[Megathread] Star Citizen

[masterhorus8]

And? I know I can get a refund. That's not the point. The point is that they explicitly removed a clause that was about financial accountability. It's a douchebag move and it doesn't matter how you spin it.

No, they didn't get rid of the financial responsibility. They only got rid of the part that wouldn't affect any new backers, the ORIGINAL KICKSTARTER clause. Since no one has been able to pay through the kickstarter for 3 and a half years, they got rid of the dead weight.

[Odeezee]

these guys are very good at making in-game commercials about ships from the game. love this latest one focused on MISC

[stellvia]

I never cease to get a chuckle out of the hordes of clueless trolls et al that come in here complaining about empty hulls being p2w, vaporware, scams, tiny instances, etc. etc. when they have no idea what they're talking about and basically are wearing their own prejudice on their sleeve because they want to.

[Edge-]

I never cease to get a chuckle out of the hordes of clueless trolls et al that come in here complaining about empty hulls being p2w, vaporware, scams, tiny instances, etc. etc. when they have no idea what they're talking about and basically are wearing their own prejudice on their sleeve because they want to.

Or the fact that without knowing the specific details of, for example, how ship insurance works, things look a lot worse than they really are.

Hell, I only fully learned how ship insurance works over the weekend. I've had a loose eye on the game since its Kickstarter, but have never really done a deep dive in there. So until recently, I thought that insurance literally just replaced your ship outright rather than relying on the materials for the ship actually be available along with the production facilities, and if they aren't you have to wait for it (at least that's how I understood it after it was explained). So you get your ship back...just eventually, you can't burn through them over and over and get them instantly replaced.

For a lot of skeptical folks, myself included, that's the biggest thing. We've not the time nor interest to do full deep dives on all the info but are keeping an eye on the game. I can't speak for others, but I'm always happy to be corrected when I'm working with incorrect information or and wrong on something. It's not all clueless trolls, it's often times skeptical people with some interest but incomplete information or incorrect assumptions : )

[KyrtF]

And which would those be? Not saying there aren't any but I can't think of any projects that have delivered more than what SC claims/plans to in general let alone for less money & time. In fact I'd say the concerns about them not having enough money are quite legitimate.

Star Citizen is a space based sim with the ability to engage in trade...piracy...combat...exploration...and so on. It allows you to land on planets...fly a starship....drive a vehicle...engage in FPS based boarding actions. You take part in various missions to earn money. It has 150 or so crafted systems.

Existing or near future games that allow you to do most or all of that? Elite....NMS....COWIW....MEA...SWTOR

Star Citizen is spending a lot of money reinventing the wheel. As far as I can see, it promises nothing that hasn't been done before. Now...SC might end up doing things better but generally, the difference appears to be mainly one of focus rather than scope.

[masterhorus8]

Or the fact that without knowing the specific details of, for example, how ship insurance works, things look a lot worse than they really are.

Hell, I only fully learned how ship insurance works over the weekend. I've had a loose eye on the game since its Kickstarter, but have never really done a deep dive in there. So until recently, I thought that insurance literally just replaced your ship outright rather than relying on the materials for the ship actually be available along with the production facilities, and if they aren't you have to wait for it (at least that's how I understood it after it was explained). So you get your ship back...just eventually, you can't burn through them over and over and get them instantly replaced.

For a lot of skeptical folks, myself included, that's the biggest thing. We've not the time nor interest to do full deep dives on all the info but are keeping an eye on the game. I can't speak for others, but I'm always happy to be corrected when I'm working with incorrect information or and wrong on something. It's not all clueless trolls, it's often times skeptical people with some interest but incomplete information or incorrect assumptions : )

It's just that though. As you said, incorrect/incomplete information or assumptions. They're coming in here saying that the game is shit instead of asking simple questions.

- - - Updated - - -

Star Citizen is a space based sim with the ability to engage in trade...piracy...combat...exploration...and so on. It allows you to land on planets...fly a starship....drive a vehicle...engage in FPS based boarding actions. You take part in various missions to earn money. It has 150 or so crafted systems.

Existing or near future games that allow you to do most or all of that? Elite....NMS....COWIW....MEA...SWTOR

Star Citizen is spending a lot of money reinventing the wheel. As far as I can see, it promises nothing that hasn't been done before. Now...SC might end up doing things better but generally, the difference appears to be mainly one of focus rather than scope.

