[Megathread] Star Citizen

[stellvia]

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 may be wrong, but I believe Arena Commander is essentially what was promised as the original scope of the game. Arena dogfighting, a few game modes, etc. It's still considered alpha, but you've been able to play that for quite awhile now. I know its probably not exactly what you meant, but there is definitely something of substance available to play atm.

[Deleted]

after long delays 2.6 was forcepsed to private testers ... but the main feature of it is missing completely : Star Marine elements

it's hard to make a FPS with a FPS engine lol , maybe they need more money , guys jump on it and "pledge" more if you want your game.

[Majestic12]

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?

I already posted that I have pledged. I own an Orion FYI and I have probably spent more on this game than anyone else in this thread. If I have pledged or not is beside the point, that isn't what it is about. In hindsight, I am sure that a lot of the people who voted back then would have simply changed their vote if they knew how things would turn out.

Imagine for a moment what would have happened if CIG didn't get lucky with the CryEngine developers a while back. It would have been a complete disaster, and it says a lot about the decisionmaking at CIG.

The result of the increase of scope have not been a good thing for the game. CIG is spread out all over the place with no end product in sight on either end (SQ42 or PU). Just Star Marine alone is over a year late and is the best example of how featurecreep ruined the game.

But you're avoiding my question, Odeezee. Do you honestly feel that CIG would have been worse off focusing on one thing at a time and waiting with the increased scope? I.e develop SQ42 first, forget all about potential FPS and everything else they added. That base game had a projected release date of 2014. Now, Chris isn't exactly known for being realistic with dates, but even if it was a year late that's something amazingly good compared to what we have now.

Instead, now we have the game in a complete mess with nothing done. The entire time, it's been "Oh, we don't have a good netcode. But now we're working on... Squadron 42 instead!". Then " We don't have Star Marine that we promised. But we have... planet generation!" They keep trying to do something, then without finishing it they just announce something new and different instead. Nothing gets done.. The Netcode still isn't even done.

And who would you rather trust, developers or the community when it comes to decisions for the game? You can't blame the backers for what they voted. It is CIG's responsibility to make the best decisions for their game. Plus, CIG has chosen to not care about the community's vote before. The Polaris is exactly the opposite of what the community wanted in polls and it isn't the first time they went completely against backer polls.

There is simply no excuse for the mismanagement that's been going on. That is my biggest gripe with the game, Chris Roberts lost his way and frankly, I don't think he can finish what he started. If it wasn't for Erin I would have asked for a refund long ago. He is the hope for Star Citizen, not Chris Roberts or his (outed-secret) wife Sandi Gardiner and her marketing practices that piss the community off all the time.

[Gorsameth]

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?

The problem with this is that backers have no experience as game devs (or well 99% wont). Ofcourse when you ask someone "Do you want more stuff?" most will say yes.
Its up to the dev's to say 'This is what we can realisticly do, lets stick to that first'.

[KyrtF]

star citizens kick starter finished in oct 2012

And had already been in development for over a year, to the point they were able to showcase the game using whatever engine they were using at the time. Development did not start with Kickstarter no matter how much you might like to pretend to did.

Work had been done on the concept...its graphics...its engine...its background...and more by the time the Kickstarter launched.

Fact is its been just over 4 years since the kickstarter finished and without that money the game couldn't start development.

Right...the development that took place before Kickstartet doesn't count because CIG didn't have 400 developers then. Only development that takes place aftet CIG has x developers counts as actual development. Everything before that was simply practise.

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

Yep. And CIG has spent much of the years not developing the game but working on the tools they need to make the game and generate funding for it.

Which is why it is still three of four years from release even while it is already two years late and even then CIG are touting the release of a Minimum Viable Product instead of the full game people are expecting.

All of which is beside the point I am making.

CIG are doing nothing innovative or eathshattering or new with Star Citizen. Neither Star Citizen nor Squadron 42 as promised will be doing anything that existing games do not already do....many of which having been developed and released with less funding and fewer developers and in less time than CIG have taken with their games.

