[Megathread] Star Citizen

[Cracked]

When developing a game the company doesnt know if its going to take 6 years or if it will take 10 years, its just impossible to know what happens along the development, they may give a rough timeline but cant just claim it will be ready by this date.

Star Citizen when it was changed was always going to be a 10 year project plain and simple, the game was just to large scale for it to take any less time, even a massive company like rockstar takes 8 years for RDR2 and some ppl expect star citizen to take less with a fraction of the staff.

Dont have unrealistic expectations and you wont dissappoint yourself.

Star Citizen is going great and its delivering at a reasonable pace of what we are actually expecting from it.

That's just not true. Yeah the timeline may not be set in stone for things that are far enough in the future, but short term deadlines are always necessary and need to be followed. You either have a goal or you are just aimlessly wandering. Whatever, this has been discussed to death. More developers doesn't mean the game is getting made any faster. If anything, two or three architects can lay the foundation of the entire game themselves in a relatively short time. Then it's mostly about creating enough content.

[1001]

You should know by now that I'm pretty adamant in sticking to the facts and don't go around making stuff up like some other posters. ::winkwink::

Haha, that's funny.

By the companies own CFO Elite Dangerous "generated more than £100m of revenue". CIG's funding tracker is at ~£250m right about now.

£100 million+ with a released product for the last 6 years vs £250 million and no released product after 8 years. I'll take the former thank you very much.

Speaking of facts, you can't possible know exactly how much Elite has costed to produce & maintain, considering the fact that it's development started in 1997 earning it the Guinness World Record of "The Longest Development Period for a Simulation Game" and it needs to conform to 3 different platforms.

And lets look at the quote from the Guiness book of records.

Braben mentioned plans to work on Elite IV at E3 1997. More than 17 years later the PC version of the game’s fourth instalment – Elite: Dangerous (Frontier Developments) – is set for a worldwide release in late 2014, with a Mac version due to follow some three months later.

So a mere mention of something now consititutes the start of development and funding of a project? That is truly pathetic

It's funny how SC fans argue Star Citizen didn't really enter development until 2015 and strongly protest against Chris's quote where he says he started a year before the kickstarter but Braben saying "I would like to do Elite IV" counts as verifiable proof that it was being worked on

Elite doesn't have "3.5x as many paying backers", it sold to 3.5x more people. Which isn't really a feat considering that the game has devalued so much that they had to sell it for a couple of bucks and even give it away for free in hopes of pushing their Freemium model of selling cosmetics.

Sure it does have 3.5x as many. Each person has bought a copy of the game in the same manner that each paying backer has bought a copy of Star Citizen or Squadron 42. All released products reduce in price over the years so using devaluation as an argument is irrelevant. Elite gained all of it's backers without having to resort to free-fly events, cheesy referral schemes etc. It was only recently that they did a "get the game for free" on Epic's store.

[Majestic12]

When developing a game the company doesnt know if its going to take 6 years or if it will take 10 years, its just impossible to know what happens along the development, they may give a rough timeline but cant just claim it will be ready by this date.

If you as a project manager show up, market release dates continously and aggressively every year, then proceed to miss the mark by that much there is a word for that: Incompetence. And guess what? In most places you'd be fired.

When are you going to stand up and say that CIG was wrong in this? Trying to change the narrative doesn't work. We know the objective truth already.

Star Citizen when it was changed was always going to be a 10 year project plain and simple

Really? It seems that the project management disagreed with you on that regard. How can that be? Funny, it almost seems like you're in damage control mode because hindsight is king whereas we know the real narrative.

the game was just to large scale for it to take any less time, even a massive company like rockstar takes 8 years for RDR2 and some ppl expect star citizen to take less with a fraction of the staff.

Interesting, now you've moved on to RDR2 as the next benchmark comparison. GTA5 doesn't work so well anymore as SC is now in its 10th year of development I guess.

This project is a disaster on the delivery part and everyone knows it.