It's not that the features haven't been done before, it's that it's trying to have all of it that makes the game different.

[Edge-]

It's just that though. As you said, incorrect/incomplete information or assumptions. They're coming in here saying that the game is shit instead of asking simple questions.

Because as far as they know, it is. I was sorta in that camp, given my lack of a full understanding of how ship insurance works, and the fact that they will stop selling ships when the game launches, I was functioning under the assumption that ships would continue to be "magicked" into existence through the cash shop and again "magicked" into existence instantly when replaced by ship insurance. I'd seen bits of information about both but not the full information, so I was functioning under what I assumed was correct information but wasn't.

So when the P2W discussion came up elsewhere, I chimed in and voiced the opinion that it was definitely on the line, if not over it into full blow P2W territory. But thankfully, rather than call me a troll and shitpost because I'm not following every small detail about the game, some kind chaps corrected my information which changed how I viewed that part of the game.

So if someone says it's shit, ask why. If the reason they give is incorrect information, correct them by all means! But if it's correct information and they still don't like it, so be it. Subjective preferences and all that jazz.

[Rennadrel]

Because as far as they know, it is. I was sorta in that camp, given my lack of a full understanding of how ship insurance works, and the fact that they will stop selling ships when the game launches, I was functioning under the assumption that ships would continue to be "magicked" into existence through the cash shop and again "magicked" into existence instantly when replaced by ship insurance. I'd seen bits of information about both but not the full information, so I was functioning under what I assumed was correct information but wasn't.

So when the P2W discussion came up elsewhere, I chimed in and voiced the opinion that it was definitely on the line, if not over it into full blow P2W territory. But thankfully, rather than call me a troll and shitpost because I'm not following every small detail about the game, some kind chaps corrected my information which changed how I viewed that part of the game.

So if someone says it's shit, ask why. If the reason they give is incorrect information, correct them by all means! But if it's correct information and they still don't like it, so be it. Subjective preferences and all that jazz.

The thing to remember that a lot of detractors forget is that ship designers will always need to have work, that is what they do. The same thing happens with a free to play game that I play called MechWarrior Online. The developers release a new Mech package every month because they have a team of designers, artists and modelers who do just that kind of work, because it's easy once you have a process and it keeps the cash flowing in.

[KyrtF]

It's not that the features haven't been done before, it's that it's trying to have all of it that makes the game different.

Elite pretty much has everything SC is offering now except the boarding FPS part...and that is planned.
NMS pretty much has everything SC is offering now.
SWTOR likewise.
COWIW lacks the trading, etc but it's otherwise pretty much SC. As is, its likely more akin to SQ42.

And so on. There are other games that I could mention. Many of which were developed on less time with less money.

SC isn't planning on doing anything that hasn't already been done. About the only facet that would be new would be the FPS element....but space sim games have incorporated that as well.

Even as a single package, its difficult to come up with anything SC is doing that justifies the time and resources spent so far. One could argue that SC might do it better but even so....simply looking at existing games shows a lot of what SC claims to be innovating has already been done.

As it is, they seem to have spent a lot of time converting a 32 bit engine designed for single player FPS onto a 64 bit engine capable of handling multiplayer ship based combat.

I'm looking forward to the finished product but being blunt...looking at what they've produced in 5 years of development and comparing it with other games I have to wonder where the money went.

[Edge-]

The thing to remember that a lot of detractors forget is that ship designers will always need to have work, that is what they do. The same thing happens with a free to play game that I play called MechWarrior Online. The developers release a new Mech package every month because they have a team of designers, artists and modelers who do just that kind of work, because it's easy once you have a process and it keeps the cash flowing in.

Mechwarrior is an entirely different beast from everything I know about it (and Star Citizen, which admittedly isn't a ton in either case), you can't really compare the two at all as far as I can tell.

I honestly don't see what point you're trying to make though. Yes, concept artists, 3D artists, modelers, animators etc. need a steady flow of work. But there's plenty of that between ships and all the other assets to create in the game to keep them busy for a while. And even if there's not, there are plenty of ships they could be working on that aren't monetized through the cash shop.

And at some point, they'll likely need to cut down on their art staff due to the simple reality that they can't continue to justify having them creating new stuff at a rapid pace forever. Eventually it's going to slow down and they won't need as big an art department, and if they're not planning for that then that's an issue (I assume they are, though). It sucks for the artists, but it's the reality of that line of work.