Look at No Mans Skies. Look at what Hello Games has accomplished with just a team of 12.

Star Citizen may indeed end up being a great game. But we won't know that until it is released.

Right now? Its a series of tech demoes and playable areas while CIG work on basic mechanics such as flight and develop the basic tools it needs to finish the game.

- - - Updated - - -

Idid list reasons why I believe SC to be "innovative," which seems to have been completely missed.

Your reasons were..

1...its a multiplayer game. The ZX Spectrum had multiplayer games
2...it has spaceships. Welcome to the 1970s
3...it has shooting
4...all three combined

So....SC is innovative because it promises to allow you to walk around spaceships with your friends and shoot stuff in an MMO setting.

SWTOR beckons.

SC isn't innovative nor ground breaking. Ambitious? Yes. Innovative? No.

As for instances....SC uses them, it makes use of transitions and its limit is still about 24...not 40. Which is why there are (for example) still discussions on the debate of releasing ships which require crews greater than the current instance limit.

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.

I'm interested....which is why I disagree strongly with the practise of overhyping the game and raising expectations far beyond what will be delivered

[masterhorus8]

Instead, now we have the game in a complete mess with nothing done. The entire time, it's been "Oh, we don't have a good netcode. But now we're working on... Squadron 42 instead!". Then " We don't have Star Marine that we promised. But we have... planet generation!" They keep trying to do something, then without finishing it they just announce something new and different instead. Nothing gets done.. The Netcode still isn't even done.

Lol, this just shows how little you know about game development, just like most of this site. Do you honestly think that their entire team is working on on thing at a time?

[Tradewind]

Your reasons were..

1...its a multiplayer game. The ZX Spectrum had multiplayer games
2...it has spaceships. Welcome to the 1970s
3...it has shooting
4...all three combined

So....SC is innovative because it promises to allow you to walk around spaceships with your friends and shoot stuff in an MMO setting.

SWTOR beckons.

SC isn't innovative nor ground breaking. Ambitious? Yes. Innovative? No.

As for instances....SC uses them, it makes use of transitions and its limit is still about 24...not 40. Which is why there are (for example) still discussions on the debate of releasing ships which require crews greater than the current instance limit.

lol SWTOR, not even remotely close to the same thing. Not even in the same ballpark. I can't even tell at this point if it's just being disingenuous or if you're truly out to lunch.

Yes, SC uses server instances. That are interconnected, communicating with adjacent instances and every instance in play can interact with it. All the instancing is doing is telling the galaxy server which individual servers are handling the workload for however many ships/crews it has been designated to handle. Crew sizes and instances have absolutely no bearing on one another's limitations. If your ship has 5 crew, it'll be getting managed by one server. If your ship has a crew of 100, it might be handled by 3 or 4. You, the player, will never notice it. It is simply a way to break up server loads to maintain consistency and precision.

Again, go look at the mountains of information provided here and throughout the SC developer updates/forums/etc. on how instancing works in SC. Don't even mention instances again until you do because it's a complete waste of time trying to re-explain it to every person who stumbles in here spouting off some bullshit.

[Majestic12]

Lol, this just shows how little you know about game development, just like most of this site. Do you honestly think that their entire team is working on on thing at a time?

Nice strawman argument. "You don't know game development". If that is everything you have to say about my wall of text, you've already lost the argument.

[masterhorus8]

Nice strawman argument. "You don't know game development". If that is everything you have to say about my wall of text, you've already lost the argument.

The rest of the wall of text I didn't give a shit about because I didn't ask you the question that you were answering and I picked the one thing that you were factually wrong in. The rest of your post was either opinion or correct. But saying that they get nothing done is factually wrong. And that's not a strawman, just cherry picking with possible literal interpretation. Try again.