[kenn9530]

If you as a project manager show up, market release dates continously and aggressively every year, then proceed to miss the mark by that much there is a word for that: Incompetence. And guess what? In most places you'd be fired.

When are you going to stand up and say that CIG was wrong in this? Trying to change the narrative doesn't work. We know the objective truth already.



Really? It seems that the project management disagreed with you on that regard. How can that be? Funny, it almost seems like you're in damage control mode because hindsight is king whereas we know the real narrative.



Interesting, now you've moved on to RDR2 as the next benchmark comparison. GTA5 doesn't work so well anymore as SC is now in its 10th year of development I guess.

This project is a disaster on the delivery part and everyone knows it.

The didnt market any release dates, any dates in a game in heavy development are always subject to change.

When a game was going to take 4-5 years and its more than doubled in size that means its going to take double the development time, pretty simple math as you cant develop a game twice the size faster can you, so yes when the game was changed it was a 10 year project.

RDR2 is just a western version of GTA5 and took 8 years and cost a ton more to develop, with 2-3 times more staff than CiG has, you expect them to make a space MMO in less than 8 years when a full company cant even do a sandbox game in the same time.

[Katchii]

The didnt market any release dates, any dates in a game in heavy development are always subject to change.

Not sure if you're intentionally being disingenuous or not, but they absolutely DID market both release dates and release windows.

Things did change as you say, but that doesn't change the fact that they marketed release dates that they didn't meet and/or moved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Citizen

In before: "wikipedia, not legit," the information is accurate.

[kenn9530]

Not sure if you're intentionally being disingenuous or not, but they absolutely DID market both release dates and release windows.

Things did change as you say, but that doesn't change the fact that they marketed release dates that they didn't meet and/or moved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Citizen

In before: "wikipedia, not legit," the information is accurate.

You also do realise that the 2014 release was made void when the game was changed, after the kickstarter the game was changed completely and that is backed up by stretch goals still going on at the end of 2014 so the game was still increasing in size, no other actual release dates were given for the full release of the game, games change during development and with new techs being introduced like planet tech the whole of SQ42 would of had to been changed also.

The still released a playable version of the game in 2014 just like they said they would. Even the 2014 release date was only a possible release date for the kickstarter version of the game.

[Katchii]

You also do realise that the 2014 release was made void when the game was changed, after the kickstarter the game was changed completely and that is backed up by stretch goals still going on at the end of 2014 so the game was still increasing in size, no other actual release dates were given for the full release of the game, games change during development and with new techs being introduced like planet tech the whole of SQ42 would of had to been changed also.

The still released a playable version of the game in 2014 just like they said they would. Even the 2014 release date was only a possible release date for the kickstarter version of the game.

It still makes what you said completely inaccurate, though.

You stated that they didn't market any release dates, they did, full stop.

There are also other examples of them marketing a release window, and missing that completely. Such as with Squadron 42 having it's beta release window changed multiple times, and then removed entirely from their roadmap.

https://www.polygon.com/2020/12/28/2...esting-funding

I'm not debating whether it's acceptable or if it's understandable, just that they DID publish release windows and missed them. That's it.

[kenn9530]

It still makes what you said completely inaccurate, though.

You stated that they didn't market any release dates, they did, full stop.

There are also other examples of them marketing a release window, and missing that completely. Such as with Squadron 42 having it's beta release window changed multiple times, and then removed entirely from their roadmap.

https://www.polygon.com/2020/12/28/2...esting-funding

I'm not debating whether it's acceptable or if it's understandable, just that they DID publish release windows and missed them. That's it.

They never published a release date that is fact, they just had an estimated one from the kickstarter and thats it, they never stated that the games full release would be set on x date ever, they had an estimated one for a small part of SQ42 before the campaign was also changed to add in new developed techs so no dates given were even set in stone just like any date for a game in development.

This so called 2016 release for SQ42 was only going to be a chapter or a few of the game and not all 28 plus chapters they currently have, its also up to them to decide when its right to release the game or not so can change the date anytime they want.

