[Megathread] Star Citizen

[Odeezee]

...I'm just slowly growing old while waiting for a release date and slightly annoyed that 2 people are comparing fact with fiction.

exactly how long should a game of this size and scope take to you seeing as we are only just 4 years in as of November?

[MrAnderson]

Comparing ED with Star Citizen makes no sense, just because they are set in space and you can fly spaceships doesn't make them competitors or the same kind of game.

Elite is more focused in the SpaceSim/ Scientific Galaxy/ Flying in space solo, do your own thing kind of gameplay. Much like Truck / Farm simulator but in space.

Star Citizen is going more for the GTA+Skyrim+EVE in space route. Focusing more on group/social aspects and detailed narratives and lot's of player/npc interaction.

Both games will be good to play to relax from one another, there's no rule that says that you can only have one game installed at the same time.

[masterhorus8]

Comparing ED with Star Citizen makes no sense, just because they are set in space and you can fly spaceships doesn't make them competitors or the same kind of game.

Elite is more focused in the SpaceSim/ Scientific Galaxy/ Flying in space solo, do your own thing kind of gameplay. Much like Truck / Farm simulator but in space.

Star Citizen is going more for the GTA+Skyrim+EVE in space route. Focusing more on group/social aspects and detailed narratives and lot's of player/npc interaction.

Both games will be good to play to relax from one another, there's no rule that says that you can only have one game installed at the same time.

+1

/10chars

[KyrtF]

elite dangerous instance limit is 32

And yet people have been in instances with 50 or more players at once.

and concerning SC atm even in alpha is can handle more players than that.

Last I checked, 24 is less than 32. And Elites limit is more than 32.

In practical terms, the instance limit is based on available resources and this includes server and client memory, server and client CPU, server and client bandwidth and so on. More players in an instance require more resources and more data and no matter how good your system is, there is a limit. Star Citizens limit is currently 24. CIG want to push that limit as high as they can...

But in reality, costs and resources and practicalities will limit what can be done. There is little point in having a 1000 players in an instance if the players get 1FPS. And instance limits will be based not on ideal circumstances - but the worst. If all 23 players of a Javelin have a battle view - that is 23 times the data that the server needs to process for that ship than it needs to for a single player fighter. For all the talk about limiting instances by ships, it is the number of players which determines how much data a server needs to process for an instance. A single player in a Javelin isn't going to generate much more data than a single player in a Hornet. The Javelin will take more resources for the client to draw and render...but that is the clients issue.

The question then is how many players can an SC instance hold without severe degradation regardless of shiptype. CIG will probably settle around 100 players per instance - which might mean 4 ships. We don't know Elites maximum....just that it is currently over 53.

In elite there is no guilds/clans, there is only your friends list, it is missing all the features it requires to function as an MMO

If you mean MMO in the technical sense...Elite is massive, it is multiplayer and it is online.
If you mean MMO in the sense to which it has become associated...MMORPG...then guilds and clans aren't a mandatory part of that experience. And I will note that such groups can and do exist in game.

Being able to have a 4 man wing and interact with a very small amount of the playerbase is not even close to what an MMO is, not to mention it is very rare you will ever even encounter a full instance.

And being blunt and brutally honest with you - the same will be true for Star Citizen as well. For all the talk about multicrew...it's only going to be situationally desireable. For all the talk about expanding limits to 50 or 100 players...most of the time, instances will be nowhere that limit simply because of the way instances work. More so since CIGs instance tech reserves slots for friends and players of interest

Also everything in Elite is instanced, each station area is a separate instance and super cruise is one big instance, SC offers a seamless transfer from one area to the next.

When you say "SC offers a seamless transfer from one area to the next" what you are saying is that it offers a seamless transfer from one instance to the next. Star Citizen uses instancing technology just as Elite does. Just as many other games do. And we can hope that its transfers will be as seamless in the real world as those in Elite are once the game launches.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, CIG is calling it alpha right now, ie Alpha 2.6 is coming out soon and we're on Alpha 2.5 right now. I was just under the impression that alpha wasn't feature complete and beta was. And beta is for the bug fixing/optimizing.

