver a good game even if it's not perfect, and - this is important - even if it doesn't deliver every little thing they promised.

I funded Divinity: Original Sin, and some of the stretch goals that were reached weren't delivered in the final game and have been completely cut; they're never going to appear. While disappointing in a way, the fact is they proved that they will deliver a good game without torpedoing themselves trying to reach perfect by fulfilling unachievable promises. Sure, ideally they wouldn't make these promises, but it's not practical to never make such mistakes without being absurdly conservative on your projections of what you can achieve. There's always going to be things you think are reasonable goals that turn out to be much more difficult for one reason or another, and successfully producing a finished game at all requires being willing to cut those things once they turn out to be impossible. This made me confident in funding Divinity: Original Sin 2. I know they will deliver a good game, and won't get hung up on trying to deliver a perfect game.

Now, to bring this around to the topic of Star Citizen, it seems very likely that their first project was way too ambitious. As far as I'm aware, this is the first game by the development studio; it was basically formed to publish this game. They should have tried to release a few much smaller, solid, good games, so that they could establish the experience needed in order to know how to produce and actually release a game via crowdfunding, and then, as a proven studio, go on to crowdfund and release Star Citizen, and perhaps that would have been a good path to a good, or even great game.

As it is, even if there's no malfeasance going on (and rumors are full of potential malfeasance as far as where the money is going goes) they seem overwhelmed and unable to handle it. They've gotten into the perfect being the enemy of the good, where they keep coming up with awesome stuff that has to be included because it's so awesome, and absolutely everything has to be done.

PSXer 10-13-2015 11:40 PM

all I know about Star Citizen is the Something Awful threads making fun of it for how long it's taken to develop and how they keep asking for more money

Simplicio 10-14-2015 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mnemnosyne (Post 18771372)
As far as I'm aware, this is the first game by the development studio; it was basically formed to publish this game..

Chris Roberts has been basically making variations of this same game since the mid-90's. So its not totally crazy to give him money and expect him to make a game out of it.

But I think you're right that stretch goals can kind of create a tread-mill effect for projects like this, where to meet the last goal the developers have to raise more money, and so then offer more stretch goals to do so.

Johnny Bravo 10-14-2015 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSXer (Post 18771381)
all I know about Star Citizen is the Something Awful threads making fun of it for how long it's taken to develop and how they keep asking for more money

So I did some Googling and it turns out The Escapist ran an extraordinarily damning article earlier this month about the game.

They also put out an equally interesting article talking about how they vetted their sources for that story.

RandMcnally 10-14-2015 09:53 AM

I have never heard of this game and now I'm glad I had. This reads like a giant clusterfuck.

Czarcasm 10-20-2015 02:41 PM

Star Citizen blows yet another release date...but Roberts says he's just going to turn it into a 400 quadrillion cubic kilometer expansion of the main game.
By the time this guy is done, he's going to have a vaporware too large for one universe to hold.

gnoitall 10-20-2015 03:26 PM

And OP never came back.

Spam seagull. Flew in, crapped all over everything, and flew away.:mad:

In a sane world, this thread would have been throttled in its cradle, but I guess since it attracted some commentary it has to stay. Apparently, as a warning to the uninformed. I guess that's a form of fighting ignorance.

Johnny Bravo 10-20-2015 03:28 PM

The referral links got removed, which is good enough for me.

running coach 10-20-2015 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnoitall (Post 18789940)
And OP never came back.

Spam seagull. Flew in, crapped all over everything, and flew away.:mad:

In a sane world, this thread would have been throttled in its cradle, but I guess since it attracted some commentary it has to stay. Apparently, as a warning to the uninformed. I guess that's a form of fighting ignorance.

Actually, in this case, it's exposing what a total cock-up the game and company are and maybe some potential customers will find this thread.

Sometimes, spam bites back.

Johnny Bravo 10-20-2015 03:40 PM

At the end of the day, I'm glad Star Citizen is a thing.

The game's ridiculously successful Kickstarter helped popularize the idea of crowdfunding, and that has led to a lot of great products being put out. Star Citizen itself has been circling the drain for so long and in such spectacular fashion that its inevitable demise will not be an indictment against crowdfunding, but against mismanaged game design (not new or surprising in any respect).

And if it does end up producing a game that matches its own hype? Well, good for them and good for the rubes who have spent thousands of real life dollars chasing a digital dream.

Me, I'm happy spending 60 bucks on No Man's Sky, which will likely also be a letdown in comparison to its hype.

Johnny Angel 10-20-2015 03:44 PM

Actually, I've been meaning to start a thread asking what the hell other people here thought about a long post by Derek Smart about what a boondoggle Star Citizen was turning out to be. I didn't ever get in because everytime I checked in it seemed like the price of a decent starting configuration had gone up and it had a whiff of pay-to-not-suck. But now it's looking like the problem is a lot worse than that.

Johnny Bravo 10-20-2015 03:49 PM

Smart is looking a lot less loony after The Escapist's expose, no doubt.

Skywatcher 10-20-2015 03:54 PM

Somebody should turn the (non?)-making of this game into a movie.

Johnny Bravo 10-20-2015 04:15 PM

Yeah, I suspect that some really interesting stuff will come to light if/when the game crashes and burns.

Czarcasm 10-20-2015 04:20 PM

I would love to know how much of the investor's money he spent on celebrity voice-overs instead of actual game development.

Quartz 10-20-2015 05:19 PM

We all remember Duke Nukem Whenever, right? Seems like Star Citizen is the next one.

Airk 10-21-2015 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jophiel (Post 18770576)
From the sound of it, the criticism about Star Citizen seems to be the enormous amount of money they've taken in but not really "justified" via results. Maybe that's part of the sausage making process of video games but there's also enough failed games that it's legitimate to question it, especially as they continue to pass the hat for more funding via what may be virtual swampland.

The thing about video game crowdfunding is that most games that crowdfund don't crowdfund anything near their full budget. "Big budget" video game kickstarters are getting like 6 million (Shenmue 3) and 5.5 million (Bloodstained). And the backers look at them and go "These games made a fortune!" when in actuality, they are getting the lion's share of their funding from other sources, and the 5/6 million they got is more of a "let's see how interested people are" measure than an actual attempt to fund the entire game.

Other games that are Kickstarted/crowdfunded whatever are often very small teams working on relatively manageable projects, and even they often are doing a sort of "Welp, our team of four lads will be working on this in their spare time, because there's no way that the money from this Kickstarter would keep us fed for the amount of time we need to make this game." arrangement.

Star Citizen, on the other hand, seems to be trying to fund themselves, a fairly large studio, full time, on crowdfunding dollars. They're doing it, for now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simplicio (Post 18771483)
Chris Roberts has been basically making variations of this same game since the mid-90's. So its not totally crazy to give him money and expect him to make a game out of it.

I feel obliged to contest this - Chris Roberts has been basically making failed (at least, financially) versions of this game for a good long time. So it IS completely crazy to give him money for it. Yeah, Starlancer and Freelancer did eventually come out, but it would be unfair to call them successful. And now we have Mr. Roberts coming back promising everything bigger, better, biggerer, more impressive, more shiny, and WAY BEYOND the scope of any previous projects.

I honestly don't think he can deliver. I looked at this project back when it was on Kickstarter and said "Yeah, this is WAY too ambitious. Especially for a brand new studio." Nothing I have seen since leads me to believe I was incorrect in that assessment.

Uosdwis R. Dewoh 10-21-2015 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 18790139)
I would love to know how much of the investor's money he spent on celebrity voice-overs instead of actual game development.

IIRC celebrity voice overs was one of the stretch goals that was met so they kinda have to do it.

Ike Witt 10-21-2015 01:30 PM

Did anyone here actually take part in the free weekend? If so what was there to do and how was it?

Quartz 10-21-2015 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airk (Post 18792380)
I feel obliged to contest this - Chris Roberts has been basically making failed (at least, financially) versions of this game for a good long time.

Do you have numbers? For profit and loss, that is.

MichaelEmouse 10-21-2015 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Hamster King (Post 18770499)
1. Create concept pieces to establish a visual target.
2. Create a crude set of gameplay assets for development and testing
3. Get the foundations of the engine sorted, particularly with regards to server/renderer/physics. This gives you a sense of polygon/texture/effects budgets.
4. Iterate on the game to make it fun to play. Use this information to iterate your gameplay assets. Do ships have distinctive silhouettes? Does your damage model look right in-game?
5. Execute a vertical slice. Build out a narrow bit of the game to high quality. Verify your previous assumptions. Get production metrics for asset production. Adjust scope accordingly.
6. Ramp up to full production. Hire a bunch of artists or bring an outsourcing house into the picture. Start building the game for real.

That order surprises me somewhat. I would have thought that the gameplay mechanics would have come first with only concept work being done on audiovisuals until the mechanics were fully worked out, up to and including making every level using programmer art.

As an analogy, I saw it as starting and finishing the frame, plumbing and wiring of a house before you get started on the drywall, fixtures and finishes.



In your experience, what do neophyte developers tend to spend too much time on? How about not enough time?




Quote:

Originally Posted by Uosdwis R. Dewoh (Post 18792585)
IIRC celebrity voice overs was one of the stretch goals that was met so they kinda have to do it.

Indeed, it was a stretch goal and they have to deliver it, as much as they have to deliver any of the promises they made. https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals ( 5M$)

However, it doesn't need to be a high priority. It's also a vague enough promise a few celebrities would have been enough. I don't know how others feel about it but as long as the voice actor is competent and suited to the role, I don't care who it is. So, voice acting should be at the tail end of priorities in terms of resources and time of delivery.

Unless, of course, their goal is to attach big names to generate publicity and more funding.






Is nepotism common within game developers? Chris Roberts making his wife a member of the team reminds me of John Romero doing the same with his girlfriend Stevie Case.