[Rennadrel]

Mechwarrior is an entirely different beast from everything I know about it (and Star Citizen, which admittedly isn't a ton in either case), you can't really compare the two at all as far as I can tell.

I honestly don't see what point you're trying to make though. Yes, concept artists, 3D artists, modelers, animators etc. need a steady flow of work. But there's plenty of that between ships and all the other assets to create in the game to keep them busy for a while. And even if there's not, there are plenty of ships they could be working on that aren't monetized through the cash shop.

And at some point, they'll likely need to cut down on their art staff due to the simple reality that they can't continue to justify having them creating new stuff at a rapid pace forever. Eventually it's going to slow down and they won't need as big an art department, and if they're not planning for that then that's an issue (I assume they are, though). It sucks for the artists, but it's the reality of that line of work.

So long as you have customers willing to doll out cash for ships, there will always be a need for people to design ships, just like there are those who design robots. Pay for early access, more than anything. Maybe that method will halt once the game actually stops needing extra funding or goes into a true alpha phase.

[Edge-]

So long as you have customers willing to doll out cash for ships, there will always be a need for people to design ships, just like there are those who design robots. Pay for early access, more than anything. Maybe that method will halt once the game actually stops needing extra funding or goes into a true alpha phase.

But they won't be directly selling ships when the game launches, and eventually they'll have more than enough ships during production to no longer need the artists to be churning them out at the current speed. Whether those folks transition to making more in-game non-purchased assets or whether they move to working on cosmetic DLC, or if they're let go altogether, is what the issue is.

And the way things are looking, they'll never not need funding. If they keep seeing additional delays, they'll definitely run into an issue where they'll need additional funding to cover the costs (rather than use it to expand the scope of the game), or will need to look to private investors or a publisher to help kick in money.

[Nirawen]

Star Citizen is a space based sim with the ability to engage in trade...piracy...combat...exploration...and so on. It allows you to land on planets...fly a starship....drive a vehicle...engage in FPS based boarding actions. You take part in various missions to earn money. It has 150 or so crafted systems.

Existing or near future games that allow you to do most or all of that? Elite....NMS....COWIW....MEA...SWTOR

Star Citizen is spending a lot of money reinventing the wheel. As far as I can see, it promises nothing that hasn't been done before. Now...SC might end up doing things better but generally, the difference appears to be mainly one of focus rather than scope.

But they're attempting to do all of those things, in the same project, to a level of quality & depth that most don't reach when they focus on just one, that requires money & time. Comparing NMS to Star Citizen is like comparing a cattle field to a world cup stadium.

Saying it has ships, space & planets etc and therefore is no more progressive or ambitious than any other game with those things is naive and shows little understanding of the technical boundaries that need to be overcome to achieve what they're planning.

[masterhorus8]

But they won't be directly selling ships when the game launches, and eventually they'll have more than enough ships during production to no longer need the artists to be churning them out at the current speed. Whether those folks transition to making more in-game non-purchased assets or whether they move to working on cosmetic DLC, or if they're let go altogether, is what the issue is.

And the way things are looking, they'll never not need funding. If they keep seeing additional delays, they'll definitely run into an issue where they'll need additional funding to cover the costs (rather than use it to expand the scope of the game), or will need to look to private investors or a publisher to help kick in money.

Yeah, they should most certainly cut back on staff after the stuff is done. They'll obviously still need some people for the new content that get's pumped out for SQ42 and SC, but definitely not as much as they have currently. As for future funds, once SQ42 is released, their funding should sky rocket. SO many people aren't buying into this because it's not out yet. Once it is (if it's good, that is), the funding shouldn't be a problem for a while.

As for the ships that keep coming out, right now, they aren't really "new" ships. Most of these are ships that were on the oh-so problematic stretch goals. A new (like the Polaris recently) were due to a ship being changed too much from it's original role, so they had to make something to fit that original goal of the ship.

[Odeezee]

Because as far as they know, it is. I was sorta in that camp, given my lack of a full understanding of how ship insurance works, and the fact that they will stop selling ships when the game launches, I was functioning under the assumption that ships would continue to be "magicked" into existence through the cash shop and again "magicked" into existence instantly when replaced by ship insurance. I'd seen bits of information about both but not the full information, so I was functioning under what I assumed was correct information but wasn't.