CIG is calling it alpha....but right now it is simply a series of tech demonstrators while they build the underlying technology they need to build the game.

Most features are missing. Most systems are missing. Most ships are missing. The engine is still being developed and they've only recently showcased assets such as their planet generator...which is still being worked on.

CIG are trying to develop the game AND the tools they need to do so at the same time. It'll be Pre-Alpha moving into Alpha.

[masterhorus8]

-snip-

Relevant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGr2...tu.be&t=29m58s

*Warning, wall of text. https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen..._in_the_pu_be/

[kenn9530]

And yet people have been in instances with 50 or more players at once.



Last I checked, 24 is less than 32. And Elites limit is more than 32.

In practical terms, the instance limit is based on available resources and this includes server and client memory, server and client CPU, server and client bandwidth and so on. More players in an instance require more resources and more data and no matter how good your system is, there is a limit. Star Citizens limit is currently 24. CIG want to push that limit as high as they can...

But in reality, costs and resources and practicalities will limit what can be done. There is little point in having a 1000 players in an instance if the players get 1FPS. And instance limits will be based not on ideal circumstances - but the worst. If all 23 players of a Javelin have a battle view - that is 23 times the data that the server needs to process for that ship than it needs to for a single player fighter. For all the talk about limiting instances by ships, it is the number of players which determines how much data a server needs to process for an instance. A single player in a Javelin isn't going to generate much more data than a single player in a Hornet. The Javelin will take more resources for the client to draw and render...but that is the clients issue.

The question then is how many players can an SC instance hold without severe degradation regardless of shiptype. CIG will probably settle around 100 players per instance - which might mean 4 ships. We don't know Elites maximum....just that it is currently over 53.



If you mean MMO in the technical sense...Elite is massive, it is multiplayer and it is online.
If you mean MMO in the sense to which it has become associated...MMORPG...then guilds and clans aren't a mandatory part of that experience. And I will note that such groups can and do exist in game.



And being blunt and brutally honest with you - the same will be true for Star Citizen as well. For all the talk about multicrew...it's only going to be situationally desireable. For all the talk about expanding limits to 50 or 100 players...most of the time, instances will be nowhere that limit simply because of the way instances work. More so since CIGs instance tech reserves slots for friends and players of interest



When you say "SC offers a seamless transfer from one area to the next" what you are saying is that it offers a seamless transfer from one instance to the next. Star Citizen uses instancing technology just as Elite does. Just as many other games do. And we can hope that its transfers will be as seamless in the real world as those in Elite are once the game launches.

- - - Updated - - -



CIG is calling it alpha....but right now it is simply a series of tech demonstrators while they build the underlying technology they need to build the game.

Most features are missing. Most systems are missing. Most ships are missing. The engine is still being developed and they've only recently showcased assets such as their planet generator...which is still being worked on.

CIG are trying to develop the game AND the tools they need to do so at the same time. It'll be Pre-Alpha moving into Alpha.

The instance limit currently in alpha is 36 with a hardcap at 40 to allow more flexability for friends to join.

Elite still is not an MMO, its like saying diablo 3 is an MMO just because it has millions of players you can potentially play with but you can only have a team of 5, elite is slightly different as you can at least see some of the playerbase but its still not an MMO.

Elites travel system makes you feel disconnected as everytime you go in and out of supercruise its just one big loading screen, in star citizen the travel is relative and you can see where your traveling too get closer every step of the way, in Elite once you press a button its go from a small ball/station in the sky to being right in front of you, its may be a small thing but its those differences that really make a game stand out, its may be another version of loading but the seemless transition is far superior to what elite offers.