[Kyanion]

Not sure if you're intentionally being disingenuous or not, but they absolutely DID market both release dates and release windows.

Kenn is doing it intentionally as we all know, this same discussion happened a good hundred or so pages ago and the person he was arguing with then posted many screen shots and quotes of dates they provided that they missed.

- - - Updated - - -

snip

Ah yes just because they estimate that X will be done in the 3rd quarter and then blow past that, it wasn't ACTUALLY a release date guys!

[Edge-]

This so called 2016 release for SQ42 was only going to be a chapter or a few of the game and not all 28 plus chapters they currently have

It was? Citation needed on that one.

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen...n_42_and_what/

As of April 2015 it was "maybe 21 chapters", which isn't "just a few".

https://overclock3d.net/news/softwar...ease_in_2017/1

Because in 2016 they announced that it would have 28 chapters and....be out the next year. Three years ago.

It's up to them to choose a date and what the game will include, but this, once more, speaks to the reality that basically nothing CIG or Roberts says matters. And it doesn't matter more, because there's an army of people happy to defend their consistently misleading and incorrect statements, many of which seem quite focused on driving excitement and generating more revenue by implying that finished products are much, much, much, much closer to being ready than they were in reality.

You don't say your project is ready in a year and then still have no date for it three-four years later unless you were lying, monumentally stupid, or encountered massive technical problems that may be enough to sink a bloody game entirely.

[Katchii]

They never published a release date that is fact, they just had an estimated one from the kickstarter and thats it,

Are you high or something? What fantasy world do you live in where a date given by the company developing, publishing and releasing the game is not a published date?

They published dates for many things, milestones, release windows and whatnot and missed them, SEVERAL times..... you're deliberately moving goalposts and making it mean ONLY a release of the full game. That's not something I ever claimed, that's something you're putting in to say that they've never missed a date, which is absolute bullshit.

[kenn9530]

It was? Citation needed on that one.

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen...n_42_and_what/

As of April 2015 it was "maybe 21 chapters", which isn't "just a few".

https://overclock3d.net/news/softwar...ease_in_2017/1

Because in 2016 they announced that it would have 28 chapters and....be out the next year. Three years ago.

It's up to them to choose a date and what the game will include, but this, once more, speaks to the reality that basically nothing CIG or Roberts says matters. And it doesn't matter more, because there's an army of people happy to defend their consistently misleading and incorrect statements, many of which seem quite focused on driving excitement and generating more revenue by implying that finished products are much, much, much, much closer to being ready than they were in reality.

You don't say your project is ready in a year and then still have no date for it three-four years later unless you were lying, monumentally stupid, or encountered massive technical problems that may be enough to sink a bloody game entirely.

They had never given a specific release date for it, just some rough estimates of an alpha/beta, and its up to them if they want to change when they want to release it or not anyway, so any date given in development is always subject to change, also chris stated he would not release something unless he was happy with it.

Certain posters in this forum just dont seem to understand that nothing is actually set in stone with development until whoever is in charge is completely happy with releasing the game.

Main points are this game is not taking any longer than it should considering the type of game it is so development time wise its doing very well, its very unlikely any company could make this game in less than 10 years as the game stands now.

Are you high or something? What fantasy world do you live in where a date given by the company developing, publishing and releasing the game is not a published date?

They published dates for many things, milestones, release windows and whatnot and missed them, SEVERAL times..... you're deliberately moving goalposts and making it mean ONLY a release of the full game. That's not something I ever claimed, that's something you're putting in to say that they've never missed a date, which is absolute bullshit.

Have they given an actual release date on the full release of the game, that answer is no they have not. Dates in development are always subject to change in any development company as no company ever can reach ever single goal it ever sets itself, a date in a development timetable is just a rough outline of what they are trying to get done that gives an overall picture of the work currently being worked on.

Your just trying to move your own goal posts saying something else means something else, when in reality you can never rely on setting dates to things in developement since its never a guarantee it will be ready by then.

[1001]

Don't forget the poster you are all replying to has over $10,000 in this game iirc.