So when the P2W discussion came up elsewhere, I chimed in and voiced the opinion that it was definitely on the line, if not over it into full blow P2W territory. But thankfully, rather than call me a troll and shitpost because I'm not following every small detail about the game, some kind chaps corrected my information which changed how I viewed that part of the game.

So if someone says it's shit, ask why. If the reason they give is incorrect information, correct them by all means! But if it's correct information and they still don't like it, so be it. Subjective preferences and all that jazz.

Edge please...ignorance is not a virtue, there is no excuse for it regardless of intention.

[Edge-]

Edge please...ignorance is not a virtue, there is no excuse for it regardless of intention.

I never said it was. But I don't have the time or interest to know every single detail about the game as my interest is only moderate. I don't see why that's a bad thing, not everyone can be super interested in everything and know everything about it.

One would hope that rather than just call people trolls or insulting them, when someone posts incorrect information that they are corrected with the complete/correct information. And one would hope that the person accepts that new information and adjusts their opinions accordingly.

[KyrtF]

But they're attempting to do all of those things, in the same project, to a level of quality & depth that most don't reach when they focus on just one, that requires money & time. Comparing NMS to Star Citizen is like comparing a cattle field to a world cup stadium.

Saying it has ships, space & planets etc and therefore is no more progressive or ambitious than any other game with those things is naive and shows little understanding of the technical boundaries that need to be overcome to achieve what they're planning.

They're attempting to do all those things....and so are other games. ED is missing just the FPS...and it is planned. NMS already has them but has a different focus.

You say that I don't understand the technical boundaries. That is probably true...for you as well as me.

But as I said...other games already appear to have what SC is doing. Or have plans to add those features.

Fast forward to 2030 when SC is released.
ED has FPS and boarding actions alongside what it has today.

That means it has just about everything everything SC has planned. Its got a heavier focus on SIM than SC and a different flight model but feature wise..it has the same list as SC.

How then is SC pushing things? SC would likely retain greater variety in its ships and graphics thanks to its greater budget, but is there anything that justifies SC having a $130 million budget?

Even now...look at what ED has accomplished in a fraction of the time and with much less money. It has a playable game...it has an ambitious feature list and grand plans...a balanced and working flight model and game engine...and it is released. Not everyone might care for its sim-heavy focus....but look at what SC has done with more developers and more money in the same amount of time. A few tech demos and a small scale simulation.

It is still working on the game engine and flight model and it is still to implement the basic in-game mechanics for any role outside combat.

It might be a better game when released but so far there isn't a lot to show for all the money. I'm still looking forward to seeing it released but it still strikes me that progress shown to date is a strong indicator that a lot of the money has been wasted and I note they still need to fund what will need to be an expensive marketing campaign if they want to sell to people who aren't existing backers.

You might want to argue that SC is being developed to a scale and scope never attempted before - but if that is the case, you'll need to point out exactly where this is happening because I can't see it.

What is it doing that Elite or Eve or No Man Sky or other games aren't doing or aren't planning for? A different graphical style? A different focus for the players? A different flight and combat model? It isn't doing things bigger...it isn't providing more features. At best, you can argue that the systems they have are being more developed and hand crafted, but a lot of systems in the other games are also hand crafted.

So - no. I don't see this greater scope or scale - and I think it a huge mistake to talk the game up to this level. It's pure hype, and not based in reality. It raises expectations for what the game is likely to deliver and that way lies NMS. NMS is a decent game in its own right - but it was overhyped, launched with many missing features and was vastly overpriced. And with CRs talk of a MVP...I'm wondering what features the proverbial everyone is expecting are going to be cut from launch.

SC has two years at least of further development time and a 2020 launch date isn't unreasonable from what I understand. And SQ42 SHOULD launch in 2017 which hopefully, will give CIG another revenue stream, even counting marketing costs. SC has a lot of promise and I am really looking forward to it. But I am not blind to its existing faults, I don't see it as particularly innovative or grand in scope or scale, and I don't see it as the BDSSE.

Not yet.

ED is out. NMS is out. EVE is out. All have similar or greater scope and scale. All have a similar feature list. We also have Halo....CODIW...MEA...and other games that can provide similar gameplay even if they drop one or two elements such as trading or have a more arcade focus.

SC...has a lot of promise. I am really looking forward to it.
But...would I recommend people back it? No. Buy a starter package? Not yet. A month or two before launch? Maybe. Give CIG any money? No.
Do I think it is particularly innovative? Grander in scope or scale? Does something unique? No. No. No. No.