Johnny Bravo 10-21-2015 01:50 PM

I just spent a bit of time looking at various Wikipedia pages connected to Chris Roberts, and they're kind of funny. None of the posts are breathlessly worshipful, but they're all written in the best possible light, even when discussing his failures. The cult of personality around this guy is strong.

Airk 10-21-2015 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quartz (Post 18792732)
Do you have numbers? For profit and loss, that is.

I don't (though it's probably worth taking a read over the wikipedia page for Freelancer) but my general feeling from my lazy research is that while Starlancer/Freelancer were reasonably well received, they were never popular.

I'm curious if anyone here has ever played either of them, and how many people had HEARD of them prior to this Star Citizen stuff.

To put it another way: Chris Roberts is a man with big visions, but he hasn't had a "hit" since the Wing Commander series ended. I'll bet if you asked anyone what he was known for before Star Citizen, they'd tell you he was the "Wing Commander guy" not "The Starlancer guy"

Teuton 10-21-2015 02:08 PM

I played Freelancer quite a bit. It's actually a good game in the free spaceflight genre, although there is a definite story and it's not as open as any of the Elite games.

Quartz 10-21-2015 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airk (Post 18792852)
I'm curious if anyone here has ever played either of them, and how many people had HEARD of them prior to this Star Citizen stuff.

Actually, I played pretty much all of the Wing Commander series, apart from the extra missions of Prophecy, and I played Starlancer. I played one or more of the Freelancer series, but the trading side wasn't for me.

Quote:

To put it another way: Chris Roberts is a man with big visions, but he hasn't had a "hit" since the Wing Commander series ended.
Well, that depends upon the numbers, doesn't it?

Quote:

I'll bet if you asked anyone what he was known for before Star Citizen, they'd tell you he was the "Wing Commander guy" not "The Starlancer guy"
I've got to agree with you there.

Quartz 10-21-2015 02:17 PM

I remember Freelancer being innovative in that you used the mouse instead of a joystick.

lazybratsche 10-21-2015 02:27 PM

I played both Freelancer and Starlancer. Freelancer was entertaining enough, though between the world space being broken up into a bunch of small boxes and the "mouselook" flight controls I wasn't impressed. Starlancer was... a game I played. I think. I honestly had to look it up, and couldn't remember much about it other than it came out around the same time as X-Wing Alliance and Freespace 2 and wasn't as good as either.

smiling bandit 10-23-2015 05:40 PM

Took a while to think this over.

Here's my very short question, because I can't figure this out. What is this game actually supposed to be? Depending on who is talking and where, it seems like Star Citizen is meant to be somewhere from a purist single-player experience to something akin to Eve Online but better. Some of the side modules alone seem rather... non-trivial.

Johnny Bravo 10-23-2015 08:02 PM

In short, it's supposed to be everything.

The Hamster King 10-25-2015 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse (Post 18792784)
That order surprises me somewhat. I would have thought that the gameplay mechanics would have come first with only concept work being done on audiovisuals until the mechanics were fully worked out, up to and including making every level using programmer art.

Concept art is cheap compared to the production of in-game assets and it's useful to have a visual target that you're shooting for. It helps focus development resources. Also, if you're pitching the game to get funding, it's good to be able to show the look you intend for the finished game. Is it dark? Cartoony? Stylized? It gives investors a better idea of what they're buying into.

Early concepts aren't essential though. Putting them off until later isn't a huge deal. But moving too quickly to final art is.

Quote:

In your experience, what do neophyte developers tend to spend too much time on? How about not enough time?
Interesting question. Common errors I've seen:

Spending too much time designing the social elements surrounding the game (friends lists assets, trading, posting to outside media) while neglecting core gameplay.

Not getting metrics on asset production times. How long does it take to make a character? A level? Figure out how long it takes you to make something, and scope your game accordingly.

Not budgeting for tools. Spending time to create a level editor at the beginning of a project can pay big dividends at the end.

Conversely, spending too much time on tools while ignoring the game itself. Or rewriting big chunks of an off-the-shelf engine for minor visual/performance gains.

Leaving hard challenges to last. You need a custom animation system for your boss battles? Start building that early.

Allowing scope creep. Making a level 20% larger than planned. Making 10 enemy types when you only need 6. Adding a feature because you saw it in another game that was just released. You don't want your game so stripped down that it feels sparse, but at the same time you should be able to justify everything you build. Why is this going into the game? Could the time spent on this feature be better spent on something else?

Airk 10-27-2015 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo (Post 18799981)
In short, it's supposed to be everything.

This. Which is exactly what ended up warning me away from it when I first heard about it.

smiling bandit 10-28-2015 06:39 PM

If I'm reading this right, they have three separate but intertwined games?

Airk 10-29-2015 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smiling bandit (Post 18812914)
If I'm reading this right, they have three separate but intertwined games?

Right now they have one, barely.

Their PLAN is another question. I believe there they intent for one Ubergame and two essentially cut down versions of it with some extra stuff. i.e. the super-mega-nutso-MMO-with-everything, the dogfighting arena, and the single player campaign.

I wouldn't really call those "intertwined" though, since I don't think there's any feedback from one to the other.

Skywatcher 10-29-2015 12:06 PM

Spore, in space.

Teuton 10-29-2015 12:44 PM

I'm actually downloading it now, to give it a look and see what they've got.


I'll let you know.

Czarcasm 10-29-2015 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teuton (Post 18814899)
I'm actually downloading it now, to give it a look and see what they've got.


I'll let you know.

What you are currently downloading-what does it cost, and how large is it?

Teuton 10-29-2015 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 18814953)
What you are currently downloading-what does it cost, and how large is it?

The very fact that those aren't straightforward questions is indicative of what the problems with this game and the associated circus are.

Well, one's easy. It's 33gb.

How much is it?

Well, this page lists the 'game packages' that you can buy. The cheapest ones are $54. One of the things they don't make particularly clear as they try and get you to spend $240 on a multi-crew starship is that all the spaceships they list there are going to be available, in game, for in-game money. So what do you also get for your $240? There's a big list of things in the "more info" tab, but I don't understand a lot of them. What's a Fishtank Mark 1? I dunno.
Anyway, $54 gets you into the game, and a ship you can fly.


What is it? It's the "Arena Commander" mode, which promises the chance to fly your ship around some asteroids, and also some multiplayer combat. I don't know myself what is involved - that's why I'm downloading it.

Hilariously, the more expensive your ship is, the less likely it is to actually be available to fly in Arena Commander mode yet. And if they ship you've bought is not available yet... you get to fly the cheapest one!


It's nearly DLed.

Teuton 10-29-2015 04:00 PM

Actually, I'm impressed.

If he'd just been creating a spaceship fighting type game, it'd be great. The graphics are smooth, the ship control is pretty intuitive (although there's lots of keys to learn for nav commands and weapon systems and things), and it is very, very pretty.

Well, I got in it for free, so I can afford to be optimistic.

Ike Witt 10-29-2015 04:32 PM

The info screens for the ships mention insurance. What exactly is that insurance for?

DigitalC 10-29-2015 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ike Witt (Post 18815649)
The info screens for the ships mention insurance. What exactly is that insurance for?

For when your ship gets blown up i would assume.

Teuton 10-29-2015 05:29 PM

Yeah, I think it's based on the Eve Online model of owning a ship, but possibly losing it if it's blown up in battle. It's not remotely implemented yet.

Ethilrist 10-29-2015 05:55 PM

Yep, a guy I work with is insane about this game. The insurance is to get your ship re-spawned.

He's probably spent several thousand on it so far. In addition to in-game ships, he's gotten all sorts of bling--coffee mug, t-shirt, baseball cap, mouse pad deluxe (it's about 3' wide, so you can put your offhand controlle & joystick on opposite sides of your keyboard, and nothing slides around when you play). When he first told me about it, it sounded like it was actually available as a playble game so I spent the $60 to buy the basic package. Logged in once about a year and a half ago, found out that it was just an unplayable space combat simulator and haven't logged in since. There have been a lot of improvements, but there's currently no playable game (so far as I know; I'm just going off of the reports he gives because he thinks I'm interested in a pre-release game...). If and when they actually announce the game is up and doing something, I'll try logging in again; when I upgraded to Win10, it seems to have forgotten how to recognize that I have a joystick, which will make the space combat problematic.

Airk 10-30-2015 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teuton (Post 18815560)
Actually, I'm impressed.

If he'd just been creating a spaceship fighting type game, it'd be great. The graphics are smooth, the ship control is pretty intuitive (although there's lots of keys to learn for nav commands and weapon systems and things), and it is very, very pretty.

Well, I got in it for free, so I can afford to be optimistic.

Not really sure why this would breed optimism. These things are the things that are basically solved problems. They're the minimum acceptable threshold to get a playable space flight game.

Once again, we come back to this: If he had said "I'm gonna make a new singleplayer spaceflight game in the vein of Wing Commander!" then this WOULD be grounds for optimism, because this is probably the HARDEST part of making a good single player spaceflight sim. But they're among the easiest parts of making a massively multiplayer spaceflightradingplanetconqueringeveonlinealike.

Gothic 10-30-2015 02:56 PM

All I was hoping for was a Privateer like MMOG with combat similar to the game Jump Gate. When I heard of the plans for FPS combat in ships I became wary, we had Star Wars battle front for that. A few squads I am in from the old Jumpgate days bought an Idris.

BigT 10-30-2015 03:15 PM

I would definitely hope not. Not even the lofty goals of this game appeal to me. The funding system seems to be large microtransactions before the game is even released.

This seems to be the type of game that should be released in pieces, anyways. What you guys describe as expansions to Elite sounds like the right direction to go. Make a core game, sell that game, then sell more stuff to attach to it.

drachillix 01-17-2016 06:40 PM

I am one of the older backers of the game and occasionally bump my package with a little larger ship.

I have flown my ships around a bit, I know this is a process and that most of this process is usually hidden from the end users. It is ambitious and I full well realize that the $250 or so I have invested in the game could very well be wasted. Some people buy expensive gym equipment and use it twice before letting it collect dust in the garage.