Questioning anything about the game is seen as questioning their financial choices hence the insane defensiveness and protectiveness.

[Kyanion]

Don't forget the poster you are all replying to has over $10,000 in this game iirc.

Questioning anything about the game is seen as questioning their financial choices hence the insane defensiveness and protectiveness.

I mean at this point they are just taking any replies they get and going 'nuh uh, they never said that' despite the proof in their face. That is just being willfully ignorant. And if they are 10k deep in this game, that sure explains a lot.

[Edge-]

Certain posters in this forum just dont seem to understand that nothing is actually set in stone with development until whoever is in charge is completely happy with releasing the game.

No, we understand this. Which is why we continue to say that nothing that CIG says publicly matters. Because realistically, it doesn't. SQ42/SC have had at least a dozen different release dates/windows between the two of them over the years, every one of them missed and many of them missed by years now.

And that's fine if we're going to agree that nothing CIG says matters. But it's when we're told to trust CIG on everything except their statements regarding the progress of development, timelines, and release windows/dates. It pretty much undermines the whole point of the roadmap too, because with everything changing all the time and timelines being 100% flexible, the whole roadmap could change tomorrow and "that's just game development."

[1001]

It's up to them to choose a date and what the game will include, but this, once more, speaks to the reality that basically nothing CIG or Roberts says matters. And it doesn't matter more, because there's an army of people happy to defend their consistently misleading and incorrect statements, many of which seem quite focused on driving excitement and generating more revenue by implying that finished products are much, much, much, much closer to being ready than they were in reality.

You don't say your project is ready in a year and then still have no date for it three-four years later unless you were lying, monumentally stupid, or encountered massive technical problems that may be enough to sink a bloody game entirely.

Fully agree. The trouble I see with this project is that certain people at CIG see the fanbase defending all delays and feel enabled by that, there is this weird symbiotic relationship where all common sense has left the building. Imagine paying for something and expecting to get it in 2 years and then still not having it 8 years later and being ok with that, and also being ok with never knowing when you might get it while also still throwing money at the company unable and unwilling to provide what you paid for...

Might as well start calling it Star Qanon

- - - Updated - - -

I mean at this point they are just taking any replies they get and going 'nuh uh, they never said that' despite the proof in their face. That is just being willfully ignorant. And if they are 10k deep in this game, that sure explains a lot.

Personally I see it as trolling, it's all about pissing off other people. If they can't be right they want to do everything possible to remove any sense of positivity from the discussion.

[Katchii]

Main points are this game is not taking any longer than it should considering the type of game it is so development time wise its doing very well, its very unlikely any company could make this game in less than 10 years as the game stands now.

I'm not really seeing anyone state otherwise. The points are more around why would they ever put even a tentative date on something if they didn't think that they could meet it or have it be plausible?

The number of times they've done this only to change it later calls their competency into question, from both a technical aspect as well as just basic project management. There's a few reasons why a tentative date is announced in project management. 1) The folks working on that piece have given input and provided the amount of time it would take to complete it, based on many factors...point being the actual team doing the work provided the information. 2) Someone who has worked on it before provided an estimate based on some assumptions, which may or may not be accurate but it's not complete bullshit 3) Someone pulled a date out of their ass with no input from anyone and just expects that date to mean something.

These are boiled down, heavily, but you get the idea.

The only option actually worth a damn, is #1. #2 is fine for a rough outline, but you don't finalize and publish a timeline until you are working with information directly from the people actually doing the work. And the only reason why dates given from that wouldn't be met are if that team's priorities are changed and they are no longer working on that project, or it's shifted in terms of priority. And if that happens, it's because the project manager didn't do their job correctly in the first place by ensuring they had legitimate information and vetted it with everyone to make sure it's plausible.

Granted, this is an unprecedented project with a LOT of moving parts. I would expect things to be somewhat in flux as things move along because it's so huge. However, at some point, the team would get a handle on what they can do and can't do, how long it takes to do things, and prioritize appropriately so they don't have to KEEP changing dates.