[KyrtF]

Elite still is not an MMO

Elite is as much an MMO as Star Citizen plans to be. No more. No less.
Both are massive, both are multiplayer, both are online, and both allow you to "roleplay". Your criteria that a team of 5 does not make it an MMO is simply a way whereby you can talk up Star Citizen by describing it in terms its own developers have stated is wrong.

Elites travel system makes you feel disconnected as everytime you go in and out of supercruise its just one big loading screen, in star citizen the travel is relative and you can see where your traveling too get closer every step of the way, in Elite once you press a button its go from a small ball/station in the sky to being right in front of you, its may be a small thing but its those differences that really make a game stand out, its may be another version of loading but the seemless transition is far superior to what elite offers.

You do realise Elite is transiting over a wide area network while your so-called seamless transition in Star Citizen takes place in a highly controlled environment?
And you are aware - that environment is the only major difference of note? Both games stream in data and load objects and create instances as required. It will be interesting to see how Star Citizens so called seamless nature holds up to a real world environment and the loading of a full game.

And regardless...none of this addresses the point. That Star Citizen and CGI is not innovative, not cutting edge and to date, they have provided a very low amount of output for the money they have received. They are doing nothing that hasn't been done already.

As for the instance size - latest update from CIG says a 24 man limit. Their internal builds might be better but aren't the builds we're playing.

[masterhorus8]

Elite is as much an MMO as Star Citizen plans to be. No more. No less.
Both are massive, both are multiplayer, both are online, and both allow you to "roleplay". Your criteria that a team of 5 does not make it an MMO is simply a way whereby you can talk up Star Citizen by describing it in terms its own developers have stated is wrong.

Since you're so quick to correct me on my technicality "error", once again, there is a difference between an MMO and RPG. They are two separate meanings. Stop confusing MMO with RPG automatically attached. ED is NOT an RPG, but it is supposedly an MMO.

Also, *cough* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite:_Dangerous (No MMO tag even though it does say "The game is the first in the series to attempt to feature massively multiplayer gameplay, with players' actions affecting the narrative story of the game's persistent universe, while also retaining single player options. ")

Genre(s) Space trading and combat, first-person shooter
Mode(s) Single-player, multiplayer

[KyrtF]

Since you're so quick to correct me on my technicality "error", once again, there is a difference between an MMO and RPG. They are two separate meanings. Stop confusing MMO with RPG automatically attached. ED is NOT an RPG, but it is supposedly an MMO.

And once again...stop putting words in my mouth

My point is that Star Citizen is not innovative. It is not cutting edge. It is overhyped. And it is currently demonstrating a severe lack of value for money.

Stop trying to make this out to be a "Which is better" debate...when it isn't

[Tradewind]

And once again...stop putting words in my mouth

My point is that Star Citizen is not innovative. It is not cutting edge. It is overhyped. And it is currently demonstrating a severe lack of value for money. **

Stop trying to make this out to be a "Which is better" debate...when it isn't

** in your opinion.

An opinion which is suspect at best, since you've had the instances issue explained to you at least twice now (myself and horus) and yet you still choose to ignore it after the fact. Ergo, you aren't interested in learning about it, just here to shit this place up some more.

[kenn9530]

And regardless...none of this addresses the point. That Star Citizen and CGI is not innovative, not cutting edge and to date, they have provided a very low amount of output for the money they have received. They are doing nothing that hasn't been done already.

what other game has the level of detail each ship in star citizen has, no other game like this has complete damage models which also affects flight performance along with being able to see right through the ship, star citizens procedural planets have working weather systems combined with different ecosystems around the planet, some things may have been done before but nothing to this level of fidelity and realism as best it can be, the tech behind all the features is as cutting edge and up to date as it can be, the procedural planet tech along is far ahead of NMS/elite as it was custom developed specifically for the game and to finely craft lore rich planets.

