[Megathread] Star Citizen

[The Penguin]

so according to you vaporware is classed as an alpha with a small system of which you can travel in multiple ships with other people and do a multiple of missions, along with fps combat and space combat.

I do. It is not what was advertised and it should of been out years ago.

Be glad I didn't call it what I really think of it. A scam that embarasses Indie Publishers everywhere.

[Majestic12]

No...vapourware is software which hasn't been released, especially software that has been in development for an unusual amount of time.

- - - Updated - - -



NMS "failed" because it didn't live up to the hype. It promised a lot and it failed to deliver. Players expected a lot and were upset when the game didn't deliver.

Star Citizen...if it fails...will be of a magnitude worse than NMS because backers are much more invested in the project. Right now, I belueve SC will launch...but that CIG doesn't have enough money to provide the game expected or promised, a situation made worse by Chris Roberts usually vague statements of intent which have allowed backers to envisage the game they personally want rather than the game that will actually be delivered.

I feel you on that. I just don't feel like the game will ever be good. You can tell that the game is in a bad state when still after 5 years people don't know what will be in or out of SC. Just the other day I got into another argument with a backer who solemnly still believes that he will be able to use a PvP slider to disable PvP and fly around the entire universe without risk of getting ganked.

There was even a guy who was arguing that SC's ship system is presently not P2W and refuse to surrender, even when a guy who was in the top 10 ladder had to come in to the topic and basically tell him SC is the purest form of P2W at the moment. You just can't reason with the people imagining SC is/will be the greatest shit ever, because they all have their own private version in their heads.

The end product is unlikely to be anything like they imagined, which is why I feel it will tank hard. There will just be disappointment all over the place.
Just imagine when the game launches, people who bought ships blow up people in their Auroras and you'll finally start seeing:

1. OMG SC Is Pay 2 Win!
2. WHERE IS MY PVP SLIDER!?!?

It's going to be a shitstorm for the ages, and I'll be there. Not going to miss that, providing the game even launches at all. (Star Citizen MMO).

[Mister K]

That's... brave...

Uh game dev expert lads, watch out

[Odeezee]

NMS "failed" because it didn't live up to the hype. It promised a lot and it failed to deliver. Players expected a lot and were upset when the game didn't deliver.

Star Citizen...if it fails...will be of a magnitude worse than NMS because backers are much more invested in the project. Right now, I believe SC will launch...but that CIG doesn't have enough money to provide the game expected or promised, a situation made worse by Chris Roberts' usually vague statements of intent which have allowed backers to envisage the game they personally want rather than the game that will actually be delivered.

i am sorry but misrepresenting the facts and injecting your own opinion does not an argument make. NMS failed specifically because it was not tested prior to release, no review copies were allowed prior to release, the lead dev blatantly lied to the playerbase and obfuscated the truth. ALL of those things can be avoided by Star Citizen due to the dev process they are undertaking:

1. Star Citizen has every public build available tor backer to test and give feedback on. Fact.
2. Review copies won't be needed as player can like i said test every public build that the devs release, so as Chris said once they get all the tools, systems and mechanics in with around 5-10 systems they will start the beta process and they will have feedback for generic mechanics and designs that they can apply to the remaining 90-95 systems for full release.
3. Chris can very easily be checked by the playerbase as they have detailed design docs for their mechanics, as well as community updates on dev progress 5 days a week, as well as the backers being able to try the builds as they make them.

so no, Star Citizen cannot fail the same way that NMS did. the only way for Star Citizen to fail is if they run out of money, which due to their continued community engagement and progress does not appear to be waning.

[masterhorus8]

so no, Star Citizen cannot fail the same way that NMS did. the only way for Star Citizen to fail is if they run out of money, which due to their continued community engagement and progress does not appear to be waning.

Or more incompetence.

[KyrtF]

NMS failed specifically because it was not tested prior to release

Star Citizen has over 3000 bugs as of 2.6.3 that CIG appear happy to lrave in place and their "big smashing" process was "shift it till 3.1"

no review copies were allowed prior to release

Can you guarantee Star Citizen will allow review copies?

the lead dev blatantly lied to the playerbaseand obfuscated the truth

And Chris Roberts is blatantly lying to his playerbase and backers.

