1. #4441
    Old God
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    America's Hat
    Posts
    10,194
    No one is starting the game live with the currency they have. IIRC, they already plan on not allowing cash for currency at the start of the game's live release to prevent pay to win from happening early. Everything gets reset after beta, and everyone starts anew with whatever the base currency is going to be. Meaning, you won't be able to fly your Constellation or a battle cruiser for quite some time. That's the only way you release a game from beta into a live release where you can pay cash for ingame currency.

    Congrats to the 11 fools who made the ignore list, your ignorance knows no bounds, bravo!

  2. #4442
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    No one is starting the game live with the currency they have. IIRC, they already plan on not allowing cash for currency at the start of the game's live release to prevent pay to win from happening early. Everything gets reset after beta, and everyone starts anew with whatever the base currency is going to be. Meaning, you won't be able to fly your Constellation or a battle cruiser for quite some time. That's the only way you release a game from beta into a live release where you can pay cash for ingame currency.
    The aUEC that's earned in-game at the moment is the only UEC getting wiped between patches. The UEC you can purchase with real money (current cap applies) and the bit that comes with some of the older packages will apply the moment the game goes live, unless you spend it in Voyager Direct, which at that point those guns and what else they add you will start with. This includes those warbonds that a lot of people were given back when CIG hit whatever milestone it was a few years back.
    Interested in joining Star Citizen? https://robertsspaceindustries.com/e...STAR-4NBQ-QV6X Get $5 of in game credits when enlisting with that link!

    And if you want to make a complaint about my sig, then too bad. You'll likely be on my ignore list with the 2 other idiots anyways.

  3. #4443
    Old God
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    America's Hat
    Posts
    10,194
    Quote Originally Posted by masterhorus8 View Post
    The aUEC that's earned in-game at the moment is the only UEC getting wiped between patches. The UEC you can purchase with real money (current cap applies) and the bit that comes with some of the older packages will apply the moment the game goes live, unless you spend it in Voyager Direct, which at that point those guns and what else they add you will start with. This includes those warbonds that a lot of people were given back when CIG hit whatever milestone it was a few years back.
    That seems kind of dumb then. Basically if you don't pay now, you are behind later. Should be a full wipe for at least a few months after launch, and then whatever credits people had in beta, could be refunded.

    Congrats to the 11 fools who made the ignore list, your ignorance knows no bounds, bravo!

  4. #4444
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    That seems kind of dumb then. Basically if you don't pay now, you are behind later. Should be a full wipe for at least a few months after launch, and then whatever credits people had in beta, could be refunded.
    The $->UEC now is supposedly going to be the same as launch. The same cap will exist. You can't earn normal UEC in game, only the aUEC (which is only a temporary test currency), so whether it's available now or not doesn't really matter.

    The crux of the issue is that it'll be available for purchase later as their "main source" of income.
    Interested in joining Star Citizen? https://robertsspaceindustries.com/e...STAR-4NBQ-QV6X Get $5 of in game credits when enlisting with that link!

    And if you want to make a complaint about my sig, then too bad. You'll likely be on my ignore list with the 2 other idiots anyways.

  5. #4445
    Quote Originally Posted by Odeezee View Post
    so CR says he wants immersion and this tech allows for unmatched immersion
    Immersion is good....but first, I'd prefer the actual game and second, to say this is "unmatched" immersion is wildly pushing the hype train on an unimportant feature.
    We don't need to see the view point of any other character or whatever. In game streaming isn't needed or necessary. Nor will it really help with "immersion".

