There is an argument when exactly the development started. The problem is that there is no universal definitions when a software development starts.
Do it starts with a idea? Or with a prototype? Or when there is a (full) development team and money? Or take we just the official starting date?
To give a short reverse timeline of the beginning:
- The official development start date for SC is January 2013 with the foundation of the first game studio (source: Gamescome 2016 presentation)
- the game was "funded" with the end of the kickstarter in November 2012 (that why we have the fourth anniversary last month)
- the firm CIG was funded in April 2012 (sources: their webside)
- CR said that he worked on the prototype and preproduction since a year before october2012 (sources: some interviews in that time)
Therefore there are arguments for several stating dates between the end of 2011 and January 2013.
Also game of this scope, 4-6 years development time is not that much. Like I said in my previous points, they could have shaved of year or two from the useless gimmicks they have been so keen on adding however, I and many others (majority it looks like) do not care.
No, this is alpha. They have a working game running which is open to public. Engine is not complete, no engine is ever "complete"
Are the monthly subscriptions added to the charts? Even so, I am not surprised the montary gain has lowered. This is not Microsoft, Apple etc... Its a gaming company. Rapid deceleration was to be expected otherwise with your logic, we would be at what, 350-450 mill now?
https://trends.google.co.uk/trends/e...,squadron%2042 right, still means f* all...
Looks like the traffic has gone down yes, but according to you, search frequencies are down, well not according to Alexa. Although, its Alexa and useless parameters, unless you have GA/FB Insights you won't be seeing any accurate results...
https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/rober...industries.com
Wait so you have not purchased the game? Why are you even in this thread then LOL! I am fine with it, they are creating tech. Worst case, their tech will be outsourced to other games which will utilize the tech.
I take it you work there?
Well you do. Their developers have stated push-backs, its what happens when there is no 3rd party publisher breathing down their necks. More time for polish and refinement.
I guess you prefer games like BF1, or every other game on this current market, same old rehashed model because "lets meet deadlines and release to public"... "lets not take any risks"...
Best way to build a framework is to begin working on the actual environment the framework is going to be used in. Start with a basic layout, go from there and build upon it. Blizzard has done it.
Yes they usually wouldn't. Why? Investors and publishers would go into an uproar. It was stated before why this game is accessible to public.
_______________________
Honestly, I don't care how this game goes. The possibility if they achieve majority of what they have layed out, I would be very happy.
I am sick an tired of games these days. They are the same, not pushing ANY boundaries. You name them, BF1, AC, GTA, PUBG, MOBAS, RTS, and SPECIALLY MMOs are all the same copy/paste with a different skin. It has been like this for decades.
Games like Minecraft,
CS:GO,
WoW have all done something to change the reality of how games are played today. Implemented QoL features we see. Its time for a change and Star Citizen is doing that. Sure, the game could be in a better state however if worst comes to worst and it burns and crashes, there are technologies and assets which are most likely going to be reused/sold off...
Chris Roberts is pushing boundaries of gaming and specifically MMOS (I take SC is a space/sim/mmo?).
- - - Updated - - -
It is popular, not in public eye as marketing it would probably not the smartest of moves right now. It runs like dog shit, I am surprised people are online.