[Megathread] Star Citizen

[Cyclone Jack]

And personally I find it difficult to get excited about technology that is 30 years old.

To put ot simply...the game can survive without in game streaming. It can't survive without working netcode and without knowing what your netcode is capable of you can't really design certain aspects of the game. What happens if you design instances around 20 players but can only fit in 10? What happens if 1 or 2 of thise 10 decide to stream?

While the core tech may be old, using something like this in an MMO, which is community based to begin with, will be a great boon to the game overall. We had streaming years ago, and who would have thought something like Twitch would become so popular? RTT will be used for huge number of things. Will it be used for streaming races, covering news events, and streaming player-created events? Sure. But it will also be used for communications (ship-to-ship, ship-to-station, player-to-player, player-to-NPC, etc), as well as the overall UI, from MobiGlass to the Kiosks, so I'd say it a fairly important piece. Is it as important as netcode? No. But the people working on RTT aren't the same people working on netcode.

[stormgust]

dates are fine when people understand the process and that delays are VERY common in game development especially when the development of said game relies heavily on R&D. i mean CIG tells people, "hey these dates we are giving you are tentative and subject to change based on review, bugs, dependencies, resources, etc", but what do people do? complain that estimated dates are missed even though they were informed that it would be a possibility/inevitability. so in light of that, if one side cannot be trusted to be honest in their participation of the process, then CIG just removing the dates and showing just the progress is best. and when the bars fill up then that is when the item(s) completes. CIG tried to approach the backers as peers and give dates, but now they have to baby them due to their willful lack of understanding and honest comprehension, so now we have fewer dates. /shrug

It's not about missing estimated dates, it's about missing estimated dates for several features every other week over the course of several months. With so many (small) delays, it simply looks like they tried to go with the most optimistic estimates for marketing purposes, instead of going with more realistic ones. That, or they're really bad at providing estimates.

[KyrtF]

While the core tech may be old, using something like this in an MMO, which is community based to begin with, will be a great boon to the game overall. We had streaming years ago, and who would have thought something like Twitch would become so popular? RTT will be used for huge number of things. Will it be used for streaming races, covering news events, and streaming player-created events? Sure. But it will also be used for communications (ship-to-ship, ship-to-station, player-to-player, player-to-NPC, etc), as well as the overall UI, from MobiGlass to the Kiosks, so I'd say it a fairly important piece. Is it as important as netcode? No. But the people working on RTT aren't the same people working on netcode.

And again the point is first - that it is completely non essential and secondly - is a piece of technology that obviously requires the netcode to be in place before it can be created. CIG are still working on the netcode and while they have hopes they can make it do what they want, that is not something they can guarantee as yet. Therefore they are designing an aspect of the game which depends on a module which isn't finished.

Further, the core tech is old. Which begs the question of why CIG are hyping it up so much. Further, while it may enhance (at best) the aspects you mention, those situations and uses already exist in other games.

So no - it is nowhere near as important as netcode, and given its obvious reliance on needing networks to function at all, one wonders how they can push a feature when at least one of its core fundamental modules which it requires to work isn't finished or integrated into the game.

This is not a feature the game needs. This is not a feature the game will even benefit from.

Player to NPC communication? Really? You mean we don't have that already?
Player to player communication? Again...a video format style comm system is hardly unusual for gaming.
Ship to ship and ship to stations...is the same as above.

The point is that RTT technology has been in use for at least the past 20 or so years. It used to be a big thing. It isn't that it doesn't offer advantages for how the game can be built - it's why are they mentioning a twenty year old technology at all? They aren't the first to use it, they won't be the last. Sure - its useful. It makes some things easier. It allows them to add new functionality. But a new tech worth hyping up? Is it worthwhile adding this type of functionality to the game when they cannot possibly know what the netcode is going to be capable of.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not about missing estimated dates, it's about missing estimated dates for several features every other week over the course of several months. With so many (small) delays, it simply looks like they tried to go with the most optimistic estimates for marketing purposes, instead of going with more realistic ones. That, or they're really bad at providing estimates.

Its more than that.

Take the deadline CR gave us last year. 3.0 was the big end of year release.

He got up on stage and told us this in August.

Trouble is, CIG didn't even start work on 3.0 until much later. 3.0 is supposedly "big"...but we were given a release time frame of about four months - less, because CIG were still working on 2.6.

Was CR unaware that his company had not yet even begun work on 3.0? That seems unlikely.
Or when CIGs updates told us they were starting the baseline development work for 3.0...were they lying then about when they started development? That also seems unlikely, not least because much of 3.0 needed to be built upon the work done for 2.6 which they were still developing.
Or did CR just step out onto the stage and give us a date plucked from think air, knowing it was a date that could not be achieved? Knowing CIG hadn't - then - even started work on 3.0 and that a release date within 4 months, when they were still working on 2.6, was never ever going to happen. This sounds plausible.

It isn't just missing the provided dates. It is the dishonesty incidents like this point to, and that tarnishes EVERY thing CIG are telling us. If they can lie to us about release dates to hype up the games progress and encourage us to continue investing or backing - rather, have us continue to throw money at them - then they can lie to us with the published development schedules and the AtV chats and the 10ftC blogs and so on. It means that we are not getting the transparency they promised - instead we are getting a very slick, very focused marketing campaign that is neither designed, nor intended, to provide us with information with the progress of the games development but rather to persuade us to part with our cash.

[masterhorus8]

And again the point is first - that it is completely non essential and secondly - is a piece of technology that obviously requires the netcode to be in place before it can be created. CIG are still working on the netcode and while they have hopes they can make it do what they want, that is not something they can guarantee as yet. Therefore they are designing an aspect of the game which depends on a module which isn't finished.

Further, the core tech is old. Which begs the question of why CIG are hyping it up so much. Further, while it may enhance (at best) the aspects you mention, those situations and uses already exist in other games.

So no - it is nowhere near as important as netcode, and given its obvious reliance on needing networks to function at all, one wonders how they can push a feature when at least one of its core fundamental modules which it requires to work isn't finished or integrated into the game.

This is not a feature the game needs. This is not a feature the game will even benefit from.

Player to NPC communication? Really? You mean we don't have that already?
Player to player communication? Again...a video format style comm system is hardly unusual for gaming.
Ship to ship and ship to stations...is the same as above.

The point is that RTT technology has been in use for at least the past 20 or so years. It used to be a big thing. It isn't that it doesn't offer advantages for how the game can be built - it's why are they mentioning a twenty year old technology at all? They aren't the first to use it, they won't be the last. Sure - its useful. It makes some things easier. It allows them to add new functionality. But a new tech worth hyping up? Is it worthwhile adding this type of functionality to the game when they cannot possibly know what the netcode is going to be capable of.

For the most part, you're not wrong. But I'm curious..what do you consider CIG to be "hyping" about it? I feel that you're going overboard about it. CIG goes over almost everything that they add to the game/engine as part of the open development in their AtV videos. They are mentioning it because it was something that CryEngine can't do and what their engine can (now) and letting people know the implications of it. You're making a mountain out of a molehill (and some people are glorifying the molehill too much, but hey, who am I to judge what they can be excited about. I'm not the one trying to tell someone to not be excited over something). I'm seeing the supporters hyping it up more than CIG.

If they can lie to us about release dates to hype up the games progress and encourage us to continue investing or backing - rather, have us continue to throw money at them - then they can lie to us with the published development schedules and the AtV chats and the 10ftC blogs and so on.

And that's the beauty of the videos. As opposed to having CR on stage blabbing about unreachable release dates, in those AtV videos, we SEE the progress that they make. That's what sets this project apart from other game developments. But if you want to go on about how everything they say are lies and just rehearsals/pre-recorded scripted events, then don't be surprised when people won't take you seriously. I mean, c'mon...do you think their Bugsmashers segments are faked too?

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Likely more profitable to string along endless crowd funding forever than actually release a product. The price the world I feel is slowly learning about prebuy, prepurchase, and crowd funding products on the internet. Don't get me wrong I have no doubt when it comes out it won't be absolutely top shelf. But if I had throw 100s if not 1000s at it 5 years ago at this point I would feel burned.

[KyrtF]

For the most part, you're not wrong. But I'm curious..what do you consider CIG to be "hyping" about it? I feel that you're going overboard about it. CIG goes over almost everything that they add to the game/engine as part of the open development in their AtV videos. They are mentioning it because it was something that CryEngine can't do and what their engine can (now) and letting people know the implications of it. You're making a mountain out of a molehill (and some people are glorifying the molehill too much).

What they are doing is overemphasising the impact of something that is - in reality - fairly standard. Look at the reaction of Odeezee for example. Its the greatest thing since sliced bread...never mind the fact its a standard set up. It's good that CIG have added it to CE - which is what I assume CIG mean by all of this - but at the same time it's not going to allow CIG to do anything new or unique and if we wanted to be technical, it mostly just going to make the devs life a bit easier because they won't have to engage in any tricks to pull off the same aspects. It isn't an issue that adds new features, or even provides for new features. In game streaming for example could be added by simply having SC open an existing browser with a custom SC skin and presenting it in game.

And that's the beauty of the videos. As opposed to having CR on stage blabbing about unreachable release dates, in those AtV videos, we SEE the progress that they make. That's what sets this project apart from other game developments. But if you want to go on about how everything they say are lies and just rehearsals/pre-recorded scripted events, then don't be surprised when people won't take you seriously. I mean, c'mon...do you think their Bugsmashers segments are faked too?

And then you realise that the people in them are on occasion talking about events and systems that should have been covered months previously. There was that AtV a few weeks back where one of the devs was talking about making a list of features he wanted to see in 3.0. Personally, I'd have thought that should have been at the start of 3.0s development process

I'm sure a lot of what we see is real...but i'm also sure it has been cleaned up and editted and presented with an eye to getting us to part with our cash rather than to keep us informed. And having the devs talk about stuff that seems like it should have been done months ago isn't something that fills me with excitement.

Do I read too much into stuff like this? Possibly. Maybe he misspoke or maybe there was a good reason that AtV used an old video. But from my pov, all of this seems to point into a coherent whole where the entire, or most, of all this effort CIG put into these videos and interviews is pure marketing and window dressing. A sop to keep us clamouring for more while distracting us from the (apparent?) lack of progress on game development.

And it IS slow...for a number of reasons, which I actually DO understand. Early development - up to two years worth in some cases - was thrown out and essentially restarted, there was and is feature bloat, the game end goal changed, starting up the new studios, developing the toolkits the teams will use, tearing apart and rewriting the engine at the same time as developing for it and more. But it is still slow, and CIG are diverting resources into crafting demos for various cons, PR and marketing fluff such as AtV and adding features that aren't needed such as in game streaming.

I was hoping that we will see some concrete progress at Gamescom. I know I predicted the possibility of a September release for 3.0 but I didn't think I would be right!!! But right now, I am hoping that 3.0 will be on display....the actual 3.0 and not a custom made demo....even if it isn't playable. What I am expecting is what someone up above stated... gameplay involving more 2.6.3, a big song and dance routine telling us what we can expect when 3.0 is released, a playing down of the features that have been cut, and a huge dose of hype culminating in a ship sale.

And on top of all this, the September date isn't locked down. October is feasible.

Am I wrong to expect this?

[Odeezee]

It's not about missing estimated dates, it's about missing estimated dates for several features every other week over the course of several months. With so many (small) delays, it simply looks like they tried to go with the most optimistic estimates for marketing purposes, instead of going with more realistic ones. That, or they're really bad at providing estimates.

an estimate is self explanatory, if people choose to ignore what it means then that's on them. we are getting their internal production schedule which is set to aggressive dates to promote productivity as, in software development, people will use up all the time if you give generous estimates. how the hell does NOT releasing an update lead to more sales through marketing when producing content that the backers can play would actually get them MORE money???? O.o

So is the shine finally wearing off the great white hope of all video games?

how when what you think and get out of a game is a personal thing? no one can tell you if a game will be good or bad, something you will or will not enjoy, and you also makes the assumption that people cannot be legitimately critical of some aspects of the game and still be in full support of it and want it to succeed. /shrug

[Majestic12]

an estimate is self explanatory, if people choose to ignore what it means then that's on them. we are getting their internal production schedule which is set to aggressive dates to promote productivity as, in software development, people will use up all the time if you give generous estimates. how the hell does NOT releasing an update lead to more sales through marketing when producing content that the backers can play would actually get them MORE money???? O.o

The problem isn't generous dates, it's that they based it off Chris' blatant lie. There's no way that Chris actually believed that 3.0 with netcode etc would be released in December. If you think he did, then you should be worried because in that case he is very incompetent.
Incompetent or a liar. Pick your poison buddy. No matter how that is viewed it is bad news.

I work in the industry of software development and yes, people give optimistic dates all the time. What people don't do is blatantly lie about them like Chris did. Nobody does that. It's unprecedented what's going on here.

[Cyclone Jack]

One cannot dispute the over-eagerness of Chris Roberts and his dates, they are akin to Peter Molyneux and his features. I can't stand it when he talk about the game. I love his eagerness and his visions, but he constantly and consistently throws out bullshit dates that are impossible to hit. He shows off a bunch of stuff and says it's right around the corner when in reality its 5-10 times that. I do think that their August prediction at the early part of the year was a much more modest estimate, and it looks like they weren't too far off from that, as far as feature implementation goes. Bug fixing, on the other hand, seems to be way off. Hopefully they will learn from this and add a longer bug fixing phase to the next milestone. Still, I'll sit back and watch the game get built and jump in from time to time to play and see how things are progressing. I put my $60 in and if it fails, it would be the same as buying an EA game, so no real loss. If it turns out good, then I have a fun space game to play with my friends. In the end, its just a video game.

[Majestic12]

I hope Gamescom will be enjoyable. I feel bad for the streamers that will be playing the 2.6.3 build but usually the community part of the events have been the most enjoyable for me.

[Yunru]

If any1 is impatient abauth stat citizen, try this mod:
http://litcube.xtimelines.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

(its more ballanced than original game and comes with many feratures that makes it real X-4)

[Odeezee]

new AtV is up.

the planetary locations are looking pretty dope, especially the part where the show the outpost at different times of the day and locations.

[Deleted]

I personally got a refund today (I first backed in 2012,I ll buy a computer with the money instead). The reason I asked for a refund isn't so much the delays, but the fact that ever since 2015 CiG has been providing self inflicted deadlines they never met. I mean, if they only had done it once or twice it would have been all right, but I can't recall CiG meeting a single deadline they decided by themselves to aim for in over 2 years.

So I voted with my wallet and decided that if CiG wanted my money, the company had to release the game.

I'll be the first to buy the game once it's released but I m not very optimistic due to the feature creep (especially with the planetary tech).

[Tackhisis]

new AtV is up.

Why are they making videos instead of working on the product?

[KyrtF]

Why are they making videos instead of working on the product?

Its part of their "transparency" pledge.
IMO, it's a marketing tool used to keep players excited and help them part with their money

The problem of course is that the resources they use creating these videos...time, manpower, money...isn't available for game development.

We'll see with 3.0 how far they'll have developed the basic engine and gameplay....that is what is important.

[masterhorus8]

Its part of their "transparency" pledge.
IMO, it's a marketing tool used to keep players excited and help them part with their money

The problem of course is that the resources they use creating these videos...time, manpower, money...isn't available for game development.

We'll see with 3.0 how far they'll have developed the basic engine and gameplay....that is what is important.

Aside from the money*, the people working on these videos aren't the same developing the game. Hell, you even just pointed out which division they work under, Marketing. It's the same bullshit that's been spewed at Blizzard for over a decade from armchair developers that that don't understand how larger companies work. "Why are they making patch notes instead of fixing the servers?!"

Otherwise, if you're saying that the time it takes for the programmers/animators and whatnot to be recorded is taking up too much time, then I do have one thing to say to you Mr. Slavedriver. Relax. These people work hell on overtime when they're in the final pushes (happened a few times last year [2016] with individual patch pushes).

*Note: I forgot that the money for a lot of these videos come form the subscriptions, not the ship sales.

[KyrtF]

Aside from the money*, the people working on these videos aren't the same developing the game. Hell, you even just pointed out which division they work under, Marketing.
Otherwise, if you're saying that the time it takes for the programmers/animators and whatnot to be recorded is taking up too much time, then I do have one thing to say to you Mr. Slavedriver. Relax. These people work hell on overtime when they're in the final pushes (happened a few times last year [2016] with individual patch pushes).

First...noone is saying the developers don't work hard.

Secondly....what difference does it make of it is marketing?
These videos are still costing money to make and still take up developer time. A developer giving an interview for AtV is NOT working on the game.

ATV and similar...regardless of which dept pays for it...is still costing development money, development time and development manpower. CIG admitted that when they brought in Burndown because they didn't want the developers distracted.

It isn't as if the developers don't have better things to do...

3.0 is 9 months behind schedule.
The game is running late.
There are over 3000 bugs that need to be removed

And CIG are having developers take time put from their job to give meaningless interviews...meaningless necause they aren't part of the promised "transparency" but part of a marketing campaign.

And what is worse is that it looks very much like CIG are developing more towards stuff they can hype to excite the player base instead of stuff the hame actually needs but is relatively boring.

[Edge-]

Secondly....what difference does it make of it is marketing?
These videos are still costing money to make and still take up developer time. A developer giving an interview for AtV is NOT working on the game.

Minimal time from the developers usually, more from the few folks that are doing the marketing/coms/video creation stuff. A developer taking 30 minutes out of a day to shoot some footage for a video isn't going to kill the games progress.

Seriously, these types of videos take pretty negligible time/budget in the grand scheme of things, and are delivering on both their promise to be transparent while also serving as tools to try to continue to drive/maintain interest and funding for the game.

This is really a pretty minor thing, and you're trying to make a mountain out of this molehill. There are a ton of other things that are far more concerning with the games development (mainly the endless delays) than the negligible costs in terms of time/money to create these.

[KyrtF]

Minimal time from the developers usually

Yes. To me its more of a problem that

1... this is marketing masquerading as "transparency"...which IMO is the answer to Takhisis' question.

2...it looks to me like CIG are prioritising unimportant aspects which can provide high impact marketing opportunities.

I can understand why they are doing it....but at the same time I simply want the game and while I know there is a continuing need for funding and that the dev time used in such aspects is minor, I still resent the distraction the videos represent.

Moreso because I feel they are more marketing and hype than actual useful information about the games progress and development and so add little value to the project.

Yes...I am critical. Some would say overly critical. But while I haven't backed the project and have no intention of doing so, that doesn't mean I don't care about the game or want to see it fail.

[masterhorus8]

Yes. To me its more of a problem that

1... this is marketing masquerading as "transparency"...which IMO is the answer to Takhisis' question.

2...it looks to me like CIG are prioritising unimportant aspects which can provide high impact marketing opportunities.

I can understand why they are doing it....but at the same time I simply want the game and while I know there is a continuing need for funding and that the dev time used in such aspects is minor, I still resent the distraction the videos represent.

Moreso because I feel they are more marketing and hype than actual useful information about the games progress and development and so add little value to the project.

Yes...I am critical. Some would say overly critical. But while I haven't backed the project and have no intention of doing so, that doesn't mean I don't care about the game or want to see it fail.

This is beyond critical. You're literally complaining that they're sharing their development with everyone. That's asinine. We don't want another Hello Games.