    It's nice to have so long as it doesn't take up too much worktime...but its also what appears to be a purely cosmetic feature that adds little to the game.


    backers who bothered to read what the mission statement was will totally want these sorts of things in the game prior to release
    Immersion is good. How ingame streaming will improve immersion escapes me.

    and why would backers care when the final release is done when they can test/play the alpha test bed, right now?
    Because putting it very bluntly - having people "play" the game right now is a VERY bad idea. People get bored and by having the game out now and be "playable", you end up sucking the life out of it. And when people hear about the problems with Alpha, they don't care that it's an Alpha - they simply hear "Star Citizen is buggy".

    and with 3.0 on the way
    Promised for release in 2016. Then June 2017. Then August 2017. Now release is September 2017.
    CIGs lack of ability to keep to release dates is yet another problem

    the experience is only going to get much more richer with the new tech, locations, mechanics, professions, interactions and ships. seriously, these types of things ARE what backers want from this game (otherwise why back something that specifically stated that that was their intent in the outset) and most importantly what CR wants in his game.
    Chris Roberts initial plug was for a Wing Commander successor, which was to be released and then built upon with sequential releases. The same model Elite and NMS are following. He changed that to the model we have now, where we get incremental releases of an Alpha model that is taking absolute ages to release but where he gets money via sales of ships and pictures and we - are still waiting for a game. A game that was initially supposed to be released in 2014 but which now looks likely to launch in 2020 or 2021 at the earliest.

    And if CR goes with his MVP option, will still be missing a whole lot of features that were promised. Not to mention the latest hints suggesting we won't be getting 100 fleshed out systems on launch. I am not one to fall for marketing hype...or fancy features...or shiny new toys.

    You see ingame streaming as immersive. Good for you. I do not. I am left wondering how much bandwidth such features make use of, how much development time went into something that appears to be purely cosmetic, what practical use it will be in game, and why he is busy hyping up "RTT" technology as something new and wonderful when it has been around for years.

    In short - I see this as something that CIG can hype up, but which is totally unnecessary for the game to work, or for there to be immersion. You sit there...in your ship...watching other people play the game, and it's "immersive" because you don't have to tab out? I would think the better question is what is wrong with the game that you would feel the need to tab out to watch someone else play while you are playing it.
    Last edited by KyrtF; 2017-08-12 at 10:41 PM.

  6. #4446
    Quote Originally Posted by KyrtF View Post
    Immersion is good....but first, I'd prefer the actual game and second, to say this is "unmatched" immersion is wildly pushing the hype train on an unimportant feature.
    We don't need to see the view point of any other character or whatever. In game streaming isn't needed or necessary. Nor will it really help with "immersion".

    It's nice to have so long as it doesn't take up too much worktime...but its also what appears to be a purely cosmetic feature that adds little to the game.
    To be fair, immersion is supposed to be one of the main selling points of this game. I do agree that this particular feature should wait until they get more of the networking cleaned up though.

    Immersion is good. How ingame streaming will improve immersion escapes me.
    Already answered a few posts ago.
    "it makes gambling on races in game much easier since you can watch the race live instead of having to switch back and forth from someone that might be streaming it on Twitch and the bookies."

    Because putting it very bluntly - having people "play" the game right now is a VERY bad idea. People get bored and by having the game out now and be "playable", you end up sucking the life out of it. And when people hear about the problems with Alpha, they don't care that it's an Alpha - they simply hear "Star Citizen is buggy".
    That's the peoples' fault, not CIG. This was part of the entire point of doing the open development with playable alpha.

    Promised for release in 2016. Then June 2017. Then August 2017. Now release is September 2017.
    CIGs lack of ability to keep to release dates is yet another problem
    No arguing with that.

    Chris Roberts initial plug was for a Wing Commander successor, which was to be released and then built upon with sequential releases. The same model Elite and NMS are following. He changed that to the model we have now, where we get incremental releases of an Alpha model that is taking absolute ages to release but where he gets money via sales of ships and pictures and we - are still waiting for a game. A game that was initially supposed to be released in 2014 but which now looks likely to launch in 2020 or 2021 at the earliest.
    The inital plug was/is for SQ42. And then the main stretch goal that people wanted was the open world MMO portion, aka Star Citizen. There was no "changing" it.

    But just stop trying to bring up the 2014 release date, it's so disingenuous...that's been beaten to death so many times here, it's starting to smell.

    And if CR goes with his MVP option, will still be missing a whole lot of features that were promised. Not to mention the latest hints suggesting we won't be getting 100 fleshed out systems on launch. I am not one to fall for marketing hype...or fancy features...or shiny new toys.
    Here's some info about the "100 systems at launch". EG: "We don't want NMS planets. We want better."