The last couple months have been seeing alot of progress with flyable ships and filling out of features. I think it will work, I am not holding my breath for any given release date or demanding my current ship (Constellation) be 100% ready.

If they don't make a decent working game, it isn't because they are not trying. They have sufficient funding and not all of the funding is coming from the crowdfunding. Chris Roberts was by no stretch of the imagination broke when he started this whole thing.

The "damning article" from the escapist is pretty much parroting Derek Smart, a developer who failed to make a similar game many years ago. Google "Battlecruiser 3000AD" for a lovely tale of disaster 10 years in the making. Maybe he is speaking from his own failed experience, maybe its just sour grapes. <shrug>

As far as the price tags, like many things in life, you can pay for experiences. Packages offering spending a day at the studio, lunch with Chris Roberts, etc are common to KS campaigns and many of them are not cheap options. Those of us not working in game development might like such options just as much as someone who partakes of $1K bottles of champagne in a fancy nightclub.

Johnny Bravo 01-17-2016 06:56 PM

The bump prompted me to check up on the game's progress. Apparently they released 2.1 of their "alpha" today. A mere $410 will net you the two-ship Aegis Fighter Pack.

At this point, I honestly don't know how this game will ever live up to its own hype train. It's certainly earned its place in history, for good or ill.

SenorBeef 01-17-2016 07:01 PM

I think there's a circle jerk against this game in a lot of the gaming media because it's so ambitious and so obviously bucks the trends of gaming through rehashing, unambitious development, short turnaround games pumping out iterative franchises, dumbing down, consolization, etc.

And there are a lot of console users who resent technically ambitious games they'll never be able to play and instead just try to bash it.

Why anyone gives the slightest fuck what Derek Smart thinks I have no idea.

I'm still cautiously optimistic.

drachillix 01-17-2016 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo (Post 19024571)
The bump prompted me to check up on the game's progress. Apparently they released 2.1 of their "alpha" today. A mere $410 will net you the two-ship Aegis Fighter Pack.

At this point, I honestly don't know how this game will ever live up to its own hype train. It's certainly earned its place in history, for good or ill.

The basic ship packs are still $45. That fighter pack is by no stretch of the imagination required to play.

drachillix 01-17-2016 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ike Witt (Post 18768732)
$90+ for an in game ship? Is that for real? Pay to win is no way to make an MMO.

The pre-purchased ships can be earned in game...however many of those ships will take a long time to earn. There are no "super duper bulletproof" ships, and the biggest player controlled ships are a handful of frigates that could be defeated by a skilled squadron of $45 starter players if they are not supported. The guy who pays for the massive ship packages does not have the ability to conquer planets or anything.

drachillix 01-17-2016 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenorBeef (Post 19024582)
I think there's a circle jerk against this game in a lot of the gaming media because it's so ambitious and so obviously bucks the trends of gaming through rehashing, unambitious development, short turnaround games pumping out iterative franchises, dumbing down, consolization, etc.

And there are a lot of console users who resent technically ambitious games they'll never be able to play and instead just try to bash it.

Why anyone gives the slightest fuck what Derek Smart thinks I have no idea.

I'm still cautiously optimistic.

I agree, I think there is way too much focus on "high twitch" gaming and looking for the "optimized" method or ultimate sniper perch to rack up kills.

The folks like that hate the game because characters can be killed. Combat centric occupations like piracy will be dangerous and loss of ships and advancement are real possibilities. The insurance program basically hands a cash payout to your "heir" < a fresh character> if you are killed.

Being smart, choosing your battles wisely, and knowing when to run or not bite off more than you can chew are valuable. This is the exact opposite of high twitch meat-grinders like Battlefield or Call of Duty. Rumors of bounty systems for players killing characters in ejection pods and such are popular ideas. A large chunk or players are looking to operate as ambulances, tow trucks, and field repair services. Being a pirate in a crippled ship and being worth more in bounty than as a repair client will not be a pleasant place to be.

drachillix 01-17-2016 07:36 PM

The ship packages
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/game-packages

the ship I have at the moment.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/p...llation-Taurus

Johnny Bravo 01-17-2016 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenorBeef (Post 19024582)
I think there's a circle jerk against this game in a lot of the gaming media because it's so ambitious and so obviously bucks the trends of gaming through rehashing, unambitious development, short turnaround games pumping out iterative franchises, dumbing down, consolization, etc.

And there are a lot of console users who resent technically ambitious games they'll never be able to play and instead just try to bash it.

Well... no, I don't think so. I think it's more that Chris Roberts's Kickstarter, the subsequent fundraising, and the way money has been spent has been viewed by a lot of folks (console users and reasonable people both, natch) as hubristic and spendthrift. Obviously this isn't the case for many if not most of the of the backers, who remain very optimistic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenorBeef (Post 19024582)
Why anyone gives the slightest fuck what Derek Smart thinks I have no idea.

The Escapist's article was much more interesting for the ex-employee interviews than for the Derek Smart bits, which had already been documented elsewhere.

Maybe those employees were lying - time will tell.

Chronos 01-18-2016 12:15 AM

Isn't the fact that it's been in development for so long and is still only in alpha (a very expensive paid alpha, at that) enough reason to hate it? And the last few months have seen a lot of progress in flyable ships? What does that mean, that they weren't flyable before? That they're still not flyable, but they're closer to being flyable? If you're this far along in development and you're still making progress on something that fundamental, there's something seriously wrong.

drachillix 01-18-2016 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 19025237)
Isn't the fact that it's been in development for so long and is still only in alpha (a very expensive paid alpha, at that) enough reason to hate it? And the last few months have seen a lot of progress in flyable ships? What does that mean, that they weren't flyable before? That they're still not flyable, but they're closer to being flyable? If you're this far along in development and you're still making progress on something that fundamental, there's something seriously wrong.

Vs
Diablo 3?
Fallout 3
Half life 2
Neverwinter Nights
Team Fortress 2
Warcraft3
Spore

Many of those had much longer development and were sequels with existing lore, gameplay structure, graphical styling, and in many cases dev teams that had worked on the prequels.

I expect a good game to take 3-5 years to happen, we are just past 3.

SenorBeef 01-18-2016 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 19025237)
Isn't the fact that it's been in development for so long and is still only in alpha (a very expensive paid alpha, at that) enough reason to hate it? And the last few months have seen a lot of progress in flyable ships? What does that mean, that they weren't flyable before? That they're still not flyable, but they're closer to being flyable? If you're this far along in development and you're still making progress on something that fundamental, there's something seriously wrong.

Wha? You're mad that they're taking time to craft an incredibly ambitious, large, and detailed game? Would you rather they be like Ubisoft and crank out another assassin's creed game every 9 months?

3 years is not at all a very long development time for a game. Even mildly ambitious games are a huge amount of work.

If you're mad that you can only fly this or that, then obviously crowdfunding this game isn't for you, and you wouldn't (or shouldn't) have done it.

I would much rather have the most ambitious game of all time after 5 years than shoveled shit after 2.

drachillix 01-18-2016 03:12 AM

I am also expecting huge things but I am willing to wait for them. If CIG pulls off a significant percentage of its promised game it is going to be groundbreaking on several levels.

I am a die hard space gamer, Cosmic balance, the wing commander series, alliegance, freespace, XvT, pretty much every space x4 title in existence, ST:O. I have always craved more detail.

Palooka 01-18-2016 07:31 AM

Until the recent burst of visible progress, it was easy to get the impression that they were spending more time producing $200 microtransactions than the game.

Johnny Bravo 01-18-2016 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenorBeef (Post 19025324)
3 years is not at all a very long development time for a game. Even mildly ambitious games are a huge amount of work.

We're in year 5 right now - the game's been in development since October 2011.

Even the current release of "end of 2016" puts it at the 6 year mark, and that release was, I believe, set before the pushback of certain other goals like the Star Marine module. Drachillix can correct me there if I'm wrong.

Airk 01-18-2016 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drachillix (Post 19024606)
The pre-purchased ships can be earned in game...however many of those ships will take a long time to earn. There are no "super duper bulletproof" ships, and the biggest player controlled ships are a handful of frigates that could be defeated by a skilled squadron of $45 starter players if they are not supported. The guy who pays for the massive ship packages does not have the ability to conquer planets or anything.

...

So you're saying it's totally not Pay-to-win because "the biggest ships can totally be taken down by a skilled squadron" if no one is around to protect them?

Teuton 01-18-2016 11:53 AM

I think it would be a different conversation if Elite: Dangerous hadn't come along and got itself released last year.

drachillix 01-18-2016 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airk (Post 19025858)
...

So you're saying it's totally not Pay-to-win because "the biggest ships can totally be taken down by a skilled squadron" if no one is around to protect them?

a $450 team being able to take out a $2500 ship does not sound like PTW. I would tend to define PTW as game breaking. The hundred or so frigates and corvettes out of over a million players is not.

There will also be plenty of players out there looking to prove themselves by killing or capturing those ships, making them popular targets for pirate groups.

Czarcasm 01-18-2016 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drachillix (Post 19026143)
a $450 team being able to take out a $2500 ship does not sound like PTW. I would tend to define PTW as game breaking. The hundred or so frigates and corvettes out of over a million players is not.

There will also be plenty of players out there looking to prove themselves by killing or capturing those ships, making them popular targets for pirate groups.

I'm confused as to what $2500 ship is being taken out by a $450 team in this scenario. Are you perhaps referring to $2700 package of ships and equipment?

drachillix 01-18-2016 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 19026198)
I'm confused as to what $2500 ship is being taken out by a $450 team in this scenario. Are you perhaps referring to $2700 package of ships and equipment?

There are a couple larger ships which were available for limited sale namely the Idris Frigate Which if I recall correctly was offered for sale standalone for $2500.