It's an Elite clone with FPS and MMO elements. Which makes it like ED and EVE and NMS and other games. The difference is...somehow this has got $130 million in funding and a lot less to show for it.

In retrospect - I am beginning to think the decision to use CryEngine was a mistake. An engine was needed, but given the amount of work they've needed to do to transform it into the StarEngine....work that is still ongoing...and given that other games have managed to put in or develop engines which required less tinkering under the hood to work, you have to wonder if it was the right decision. If ED or EVE developed their own engines...then SC likely could have done so as well. If ED or EVE or NMS could buy an existing engine...then SC could have started using the same. Using CryEngine seems to have CIG a lot of time, effort and money to get it to do most of what they want it to do.

I'm still pulling for the game, but I ain't gonna invest money.

[masterhorus8]

I never said it was. But I don't have the time or interest to know every single detail about the game as my interest is only moderate. I don't see why that's a bad thing, not everyone can be super interested in everything and know everything about it.

One would hope that rather than just call people trolls or insulting them, when someone posts incorrect information that they are corrected with the complete/correct information. And one would hope that the person accepts that new information and adjusts their opinions accordingly.

That's partially the thing though. If someone comes in and asks a legitimate question, they will get a legitimate answer. If someone comes in here with incorrect info and is actively calling this project a failure instead of being more passive like your responses, they tend to get attacked by people because no one can tell the difference between a FUD campaign follower like EvcRo and then someone like FrankLampard who legitimately didn't know. Personally, I know i tend to answer people back with the same attitude that they're throwing around unless I'm in a good mood, just something I can't easily control (until after i reread what I typed and go back and remove the harsh responses.) So when someone comes in here with a shit negative attitude, they tend to be met with the same thing. But yes, you're right.

[stellvia]

One would hope that rather than just call people trolls or insulting them, when someone posts incorrect information that they are corrected with the complete/correct information. And one would hope that the person accepts that new information and adjusts their opinions accordingly.

The problem is its literally the same misguided rants over and over again from people flying by the thread. And they never come in seeking answers, they come in claiming to "know" what the game is like, then spout off opinions that prove they have no idea what the game is like nor a wish to know. They read someone elses unfounded opinions that reinforced their prejudices and ran with it.

How do we take them seriously when we have people like the below quote:

They're attempting to do all those things....and so are other games. ED is missing just the FPS...and it is planned. NMS already has them but has a different focus.

By his reasoning, why have normal hotel rooms when a capsule hotel with communal bathrooms already does the same thing? He's so far off-base its not even worth the effort.

[masterhorus8]

To try and follow what Edge was saying about trying to actually reasonably answer stuff, for the main differences between NMS and ED, and SC, I got an answer from someone who's played all 3.

"I think this game is different in primarily it's crowdfunding and philosophy. People optionally spend thousands now so most don't have to spend microtransactions later. Naturally this is a huge and controversial practice, so I don't think any game has been so divisive as SC.

I also think SC is the first example of a truly next gen PC only game, made from the ground up for enthusiast-grade PC gamers. The Witcher 3 is pretty damn next gen as well, but the poly counts in SC's models, the sheer detail, the ultra high res textures and the brand new and sometimes even untested tech going into the game makes this one more future-gen.

What makes it better or different than ED? Or NMS? In Elite Dangerous (A game I've played after I played SC and I enjoyed) you are a ship or SRV cockpit. Not a pilot. You can land on limited planets and have to have a rover to go around on the planets. Exploration is generally unsatisfying. You can have an Imperial Cutter (an outright Capital Ship) and yet it doesn't feel better than the Sidewinder you start out with, because it isn't a ship you can walk around in. It's a cockpit. Nothing more. You aren't a pilot that can walk around whenever you feel like it, you're a cockpit. Elite is so beautiful and well made, and yet it's so unsatisfying to me...

In NMS you can explore anything you can see, but every space station has exactly one alien and one hallway despite being huge. You can explore millions of places but you can never travel with friends. Every ship feels the same. Again, you're still just a cockpit. Your ship is an A to B to Galactic Core ship, not your home base. Not a trading vessel, not a fighting vessel, not a bounty hunting vessel, a thing to get you to the next planet. I played NMS. I did not like it. And I will leave it at that."