    You see ingame streaming as immersive. Good for you. I do not. I am left wondering how much bandwidth such features make use of, how much development time went into something that appears to be purely cosmetic, what practical use it will be in game, and why he is busy hyping up "RTT" technology as something new and wonderful when it has been around for years.

    In short - I see this as something that CIG can hype up, but which is totally unnecessary for the game to work, or for there to be immersion. You sit there...in your ship...watching other people play the game, and it's "immersive" because you don't have to tab out? I would think the better question is what is wrong with the game that you would feel the need to tab out to watch someone else play while you are playing it.
    See two of the answers above.
    Interested in joining Star Citizen? https://robertsspaceindustries.com/e...STAR-4NBQ-QV6X Get $5 of in game credits when enlisting with that link!

    And if you want to make a complaint about my sig, then too bad. You'll likely be on my ignore list with the 2 other idiots anyways.

  7. #4447
    so much misinformation from you guys and just blatant lack of understanding. you tacitly voted for CR's vision of his immersive first-person experience when you backed his project, it's that simple. if you do not like it, you are not being forced to pledge. CR conducted 2 polls after the initial kickstarter that involved an immense increase in scope and scale of the game which then became games and when monetary milestones were reached, which stipulate what will be added if a milestone is reached, was again voting with your wallet.

    the RTT tech will allow for real-time pc to npc as well as player-to-player video comms and a "media broadcasting" profession from being included in the game (see Reliant "Maco" variant) as scenes can be rendered to multiple view ports in real-time as well as character specific commercials and w/e else the CIG devs can cook up. the diegetic ui was not some feature creep for 3.0 as it already exists in the PU now, they are just building on it. and i could not care less if you find the tech interesting or impressive, all that matters is that it will be in the game for those who will make use of it. the game is not being made for you in case you did not know, it's CR's vision for the game he wants to play. we as backers are just supporting his vision and giving feedback to improve on that vision where appropriate, it's just that simple.

    i really struggle to figure out why grown ass people need to be told such simple concepts. NONE of this is mandatory yet people get bent out of shape because the game is not out now, as though adding features inherently means that the game is somehow delayed. it's like people having issues with the art department producing content while the network department is still working on their stuff, it's called concurrency ffs. you agreed to let them take their time to get it right and in turn they said they will keep you posted on their progress. it's really that simple and again you do not have to like it or even accept it, but if you pledged you have to respect it because that's what was the relationship you chose to enter into.
    "Cherish the quiet...before my STORM!"

    For a $5/5000 in-game credit bonus for backing
    Star Citizen (MMO) or Squadron 42 (Single Player/Co-op) use my Referral code: STAR-3QDY-SZBG

  8. #4448
    https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen...date_20170811/

    So...no more release windows at all? The new, seemingly arbitrary progression metric they're showing is bug fixes? Am I understanding this correct?

    Did they just give up on trying to figure out production timelines or something? Because that's sure what it seems like : /

  9. #4449
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen...date_20170811/

    So...no more release windows at all? The new, seemingly arbitrary progression metric they're showing is bug fixes? Am I understanding this correct?

    Did they just give up on trying to figure out production timelines or something? Because that's sure what it seems like : /
    https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen...snt_feel_like/

    https://www.diffchecker.com/PofJAGgw still exists.
    Interested in joining Star Citizen? https://robertsspaceindustries.com/e...STAR-4NBQ-QV6X Get $5 of in game credits when enlisting with that link!

    And if you want to make a complaint about my sig, then too bad. You'll likely be on my ignore list with the 2 other idiots anyways.

  10. #4450
    Except...it doesn't? There are no timelines anymore, just how many bugs they fixed/what they are.

    The timelines showed the progress towards completion in an easier to understand format, with dates associated with them etc.

    This removes a lot of that information, instead presenting what appears to be largely meaningless information related to features/systems progress towards completion.

    We’ve decided to remove the ‘aim dates’ for our releases and focus on the information below which should give a more accurate look at where we’re trending.
    They drop that in, but don't actually explain how or why. That's kinda my point.