Having a big bad ship is not in and of itself any guarantee of invincibility. Larger ships will be able to take immense amounts of punishment before being destroyed but can be rendered combat ineffective without being destroyed. Targeting of and damage to critical subsystems like turrets, engines, powerplants, is a valid tactic. An opposing pilot who knows where the power systems/avionics/main power conduits/etc. on a given ship can focus fire on that area hoping that a shot that penetrates the hull will destroy/cripple the system leaving the ship disabled but minimally damaged. The amount of planned damage possibilities is huge and is one of the time issues with ship creation is they are not just modeling a frame and skin, they are placing pathing for power, data, fuel lines, locations of sensors, thrusters, and a broad variety of ship systems that can be individually damaged both by ship to ship weapon fire or in some cases small arms and grenades in boarding actions.

drachillix 01-18-2016 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smiling bandit (Post 18812914)
If I'm reading this right, they have three separate but intertwined games?

The plan is:

Arena Commander (A PVP duelling circuit) will as I understand it become more like a pro sporting arena within the game.

Star Citizen: Open world MMO

- Squadron42 S42 is a "single player campaign" much like playing the old wing commander games. You join the UEE navy as a fighter pilot and go to war. It eventually ends rolling you out into SC with some extra gear/skills/cash.


Star marine I think was more just a test bed for the FPS aspects of SC. I am about 90% sure it was never planned to be a permanent separate entity.

Czarcasm 01-18-2016 04:52 PM

Would it be wrong to assume that if someone was so into this game that they would buy a $2500 Idris Frigate, they would also be knowledgeable enough to realize their prize ship would need protection and either buy accordingly or wait until they accumulated the funds to do so before setting sail(so to speak)? That still makes it a game of money, with the haves always being able to beat the shit out of the have-nots. While it might be possible for the have-nots to acquire the bigger toys through hard work, the haves are playing the same game at the same rate and getting the same benefits...but with a major headstart that cannot be fixed.

drachillix 01-18-2016 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 19026739)
Would it be wrong to assume that if someone was so into this game that they would buy a $2500 Idris Frigate, they would also be knowledgeable enough to realize their prize ship would need protection and either buy accordingly or wait until they accumulated the funds to do so before setting sail(so to speak)? That still makes it a game of money, with the haves always being able to beat the shit out of the have-nots. While it might be possible for the have-nots to acquire the bigger toys through hard work, the haves are playing the same game at the same rate and getting the same benefits...but with a major headstart that cannot be fixed.

Yes but this was done to help fund the game and are very limited in quantitiy. Once the game goes live, you will not be able to buy those ships with IRL money. So its not like I can just "buy my way" to the big leagues unless I do it as an early backer. Those ships are not for sale anymore except as part of a $5-15K package. If someone wants to dump that much money in, I dont care if they start with a bigger fancier ship hes earned the privelege. Hes a hefty chunk of the reason the game exisits.

Johnny Bravo 01-19-2016 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drachillix (Post 19026722)
Star marine I think was more just a test bed for the FPS aspects of SC. I am about 90% sure it was never planned to be a permanent separate entity.

It's difficult to find info about stuff that's been delayed indefinitely, but my understanding is that the plan had been to release "Star Marine" as a standalone module to players at some point back in 2015 - it was supposed to have represented the core gameplay of Squadron 42, but I guess also function as a multiplayer shooter for backers to play while waiting on the full game.

Either way, it's not really a thing anymore. I guess it's been rolled back into the overall Star Citizen project.

drachillix 01-19-2016 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo (Post 19028275)
It's difficult to find info about stuff that's been delayed indefinitely, but my understanding is that the plan had been to release "Star Marine" as a standalone module to players at some point back in 2015 - it was supposed to have represented the core gameplay of Squadron 42, but I guess also function as a multiplayer shooter for backers to play while waiting on the full game.

Either way, it's not really a thing anymore. I guess it's been rolled back into the overall Star Citizen project.

The SM module was also being handled by a subcontracted developer Illfonic IIRC. CIG has since stopped using them allegedly due to them being unable to deliver as promised ( I do not know details but some of the features CIG wants are way above and beyond normal FPS)

I am sure boarding actions will be part of S42 but the core gameplay will be piloting/ship operations. The SM environment is already part of the current live build. There is no dividing line between SC and SM, they are part of the same environment.

Teuton 01-19-2016 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drachillix (Post 19028787)
The SM environment is already part of the current live build.

What do you mean by this? The "current live build" of anything Star Citizen that backers can play appears to consist entirely of Arena Commander.

Johnny Bravo 01-19-2016 04:54 PM

It looks like the 2.0 release from 12/12/15 has a FPS component. It advertises:

Quote:

Recharging energy weapons.
In-game pick-ups including ballistic weapons, ammo and MediPens.
Player healing.
Due to the open-world architecture of the Crusader system, FPS combat can occur on space stations, on the decks of ships, or even while engaged in EVA.
A space station location specifically designed for and dedicated to FPS combat, including many stores and caches of personal weapons.
Have any backers here played it? How is it compared to extant shooters at least in terms of its bones? Obviously the feature list are going to be pretty limited.

drachillix 01-19-2016 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo (Post 19029609)
Have any backers here played it? How is it compared to extant shooters at least in terms of its bones? Obviously the feature list are going to be pretty limited.

Its pretty, but my pc has a hard time with it even on medium detail. I have held off on a vga card till things get more developed. Its just an open world...no missions, no objective, just occasional firefights about whos gonna drag a noodle machine home.

Enilno 01-20-2016 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo (Post 19029609)
Have any backers here played it? How is it compared to extant shooters at least in terms of its bones? Obviously the feature list are going to be pretty limited.

There's potential, but it's still far from ready. The FPS part of the open world module is very clunky. Gun handling doesn't feel great. As a pure FPS I'm not convinced yet. But the potential is in seemless transition from flight combat to FPS, freefall combat, and emphasis on 'realism' rather than twitchy combat, more like Arma rather than CoD. The bones of that are there, but the implementation still needs a lot of work.

My limited experience consisted of me getting ambushed and gunned down while landing at a space station, before I knew that there were guns to be found in the module. After that I was always careful to make sure the coast was clear when I land. So later I was exploring a different station, and noticed someone plinking my shields. Well, a guy with a submachine gun doesn't fare too well against space fighter grade weapons. I didn't even have to feel guilty about it since he shot first.

Czarcasm 07-16-2016 04:14 PM

Bumping this because some players seem to be tired of waiting...and one player demanded, and got, a refund.

Johnny Bravo 07-16-2016 06:14 PM

Six months on, any Doper updates?

Lok 07-16-2016 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo (Post 19482606)
Six months on, any Doper updates?

You know. I think I backed this thing. I should check and see what is happening with it.

smiling bandit 07-16-2016 09:05 PM

So, after people answered me questions late last year, (and a hearty Thanks! to everyone who answered), I got very interested in this game from an industry standpoint. I should point out here that I am 100% not an expert in any sense. I do not make games, don't invest in the industry, and don't do games reporting or anything. At the same time, I find the industry fascinating and like to research everything relating to that.

If people are interested, there's a free-fly option next week, where you can download and play for a week. https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/201...ly-week-trial/

Push come to shove, I hope things turn out well, but admittedly it doesn't seem likely. After years of development, the games still in alpha and doesn't realistically seem close to market-ready.

nightshadea 07-18-2016 09:17 PM

I read a while that Roberts and co was being investigated by the ftc or something close to that (might of been a state agency ) because people were starting to complain that they were getting ripped off .... was there something to that ?

Battle Pope 07-18-2016 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 19482354)
Bumping this because some players seem to be tired of waiting...and one player demanded, and got, a refund.

I finally got jack of waiting for any sort of development past being a starship buying simulator and just a few days ago sent them a cancellation/refund request citing the relevant sections of Australian consumer law plus websites (including the fact that blanket 'no refund's' doesn't fly under the laws here.

No response yet. If I get a refund fine, if I don't then I'll consider it US$35 lost and not deal with them again.

Ethilrist 07-18-2016 10:09 PM

Co-worker who's a big fan just said they pushed out an update a few weeks ago that left a lot of older machines in the dust, so now it looks like even if it ever does ship, my machine won't run it.

Johnny Bravo 07-18-2016 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Battle Pope (Post 19487596)
I finally got jack of waiting for any sort of development past being a starship buying simulator and just a few days ago sent them a cancellation/refund request citing the relevant sections of Australian consumer law plus websites (including the fact that blanket 'no refund's' doesn't fly under the laws here.

No response yet. If I get a refund fine, if I don't then I'll consider it US$35 lost and not deal with them again.

You should contact whoever in Australia is in charge of consumer protection. I honestly believe that the only way this game ever gets finished is if people start demanding (and actually getting) refunds. Otherwise Roberts just gets to keep paying him and his wife a handsome salary out of their enormous pile of money.

Battle Pope 07-19-2016 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo (Post 19487785)
You should contact whoever in Australia is in charge of consumer protection. I honestly believe that the only way this game ever gets finished is if people start demanding (and actually getting) refunds. Otherwise Roberts just gets to keep paying him and his wife a handsome salary out of their enormous pile of money.

If they do try to dodge out of things I will at least forward their email onto Consumer Affairs to get their take on the matter.

Battle Pope 07-25-2016 06:31 PM

Just bumping this to note that after a few back-and-forth emails I've been issued a full refund (and had my entire account closed as a small "FU" apparently) so it is possible.

CandidGamera 07-26-2016 09:44 AM

Honestly, I think the minimum specs have edged past my PC at this point, so whatever they eventually deliver won't be useful to me in the way that was promised. I wonder if it's worth pursuing a refund for myself on that basis.

Battle Pope 07-26-2016 07:30 PM

It may be but you'll probably need to be able to quote the specific consumer law that you are invoking in your state or country and send them a link a website.

For instance: a blanket 'no refunds' policy isn't legal under Australia's consumer law so no matter what their TOS says it won't fly as a reason to not refund.

Czarcasm 07-26-2016 11:32 PM

If you want to get a refund, you may want to take a look at this handy little guide.

Battle Pope 07-27-2016 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 19509053)

Thanks. That made for fascinating reading.