You moan about low output, its been 4 years and planet tech is pretty much there, most games developers wouldn't even have half to show than CiG has, and CiG give constant updates to whats going on unlike anyone else, 4 years to build a team across multiple countries and get this far in development with such a small team is a great achievement.

[masterhorus8]

And once again...stop putting words in my mouth

My point is that Star Citizen is not innovative. It is not cutting edge. It is overhyped. And it is currently demonstrating a severe lack of value for money.

Stop trying to make this out to be a "Which is better" debate...when it isn't

You might want to learn some names then, because I was not trying to "debate" which one was better. Hell, I tried to ask you a question about ED because I didn't know HOW to compare them and you flat out ignored it. I even said TWICE (agreed with) that there's no point in trying to compare the two games, while you were the one that was so eager to try and debate about in the first place. I have not once tried to compare them. So please, don't start a mess that you can't clean up after and then start to blame someone else.

[KyrtF]

** in your opinion.

An opinion which is suspect at best, since you've had the instances issue explained to you at least twice now (myself and horus) and yet you still choose to ignore it after the fact. Ergo, you aren't interested in learning about it, just here to shit this place up some more.

You keep arguing that Star Citizen is BETTER. It might end up that way.

I am saying that the game is not being innovative as it is doing nothing other games have not already done. It is not providing value for money because five years into development and $135 million dollars of funding, it has produced nothing more than a few tech demonstrators, a few of which are playable.

And you lot keep trying to say I am wrong...not because Star Citizen is innovative but because first you think and hope that when released it will be better than the other games and second ooh!!! look!!! Shiny Graphics!!!!

This does not address the core point - Star Citizen is being overhyped to a level which is increasingly difficult for any game to match. Maybe Star Citizen will match the hype, but that seems doubtful.

- - - Updated - - -

You might want to learn some names then, because I was not trying to "debate" which one was better. Hell, I tried to ask you a question about ED because I didn't know HOW to compare them and you flat out ignored it. I even said TWICE (agreed with) that there's no point in trying to compare the two games, while you were the one that was so eager to try and debate about in the first place. I have not once tried to compare them. So please, don't start a mess that you can't clean up after and then start to blame someone else.

Which frankly is daft. I **AM** comparing the two games because both are Elite Clones, both have or plan multiplayer aspects and both plan FPS modules that allow actions such as boarding, and walking around planets, stations and ships.

This isn't to debate which is better...that is subjective and we won't know how Star Citizen will work in real life until it is released...it was to show that Star Citizen is creating a game that is doing stuff the industry already does. That it is not being innovative. That it has spent a lot of money and has precious little to show because it is developing the tools needed to create the game. We can hope now that the planet generator is working that system development will speed up, but CIG only promised to add a few systems within the next year. We can hope that ship generation will increase but CIG still have a lot of ships to be developed and it is still selling new ideas. We can hope that the new NetCode will allow them to reach their goal of 200 players per instance but if I understand the problem correctly that is a major undertaking that will have huge knock on effects with the rest of the coding. And we can hope that development speed will actually increase now that the engine seems mostly done.

But none of what they have done is innovative. And the few tech demos they have provided aren't justification for the $60 or $70 million or $80 million they have spent. We've seen little or nothing of S42. And as stated before, other teams have produced games at a similar scale in less time and with less money.

Is SC innovative? No - they are doing what has been done before
Is SC showing us value for the money spent so far? Other games such as ED, EVE and NMS have done more with less
Will SC be good? Will it be better than those games? We have no idea. But I'm not arguing that.

- - - Updated - - -

what other game has the level of detail each ship in star citizen has, no other game like this has complete damage models which also affects flight performance along with being able to see right through the ship, star citizens procedural planets have working weather systems combined with different ecosystems around the planet, some things may have been done before but nothing to this level of fidelity and realism as best it can be, the tech behind all the features is as cutting edge and up to date as it can be, the procedural planet tech along is far ahead of NMS/elite as it was custom developed specifically for the game and to finely craft lore rich planets.