    CIG has always been fucking awful with their timelines, but this seems more like them throwing in the towel on it rather than trying to improve. Basically, rather than address the issues to counter the criticism they were constantly receiving, they just flat-out removed the cause of the criticism.

    At least that's how it's looking to me. It's definitely not a win for transparency/players, and definitely continues to raise red flags for me as an observer.

  11. #4451
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Except...it doesn't? There are no timelines anymore, just how many bugs they fixed/what they are.

    The timelines showed the progress towards completion in an easier to understand format, with dates associated with them etc.

    This removes a lot of that information, instead presenting what appears to be largely meaningless information related to features/systems progress towards completion.



    They drop that in, but don't actually explain how or why. That's kinda my point.

    CIG has always been fucking awful with their timelines, but this seems more like them throwing in the towel on it rather than trying to improve. Basically, rather than address the issues to counter the criticism they were constantly receiving, they just flat-out removed the cause of the criticism.

    At least that's how it's looking to me. It's definitely not a win for transparency/players, and definitely continues to raise red flags for me as an observer.
    The only dates they removed were literally the "Releases" section at the top of the first schedule in what you linked. There are still dates on all some of the individual tasks. Not saying that it's fine, but I'm just saying that there are still dates.

    How can you possibly schedule something when as we've seen with the burn down report that bugs are being squashed and new ones are popping up? All giving dates at this point would do is piss off people for being missed.
    *cough* Part of the problem in the first place.
    Last edited by masterhorus8; 2017-08-13 at 01:46 AM.
    Interested in joining Star Citizen? https://robertsspaceindustries.com/e...STAR-4NBQ-QV6X Get $5 of in game credits when enlisting with that link!

    And if you want to make a complaint about my sig, then too bad. You'll likely be on my ignore list with the 2 other idiots anyways.

  12. #4452
    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
    "Cherish the quiet...before my STORM!"

    For a $5/5000 in-game credit bonus for backing
    Star Citizen (MMO) or Squadron 42 (Single Player/Co-op) use my Referral code: STAR-3QDY-SZBG

  13. #4453
    Quote Originally Posted by masterhorus8 View Post
    To be fair, immersion is supposed to be one of the main selling points of this game. I do agree that this particular feature should wait until they get more of the networking cleaned up though.
    Which is a point I made earlier - how much will this affect the bandwidth and other performance aspects of the game? There's a real question right now over that and implementing a feature that might not be workable when the underlying basics of the game are completed is, at best, premature.

    Already answered a few posts ago.
    "it makes gambling on races in game much easier since you can watch the race live instead of having to switch back and forth from someone that might be streaming it on Twitch and the bookies."
    Yes. I know. You are still streaming it...all that has changed is the interface.

    That's the peoples' fault, not CIG. This was part of the entire point of doing the open development with playable alpha.
    It was bad idea for CIG to ever offer it. Transparency means you keep the backers up to date with progress...not offer them a playable demo and hope they don't get bored or put off by it. Demos have their place, but they really should be playable aspects of a BETA style release. Many people will not differentiate between an Alpha and a full release, no matter how many times you tell them that. Look at all the trouble Blizzard got into because of promises made that they weren't able to keep. Alpha has too many flaws to be available to the public and the continued need to sell the game is, I believe, partly to blame for the delays.

    The inital plug was/is for SQ42. And then the main stretch goal that people wanted was the open world MMO portion, aka Star Citizen. There was no "changing" it.
    Except for moving from a model where the base game was released and then XPacs to one where the full game was to be released with a minimal need for Xpacs back to one where we are apparently likely to be getting an MVP style product which will again require multiple XPacs to bring the game up to full speed.

    Personally, I don't really care right now...I just want the game. It looks great and it should be fun. Hopefully. But the more he drags it out and the more he hypes up old tech as new features the more I'm starting to think he might really be using this as a money spinner.