The team is ~9 years and $340 million into this project...at this point they absolutely should understand wtf they're doing. There's not really any excuses at this point aside from incompetence and/or bad leadership constantly changing things, neither of which is a good thing when it comes to providing a finished product.

- - - Updated - - -

Have they given an actual release date on the full release of the game, that answer is no they have not. Dates in development are always subject to change in any development company as no company ever can reach ever single goal it ever sets itself, a date in a development timetable is just a rough outline of what they are trying to get done that gives an overall picture of the work currently being worked on.

Your just trying to move your own goal posts saying something else means something else, when in reality you can never rely on setting dates to things in developement since its never a guarantee it will be ready by then.

You're so full of shit, it's coming out into your forum posts.

It's a 100% quantifiable fact that they've published dates and missed them. Regardless of them being subject to change or not is irrelevant.

You giving them a pass because it's all subject to change is also irrelevant.

All this means, and all you're saying is something we've all already known; nothing CIG says should be taken seriously. But now we can add you and your posts to that same list.

[1001]

Apparently users on spectrum are saying the servers have been capped at 30.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Server cap of 30 players? Goodness gracious, that had better be a bug.

- - - Updated - - -

The servers were crashing so much that they removed a planet from the game to make more room for more stuff, only to also reduce the player size lmao

- - - Updated - - -

Honestly, if their servers legit can't handle 5 planets and their dozen moons and 50 players anymore, just redesign the Stanton System. Scale it back down to just one planet and it's 2 or 3 moons with 1 or 2 space stations so that players can actually meet each other. Make the planets Microtech, Hurston, and ArcCorp into moons orbiting Crusader. I guess maybe you can replace Hurston with Arial so you can have the prison planet. There you go.

- - - Updated - - -

That's just sad

[MrAnderson]

Haha, that's funny.

Extremely all things considered

£100 million+ with a released product for the last 6 years vs £250 million and no released product after 8 years. I'll take the former thank you very much.

£250Million > £100Million. Both products are available to the public, both products are being developed thanks to the generated funds.

If anything a released product marketed and sold in 3 platforms. (PC + XBOX + PS4) while being available in mainstream stores like Steam and Epic should have generated more money than one in still production.

And lets look at the quote from the Guiness book of records.
So a mere mention of something now consititutes the start of development and funding of a project? That is truly pathetic

It's funny how SC fans argue Star Citizen didn't really enter development until 2015 and strongly protest against Chris's quote where he says he started a year before the kickstarter but Braben saying "I would like to do Elite IV" counts as verifiable proof that it was being worked on

What would you consider the correct timeline of the development of both games considering each game and company history?

Sure it does have 3.5x as many. Each person has bought a copy of the game in the same manner that each paying backer has bought a copy of Star Citizen or Squadron 42. All released products reduce in price over the years so using devaluation as an argument is irrelevant. Elite gained all of it's backers without having to resort to free-fly events, cheesy referral schemes etc. It was only recently that they did a "get the game for free" on Epic's store.

Same reason more Prius are sold than Lamborghini. Cheap products will always rely on mass quantity to generate revenue while Expensive products rely in less sales and more margin. £250Million > £100Million

As for the CIG "estimated released dates" they were just that, Estimates.

Star Citizen or Squadron 42 have never been "aggressively marketed with a release date". They've never shown a trailer with a concrete release date.

A marketing push for a intended release date includes tv and magazine adds with the release date already, Murals, Public transportation adds and much more.







Showing bullet-points with intents on fanshow is not a marketing campaign to push of an official release date, it's just dev's talking about their plans for the future.

Anyone following closely crowdfunded games they will know that developers interaction with their fanbase is fundamental and that many estimates are said during live shows or streams that are best guesses and nothing more. The only ones who turn those into set in stone release dates are people who don't understand game development or people acting in bad faith.

Apparently users on spectrum are saying the servers have been capped at 30.

Nop Live still @50 and PTU@40 player cap. There's talks of reducing player cap in Live to help Xenothreat event run better.