You moan about low output, its been 4 years and planet tech is pretty much there, most games developers wouldn't even have half to show than CiG has, and CiG give constant updates to whats going on unlike anyone else, 4 years to build a team across multiple countries and get this far in development with such a small team is a great achievement.

GTA V took 5 years to develop. Star Citizen is in its 5th year - not 4th.
GTA V was released in year 5. Star Citizen is just finalising its toolkit and has a few tech demos to show off.
GTA V in year 5 was a fully realised game. Star Citizen is missing most features, hasn't got a working flight model and is talking about releasing a MVP rather than the promised game

[masterhorus8]

You keep arguing that Star Citizen is BETTER. It might end up that way.

I am saying that the game is not being innovative as it is doing nothing other games have not already done. It is not providing value for money because five years into development and $135 million dollars of funding, it has produced nothing more than a few tech demonstrators, a few of which are playable.

And you lot keep trying to say I am wrong...not because Star Citizen is innovative but because first you think and hope that when released it will be better than the other games and second ooh!!! look!!! Shiny Graphics!!!!

This does not address the core point - Star Citizen is being overhyped to a level which is increasingly difficult for any game to match. Maybe Star Citizen will match the hype, but that seems doubtful.

- - - Updated - - -



Which frankly is daft. I **AM** comparing the two games because both are Elite Clones, both have or plan multiplayer aspects and both plan FPS modules that allow actions such as boarding, and walking around planets, stations and ships.

This isn't to debate which is better...that is subjective and we won't know how Star Citizen will work in real life until it is released...it was to show that Star Citizen is creating a game that is doing stuff the industry already does. That it is not being innovative. That it has spent a lot of money and has precious little to show because it is developing the tools needed to create the game. We can hope now that the planet generator is working that system development will speed up, but CIG only promised to add a few systems within the next year. We can hope that ship generation will increase but CIG still have a lot of ships to be developed and it is still selling new ideas. We can hope that the new NetCode will allow them to reach their goal of 200 players per instance but if I understand the problem correctly that is a major undertaking that will have huge knock on effects with the rest of the coding. And we can hope that development speed will actually increase now that the engine seems mostly done.

But none of what they have done is innovative. And the few tech demos they have provided aren't justification for the $60 or $70 million or $80 million they have spent. We've seen little or nothing of S42. And as stated before, other teams have produced games at a similar scale in less time and with less money.

Is SC innovative? No - they are doing what has been done before
Is SC showing us value for the money spent so far? Other games such as ED, EVE and NMS have done more with less
Will SC be good? Will it be better than those games? We have no idea. But I'm not arguing that.

- - - Updated - - -



GTA V took 5 years to develop. Star Citizen is in its 5th year - not 4th.
GTA V was released in year 5. Star Citizen is just finalising its toolkit and has a few tech demos to show off.
GTA V in year 5 was a fully realised game. Star Citizen is missing most features, hasn't got a working flight model and is talking about releasing a MVP rather than the promised game

Let me know when ED is done with its features (a lot of which are planned to be in at launch for SC and some of which SC already has) and how much it cost to get that far. Not to mention how much they'll be charging the consumers to get said content. (Only picking on ED because it's the game that's the closest in scope to SC, and because you keep mentioning it)
https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDanger..._year_roadmap/

Is SC being innovative? Yes. As said MULTIPLE times already. Take a single feature. Sure, it's been done. Take ALL of them. No, it has not been done before, otherwise I'd be glad to know of a single game that has ALL of the same things. This game is pushing what is possible with current technologies for gaming. Why do you think they did this as a Kickstarter? Because no company wasn't to risk putting money into it because it's too difficult (and also because they didn't want a company breathing down their necks to push it out asap, this game needs time because they're pushing shit so hard."