    But just stop trying to bring up the 2014 release date, it's so disingenuous...that's been beaten to death so many times here, it's starting to smell.
    And with reason. The game we were promised should have been released by now. It isn't. The game CIG are working on...it's nowhere near ready. Conversely, we have games like ED and NMS which have achieved much more with less staff and a lower budget. Frontier are even working on multiple games and getting them released. CIG are taking ages to develop this game and to date, they have not yet provided a good excuse why progress is so slow.

    The point being made is simple - other studios can get similar games out with just a fraction of the budget and staff.
    Other games with a similar budget and development team, AAA titles, also take less time to develop and release.
    So why is CIG taking so long? Yes - I know the excuses they give. But the longer they keep going, and the more lies they tell, the less I (and others) believe them. The release date is only one issue. There is the schedule. There isn't one reason why I should trust it. CR stood on stage and AFAICT, lied to us about the release date. Why should I believe him when he produces a schedule? Especially when the latest schedule has its dates removed? The big hype on ATV this past few weeks ahs been RTT. Unless I'm missing something fundamental, the Render to Texture technology they are raving about in the videos is old news, and has been used in the industry for years.

    So, again AFAICT - the entirety of CIGs effort to be transparent is little more than marketing. Making things appear all shiny and new so that backers will give them money and not necessarily the facts about the situation as it is today.

    I don't want marketing. I don't want spin or hype. I don't want the continual fob offs or excuses which are wearing thin.

    I want the game. Failing that, I want a 3.0 which delivers. And it doesn't look likely I'm going to get it. They've already downscaled what was promised.

    We don't want NMS planets. We want better."
    I understand that. I understand the difficulties involved. And the effort. I understood that when I first heard about SC.

    That doesn't change the fact that they are now talking about releasing a game with a much smaller developed universe and appear to be serious about releasing not the full game they promised, but a very much cut down version they call the MVP - minimum viable product. The best I can expect is that we'll get the 100 systems they promised, but only 5 or 10 of them will be developed and usable.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Odeezee View Post
    so much misinformation from you guys and just blatant lack of understanding. you tacitly voted for CR's vision of his immersive first-person experience when you backed his project, it's that simple. if you do not like it, you are not being forced to pledge.
    I haven't pledged. I'm not going to.

    I want to play the game.

    I'm not convinced as yet that it will a: be released and b: be fun or playable when it is.
    My "pledge" will be buying the game 6 months or so after its released when they hype has died down and I can get a decent idea about whether the game is any good and likely to survive. What looks like 9 years of development and $200 million isn't going to guarantee either.

    That being said, I'm still interested in the game and I still want to play it. But being honest, CIGs behaviours here is throwing as LOT of red flags and warning signals as Edge says. Development DOES take time....I know this. What's worrying is that after 6 years of development (4 years if you say we should scratch the first two years and say development started in late 2013), $155 million raised, likely more than $100 million spent, and with a staff of 400 people....CIG still have next to nothing to show us.

    That isn't just taking time. That is moving at a snails pace.

    CR conducted 2 polls
    And he should NEVER have done that.

    the RTT tech will allow for real-time pc to npc as well as player-to-player video comms and a "media broadcasting" profession from being included in the game (see Reliant "Maco" variant) as scenes can be rendered to multiple view ports in real-time as well as character specific commercials and w/e else the CIG devs can cook up.
    In other words, nothing new. RTT is what - 20 years old now? More? And they are pushing it like it is the Second Coming.

    as though adding features inherently means that the game is somehow delayed
    Actually - yes. That is exactly what adding new features does. It DELAYS the game. The only question we can't answer is really how much adding this feature delayed the game.

    But as I said above, at best, this feature is premature because CIG cannot possibly know if it is feasible without knowing the type of bandwidth available and they can't know that until the netcode is working and finalised. What happens if CIG gets their 1000 player instance and they all start live streaming?

    Adding this feature now is a waste of time and effort.


    it's like people having issues with the art department producing content while the network department is still working on their stuff, it's called concurrency ffs.
    The big news flash is that ART is the usual logjam in development. Art takes time. If Art has free time while the network department is still working on their stuff - in this case, "their stuff" is one of the fundamental aspects of the game without which not much else can be done - then something has gone very, very wrong. One would have to ask why CIG has so many artists and not enough programmers.