[Odeezee]

The result of the increase of scope have not been a good thing for the game. CIG is spread out all over the place with no end product in sight on either end (SQ42 or PU). Just Star Marine alone is over a year late and is the best example of how featurecreep ruined the game.

you know the majority of backers disagree with you right? you do realize that what you are asking for, just release some game and NOT the game CR wants, is the antithesis of going crowdfunding in the first place. let it be done with it's done. i know i want a good game as long as it's out in the next 3-4 years i am good. and you say feature creep ruined this game? no, no it did not, the increase in scope expanded the possibilities of the game and i am happy for it.

But you're avoiding my question, Odeezee. Do you honestly feel that CIG would have been worse off focusing on one thing at a time and waiting with the increased scope? I.e develop SQ42 first, forget all about potential FPS and everything else they added. That base game had a projected release date of 2014. Now, Chris isn't exactly known for being realistic with dates, but even if it was a year late that's something amazingly good compared to what we have now.

first, i was not avoiding your question, i just think it's nonsensical to even ask. you keep harping on time when you should want a good quality game instead. how many games released this year, hell in the last 3 months that could have definitely used more delays? yeah, exactly so why keep wanting mediocre shit just in a timely fashion? i don't, if you do then there are plenty of them out there for you to back. the rest of your diatribe is just too much conjecture and armchair development for me so i am not even going to bother.

The problem with this is that backers have no experience as game devs (or well 99% wont). Ofcourse when you ask someone "Do you want more stuff?" most will say yes.
Its up to the dev's to say 'This is what we can realisticly do, lets stick to that first'.

ok, quick question, what have the devs not yet been realistically able to develop that you think is holding up production? and so what if both the players and CR wanted to increase the scope of the game? the backers backed him in hopes that he can do it. there is an inherent risk in crowdfunding and all you can do is hope the devs are up to the task and i personally have never had any doubts because of the things they are producing. 2017 will be a very exciting year for the games.

[Malibutomi]

Also again the argument as there is no end in sight....they are making two games a single player, and a vastly complex MMO, and they just reached the development time of a bigger single player game (4 years).
They also needed to build the teams, studios, work pipelines, etc. All this is a given together with the funding at other publisher funded games, so they have at least a year headstart.

Now i do see, and i think its true that they had some troubles setting up the actual working pipelines and teams, and they wasted at least a year on this, but i think this is understandable when you don't know actually how much funding you have, so what you have to work with. They started to work towards the goals at that time, but things changed, and as it turned out they have a lot more money to work with now, and a fairly steady income so they could hire more developers, and set up the work for this bigger scope. As of this year i really feel that they have all the pipelines up, they have clear sights on what to do, and every team is working towards those goals.
The 64 bit engine conversion is done, the planetary tech is up and running, the ship pipelines are simplified, the assets are coming together, so as i see it the puzzle pieces are slowly falling in place. When 3.0 hits it will be the first " game like" iteration of SC, and from then on, they just need to add assets, and slowly the game mechanics (trading, mining, etc)


Yup many backers/and non backers are impatient and vocal about why it takes 4 years, when it was aimed for 2014, now they really need to think about development times, and what CIG tries to achieve here.

Also i'm with Odeezee here, CIG gets the flak because they haven't rush the release, but working towards quality, whereas most of the later games were buggy craps which were rushed out by the publisher, and needed a lot of patching to work, or flat out missing features, dumbed down graphics and/or gameplay elements

[stellvia]

Clearly the ride thus far has been bumpy, but I agree with Malibutomi in that H2 2016 we seem to be over the hump. Not compromising on graphics, fidelity, etc. was literally the entire point of crowdfunding the game. Publishers would have demanded the game come out before its ready, just like every other half-finished "AAA" title these days. SC is meant to go the long-haul and do things right, bumps and all.