CandidGamera 07-27-2016 09:25 AM

May not be worth the hassle, I only pledged at a low level.

Kinthalis 08-22-2016 02:18 PM

So uh... they showed alpha 3.0 live at Gamescom, and my faith in this game has been restored.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GucYhhLwIxg

The technology on display here is beyond anything I've ever seen, beyond anything any AAA game has even ever attempted.

This looks AMAZING. The little boy in me who dreamed of playing a game like this was just jumping up and down gleefully while watching that demo.

Kinthalis 08-22-2016 02:47 PM

Gonna finish up the demo tonight, but man, I'm just in awe f this game.

Of course with the flop and disappointment and outright lies we got from No Man's Sky, I'm still worried about what will actually ship, but so far it just looks amazing.

Can you imagine the Cecil Adams, Piloted by the brave crew of the Straight Dope?

Ike Witt 08-22-2016 02:49 PM

As a tech demo it is impressive. Thing is, the game has been an impressive demo/idea for many years and many millions of dollars.

Kinthalis 08-22-2016 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ike Witt (Post 19573504)
As a tech demo it is impressive. Thing is, the game has been an impressive demo/idea for many years and many millions of dollars.

Isn't that all games though?

I hear most games are glorified tech demos, if even that up until close to release. This game is doing stuff no one else is, and we are seeing results. Maybe not as fast as we would like, but it seems to be happening.

Duke of Rat 08-22-2016 02:56 PM

PCs will have been replaced by thought control neural interface modules by the time they release the thing.

Kinthalis 08-22-2016 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Rat (Post 19573534)
PCs will have been replaced by thought control neural interface modules by the time they release the thing.

Even better!

Czarcasm 08-22-2016 03:18 PM

You were impressed by yet another spiffy demo at a show? Not interested, unless he allows you to buy the demo and take it home with you. Did they happen to mention a release date and/or the updated equipment requirements for this newest speculative version?

Johnny Bravo 08-22-2016 04:04 PM

If this game delivers on its promises (and part of that includes the game not being Pay-to-Win in favor of the folks who have spend hundreds and thousands of dollar at this point), then I will be first in line to pick up a copy.

But I'll believe it when I see it, and not a moment before. A tech demo at a convention is not proof that Roberts is not continuing to rip off his backers.

Kinthalis 08-22-2016 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 19573634)
You were impressed by yet another spiffy demo at a show? Not interested, unless he allows you to buy the demo and take it home with you. Did they happen to mention a release date and/or the updated equipment requirements for this newest speculative version?

I believe there's an update hitting in a few days that will have planet/moon surfaces, but stuff from the demo they showed at Gamescom is not scheduled for release until early next year.

And yeah, I was totally impressed. I don't think you can watch it and not be, unless you have no interest in the genre. I don't think there's a release date, and I doubt the game will come out in 1.0 form until at least 2018.

It took Bioware from 2002 to 2009 to put out Dragon Age: Origins. With full scale development starting in 2004. I have no doubts this is a much bigger undertaking. Totally see the point of not being excited until well, closer to 2018, assuming it shows up by then, but this stuff is extremely impressive form a technology and gameplay perspective.

As a space nerd and well, loving space games since I was a kid, its hard not to be excited, even as I absolutely agree that there's a possibility this is not going to pan out as expected.

drachillix 08-22-2016 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kinthalis (Post 19573834)
As a space nerd and well, loving space games since I was a kid, its hard not to be excited, even as I absolutely agree that there's a possibility this is not going to pan out as expected.

The inside/outside bases being part of the same instance is a very nice touch, especially since it has historically been just random people walking by as graphics vs seeing the actual players running around.

The "assist" with the last pirate was good for a chuckle as well.

drachillix 08-22-2016 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CandidGamera (Post 19509676)
May not be worth the hassle, I only pledged at a low level.

I have "bumped" my ship a few times and currently own:

A RSI Constellation - Tarus
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/p...llation-Taurus

A Drake Cutlass Red
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/p...ss/Cutlass-Red

Although I am a huge fanboy, I do have a few doubts. I am very happy to see the recent demo and feel like more of the pieces are dropping into place.

I am not even considering requesting a refund at this point. Yeah, its been forever, but the money was spent long ago... I will just be happy to be starting with a ship than can fit a newbie ships in its cargo bay :D (I think an aurora will just barely fit)

Czarcasm 08-23-2016 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drachillix (Post 19575036)
I have "bumped" my ship a few times and currently own:

A RSI Constellation - Tarus
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/p...llation-Taurus

A Drake Cutlass Red
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/p...ss/Cutlass-Red

Although I am a huge fanboy, I do have a few doubts. I am very happy to see the recent demo and feel like more of the pieces are dropping into place.

I am not even considering requesting a refund at this point. Yeah, its been forever, but the money was spent long ago... I will just be happy to be starting with a ship than can fit a newbie ships in its cargo bay :D (I think an aurora will just barely fit)

How much money would you estimate you have put into this game so far, including any startup money donated(if any)?

Johnny Bravo 08-23-2016 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo (Post 18790007)
Me, I'm happy spending 60 bucks on No Man's Sky, which will likely also be a letdown in comparison to its hype.

Well I was right about the letdown bit, but wrong about being happy to spend the money. I haven't bought the game yet and probably won't until I can get it for cheaper (or the devs put out some major content updates).

Teuton 08-23-2016 12:23 PM

I'm updating my copy again to have a look at any changes since last time. I haven't actually paid any money into it at all - I got a copy of the game and a flyable ship with my graphics card, but I have no intention at all in paying more money for another ship.

Teuton 08-23-2016 04:08 PM

Played a bit, there's a fair amount more than last time I played, but it's still very obviously alpha.

Impressive, though. You now wake up in a bunk, make your way through a graphically impressive base - you can look out through the windows and see people's ships on the landing pads outside. You talk to the computer, get your ship ready to launch, and then you can go outside with your suit on and walk your way over to your pad. Get into the ship, take off, fly around a bit.


As I said earlier in the thread, I think I'd be a lot more excited about this if Elite Dangerous hadn't come along and got a lot more of the groundwork in, with plans for more into the future. There's still no 'game' here.

drachillix 08-23-2016 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 19575748)
How much money would you estimate you have put into this game so far, including any startup money donated(if any)?

Thats about $250 for both of them, but they both started as much cheaper ships that I bumped up $20-30 at a time over the last few years. Initial investment was $120.

Johnny Bravo 08-23-2016 04:31 PM

So if we take its eventual release as a given, how much (or what pieces) of the promised gameplay would you need in order to feel like you've gotten your money's worth?

drachillix 08-23-2016 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo (Post 19576819)
So if we take its eventual release as a given, how much (or what pieces) of the promised gameplay would you need in order to feel like you've gotten your money's worth?

I tend to look at kickstarters as a crapshoot. So if it fails, it fails, as a self employed person I spend way more on ideas that didnt work out all the time. I also regularly purchase early access games on steam. A few times I have been disappointed, but more often I got a decent game I was happy with.

My "guideline" if you will is $1 an hour. If I spend $30 on a game and it amused me for 30 hours, I am a happy customer.

Johnny Bravo 10-19-2016 06:05 PM

http://www.polygon.com/2016/10/10/13...itizencon-2016

Somebody mentioned this to me today - I hadn't checked on the game in a while. Squadron 42 has been delayed until some time next year (no date), and the team is going to slow its release schedule, possibly only doing quarterly releases.

Any backers have insight about the current state of the alpha?

Czarcasm 10-19-2016 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo (Post 19713709)
http://www.polygon.com/2016/10/10/13...itizencon-2016

Somebody mentioned this to me today - I hadn't checked on the game in a while. Squadron 42 has been delayed until some time next year (no date), and the team is going to slow its release schedule, possibly only doing quarterly releases.

Any backers have insight about the current state of the alpha?

From your link:
Quote:

Roberts revealed that the pre-sale of the most recent new ship, the RSI Polaris, resulted in their most successful day of crowdfunding yet. The virtual ship costs $750, and is not yet playable in-game.

The Star Citizen website claims that the game project has raised a total of more than $127 million dollars.
750 bucks for a virtual ship.
For a game that isn't playable yet, and has no projected release date for one small section of it, let alone the whole thing.

edited to add: Perhaps the thread title should be modified to read "Star Citizen is the far, far Future of PC Gaming..."?

msmith537 10-19-2016 08:48 PM

I don't get it? People are buy an unfinished game you can't even play yet? In some cases, spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars for in game content? That's insane. I've bought "in development" games before (DayZ and Space Engineers). But I only spent like $25 and got hundreds or thousands of hours of mostly quality gameplay. I didn't buy No Man's Sky because the reviews cut it to pieces.

Sorry, but I just don't get it. Are people afraid they will run out of copies once it's released?

RickJay 10-19-2016 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 19714055)
From your link:
750 bucks for a virtual ship.

Look, I have to say it 'cause someone's going to; who owns this game company, Donald Trump?

Czarcasm 10-19-2016 10:50 PM

I think it's an emotional investment the investors have-they have literally spent too much time and too much money to admit that they blew it and, like a gambler that has blown the paycheck and should have left the casino many hours ago, they feel the only way they can retain their honor is to double-down on the bet and pray it pays off.

SenorBeef 10-20-2016 07:27 AM

People are so damn impatient. I don't know why people are treating this as vaporware. We're regularing seeing new, extended footage with new features all the time. A game like this could easily take 5 or 6 years to develop. It's a huge, ambitious, revolutionary game. It's not a yearly installment of Call of Duty that changed 3 minor things.

It's just that usually when this happens, it's kept quiet until a year or two until it's ready to release. So people aren't used to hearing about a game for 6 years, so they assume that means this one was vaporware. But obviously given the crowd funding and business model, this one couldn't have received 4 years of silent development before announcement.

I don't know why people get so excited for a game that they get angry constantly that it isn't out yet. Just wait until it's released and see then if it's worthwhile.