What point are you trying to make?

ALL of those things can be avoided by Star Citizen due to the dev process they are undertaking

Oh...ye of too much faith.

1. Star Citizen has every public build available tor backer to test and give feedback on. Fact.

3000+ bugs still awaiting fixing after a year. It isn't enough to put it out for "feedback". CIG needs to act on the feedback.

As it is...people are giving "feedback" on a stress test.

2. Review copies won't be needed as player can like i said test every public build that the devs release, so as Chris said once they get all the tools, systems and mechanics in with around 5-10 systems they will start the beta process and they will have feedback for generic mechanics and designs that they can apply to the remaining 90-95 systems for full release.

Ah.....so CIG will NOT send out review copies.

3. Chris can very easily be checked by the playerbase as they have detailed design docs for their mechanics, as well as community updates on dev progress 5 days a week, as well as the backers being able to try the builds as they make them.

Since the backers bave shown little inclination to hold him to account to date, and reward his incompeyence and lies with even more cash and since CIG has shown very little indication of paying them any attention whatsoever, I'm not seeing how any of this is relevant.

So no, Star Citizen cannot fail the same way that NMS did. the only way for Star Citizen to fail is if they run out of money, which due to their continued community engagement and progress does not appear to be waning.

CIGs own funding charts are showing quite a substantial drop in funfing since last year.
Searches on Google for Star Citizen...usually a fairly reliable indivator of interest...have also dropped.
A lot more people appear to be seeking refunds and CIGs employee numbers have increased to over 450.

In short....income is down and costs are up.

Meanwhile, CIG are still stuck in the pre-Alpha phase and have at least another year before they have an Alpha release and perhaps 3 or 4 (and maybe 5 or 6) before a full release.
The move to date based patches seems custom designed to allow them the freedom to push content even further back.
CIG have not even started work on developing some of the core fundamental technologies...server meshes for example...that they need while others...such as netcode...are in development but not in game while others still...flight model, AI...are in game but require huge amounts of work and improvement. Meanwhile...CIG are busy building ships they are having to rework and integrating pointless technologies such as FOIP and creating proof of concept demos that show how they want future content to appear.
CIG still have to pay the huge costs for hosting, as well as marketing and publication.

Running out of money is now a very real, very plausible concern and a very strong possibility....actually, near certainty...especially given the financial information they have released. The question is if CIG can finish some semblence of a game before that happens.

And even then...even when it is finally released....then it will have to see if it can deliver all that it has promised. The NMS test, if you will.

Which seems exceedingly unlikely.

[Cyclone Jack]

Can you guarantee Star Citizen will allow review copies?

Ah.....so CIG will NOT send out review copies.

The question is, will there be a need for review copies? There are thousands of players with access to the game throughout development, and there are free weekends numerous times a year. Typically a game has a review copy when it is developed completely behind doors and then released (ie: the majority of games). This isn't to say that SC and/or SQ42 will not have a review copy, but really, what would those review copies offer? And who reads non-player reviews these days?

[stormgust]

it's much harder to apply these criteria to Star Citizen as backers literally get to test updates and give feedback, so if the game turns out to be shit then we the players would bare some of the responsibility for not giving better feedback.

Back during the early early testing phases for FFXIV, the majority of the testers shut down everyone who even remotely issued the tiniest bit of negative feedback. Looking over the citizens, those quite remind me of the FFXIV testers back then, and we all know how well that turned out (but at least FFXIV had nice graphics)

[Eleccybubb]

Back during the early early testing phases for FFXIV, the majority of the testers shut down everyone who even remotely issued the tiniest bit of negative feedback. Looking over the citizens, those quite remind me of the FFXIV testers back then, and we all know how well that turned out (but at least FFXIV had nice graphics)

If you are referring to 1.0 the whole Beta was a mess. 2.0 Beta was actually handled pretty well.

[KyrtF]

The question is, will there be a need for review copies? There are thousands of players with access to the game throughout development, and there are free weekends numerous times a year. Typically a game has a review copy when it is developed completely behind doors and then released (ie: the majority of games). This isn't to say that SC and/or SQ42 will not have a review copy, but really, what would those review copies offer? And who reads non-player reviews these days?

If CIG has plans to try and sell copies beyond the niche market it occupies...yes.

There is a need. There are whole demographics of players who haven't heard of Star Citizen.

[Nihilan]

So! Ive been away for a couple weeks. Is it out yet?

I assume its out right? I mean it has been 5-6 years. Surely its out.

/infinite sarcasm

[Odeezee]

Or more incompetence.

is it incompetence or just s.o.p. for games development, especially for a fledgling dev company that had to build up from scratch and kept getting an influx of money which then led to the increase in scope to fully realize Chris' and our dream game.

Back during the early early testing phases for FFXIV, the majority of the testers shut down everyone who even remotely issued the tiniest bit of negative feedback. Looking over the citizens, those quite remind me of the FFXIV testers back then, and we all know how well that turned out (but at least FFXIV had nice graphics)

ok, so you just showed that you literally do not know what you are talking about as the backers lobby criticism and feedback to the devs all the time. some of it is good, but a lot of it is bad and the devs implement our feedback where appropriate even at this early stage of development. case in point, 2nd-stage After-burners, were introduced to make up for removal Cruise flight mode. so idk what you are talking about.

[1001]

is it incompetence or just s.o.p. for games development, especially for a fledgling dev company that had to build up from scratch and kept getting an influx of money which then led to the increase in scope to fully realize Chris' and our dream game.

Eh, fledgling means inexperience and that's an image CIG have taken pains to avoid. They (and fans) have repeatedly pointed at the industry experience of Chris, Erin, Tony et al, hell they even used to parade around notable hires like it was some sort of pageant competition.

They didn't have to keep increasing the scope or the size of the company(ies), that was a concious decision on their part, CR even claimed that more money would allow the game to be made quicker and delivered to us faster, neither of which has been the case at all.

[KyrtF]

is it incompetence or just s.o.p. for games development, especially for a fledgling dev company that had to build up from scratch and kept getting an influx of money which then led to the increase in scope to fully realize Chris' and our dream game.

Incompetence.

And before you drag up that sorry excuse of an....well, excuse...please realise that you are really saying that CIG is so incompetent that it literally cannot handle routine staff management issues every single company and industry has to deal with.

Other companies can handle expansion and growth and still manage to deliver...but CIGs inability to do even this relatively simple task should be seen as a triumph.

If you think CIG are so incompetent they cannot manage such routine issues, why do you think they can handle more complex tasks such as game development?

ok, so you just showed that you literally do not know what you are talking about as the backers lobby criticism and feedback to the devs all the time. some of it is good, but a lot of it is bad and the devs implement our feedback where appropriate even at this early stage of development. case in point, 2nd-stage After-burners, were introduced to make up for removal Cruise flight mode. so idk what you are talking about.

Well....no. The backers post a lot of information but we have zero indication that any of it is listened to or actioned.

Case in point....the backers have been asking for a decent flight model for the past couple of years. There is currently no indication that a new flight model is on the way anytime soon.

Which is unfortunate, as it is something that is needed for S42.

But hey....maybe they'll highlight one in the Holiday Livestream?

So far....the open demos appear to be little more than stress tests to see how servers cope with increased load and traffic and a way to stop backers asking too many uncomfortable questions.

[masterhorus8]

This is something I still don’t understand, I mean, unless I’m missing something here, they are supposed to release a single player game (Squadron whatever?) before releasing the MMO version of it, right? Why ain’t they just getting that shit done and over with before focusing this much on the MMO part of the game anyway?

Remember when Star Marine took forever to come out? That was my clue that SQ42 was no where near finished. There was NO way that they would not have had their fps untested while releasing the single-player that would use it. I bet you there are other important mechanics intended for both SC and SQ42 that have yet to be finished. I think one of the bigger ones would be the AI.

[KyrtF]

This is something I still don’t understand, I mean, unless I’m missing something here, they are supposed to release a single player game (Squadron whatever?) before releasing the MMO version of it, right? Why ain’t they just getting that shit done and over with before focusing this much on the MMO part of the game anyway?

Largely because S42 and SC use pretty much the same systems.

Or are intended to.

Until the engine for Star Citizen is finished...or at least those elements common to both...there is a limit as to how much of S42 CIG can produce.

If we are lucky, now that SC has (supposedly) added AI to 3.0...or at least the basic AI...that might be enough to allow them to give S42 a serious push. They still need to improve large parts of it, but it'll be a start.

[Rennadrel]

This is something I still don’t understand, I mean, unless I’m missing something here, they are supposed to release a single player game (Squadron whatever?) before releasing the MMO version of it, right? Why ain’t they just getting that shit done and over with before focusing this much on the MMO part of the game anyway?

Two teams working on different projects but are linked in pretty much every way. So a lot of the design that goes into SQ42 has to go into SC, and vice versa. A lot of the bugs with game mechanics in particular, can be similar between the two games if they are coded the same way. I think that's where there might be a bigger roadblock. Trying to get some of the mechanics to work in an MMO might be more challenging than in a single player, especially when you factor in client side and server side things in an MMO, while a single player everything is restricted to one individual experience.

[Malibutomi]

Bad management, wasting of backer money, $10k/developer/year....

Short end for a long debate:

“We try to be quite smart about development costs, so we do a lot in the UK and two-thirds of our developers are in Europe. It’s far more cost effective. Over here you can have two developers for the price of one in the US. In the places where there’s game development in the US, the price of living is really high. We’re up in Manchester and it’s a lot cheaper to live there than in LA. The average salaries in the industry are less for that reason.”

It’s not just the cost of living, though: “We get basically 25 per cent of the UK cost back from the government. And that allows us to hire more people. We wouldn’t have as big an office in the UK if that deal wasn’t there. I think that was a very good move for the government to do that, because now we have around 250 in the UK, by far our biggest group of people"

http://www.mcvuk.com/articles/develo...itment-and-rel

That's basically what i said a few days back, dev salaries are a lot lower in europe.

[1001]

Bad management, wasting of backer money, $10k/developer/year....

Short end for a long debate:

“We try to be quite smart about development costs, so we do a lot in the UK and two-thirds of our developers are in Europe. It’s far more cost effective. Over here you can have two developers for the price of one in the US. In the places where there’s game development in the US, the price of living is really high. We’re up in Manchester and it’s a lot cheaper to live there than in LA. The average salaries in the industry are less for that reason.”

It’s not just the cost of living, though: “We get basically 25 per cent of the UK cost back from the government. And that allows us to hire more people. We wouldn’t have as big an office in the UK if that deal wasn’t there. I think that was a very good move for the government to do that, because now we have around 250 in the UK, by far our biggest group of people"

http://www.mcvuk.com/articles/develo...itment-and-rel

That's basically what i said a few days back, dev salaries are a lot lower in europe.

F42 UK's financials show they are spending £80k average on each employee ($105k).
With 250 staff in the UK at $105k per head that's $26.25 million a year - 6.5 million (25% rebate) = $19.75 million
55 staff in Germany at $105k per head is $5.75 million
And 152 in the US at twice that rate is another $32 million for a total cost of $57.5 million per year excluding contractors and so on.

No matter how they cut it it's a lot of money

[Malibutomi]

F42 UK's financials show they are spending £80k average on each employee ($105k).
With 250 staff in the UK at $105k per head that's $26.25 million a year - 6.5 million (25% rebate) = $19.75 million
55 staff in Germany at $105k per head is $5.75 million
And 152 in the US at twice that rate is another $32 million for a total cost of $57.5 million per year excluding contractors and so on.

No matter how they cut it it's a lot of money

Yeah it's a lot of money.
I'm pretty sure tho that salaries at CIG US are not double of what they are in the UK. It should be closer to the theoretical 10k/mont which would be 18.2 million not 32.
What is sure tho is CIG saves about 10 million a year by keeping most of the devs in the UK and not in the US (going by the 10k/dev/month US cost)
If the average salary is similar in Germany they save another 0.8-1 million there annually.

Final point is we ha no clue how much they spend in total, because we can't pin it down with less than 25% divergence.