(And no, that doesn't mean they get carte blanche to pull a Duke Nukem Forever)

[Malibutomi]

Yep basically thats what i meant.
I'm patient, but ofc not infinitely. Having said that i understand the size of their task, and that they had trouble adapting to the increased scope. They are still well within the reasonable development time for 2 really complex game so i gladly give them another 2 (or even 3) years if i see progression.
Also keeping in mind this is just a game, not the most important thing in life, i just live my life, and hoping they will deliver.
I have only pledged the amount which i'm ready to lose ( what everyone should do with crowdfunding, as with this model there's no warranty that it will work out). I supported my dream game to be built, and hoping it will be finished, but i won't be rambling if its delayed. I have waited 20 years for a game like this 2-3 more will not brake me.
If it happen to be belly up (really slim chance given the amount of money and support they have), i will be said, but i will not bash them.

As it seems the most vocal naysayers are either not supporters at all who are just shouting from the sidelines, or (and that is the worse case) the ones who got hyped by the game, and impulsively spent a lot of money on it without thinking about the reality of development times or dangers of crowdfunding, and then they turned salty.

Also most people just cannot cope with the thing that usually they only hear about a game 2-3-4 years after its development started, when its nearly finished (and those are just the average single player games, which are built on top of their predecessor, with an established engine, development team, and budget), and now with SC they see the struggle from the beginning. Not to say CIG is making a far complex game than the usual yearly BF, COD, AC.

[Uggrukor]

I got a refund for this game and I highly suggest you do too.

Until they actually send a game out for release, I will keep my money invested elsewhere.

[Malibutomi]

So you suggest everyone to get a refund? Then tell us how could they release the game without using the funds already given to them? Slave work?

[kenn9530]

I got a refund for this game and I highly suggest you do too.

Until they actually send a game out for release, I will keep my money invested elsewhere.

the reason most of us dont want a refund is we have faith in the game, this is the game we need and want, we are happy to wait longer as long as its done right, if your not the person that can wait for a game to be made then its best you spend that money when the game is ready.

[Odeezee]

Star Marine is looking pretty good to me, looking forward to trying it out!

Some Sniper Action
Some Melee lawls

[masterhorus8]

Star Marine is looking pretty good to me, looking forward to trying it out!

Some Sniper Action
Some Melee lawls

But I thought Star Marine wasn't in 2.6?! /s

Also, be careful with those links. Don't want to be breaking any NDAs. (Not sure if those are videos from the Evocati or not.)

[Majestic12]

So you suggest everyone to get a refund? Then tell us how could they release the game without using the funds already given to them? Slave work?

I guess he means that we should request for refunds because at this income-rate they have little to no incentive of actually finishing the game. They've already pre-sold the game to a lot of people and their main cash income is ships which won't be for sale anymore once the game launches. From a business-perspective, it would be stupid to not keep that boat afloat for as long as possible.

CIG is already missing out since SC is a PC-exclusive game so far. Will the game launching give them some millions from new sales? Yes, but it will be nothing like what they're making by selling ships right now. That is the cold hard truth we have to face here at this point. Star Citizen and Squadron 42 are like two major pre-order games. We've already paid for them, and once the game launches, we're not going to buy the game again. We're just getting what we've already paid for.

[Malibutomi]

If a salty old man (who never ever gives any proof to his accusations) says its not there, then its definitely there

- - - Updated - - -

Majestic12

Well with 4 studios and ~370 employees the one this imply would be a not too profitable business model, as if you add up the developer salaries, and running costs they seem to spend like 30million a year.
Also it implies that they are dragging the development to milk more money, now as i stated before they are building a single player and a complex MMO, and they just reached a single player games development time. So there's no base of this accusation at this point.
In like another 2 years i would say its a valid point if there's no real progress, as most MMOs are finished in ~6 years (tho SC is much more complicated than the average hacknslash MMOs).
Also they have 370 people working 8 hours a day- 5 days a week, so implying that they are purposely late is plain dumb at this point, except if someone think that they are hiding all that work, and after some time they will just put it together in an instant and release it.

About buying: the old backers have the SQ42 and the first mission pack, the newer ones don't have the mission pack already, and i think there will be more missions, and/or an SQ42 sequel if its a success. Also i could point a lot of people from friends and forums already who said "i will not pledge, but buy it if its ready and good"