Skywatcher 10-20-2016 11:17 AM

For one thing: $750 for a ship that has a possibility of never arriving.

A $60 pre-order gets you all het up but this doesn't? The mind boggles.

RickJay 10-20-2016 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenorBeef (Post 19715364)
People are so damn impatient. I don't know why people are treating this as vaporware. We're regularing seeing new, extended footage with new features all the time. A game like this could easily take 5 or 6 years to develop. It's a huge, ambitious, revolutionary game. It's not a yearly installment of Call of Duty that changed 3 minor things.

I can totally understand that. What I do not understand is people paying huge amounts of money for it. $750 for a ship? For $750 I want a piece of the action. Stock in the company.

Games take many years and millions to develop and make. But so do movies. I'll pay my money to see the next Batman movie when it's actually a finished product ready for me to enjoy it.

If Star Citizen ever happens, I'll buy it and enjoy it for $60. Until then it is flatly insane to pay hundreds of dollars for "ships" in a game that is not actually a game.

Idle Thoughts 10-20-2016 06:50 PM

Mod note
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skywatcher (Post 19715882)
A $60 pre-order gets you all het up but this doesn't? The mind boggles.

Unless you want another warning, drop this. For one, you were told to drop it in the original thread, but for two, this doesn't even have any bearing on THIS thread. Don't bring up other topics/posts in threads not about them, please.

If you are really still upset over it, make a Pit thread.

SenorBeef, please don't get yourself into trouble by replying. Make a Pit thread, one of you, if you want to start quibbling with each other.

Skywatcher 10-20-2016 08:12 PM

I'm not being hostile. Thought that was allowed.

Left Hand of Dorkness 10-20-2016 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 19714769)
I think it's an emotional investment the investors have-they have literally spent too much time and too much money to admit that they blew it and, like a gambler that has blown the paycheck and should have left the casino many hours ago, they feel the only way they can retain their honor is to double-down on the bet and pray it pays off.

Fun game: the dollar auction. If you don't want to read it, the way it works is you auction off $1.00 to the highest bidder, which can be a bid as little as a penny. The only catch is, if your bid is second highest, you still have to pay. That is, if the winning bid is $0.25, and you bid $0.24, the winning bidder pays a quarter and gets the dollar, and you pay $0.24 and get nothing.

I've done it with students (with points they'd earned in another game, instead of with real money). The article's description of the shift in mood is exactly what happens.

Wonder if that's what's going on here?

Idle Thoughts 10-20-2016 09:35 PM

Mod note
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skywatcher (Post 19717153)
I'm not being hostile. Thought that was allowed.

Bringing up bickering from another, outside thread (especially one you were warned over) in a different thread usually isn't allowed, no.

Please make a thread in ATMB if you have any further questions or want to contest the note or ask about it further.

Enilno 10-21-2016 12:08 PM

$750 for a ship is pretty silly. But as a backer who has pledged over $200 over time I can share a bit of my personal experience.

It started innocent enough. When the game was first announced I was pretty excited, and backed the game with a starter package. Over time my excitement has waxed and waned, but from time to time there would seem to be some decent progress and Iíd end up trading up. Their store system makes it very easy to exchange you package for something else through store credit. So after a while I find myself having spent more than I had planned, because each step seemed incremental.

Would I do it all over again? No, probably not. Seeing the release date slip and the feature bloat, it isnít really what I was expecting. But I donít really regret spending it. The developers have been pretty open about everything, and while there has been a lot of hype, they havenít shown anything thatís misleading. Pretty much everything theyíve shown in demonstrations previously has been released to the public in the alpha test. Iím still hopeful that the final product will be good, even if it ends up being many years later than originally promised.

The development process of this game has been pretty interesting to see. The amount of behind the scenes content being released is huge. I think it is pretty unique in game development, in that itís almost like a reality show. They in fact produced an actual reality show, as a contest to design a ship that will appear in the final game (the team I was rooting for lost). I think itís been both a boon and a handicap to the developers. While theyíve attracted a lot of die-hard fans, theyíve also gotten a lot of criticism. It made the hype train worse and probably added to the partisanship of the fans and critics. Yes, a lot of fans will bash any hints of criticism, probably at least in part because theyíre way too invested in this game, but I think the opposite is also true, that some critics are overly critical because of the backlash against the hype.

Anyways, for myself, Iíve settled into a Ďwait and seeí attitude. The latest tech demos shown are genuinely impressive, and while I have always been annoyed by the overly priced ships, itís true that nobody actually needs to buy them. The basic package is I believe $45 which will let you try the alpha client, and there are occasional promotions where anyone can try it without pledging.

In the end I think there is a difference between pre-ordering a game and pledging to support the development of a game. Whether or not it is actually good for gamers, I donít know. But I have gotten some enjoyment out of seeing the process of the crowdfunding and development, and thereís always the chance that the game will turn out to be good. And if not, well thatíll be entertaining in a whole different way.

Lok 10-21-2016 03:09 PM

I only have the basic package of this, I think anyway, I need to check. But I certainly haven't spent multiple hundreds on it. OTOH, I ended up spending over $800 on Shroud of the Avatar. Knight Marshal I think. I could have easily spent more with more time. Thank ghu there wasn't more time. :p

Teuton 10-21-2016 04:18 PM

Fall 2016 Free Fly is now active.

This means that you can get in game yourselves, without paying anything, and have a look around at what they've got available at the moment.

Click here to get started.

Czarcasm 10-21-2016 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teuton (Post 19719053)
Fall 2016 Free Fly is now active.

This means that you can get in game yourselves, without paying anything, and have a look around at what they've got available at the moment.

Click here to get started.

What are the current hardware and software requirements for running this game?

Teuton 10-21-2016 04:50 PM

There's a list here

My CPU doesn't quite meet the Recommended specs, and it's a bit slow and jittery in places. From the sound of it, though, it's a bit slow and jittery in places for everyone. It is alpha, after all.

RickJay 10-31-2016 12:44 PM

Out of curiosity, I did some research into the full history of Star Citizen.

The game is doomed. I guess "Vaporware" is the wrong term, because "vaporware" doesn't really fit the business moderl Star Citizen is being built under. "Ponzi scheme" is also not exactly right, because I think Chris Roberts really is trying to produce a game. But it's become a fundraising effort, not a game design.

This is going to end very, very badly.

Skywatcher 10-31-2016 01:10 PM

It's been just over five years since the first public reveal and, compared to the stated goals, there's still virtually nothing for the public to actually take home to play. Seems the notion that this game has a strong possibility of not meeting its such lofty expectations, if even ever released in any meaningful way, is quite troubling for some people.

Czarcasm 10-31-2016 01:23 PM

Latest fact-check update. Read it and weep.

SenorBeef 10-31-2016 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJay (Post 19741703)
Out of curiosity, I did some research into the full history of Star Citizen.

The game is doomed. I guess "Vaporware" is the wrong term, because "vaporware" doesn't really fit the business moderl Star Citizen is being built under. "Ponzi scheme" is also not exactly right, because I think Chris Roberts really is trying to produce a game. But it's become a fundraising effort, not a game design.

This is going to end very, very badly.


This is sort of like posting "I did some research on the Hillary campaign guys. I'm not going to get into any details, but she's going to lose big. The whole thing is a sham"

If you're going to post that, you might as well share your reasoning.

I don't know why anyone keeps up with the day to day development of any game, anyway. It just makes people miserable. They get so invested in it and then impatient and any delay or flaw or change in planned feature upsets them.

That said: ambitious game development takes time. CoD and Assassin's Creed crank out similar games every two years - that's two years for a basic iteration of the same formula for the same engine. (They release every year, because they're alternating two development studios).

Something like GTA 5, which is more ambitious than those games, but not nearly as ambitious as Star Citizen, took 5 years. It's just that they normally don't announce the game until 6 months to a year before it's ready for release, so you aren't sitting there for 5 years impatiently growing angry that this game you've hyped yourself up for isn't being delivered. So when you're used to games being released 6-12 months after they're announced, this seems like it's taking way abnormally long and there must be something horrible wrong.

Star Citizen is basically the most ambitious game of all time, by a large margin - way bigger than something like GTA 5 which took 5 years. From what I've heard, while they did start working on the project 5 years ago, they didn't know the scope of the money they'd raise for the first year or year and a half, and they basically scrapped what they'd done at that point to re-scope the game to be bigger. So full time development of what the game is now has only been going on for about 3 years.

It's also unsurprising that there's not a lot out there that's playable by players. That doesn't mean it's nowhere near completion. Some games, basically early access type games, are designed to have a playable version of it available through all stages of development where they iteratively add to a basically complete gameplay loop. Others aren't - having a user-playable version throughout development isn't important and they create all the different components independently in a way that only cohesively comes together towards the end. The latter is actually probably the typical way it goes when building a new project. The development path of a game where you can essentially play it as early access is unusual and generally slows down development since you have to worry about the player experience at every stage of partial development, not just for the final product.

It may be a failure, I don't know. I personally haven't invested a cent into it. But if someone were to make a huge, ambitious game where they announced the development from the start, this is exactly what it would look like. It would take a long ass time, many times longer than the typical announcement to release cycle of conventionally funded games. So it makes no sense to say "look how long it's taken! the user-playable portion are only small components of the overall game! this game is going to be a failure!" when so far it looks exactly like you'd expect the development to look like.

Skywatcher 10-31-2016 02:05 PM

Quote:

http://gameranx.com/updates/id/73286...f-star-citizen

The Star Citizen project got a new California office by November 2015 (at least it was under construction by that point). For reasons unknown, Roberts decided to move his operation to a place with spaceship decorations and adornments from top to bottom. As it was stated way back in the Holiday Livestream of 2014, they moved to this new location because it had more conference space, room for a motion capture studio, and room for a normal filming set-up. But on top of all that, they went all out with decor in this studio. The most obvious of these examples is the fact that they decided to make a door* thatís designed to look like something from one of Robertsí ships.

:snip:

When it comes to video game development, Star CitizenĎs team is not only comprised of people. They need a building to make it all happen. This is the place where the staff spends their work week (and then some) trying to make the vision of Chris Roberts come to life. But what has been overlooked are the road bumps that happened to the Los Angeles studio itself. One of the obstacles is a legal battle over the construction work thatís been done to it.

:snip:

[T]he question of ďAre backer funds used to cover legal expenses?Ē is now on the table.
*Estimated cost of said door + installation? $21,000.

Vinyl Turnip 10-31-2016 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 19741823)
Latest fact-check update. Read it and weep.

Star Citizen is the future of PC gaming, and always will be!

Skywatcher 10-31-2016 02:30 PM

This is no longer even a game. It's a never ending vanity project.

Airk 10-31-2016 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 19741823)
Latest fact-check update. Read it and weep.

Most of what I got out of that is that Derek Smart is a F-ing jerk.

Skywatcher 10-31-2016 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airk (Post 19742184)
Most of what I got out of that is that Derek Smart is a F-ing jerk.

Try this instead: You don’t even need to understand game development to know what a god damn mess looks like. Assuming there's ever a complete release of any sort, how many backers will find themselves with a computer that is no longer capable of running the game?

Czarcasm 10-31-2016 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airk (Post 19742184)
Most of what I got out of that is that Derek Smart is a F-ing jerk.

1. Did he get any of the facts wrong in that article?
2. have you changed your mind about the game since this post?

Airk 10-31-2016 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 19742239)
1. Did he get any of the facts wrong in that article?

Nope, but several of his comments gave me creepy GamerGate-esque heebie jeebies.

Quote:

2. have you changed your mind about the game since this post?
Nope. I remain, as ever, glad I had the measure of foresight to see that Mr. Roberts was promising well beyond his ability to deliver.

Battle Pope 10-31-2016 05:37 PM

I managed to get my pre-order refunded a few months back after a few emails back and forth and me giving links to the relevant Australian consumer law to them.

After it was refunded they deleted my account completely (which I didn't ask for - I would have been happy to purchase the game once it was released and working) and they appear to have blocked my email from being used to sign up for another one.

A little too much 'if you're not with us you're against us' attitude for my liking.

muldoonthief 11-01-2016 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 19741823)
Latest fact-check update. Read it and weep.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 19742239)
1. Did he get any of the facts wrong in that article?
2. have you changed your mind about the game since this post?

It was a great article right until this sentence:

Quote:

My involvement is no different from any number of causes that people pick up and champion. Be it immigration reform, banking reform, save the whales, anti-vac etc.
Anyone who compares his own cause to the anti-vaxxers has shot himself in the foot, or more accurately blown his leg off somewhere around mid-thigh.

CandidGamera 11-01-2016 08:45 AM

Speaking as an IT professional - you can't finish a project that is constantly changing and growing. It's impossible. That's a fundamental truth of the industry.

Someone sane needs to be in a position of authority over this to say "No, we're not adding more features until we've built something." And there's nobody.

RickJay 11-01-2016 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenorBeef (Post 19741861)
This is sort of like posting "I did some research on the Hillary campaign guys. I'm not going to get into any details, but she's going to lose big. The whole thing is a sham"

If you're going to post that, you might as well share your reasoning.

In short, because the business model smells terrible.

You're correct in that very large games take a long time to develop. "BioShock Infinite" took five years to make, to use a big-budget example. Big things take a long time to make. You can't make a big budget movie in a couple of months, either. Now, Star Citizen is at five years and doesn't appear to be close to release, but let's assume a game of this ambition takes seven years, or whatever. It's not that I find dubious, it's that it's being funded exactly the way you would fund a scam.

The thing is, BioShock Infinite - or GTA V, or any other big game - were not funded in development by having the prospective customers pay hundreds of dollars for pictures of imaginary ships. They were funded by soberly run companies that expected a return on their investment. Companies that, if they were not given material evidence of progress towards a sellable product, would cheerily kill the program and fire the developers.

Yes, I know Kickstarter and the like are a new way of looking at project development, but as you well know this is now way past that sort of thing where you get people to chip in ten bucks to a little project. This is on a different plane. The manner on which Star Citizen earns its money is precisely the manner in which a Nigerian 419 scammer earns their money; it is following the path of a confidence trick.

1. An amazing treasure is promised (in this case, what would in theory be the greatest PC game ever made.)

2. The mark is invited into the confidence of the scammer. They are told they can be special and different - a member of the Squadron, possessed of special things the newbs won't have, and all that sort of thing.

3. Props and razzmatazz are used to convince the mark of the reality of the treasure (demos, the fancy website, pictures of ships, technical requirements and the other traits of a large budget video game.)

4. The mark is asked for a small investment.

5. Once the mark has invested some money, promises of progress towards the treasure are made. As progress is made, the mark is asked for more money, with explanations as to why the money is needed. (In this case, "Stretch goals.")

Obviously this isn't a perfect analogy, because in a classic confidence scam you would not know the actual identity of the scammer and his shills. I really don't think Chris Roberts is out to scam anyone, but the way in which his company is draining the same people for money based on the promise of virtual treasures is indicative of a situation where Mr. Roberts is in serious, serious trouble and he knows it. Perhaps not legally - I am sure they've got their bases reasonably well covered - but businesswise this has every indication of being a case where a business incapable of completing the job has gotten themselves in over their heads.

I have a lot of trouble coming up with any other logical explanation as to why Roberts has reached the point where he's asking hard core marks for $750 for an imaginary ship. (And I do mean imaginary; the "Polaris" ship is just a picture, not actually a thing they've built in the game.) A legitimate business enterprise doesn't keep asking for donations from customers based on empty promises; a legitimate business enterprise finds money from legitimate revenue streams, investors, or loans. There is nothing about the "please give us a lot of money and I promise one day you might have this awesome, awesome ship that presently is not remotely close to being a thing" pitch that should inspire confidence. Everything about that says "This is a business in desperate, desperate trouble."

Skywatcher 11-01-2016 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CandidGamera (Post 19743803)
Speaking as an IT professional - you can't finish a project that is constantly changing and growing. It's impossible. That's a fundamental truth of the industry.

Someone sane needs to be in a position of authority over this to say "No, we're not adding more features until we've built something." And there's nobody.

Seems to me that Chris Roberts has been trying to play catch-up with Elite: Dangerous and failing. Hard.

Czarcasm 11-01-2016 10:29 AM

Now, I'm not into game development, but I've never heard of game patches announced for games that have yet to be released before. I recall seeing patches for games after they have been released to the public, but is 55 patches(to date so far) a normal thing for an unreleased game?

Airk 11-01-2016 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 19744097)
Now, I'm not into game development, but I've never heard of game patches announced for games that have yet to be released before. I recall seeing patches for games after they have been released to the public, but is 55 patches(to date so far) a normal thing for an unreleased game?

Yes, completely. You don't think games bring from the minds of their developers in complete, flawless, bug free code, do you?

The fact that there are patches is about the only sane thing about this game.

Czarcasm 11-01-2016 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airk (Post 19744535)
Yes, completely. You don't think games bring from the minds of their developers in complete, flawless, bug free code, do you?

The fact that there are patches is about the only sane thing about this game.

But it's not a game yet. I've heard of games being in development, but I've never heard of the creation of a game being called a constant series of "patches". When I picked up Diablo II I'm sure it went through a lot of changes and development before it was released to the public, but the first patch was released after the game went on the market.

Airk 11-01-2016 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 19744556)
But it's not a game yet. I've heard of games being in development, but I've never heard of the creation of a game being called a constant series of "patches". When I picked up Diablo II I'm sure it went through a lot of changes and development before it was released to the public, but the first patch was released after the game went on the market.

This makes no sense. You interate on any software product in a series of patches (and "full releases"). What do you call going from version 0.5.2 to 0.5.3 if not a "patch"? The term "patch" has nothing to do with pre vs post release.

Czarcasm 11-01-2016 02:47 PM

0.*.*-I can see that as being pre-release, but I can't find record of other games releasing patches to this extent for a game that doesn't even have a projected release date. If you could show me an example, so that I could see that it actually does happen on a regular basis?

TimeWinder 11-01-2016 03:01 PM

Hey, Mods: Any chance we could get a strikeout line through the "And it's free to play this week" part of the title? That hasn't been true for months, and this thread still shows up high in the thread list.

Airk 11-01-2016 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 19744793)
0.*.*-I can see that as being pre-release, but I can't find record of other games releasing patches to this extent for a game that doesn't even have a projected release date. If you could show me an example, so that I could see that it actually does happen on a regular basis?

I feel like we're getting hung up on semantics here; Every time you add a new feature to your build, it's technically a "patch" or a new version, or something. So you get lots of patches/versions/whatever.

I can't point you to an example because most games don't publish their Alpha-level patch notes. But why would development during the Alpha phase be any different from how things work in the "beta" phase, which you can easily see by looking at the list of patches for any Early Access game on Steam?

Skywatcher 11-01-2016 03:34 PM

Pretty sure Czar is simply pointing out that the patch notes for Star Citizen amounts to little more than busywork so backers feel like Chris Roberts is actually doing something with their money. Other than furnishing his new LA digs.

RickJay 11-01-2016 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skywatcher (Post 19744946)
Pretty sure Czar is simply pointing out that the patch notes for Star Citizen amounts to little more than busywork so backers feel like Chris Roberts is actually doing something with their money. Other than furnishing his new LA digs.

The word "patch" evokes the feeling of an extant product. "Development update" does not. So they call them patches.

I have to stress that for all my honest negativity, it's obvious Star Citizen would in theory be the coolest thing ever, if it was actually a functioning game. But this isn't going to happen, not well, anyway. Perhaps it's simply that the technology doesn't exist, or that it's going to require a company that actually has some money to make a similar game happen. Maybe it takes a few tries before someone nails it.

Clearly, there is a market for a game like this. "No Man's Sky" was released to incredible fanfare and subsequent incredible disappointment. "Eve" has plodded along cheerily for years, and "Elite: Dangerous" is around, too. Someone will fill this market space sooner or later.

Skywatcher 11-01-2016 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJay (Post 19745056)
I have to stress that for all my honest negativity, it's obvious Star Citizen would in theory be the coolest thing ever, if it was actually a functioning game. But this isn't going to happen, not well, anyway.

As I said 115 posts ago:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skywatcher (Post 18814784)
Spore, in space.


DigitalC 11-01-2016 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 19744556)
But it's not a game yet. I've heard of games being in development, but I've never heard of the creation of a game being called a constant series of "patches". When I picked up Diablo II I'm sure it went through a lot of changes and development before it was released to the public, but the first patch was released after the game went on the market.

Patch does not imply post release in any way, there were hundreds of patches to that diablo game before you ever got your hands on it.

Banquet Bear 11-01-2016 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 19741823)
Latest fact-check update. Read it and weep.

...I think that the whole Star Citizen thing is a giant boondoogle as well. But you are citing Derek Smart. Its a bit like citing Alex Jones on his opinion on what happened on 9/11.

Skywatcher 11-01-2016 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear (Post 19745191)
...I think that the whole Star Citizen thing is a giant boondoogle as well. But you are citing Derek Smart. Its a bit like citing Alex Jones on his opinion on what happened on 9/11.

More like asking William Rodriguez on his opinion on what happened on 9/11. :)

voltaire 11-01-2016 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJay (Post 19743968)
In short, because the business model smells terrible.

You're correct in that very large games take a long time to develop. "BioShock Infinite" took five years to make, to use a big-budget example. Big things take a long time to make. You can't make a big budget movie in a couple of months, either. Now, Star Citizen is at five years and doesn't appear to be close to release, but let's assume a game of this ambition takes seven years, or whatever. It's not that I find dubious, it's that it's being funded exactly the way you would fund a scam.

The thing is, BioShock Infinite - or GTA V, or any other big game - were not funded in development by having the prospective customers pay hundreds of dollars for pictures of imaginary ships. They were funded by soberly run companies that expected a return on their investment. Companies that, if they were not given material evidence of progress towards a sellable product, would cheerily kill the program and fire the developers.

Yes, I know Kickstarter and the like are a new way of looking at project development, but as you well know this is now way past that sort of thing where you get people to chip in ten bucks to a little project. This is on a different plane. The manner on which Star Citizen earns its money is precisely the manner in which a Nigerian 419 scammer earns their money; it is following the path of a confidence trick.

1. An amazing treasure is promised (in this case, what would in theory be the greatest PC game ever made.)

2. The mark is invited into the confidence of the scammer. They are told they can be special and different - a member of the Squadron, possessed of special things the newbs won't have, and all that sort of thing.

3. Props and razzmatazz are used to convince the mark of the reality of the treasure (demos, the fancy website, pictures of ships, technical requirements and the other traits of a large budget video game.)

4. The mark is asked for a small investment.

5. Once the mark has invested some money, promises of progress towards the treasure are made. As progress is made, the mark is asked for more money, with explanations as to why the money is needed. (In this case, "Stretch goals.")

Obviously this isn't a perfect analogy, because in a classic confidence scam you would not know the actual identity of the scammer and his shills. I really don't think Chris Roberts is out to scam anyone, but the way in which his company is draining the same people for money based on the promise of virtual treasures is indicative of a situation where Mr. Roberts is in serious, serious trouble and he knows it. Perhaps not legally - I am sure they've got their bases reasonably well covered - but businesswise this has every indication of being a case where a business incapable of completing the job has gotten themselves in over their heads.

I have a lot of trouble coming up with any other logical explanation as to why Roberts has reached the point where he's asking hard core marks for $750 for an imaginary ship. (And I do mean imaginary; the "Polaris" ship is just a picture, not actually a thing they've built in the game.) A legitimate business enterprise doesn't keep asking for donations from customers based on empty promises; a legitimate business enterprise finds money from legitimate revenue streams, investors, or loans. There is nothing about the "please give us a lot of money and I promise one day you might have this awesome, awesome ship that presently is not remotely close to being a thing" pitch that should inspire confidence. Everything about that says "This is a business in desperate, desperate trouble."

Adding to all that, there's also an element of MLM-marketing at work, as shown by the OP of this thread.

SenorBeef 11-01-2016 05:29 PM

Edit: Forgot the OP had a referral code or something edited out. Thought it was weird to call it MLM without that.

Czarcasm 11-01-2016 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenorBeef (Post 19745312)
Edit: Forgot the OP had a referral code or something edited out. Thought it was weird to call it MLM without that.

He posted a referral link instead of a direct link, in an effort to get in-game bennies-in effect it was pay to post.

BeepKillBeep 11-01-2016 06:04 PM

In a strange way I kind of feel bad for Chris Roberts. Yes yes I know he's laughing all the way to the bank. But seriously, I feel like the Star Citizen is a victim of its own success. Had they made a good amount of money instead of the absurd amount of money actually raised, they would have simply made a great space flight simulator and called it a day. It probably would have been a great game. The problem was they got so much money they scope exploded, and then kept exploding and continues to explode to this day. There's no chance of this ever releasing in a state close to what has been promised, if it ever even releases at all.

Teuton 11-02-2016 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 19744097)
Now, I'm not into game development, but I've never heard of game patches announced for games that have yet to be released before. I recall seeing patches for games after they have been released to the public, but is 55 patches(to date so far) a normal thing for an unreleased game?

The early days of Minecraft worked something like this.

Thing is, Star Citizen does have a release build, that backers can play, and it is regularly updated. It's not currently brilliant, but everytime I check it out more has been added, so it's definitely advancing.

I still wouldn't drop $750 on a picture of a ship though.

Edit: To be clear, early Minecraft released a lot of patches for an alpha game that had no planned release date. It did not continually ask for money for anything other than copies of the game.

Airk 11-02-2016 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep (Post 19745391)
In a strange way I kind of feel bad for Chris Roberts. Yes yes I know he's laughing all the way to the bank. But seriously, I feel like the Star Citizen is a victim of its own success. Had they made a good amount of money instead of the absurd amount of money actually raised, they would have simply made a great space flight simulator and called it a day. It probably would have been a great game. The problem was they got so much money they scope exploded, and then kept exploding and continues to explode to this day. There's no chance of this ever releasing in a state close to what has been promised, if it ever even releases at all.

I don't really agree. The whole reason I didn't back this in the first place is the insane level of ambition demonstrated even in the project as explained by the Kickstarter campaign. I know I've said this before somewhere, but if Chris Roberts had shown up and said "I'm gonna make a new Wing Commander game. It can't CALL it Wing Commander, but that's what it's gonna be. We'll add some online multiplayer dogfights and the ability to have another player as wingman via the internet, but it's basically gonna be Wing Commander." I would have said "TAKE MY MONEY!" but he didn't. He showed up with this insane sprawling mess of promises that in the considered opinion of me from four years ago, was completely beyond what he had shown was in his ability to create. The fact that it has grown even more insane with feature bloat since then is just the disease following its natural course. I don't think this game would have done better with more "reasonable" donations, because it was already insane when he started soliciting.

Emerald Hawk 11-02-2016 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teuton (Post 19746287)
Thing is, Star Citizen does have a release build, that backers can play, and it is regularly updated. It's not currently brilliant, but everytime I check it out more has been added, so it's definitely advancing.

I tried the free fly, and it was disappointing and also made me feel kind of bad for Chris Roberts. It was visually impressive (minus the terrible frame rates in the persistent world), but none of it was fun. The dogfighting felt insubstantial, because there wasn't enough feedback about whether or not I was hitting my opponent or being hit.

Five years in, I expected more. There was nothing in the game right now that hasn't been done, better, in other games from 10 years ago. Reading dev blog notes that say they are going to have to rewrite even more of CryEngine in order to not kill everyone's frame rate whenever a big ship loads does not fill me with hope.

Chris Roberts (or his management team) seems to be missing some important project management skills around defining objectives and minimizing risk.

I found this thread on Neogaf to be a useful background on Derek Smart.

Czarcasm 11-02-2016 12:03 PM

It seems to me that what the crowdfunding is being used for is open-ended research and development, not a particular project.

Airk 11-02-2016 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emerald Hawk (Post 19746926)
Chris Roberts (or his management team) seems to be missing some important project management skills around defining objectives and minimizing risk.

The thing is...we should have already known this. Freelancer, at the very least, is exactly what happens if you do pretty much the Star Citizen thing, except you do it 15 years ago, and Microsoft steps in to save you from utterly failing. And my dim understanding is that Starlancer had some issues along these lines as well.

Chris Roberts has not demonstrated he can make a game more complicated than Wing Commander: Privateer. :P

Skywatcher 12-13-2016 05:15 PM

Star Citizen is now the third most expensive game ever developed with no end in sight.

Skywatcher 12-27-2016 12:01 PM

How fucked is Star Citizen? Contrary to what was originally reported by Engadget, Econotimes says the word from Cloud Imperium is that transitioning from CryEngine to Lumberyard has not been smooth.
Quote:

The nature of Amazonís engine had substantial differences compared to the CryEngine, which made adaptation a challenge.

:snip:

The team was left with no choice but to painstakingly create and release modules that would make the title functional in the way that the studio envisioned. This proved challenging since, as fans of Star Citizen know, the game is meant to be a full-fledged MMO space simulator.

Kinthalis 12-27-2016 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skywatcher (Post 19879856)
How fucked is Star Citizen? Contrary to what was originally reported by Engadget, Econotimes says the word from Cloud Imperium is that transitioning from CryEngine to Lumberyard has not been smooth.

As I understand it Lumberyard is a fork of CryEngine. But The CryEngine the devs have been working with now included a ton of custom technology (like 64 bit indexes) And that was the main bit of work.

It's done though, the transition is complete according to what they are saying.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.