    The network code should be one of the first aspects of the system that CIG should be concentrating on because of the way it impacts so much else. You can't have your in game streaming if the system takes up so much bandwidth its unusable. The code they have now is shambles, but it does the basic job of demonstrating the game. But it isn't good enough to develop features such as this around.

    you greed to let them take their time to get it right and in turn they said they will keep you posted on their progress. it's really that simple and again you do not have to like it or even accept it, but if you pledged you have to respect it because that's what was the relationship you chose to enter into.
    Unless you voted for a release in which case you are being dragged along against your will

  14. #4454
    @Edge-
    https://robertsspaceindustries.com/s...gust-11th-2017
    CIG is answering some of the concerns/questions regarding the new schedule if you're interested in their responses.

    BTW, for those that are unaware, this is the burndown that is being referenced occasionally.


    - - - Updated - - -

    We as a community have shown that for the most part, none of us have a damned clue how development works. With very few exceptions, people run at the mouth, throw out wild theories, and dance around the word "estimate" expecting definitive answers. It's stupid, counter-intuitive, and screams of watching a kettle boil, while growing increasingly frustrated as it gets nearer and nearer to a boil.
    - - - Updated - - -

    https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen...what_is_a_lie/
    Hanlon's razor: "Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding."
    For anyone that need's a dictionary: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
    Last edited by masterhorus8; 2017-08-13 at 07:57 PM.
    Interested in joining Star Citizen? https://robertsspaceindustries.com/e...STAR-4NBQ-QV6X Get $5 of in game credits when enlisting with that link!

    And if you want to make a complaint about my sig, then too bad. You'll likely be on my ignore list with the 2 other idiots anyways.

  15. #4455
    Quote Originally Posted by Odeezee View Post
    so in light of that, if one side cannot be trusted to be honest in their participation of the process
    Unfortunately, at this stage - that "side" is CIG.

    They have routinely fed us wrong information. CR got up on stage and told us info he MUST have known was wrong. They are continually hyping up old technology and concepts as new and ultra cutting edge technology which is why the game development is talking so long....except its not. All they do is provide new names for old tech and then market it as new. And people get excited and give them money because they don't know a lot about the technicalities of game development. I don't know a lot - I do know enough to wonder if they are really pushing the age old concepts of stuff like RTT as "new and exciting and cutting edge" and expecting no one to notice.

    When CR lies and CIG are engaged in marketing hype under the guise of being transparent and keeping everyone abreast, then I would not say it is the backers who cannot be trusted.

  16. #4456
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen...date_20170811/

    So...no more release windows at all? The new, seemingly arbitrary progression metric they're showing is bug fixes? Am I understanding this correct?

    Did they just give up on trying to figure out production timelines or something? Because that's sure what it seems like : /
    Yep, no matter how people try to defend this change it is bad for the perception of the project. CIG are just awful at managing PR.
    And the hardcore fans are worse, when the schedule chart came out with dates, it was the best, most transparent, industry first thing to do, when they remove dates it's the correct thing to do, it's like they have to defend every decision no matter how good or bad.

    Why is it that other companies can publicly set a date and burn down to it? It shows what a clusterfuck this thing is behind studio doors.

  17. #4457
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen...date_20170811/

    So...no more release windows at all? The new, seemingly arbitrary progression metric they're showing is bug fixes? Am I understanding this correct?

    Did they just give up on trying to figure out production timelines or something? Because that's sure what it seems like : /
    I think they didn't "give up" per se, but realized that they're going to have to break the news some time. A lot of us are already mad that Chris lied last year. The timing also isn't a coincidence, they're hoping to shower all the negativity away with whatever they'll show at the upcoming event.

    It's time for me to get a refund. Goodbye Orion and Super Hornet. I will make a new acc only with the base games, pack gifted from my main account.

    I bet you $100 that whatever they'll show at gamescom will be more fake PoC stuff like the giant sand worm. Meaning: No content that is playable at the time and more flashy shit they won't release. It's all about keeping the dollars flowing.