Also, "shiny graphics"? Really? If you think graphics aren't important, tell that to almost every gamer ever with a beefed up computer rig and to the developers of unreal engine 4.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, copy/paste about the development of SC vs NMS for those that like to say, "Well, NMS promised stuff. Look how it turned out."

"Star Citizen's development is different from No Man's Sky in a very fundamental way, because the devs have always been very clear about what will be in the final game when it comes to features and scope. If something won't be done, if something is not planned, they will say so. If they don't know if a particular feature will make it in, they will say so.
If things change, they will tell us. When the game was first crowdfunded, there were no plans to do full planet maps on release. Planets would just be town landing zones. There would not be ground exploration. The game would basically be space-only. When they got more crowdfunding, they said they would look at maybe having procedural planets. And now... well, now things have changed. Now we are getting full-sized planets that you can land and walk around on. Check out the recent Homestead video, and keep in mind, when watching, that the devs initially told us in extremely firm language that this would NOT be possible to do.
Until they managed to do it. And then they let us know.
The devs are very transparent when it comes to features and what will or won't be in the game.
The chief problem people have with Star Citizen is release dates and delays. This has always been an issue. We were expecting the first part of the single player story campaign to be released this year. It's now very clear this won't happen - but the official website still says '2016'. For the Persistent Universe alpha and other modules, the big patches and new feature rollouts tend to be delayed as well.
A lot of people don't like how long the game development has taken. Some are upset about it. If you're going to be skeptical about Star Citizen, this is the biggest reason why.
However, others are of the view that... well, this is a massive undertaking and a ridiculously complex game they're building here. This stuff takes time. They've been very up front about exactly why it's complex, and very detailed about the new technological advances they've made in creating the game. They're doing some amazing stuff here if you've got any understanding of programming... I don't, not really, but from what little I grasp, it's mindblowing.
No Man's Sky devs were probably way to ambitious in their promises - and never delivered. You have to remember that No Man's Sky just talked about features, features, features, they never gave much in-depth discussion about the tech and development behind those features. It's no surprise, in retrospect, that those features ended up not actually existing. For Star Citizen, a lot of us have reasonable expectations that they will deliver...eventually. Because they HAVE shown us a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff, or talked at length about how they'll achieve X, Y, or Z.
For Star Citizen, the issue is more that the devs have historically been too optimistic in estimating how long it will take for them to do a certain thing. A frequent comment from backers is that, in all honesty, the game's initial release estimates were just horribly unrealistic, considering how long it takes for any other studio to develop a typical AAA game.
But this is merely a timeline problem. Thus far, the developers have delivered on what they've promised, or have shown us extensive video proving that on their internal builds, a certain function or feature is a real thing, it just hasn't been released to us yet. It's not like No Man's Sky where a lot of the demo stuff... quite clearly, in retrospect, didn't ACTUALLY exist and was just mocked up for show.
With all that said... as other people here have pointed out... the stuff that exists for Star Citizen at the moment is still fairly thin. What we have is... not so much a game, but a framework on which the game is being built. It may still be wiser to hold off on spending your money for the moment. The next big milestones we're expecting may give you a better indication of whether to put your faith in this, e.g. the 3.0 patch with actual planets. We're in 2.5 now, 2.6 is next and then 3.0. Multiple star systems are only coming in 4.0, however, and there is no firm date on that although there is a roadmap of planned version releases from now til 4.0." [Acylion-Reddit]

[stellvia]

IMHO stop getting baited, people. This situation smells like he-who-shall-not-be-mentioned all over again. When they refuse to acknowledge info that refutes their position and constantly stick to ridiculously outlier viewpoints, then its not a discussion and we should just move on.

[kenn9530]

GTA V took 5 years to develop. Star Citizen is in its 5th year - not 4th.
GTA V was released in year 5. Star Citizen is just finalising its toolkit and has a few tech demos to show off.
GTA V in year 5 was a fully realised game. Star Citizen is missing most features, hasn't got a working flight model and is talking about releasing a MVP rather than the promised game

star citizens kick starter finished in oct 2012, back then there was maybe a handful of people working on it, it has taken a few years to build up what personnel and developments to further develop the game. The game didn't really kick off with development until after the kickstarter so saying these random numbers when you don't have a clue to when even chris actually started with the game is irrelevant. Fact is its been just over 4 years since the kickstarter finished and without that money the game couldn't start development.

it took 5 and a half years at least to make gta 5 this was with a full team, they also had tech to improve on with the previous games so the game hardly started from scratch, GTA 5 also is still a little lax on features and stuff and my god those load times are ridiculous, its taken 3 years for gta 5 to get some decent content for once. GTA 5 is nothing really special there just doing the same as COD and stuff, same game better graphics and a new story. Now try and make gta 5 from scratch with nothing from the previous titles and i guarantee it would take at least another 2 years.

Star citizen has to develop the tech first to develop those features, planet gen tech is a major one which is almost ready for alpha and there is even more planned features to be implemented in the next few alpha patches. The flight model actually works great, its more than likely how the AI is operating that it tries to go straight for you instead or aiming to get behind that needs tweaking.

Star citizen has a load of core features already implemented in the alpha, once planet tech is implemented that another major feature and then the star systems will fall into place relatively quickly.

[Tradewind]

You keep arguing that Star Citizen is BETTER. It might end up that way.

I am saying that the game is not being innovative as it is doing nothing other games have not already done. It is not providing value for money because five years into development and $135 million dollars of funding, it has produced nothing more than a few tech demonstrators, a few of which are playable.

And you lot keep trying to say I am wrong...not because Star Citizen is innovative but because first you think and hope that when released it will be better than the other games and second ooh!!! look!!! Shiny Graphics!!!!

This does not address the core point - Star Citizen is being overhyped to a level which is increasingly difficult for any game to match. Maybe Star Citizen will match the hype, but that seems doubtful.

I've never once used the word "better." I have however referenced being hopeful a few times. I did list reasons why I believe SC to be "innovative," which seems to have been completely missed.

I did say you were wrong with regards to instancing, and explained it, but you continued to ignore it and for 2 more posts went on about instance limitations, despite those assertions being completely inaccurate.

I try not to play "my game is better than your game!" nonsense, because frankly I don't care what everyone else likes, so wouldn't dream of trying to police it. Again, I am hopeful that SC delivers.

I am however confused as to why anyone would actively campaign against the game. Not just because it's a video game and lolwtf. But because of its scope and the features it promises, it could become a pretty big deal for PC gaming in general. I find it odd that anyone could look at it and think to themselves that it's not worth at least a modicum of interest, or would put effort into arguing against its existence.

The world needs less Call of Duty #845 and more Star Citizen.

[francisbaud]

The world needs less Call of Duty #845 and more Star Citizen.

Agreed. I'm not a fan of Star Citizen specifically, but I think the video game industry needs studios that try new things and take risk, push some technological boundaries or implement ideas that are rarely seen in other games. SC is innovating on many sides, the marketing / crowdfunding campaign would be one of them ofc.

[Majestic12]

Do any of you feel like Star Citizen would have been better off if they stuck to and delivered the original scope first? I do, and I think it is a shame they haven't delivered that basic game yet.

[Odeezee]

Do any of you feel like Star Citizen would have been better off if they stuck to and delivered the original scope first? I do, and I think it is a shame they haven't delivered that basic game yet.

i have a question for you, have you pledged and if so when? because you know there were 2 votes conducted by CIG where they asked about what people wanted and the vast majority said to increase the scope which also meant that the time required would obviously also increase. so you can want the original scope and just wait for SQ42 which for a AAA game is still looking at a normal development timescale or you can request a refund and go and play a game more to your liking. now if you have not even pledged to back the game, then come on...why waste so much time harping on about a game when you have no dog in the race?