    The bottom line is that Chris Roberts is a fucking liar.
    Last edited by Majestic12; 2017-08-13 at 02:39 PM.

  18. #4458
    Quote Originally Posted by KyrtF View Post
    ~snip~
    all that just to admit you have not pledged and then go on to say you will wait until 6 months after it's released in order to "pledge" (pledging occurs before commercial release btw, but w/e who needs to be precise on the internet) so why not take your own advice and "WAIT" until/if it ever gets released????!!! you are armchair developing and project managing to what end? i'm pretty sure you have never even played the Alpha, have you? if you are so put off by the game, why waste your time? it's like you feel the need to unburden yourself. if you had valid arguments from first hand experience, then i might take you seriously, but they way you construct your arguments and then the anecdotal evidence you use to push your agenda is rather transparent and flimsy. you don't have to support this game if you have any misgivings, so don't.
    Quote Originally Posted by KyrtF View Post
    In other words, nothing new. RTT is what - 20 years old now? More? And they are pushing it like it is the Second Coming.
    let's forget that the thing CR was saying was impressive about the RTT in SC is first, they don't "cheat" to produce it and second it's the multiple view ports that will have the tech render to in real-time that's impressive and NO OTHER engine besides CIG's currently does that; not UNITY, not UNREAL, not even CryEngine.
    Quote Originally Posted by KyrtF View Post
    Actually - yes. That is exactly what adding new features does. It DELAYS the game. The only question we can't answer is really how much adding this feature delayed the game.
    so you have absolutely nothing to back it up? you make an accusatory statement without a shred of evidence to back it up and we are supposed to what? take it as the truth? riiiiight? i forgot that you know more than any of us, hell you know more than the devs creating the game itself, right? smh!
    Quote Originally Posted by KyrtF View Post
    Unfortunately, at this stage - that "side" is CIG.
    are you even trying to make valid arguments anymore or are you just blurting w/e comes to mind? we get the internal production schedule that the devs themselves use and now we get their burn down report, but they are not living up to their part? da fuk? w/e think what you want, i regret giving your thoughts any credence by reading them, i will not repeat that mistake.
    "Cherish the quiet...before my STORM!"

    For a $5/5000 in-game credit bonus for backing
    Star Citizen (MMO) or Squadron 42 (Single Player/Co-op) use my Referral code: STAR-3QDY-SZBG

  19. #4459
    Quote Originally Posted by Odeezee View Post
    all that just to admit you have not pledged and then go on to say you will wait until 6 months after it's released in order to "pledge" (pledging occurs before commercial release btw, but w/e who needs to be precise on the internet) so why not take your own advice and "WAIT" until/if it ever gets released????!!! you are armchair developing and project managing to what end? i'm pretty sure you have never even played the Alpha, have you? if you are so put off by the game, why waste your time? it's like you feel the need to unburden yourself. if you had valid arguments from first hand experience, then i might take you seriously, but they way you construct your arguments and then the anecdotal evidence you use to push your agenda is rather transparent and flimsy. you don't have to support this game if you have any misgivings, so don't.
    Wow. Touchy subject?

    How much have you invested?

    The game is YEARS overdue and the excuses Chris Roberts and CIG come up with are meaningless. Their every avenue at transparency with ATV or 10ftC is nothing more than marketing intended and designed not to keep us informed but to market the game and get people excited and buy some new ships.

    And you seem to have missed equating "pledge" with buy.

    forget that the thing CR was saying was impressive about the RTT in SC is first, they don't "cheat" to produce it and second it's the multiple view ports that will have the tech render to in real-time that's impressive and NO OTHER engine besides CIG's currently does that; not UNITY, not UNREAL, not even CryEngine.
    And personally I find it difficult to get excited about technology that is 30 years old. And the whole point about RTT is that is is much more flexible and allows the game to treat the graphic as a texture. Meaning that it can do anything to that image that can be done with a texture.

    This - is not new. CIG adding RTT support into their version of the game engine makes a lot more sense...but it also isn't unusual, it also isn't impressive, it still isn't worthy of hyping it to the heavens.

    Now - if that were the case, it would again highlight that CIG made the wrong choice of engine, it would highlight that the AtV vids are more marketing tools rather than tools to keep us updated, it would still not justify the hype being poured onto this feature and it turns that nice list into mere examples of what might be possible in the future once the netcode is working.

    so you have absolutely nothing to back it up? you make an accusatory statement without a shred of evidence to back it up and we are supposed to what? take it as the truth? riiiiight? i forgot that you know more than any of us, hell you know more than the devs creating the game itself, right? smh!
    You seem to think CIG can add new features without having their programmers do any work. I hate to tell you but programming isn't like that. CIG has nearly 4000 bugs to squash with 3.0 so the programmers they diverted away to add in a fancy new feature they could hype up actually had plenty of work to keep them busy.

    Adding new features or expanding on existing ones requires time and effort and means your programming team cannot work on anything else.

    So...yes. This created a delay. Without further information we cannot tell if it is was a long delay or a short delay but a delay was added.

    are you even trying to make valid arguments anymore or are you just blurting w/e comes to mind? we get the internal production schedule that the devs themselves use and now we get their burn down report, but they are not living up to their part? da fuk? w/e think what you want, i regret giving your thoughts any credence by reading them, i will not repeat that mistake.
    First...we do NOT know this is the devs schedule. We are told it is...but that requires us to trust the same people who have lied to us about other aspects of the game.

    And yes...I say "lie". Chris Roberts could not possibly have expected 3.0 to be released in 2016 and impressive as the sandworm was, that demo was crafted not playable.

    Secondly....they have NOT lived up to their part. CIG promised transparency. They have not delivered on that. They have delivered instead a lot of marketing and a lot of hype. And worse....they appear to be making decisions to generate said hype. Decisions such as in game streaming BEFORE the netcode which will support it is ready.

    This is not a feature that CIG should be developing before they know what their netcode can support, especially since it adds nothing to the game. That they have done so merely to hype up their use of 20 year old technology is not something that should be defended.

    So...no. CIG have NOT lived up to their side. They promised transparency...we got marketing. They promised a game...we got ship sales. The demos were crafted instead of gameplay. 3.0 needed the netcode we were promised...we got a 20 year old tech hyped up to the 9s.

    The reality is simple.

    If CIG had wanted to release Star Citizen, they could have done so. We know this because games like Elite and NMS took less time, less money and fewer developers. ED and NMS took about three years to develop and test and release. World of Warcraft took 4 or so. SWTOR took 5.

    These are all massive games. SC has been in development longer than any of them. And CIG have nothing to show for it A bunch of tech demos...some hand crafted shows for display at cons....a bunch of ships to sell players.

    Entire AAA games have been designed and built and released in less time than CIG have spent on this game. And CIG are still fiddling around with the engine and have not even bothered to get the netcode working. Thats a pretty fundamental aspect of the game they need to fix.

    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?

    So...did CIG add this feature bevause the netcode is rrady and they just haven't told us, or are they adding it because its a feature they can easily hype?

    It seems doubtful now that 3.0 will be released in August. Will we see previews at Gamescom? Or will we see another scripted demo masquerading as gameplay? Will we get some actual transparency or more lies and hype and spin?

    3.0 needs to deliver something substantial.

    But you need to lighten up. This is just a game. I want to play it, bit I ain't gonna cry if it gets cancelled. I want it to deliver but I lose nothing kf it is bad. I want the game that Chris Roberts has described...but if he fails to deliver, I'm not going to go crazy.

    I feel no need to deny the existance of the red flags about this project....and being blunt, there are many. And I see no need to describe CIGs "transparency" as anything other than the marketing ploy it is.

    If CIG fail to deliver....I'll be disappointed. But I won't have spent hundreds or thousands of dollars either.

    If you have so much invested that you cannot accept valid criticism without blowing up like this, then you have too much invested.
    Last edited by KyrtF; 2017-08-14 at 06:45 PM.

  20. #4460
    Quote Originally Posted by KyrtF View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •