[Megathread] Star Citizen

[Edge-]

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

https://www.diffchecker.com/PofJAGgw still exists.

Except...it doesn't? There are no timelines anymore, just how many bugs they fixed/what they are.

The timelines showed the progress towards completion in an easier to understand format, with dates associated with them etc.

This removes a lot of that information, instead presenting what appears to be largely meaningless information related to features/systems progress towards completion.

We’ve decided to remove the ‘aim dates’ for our releases and focus on the information below which should give a more accurate look at where we’re trending.

They drop that in, but don't actually explain how or why. That's kinda my point.

CIG has always been fucking awful with their timelines, but this seems more like them throwing in the towel on it rather than trying to improve. Basically, rather than address the issues to counter the criticism they were constantly receiving, they just flat-out removed the cause of the criticism.

At least that's how it's looking to me. It's definitely not a win for transparency/players, and definitely continues to raise red flags for me as an observer.

[masterhorus8]

Except...it doesn't? There are no timelines anymore, just how many bugs they fixed/what they are.

The timelines showed the progress towards completion in an easier to understand format, with dates associated with them etc.

This removes a lot of that information, instead presenting what appears to be largely meaningless information related to features/systems progress towards completion.



They drop that in, but don't actually explain how or why. That's kinda my point.

CIG has always been fucking awful with their timelines, but this seems more like them throwing in the towel on it rather than trying to improve. Basically, rather than address the issues to counter the criticism they were constantly receiving, they just flat-out removed the cause of the criticism.

At least that's how it's looking to me. It's definitely not a win for transparency/players, and definitely continues to raise red flags for me as an observer.

The only dates they removed were literally the "Releases" section at the top of the first schedule in what you linked. There are still dates on all some of the individual tasks. Not saying that it's fine, but I'm just saying that there are still dates.

How can you possibly schedule something when as we've seen with the burn down report that bugs are being squashed and new ones are popping up? All giving dates at this point would do is piss off people for being missed.

*cough* Part of the problem in the first place.

[Odeezee]

dates are fine when people understand the process and that delays are VERY common in game development especially when the development of said game relies heavily on R&D. i mean CIG tells people, "hey these dates we are giving you are tentative and subject to change based on review, bugs, dependencies, resources, etc", but what do people do? complain that estimated dates are missed even though they were informed that it would be a possibility/inevitability. so in light of that, if one side cannot be trusted to be honest in their participation of the process, then CIG just removing the dates and showing just the progress is best. and when the bars fill up then that is when the item(s) completes. CIG tried to approach the backers as peers and give dates, but now they have to baby them due to their willful lack of understanding and honest comprehension, so now we have fewer dates. /shrug

[KyrtF]

To be fair, immersion is supposed to be one of the main selling points of this game. I do agree that this particular feature should wait until they get more of the networking cleaned up though.

Which is a point I made earlier - how much will this affect the bandwidth and other performance aspects of the game? There's a real question right now over that and implementing a feature that might not be workable when the underlying basics of the game are completed is, at best, premature.

Already answered a few posts ago.
"it makes gambling on races in game much easier since you can watch the race live instead of having to switch back and forth from someone that might be streaming it on Twitch and the bookies."

Yes. I know. You are still streaming it...all that has changed is the interface.

That's the peoples' fault, not CIG. This was part of the entire point of doing the open development with playable alpha.

It was bad idea for CIG to ever offer it. Transparency means you keep the backers up to date with progress...not offer them a playable demo and hope they don't get bored or put off by it. Demos have their place, but they really should be playable aspects of a BETA style release. Many people will not differentiate between an Alpha and a full release, no matter how many times you tell them that. Look at all the trouble Blizzard got into because of promises made that they weren't able to keep. Alpha has too many flaws to be available to the public and the continued need to sell the game is, I believe, partly to blame for the delays.

The inital plug was/is for SQ42. And then the main stretch goal that people wanted was the open world MMO portion, aka Star Citizen. There was no "changing" it.

Except for moving from a model where the base game was released and then XPacs to one where the full game was to be released with a minimal need for Xpacs back to one where we are apparently likely to be getting an MVP style product which will again require multiple XPacs to bring the game up to full speed.

Personally, I don't really care right now...I just want the game. It looks great and it should be fun. Hopefully. But the more he drags it out and the more he hypes up old tech as new features the more I'm starting to think he might really be using this as a money spinner.

But just stop trying to bring up the 2014 release date, it's so disingenuous...that's been beaten to death so many times here, it's starting to smell.

And with reason. The game we were promised should have been released by now. It isn't. The game CIG are working on...it's nowhere near ready. Conversely, we have games like ED and NMS which have achieved much more with less staff and a lower budget. Frontier are even working on multiple games and getting them released. CIG are taking ages to develop this game and to date, they have not yet provided a good excuse why progress is so slow.

The point being made is simple - other studios can get similar games out with just a fraction of the budget and staff.
Other games with a similar budget and development team, AAA titles, also take less time to develop and release.
So why is CIG taking so long? Yes - I know the excuses they give. But the longer they keep going, and the more lies they tell, the less I (and others) believe them. The release date is only one issue. There is the schedule. There isn't one reason why I should trust it. CR stood on stage and AFAICT, lied to us about the release date. Why should I believe him when he produces a schedule? Especially when the latest schedule has its dates removed? The big hype on ATV this past few weeks ahs been RTT. Unless I'm missing something fundamental, the Render to Texture technology they are raving about in the videos is old news, and has been used in the industry for years.

So, again AFAICT - the entirety of CIGs effort to be transparent is little more than marketing. Making things appear all shiny and new so that backers will give them money and not necessarily the facts about the situation as it is today.

I don't want marketing. I don't want spin or hype. I don't want the continual fob offs or excuses which are wearing thin.

I want the game. Failing that, I want a 3.0 which delivers. And it doesn't look likely I'm going to get it. They've already downscaled what was promised.

We don't want NMS planets. We want better."

I understand that. I understand the difficulties involved. And the effort. I understood that when I first heard about SC.

That doesn't change the fact that they are now talking about releasing a game with a much smaller developed universe and appear to be serious about releasing not the full game they promised, but a very much cut down version they call the MVP - minimum viable product. The best I can expect is that we'll get the 100 systems they promised, but only 5 or 10 of them will be developed and usable.

- - - Updated - - -

so much misinformation from you guys and just blatant lack of understanding. you tacitly voted for CR's vision of his immersive first-person experience when you backed his project, it's that simple. if you do not like it, you are not being forced to pledge.

I haven't pledged. I'm not going to.

I want to play the game.

I'm not convinced as yet that it will a: be released and b: be fun or playable when it is.
My "pledge" will be buying the game 6 months or so after its released when they hype has died down and I can get a decent idea about whether the game is any good and likely to survive. What looks like 9 years of development and $200 million isn't going to guarantee either.

That being said, I'm still interested in the game and I still want to play it. But being honest, CIGs behaviours here is throwing as LOT of red flags and warning signals as Edge says. Development DOES take time....I know this. What's worrying is that after 6 years of development (4 years if you say we should scratch the first two years and say development started in late 2013), $155 million raised, likely more than $100 million spent, and with a staff of 400 people....CIG still have next to nothing to show us.

That isn't just taking time. That is moving at a snails pace.

CR conducted 2 polls

And he should NEVER have done that.

the RTT tech will allow for real-time pc to npc as well as player-to-player video comms and a "media broadcasting" profession from being included in the game (see Reliant "Maco" variant) as scenes can be rendered to multiple view ports in real-time as well as character specific commercials and w/e else the CIG devs can cook up.

In other words, nothing new. RTT is what - 20 years old now? More? And they are pushing it like it is the Second Coming.

as though adding features inherently means that the game is somehow delayed

Actually - yes. That is exactly what adding new features does. It DELAYS the game. The only question we can't answer is really how much adding this feature delayed the game.

But as I said above, at best, this feature is premature because CIG cannot possibly know if it is feasible without knowing the type of bandwidth available and they can't know that until the netcode is working and finalised. What happens if CIG gets their 1000 player instance and they all start live streaming?

Adding this feature now is a waste of time and effort.

it's like people having issues with the art department producing content while the network department is still working on their stuff, it's called concurrency ffs.

The big news flash is that ART is the usual logjam in development. Art takes time. If Art has free time while the network department is still working on their stuff - in this case, "their stuff" is one of the fundamental aspects of the game without which not much else can be done - then something has gone very, very wrong. One would have to ask why CIG has so many artists and not enough programmers.

The network code should be one of the first aspects of the system that CIG should be concentrating on because of the way it impacts so much else. You can't have your in game streaming if the system takes up so much bandwidth its unusable. The code they have now is shambles, but it does the basic job of demonstrating the game. But it isn't good enough to develop features such as this around.

you greed to let them take their time to get it right and in turn they said they will keep you posted on their progress. it's really that simple and again you do not have to like it or even accept it, but if you pledged you have to respect it because that's what was the relationship you chose to enter into.

Unless you voted for a release in which case you are being dragged along against your will

[masterhorus8]

@Edge-
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/s...gust-11th-2017
CIG is answering some of the concerns/questions regarding the new schedule if you're interested in their responses.

BTW, for those that are unaware, this is the burndown that is being referenced occasionally.


- - - Updated - - -

We as a community have shown that for the most part, none of us have a damned clue how development works. With very few exceptions, people run at the mouth, throw out wild theories, and dance around the word "estimate" expecting definitive answers. It's stupid, counter-intuitive, and screams of watching a kettle boil, while growing increasingly frustrated as it gets nearer and nearer to a boil.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen...what_is_a_lie/
Hanlon's razor: "Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding."
For anyone that need's a dictionary: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie

[KyrtF]

so in light of that, if one side cannot be trusted to be honest in their participation of the process

Unfortunately, at this stage - that "side" is CIG.

They have routinely fed us wrong information. CR got up on stage and told us info he MUST have known was wrong. They are continually hyping up old technology and concepts as new and ultra cutting edge technology which is why the game development is talking so long....except its not. All they do is provide new names for old tech and then market it as new. And people get excited and give them money because they don't know a lot about the technicalities of game development. I don't know a lot - I do know enough to wonder if they are really pushing the age old concepts of stuff like RTT as "new and exciting and cutting edge" and expecting no one to notice.

When CR lies and CIG are engaged in marketing hype under the guise of being transparent and keeping everyone abreast, then I would not say it is the backers who cannot be trusted.

[1001]

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen...date_20170811/

So...no more release windows at all? The new, seemingly arbitrary progression metric they're showing is bug fixes? Am I understanding this correct?

Did they just give up on trying to figure out production timelines or something? Because that's sure what it seems like : /

Yep, no matter how people try to defend this change it is bad for the perception of the project. CIG are just awful at managing PR.
And the hardcore fans are worse, when the schedule chart came out with dates, it was the best, most transparent, industry first thing to do, when they remove dates it's the correct thing to do, it's like they have to defend every decision no matter how good or bad.

Why is it that other companies can publicly set a date and burn down to it? It shows what a clusterfuck this thing is behind studio doors.

[Majestic12]

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen...date_20170811/

So...no more release windows at all? The new, seemingly arbitrary progression metric they're showing is bug fixes? Am I understanding this correct?

Did they just give up on trying to figure out production timelines or something? Because that's sure what it seems like : /

I think they didn't "give up" per se, but realized that they're going to have to break the news some time. A lot of us are already mad that Chris lied last year. The timing also isn't a coincidence, they're hoping to shower all the negativity away with whatever they'll show at the upcoming event.

It's time for me to get a refund. Goodbye Orion and Super Hornet. I will make a new acc only with the base games, pack gifted from my main account.

I bet you $100 that whatever they'll show at gamescom will be more fake PoC stuff like the giant sand worm. Meaning: No content that is playable at the time and more flashy shit they won't release. It's all about keeping the dollars flowing.

The bottom line is that Chris Roberts is a fucking liar.

[Odeezee]

~snip~

all that just to admit you have not pledged and then go on to say you will wait until 6 months after it's released in order to "pledge" (pledging occurs before commercial release btw, but w/e who needs to be precise on the internet) so why not take your own advice and "WAIT" until/if it ever gets released????!!! you are armchair developing and project managing to what end? i'm pretty sure you have never even played the Alpha, have you? if you are so put off by the game, why waste your time? it's like you feel the need to unburden yourself. if you had valid arguments from first hand experience, then i might take you seriously, but they way you construct your arguments and then the anecdotal evidence you use to push your agenda is rather transparent and flimsy. you don't have to support this game if you have any misgivings, so don't.

In other words, nothing new. RTT is what - 20 years old now? More? And they are pushing it like it is the Second Coming.

let's forget that the thing CR was saying was impressive about the RTT in SC is first, they don't "cheat" to produce it and second it's the multiple view ports that will have the tech render to in real-time that's impressive and NO OTHER engine besides CIG's currently does that; not UNITY, not UNREAL, not even CryEngine.

Actually - yes. That is exactly what adding new features does. It DELAYS the game. The only question we can't answer is really how much adding this feature delayed the game.

so you have absolutely nothing to back it up? you make an accusatory statement without a shred of evidence to back it up and we are supposed to what? take it as the truth? riiiiight? i forgot that you know more than any of us, hell you know more than the devs creating the game itself, right? smh!

Unfortunately, at this stage - that "side" is CIG.

are you even trying to make valid arguments anymore or are you just blurting w/e comes to mind? we get the internal production schedule that the devs themselves use and now we get their burn down report, but they are not living up to their part? da fuk? w/e think what you want, i regret giving your thoughts any credence by reading them, i will not repeat that mistake.

[KyrtF]

all that just to admit you have not pledged and then go on to say you will wait until 6 months after it's released in order to "pledge" (pledging occurs before commercial release btw, but w/e who needs to be precise on the internet) so why not take your own advice and "WAIT" until/if it ever gets released????!!! you are armchair developing and project managing to what end? i'm pretty sure you have never even played the Alpha, have you? if you are so put off by the game, why waste your time? it's like you feel the need to unburden yourself. if you had valid arguments from first hand experience, then i might take you seriously, but they way you construct your arguments and then the anecdotal evidence you use to push your agenda is rather transparent and flimsy. you don't have to support this game if you have any misgivings, so don't.

Wow. Touchy subject?

How much have you invested?

The game is YEARS overdue and the excuses Chris Roberts and CIG come up with are meaningless. Their every avenue at transparency with ATV or 10ftC is nothing more than marketing intended and designed not to keep us informed but to market the game and get people excited and buy some new ships.

And you seem to have missed equating "pledge" with buy.

forget that the thing CR was saying was impressive about the RTT in SC is first, they don't "cheat" to produce it and second it's the multiple view ports that will have the tech render to in real-time that's impressive and NO OTHER engine besides CIG's currently does that; not UNITY, not UNREAL, not even CryEngine.

And personally I find it difficult to get excited about technology that is 30 years old. And the whole point about RTT is that is is much more flexible and allows the game to treat the graphic as a texture. Meaning that it can do anything to that image that can be done with a texture.

This - is not new. CIG adding RTT support into their version of the game engine makes a lot more sense...but it also isn't unusual, it also isn't impressive, it still isn't worthy of hyping it to the heavens.

Now - if that were the case, it would again highlight that CIG made the wrong choice of engine, it would highlight that the AtV vids are more marketing tools rather than tools to keep us updated, it would still not justify the hype being poured onto this feature and it turns that nice list into mere examples of what might be possible in the future once the netcode is working.

so you have absolutely nothing to back it up? you make an accusatory statement without a shred of evidence to back it up and we are supposed to what? take it as the truth? riiiiight? i forgot that you know more than any of us, hell you know more than the devs creating the game itself, right? smh!

You seem to think CIG can add new features without having their programmers do any work. I hate to tell you but programming isn't like that. CIG has nearly 4000 bugs to squash with 3.0 so the programmers they diverted away to add in a fancy new feature they could hype up actually had plenty of work to keep them busy.

Adding new features or expanding on existing ones requires time and effort and means your programming team cannot work on anything else.

So...yes. This created a delay. Without further information we cannot tell if it is was a long delay or a short delay but a delay was added.

are you even trying to make valid arguments anymore or are you just blurting w/e comes to mind? we get the internal production schedule that the devs themselves use and now we get their burn down report, but they are not living up to their part? da fuk? w/e think what you want, i regret giving your thoughts any credence by reading them, i will not repeat that mistake.

First...we do NOT know this is the devs schedule. We are told it is...but that requires us to trust the same people who have lied to us about other aspects of the game.

And yes...I say "lie". Chris Roberts could not possibly have expected 3.0 to be released in 2016 and impressive as the sandworm was, that demo was crafted not playable.

Secondly....they have NOT lived up to their part. CIG promised transparency. They have not delivered on that. They have delivered instead a lot of marketing and a lot of hype. And worse....they appear to be making decisions to generate said hype. Decisions such as in game streaming BEFORE the netcode which will support it is ready.

This is not a feature that CIG should be developing before they know what their netcode can support, especially since it adds nothing to the game. That they have done so merely to hype up their use of 20 year old technology is not something that should be defended.

So...no. CIG have NOT lived up to their side. They promised transparency...we got marketing. They promised a game...we got ship sales. The demos were crafted instead of gameplay. 3.0 needed the netcode we were promised...we got a 20 year old tech hyped up to the 9s.

The reality is simple.

If CIG had wanted to release Star Citizen, they could have done so. We know this because games like Elite and NMS took less time, less money and fewer developers. ED and NMS took about three years to develop and test and release. World of Warcraft took 4 or so. SWTOR took 5.

These are all massive games. SC has been in development longer than any of them. And CIG have nothing to show for it A bunch of tech demos...some hand crafted shows for display at cons....a bunch of ships to sell players.

Entire AAA games have been designed and built and released in less time than CIG have spent on this game. And CIG are still fiddling around with the engine and have not even bothered to get the netcode working. Thats a pretty fundamental aspect of the game they need to fix.

To put ot simply...the game can survive without in game streaming. It can't survive without working netcode and without knowing what your netcode is capable of you can't really design certain aspects of the game. What happens if you design instances around 20 players but can only fit in 10? What happens if 1 or 2 of thise 10 decide to stream?

So...did CIG add this feature bevause the netcode is rrady and they just haven't told us, or are they adding it because its a feature they can easily hype?

It seems doubtful now that 3.0 will be released in August. Will we see previews at Gamescom? Or will we see another scripted demo masquerading as gameplay? Will we get some actual transparency or more lies and hype and spin?

3.0 needs to deliver something substantial.

But you need to lighten up. This is just a game. I want to play it, bit I ain't gonna cry if it gets cancelled. I want it to deliver but I lose nothing kf it is bad. I want the game that Chris Roberts has described...but if he fails to deliver, I'm not going to go crazy.

I feel no need to deny the existance of the red flags about this project....and being blunt, there are many. And I see no need to describe CIGs "transparency" as anything other than the marketing ploy it is.

If CIG fail to deliver....I'll be disappointed. But I won't have spent hundreds or thousands of dollars either.

If you have so much invested that you cannot accept valid criticism without blowing up like this, then you have too much invested.

[Cyclone Jack]

And personally I find it difficult to get excited about technology that is 30 years old.

To put ot simply...the game can survive without in game streaming. It can't survive without working netcode and without knowing what your netcode is capable of you can't really design certain aspects of the game. What happens if you design instances around 20 players but can only fit in 10? What happens if 1 or 2 of thise 10 decide to stream?

While the core tech may be old, using something like this in an MMO, which is community based to begin with, will be a great boon to the game overall. We had streaming years ago, and who would have thought something like Twitch would become so popular? RTT will be used for huge number of things. Will it be used for streaming races, covering news events, and streaming player-created events? Sure. But it will also be used for communications (ship-to-ship, ship-to-station, player-to-player, player-to-NPC, etc), as well as the overall UI, from MobiGlass to the Kiosks, so I'd say it a fairly important piece. Is it as important as netcode? No. But the people working on RTT aren't the same people working on netcode.

[stormgust]

dates are fine when people understand the process and that delays are VERY common in game development especially when the development of said game relies heavily on R&D. i mean CIG tells people, "hey these dates we are giving you are tentative and subject to change based on review, bugs, dependencies, resources, etc", but what do people do? complain that estimated dates are missed even though they were informed that it would be a possibility/inevitability. so in light of that, if one side cannot be trusted to be honest in their participation of the process, then CIG just removing the dates and showing just the progress is best. and when the bars fill up then that is when the item(s) completes. CIG tried to approach the backers as peers and give dates, but now they have to baby them due to their willful lack of understanding and honest comprehension, so now we have fewer dates. /shrug

It's not about missing estimated dates, it's about missing estimated dates for several features every other week over the course of several months. With so many (small) delays, it simply looks like they tried to go with the most optimistic estimates for marketing purposes, instead of going with more realistic ones. That, or they're really bad at providing estimates.

[KyrtF]

While the core tech may be old, using something like this in an MMO, which is community based to begin with, will be a great boon to the game overall. We had streaming years ago, and who would have thought something like Twitch would become so popular? RTT will be used for huge number of things. Will it be used for streaming races, covering news events, and streaming player-created events? Sure. But it will also be used for communications (ship-to-ship, ship-to-station, player-to-player, player-to-NPC, etc), as well as the overall UI, from MobiGlass to the Kiosks, so I'd say it a fairly important piece. Is it as important as netcode? No. But the people working on RTT aren't the same people working on netcode.

And again the point is first - that it is completely non essential and secondly - is a piece of technology that obviously requires the netcode to be in place before it can be created. CIG are still working on the netcode and while they have hopes they can make it do what they want, that is not something they can guarantee as yet. Therefore they are designing an aspect of the game which depends on a module which isn't finished.

Further, the core tech is old. Which begs the question of why CIG are hyping it up so much. Further, while it may enhance (at best) the aspects you mention, those situations and uses already exist in other games.

So no - it is nowhere near as important as netcode, and given its obvious reliance on needing networks to function at all, one wonders how they can push a feature when at least one of its core fundamental modules which it requires to work isn't finished or integrated into the game.

This is not a feature the game needs. This is not a feature the game will even benefit from.

Player to NPC communication? Really? You mean we don't have that already?
Player to player communication? Again...a video format style comm system is hardly unusual for gaming.
Ship to ship and ship to stations...is the same as above.

The point is that RTT technology has been in use for at least the past 20 or so years. It used to be a big thing. It isn't that it doesn't offer advantages for how the game can be built - it's why are they mentioning a twenty year old technology at all? They aren't the first to use it, they won't be the last. Sure - its useful. It makes some things easier. It allows them to add new functionality. But a new tech worth hyping up? Is it worthwhile adding this type of functionality to the game when they cannot possibly know what the netcode is going to be capable of.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not about missing estimated dates, it's about missing estimated dates for several features every other week over the course of several months. With so many (small) delays, it simply looks like they tried to go with the most optimistic estimates for marketing purposes, instead of going with more realistic ones. That, or they're really bad at providing estimates.

Its more than that.

Take the deadline CR gave us last year. 3.0 was the big end of year release.

He got up on stage and told us this in August.

Trouble is, CIG didn't even start work on 3.0 until much later. 3.0 is supposedly "big"...but we were given a release time frame of about four months - less, because CIG were still working on 2.6.

Was CR unaware that his company had not yet even begun work on 3.0? That seems unlikely.
Or when CIGs updates told us they were starting the baseline development work for 3.0...were they lying then about when they started development? That also seems unlikely, not least because much of 3.0 needed to be built upon the work done for 2.6 which they were still developing.
Or did CR just step out onto the stage and give us a date plucked from think air, knowing it was a date that could not be achieved? Knowing CIG hadn't - then - even started work on 3.0 and that a release date within 4 months, when they were still working on 2.6, was never ever going to happen. This sounds plausible.

It isn't just missing the provided dates. It is the dishonesty incidents like this point to, and that tarnishes EVERY thing CIG are telling us. If they can lie to us about release dates to hype up the games progress and encourage us to continue investing or backing - rather, have us continue to throw money at them - then they can lie to us with the published development schedules and the AtV chats and the 10ftC blogs and so on. It means that we are not getting the transparency they promised - instead we are getting a very slick, very focused marketing campaign that is neither designed, nor intended, to provide us with information with the progress of the games development but rather to persuade us to part with our cash.

[masterhorus8]

And again the point is first - that it is completely non essential and secondly - is a piece of technology that obviously requires the netcode to be in place before it can be created. CIG are still working on the netcode and while they have hopes they can make it do what they want, that is not something they can guarantee as yet. Therefore they are designing an aspect of the game which depends on a module which isn't finished.

Further, the core tech is old. Which begs the question of why CIG are hyping it up so much. Further, while it may enhance (at best) the aspects you mention, those situations and uses already exist in other games.

So no - it is nowhere near as important as netcode, and given its obvious reliance on needing networks to function at all, one wonders how they can push a feature when at least one of its core fundamental modules which it requires to work isn't finished or integrated into the game.

This is not a feature the game needs. This is not a feature the game will even benefit from.

Player to NPC communication? Really? You mean we don't have that already?
Player to player communication? Again...a video format style comm system is hardly unusual for gaming.
Ship to ship and ship to stations...is the same as above.

The point is that RTT technology has been in use for at least the past 20 or so years. It used to be a big thing. It isn't that it doesn't offer advantages for how the game can be built - it's why are they mentioning a twenty year old technology at all? They aren't the first to use it, they won't be the last. Sure - its useful. It makes some things easier. It allows them to add new functionality. But a new tech worth hyping up? Is it worthwhile adding this type of functionality to the game when they cannot possibly know what the netcode is going to be capable of.

For the most part, you're not wrong. But I'm curious..what do you consider CIG to be "hyping" about it? I feel that you're going overboard about it. CIG goes over almost everything that they add to the game/engine as part of the open development in their AtV videos. They are mentioning it because it was something that CryEngine can't do and what their engine can (now) and letting people know the implications of it. You're making a mountain out of a molehill (and some people are glorifying the molehill too much, but hey, who am I to judge what they can be excited about. I'm not the one trying to tell someone to not be excited over something). I'm seeing the supporters hyping it up more than CIG.

If they can lie to us about release dates to hype up the games progress and encourage us to continue investing or backing - rather, have us continue to throw money at them - then they can lie to us with the published development schedules and the AtV chats and the 10ftC blogs and so on.

And that's the beauty of the videos. As opposed to having CR on stage blabbing about unreachable release dates, in those AtV videos, we SEE the progress that they make. That's what sets this project apart from other game developments. But if you want to go on about how everything they say are lies and just rehearsals/pre-recorded scripted events, then don't be surprised when people won't take you seriously. I mean, c'mon...do you think their Bugsmashers segments are faked too?

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Likely more profitable to string along endless crowd funding forever than actually release a product. The price the world I feel is slowly learning about prebuy, prepurchase, and crowd funding products on the internet. Don't get me wrong I have no doubt when it comes out it won't be absolutely top shelf. But if I had throw 100s if not 1000s at it 5 years ago at this point I would feel burned.

[KyrtF]

For the most part, you're not wrong. But I'm curious..what do you consider CIG to be "hyping" about it? I feel that you're going overboard about it. CIG goes over almost everything that they add to the game/engine as part of the open development in their AtV videos. They are mentioning it because it was something that CryEngine can't do and what their engine can (now) and letting people know the implications of it. You're making a mountain out of a molehill (and some people are glorifying the molehill too much).

What they are doing is overemphasising the impact of something that is - in reality - fairly standard. Look at the reaction of Odeezee for example. Its the greatest thing since sliced bread...never mind the fact its a standard set up. It's good that CIG have added it to CE - which is what I assume CIG mean by all of this - but at the same time it's not going to allow CIG to do anything new or unique and if we wanted to be technical, it mostly just going to make the devs life a bit easier because they won't have to engage in any tricks to pull off the same aspects. It isn't an issue that adds new features, or even provides for new features. In game streaming for example could be added by simply having SC open an existing browser with a custom SC skin and presenting it in game.

And that's the beauty of the videos. As opposed to having CR on stage blabbing about unreachable release dates, in those AtV videos, we SEE the progress that they make. That's what sets this project apart from other game developments. But if you want to go on about how everything they say are lies and just rehearsals/pre-recorded scripted events, then don't be surprised when people won't take you seriously. I mean, c'mon...do you think their Bugsmashers segments are faked too?

And then you realise that the people in them are on occasion talking about events and systems that should have been covered months previously. There was that AtV a few weeks back where one of the devs was talking about making a list of features he wanted to see in 3.0. Personally, I'd have thought that should have been at the start of 3.0s development process

I'm sure a lot of what we see is real...but i'm also sure it has been cleaned up and editted and presented with an eye to getting us to part with our cash rather than to keep us informed. And having the devs talk about stuff that seems like it should have been done months ago isn't something that fills me with excitement.

Do I read too much into stuff like this? Possibly. Maybe he misspoke or maybe there was a good reason that AtV used an old video. But from my pov, all of this seems to point into a coherent whole where the entire, or most, of all this effort CIG put into these videos and interviews is pure marketing and window dressing. A sop to keep us clamouring for more while distracting us from the (apparent?) lack of progress on game development.

And it IS slow...for a number of reasons, which I actually DO understand. Early development - up to two years worth in some cases - was thrown out and essentially restarted, there was and is feature bloat, the game end goal changed, starting up the new studios, developing the toolkits the teams will use, tearing apart and rewriting the engine at the same time as developing for it and more. But it is still slow, and CIG are diverting resources into crafting demos for various cons, PR and marketing fluff such as AtV and adding features that aren't needed such as in game streaming.

I was hoping that we will see some concrete progress at Gamescom. I know I predicted the possibility of a September release for 3.0 but I didn't think I would be right!!! But right now, I am hoping that 3.0 will be on display....the actual 3.0 and not a custom made demo....even if it isn't playable. What I am expecting is what someone up above stated... gameplay involving more 2.6.3, a big song and dance routine telling us what we can expect when 3.0 is released, a playing down of the features that have been cut, and a huge dose of hype culminating in a ship sale.

And on top of all this, the September date isn't locked down. October is feasible.

Am I wrong to expect this?

[Odeezee]

It's not about missing estimated dates, it's about missing estimated dates for several features every other week over the course of several months. With so many (small) delays, it simply looks like they tried to go with the most optimistic estimates for marketing purposes, instead of going with more realistic ones. That, or they're really bad at providing estimates.

an estimate is self explanatory, if people choose to ignore what it means then that's on them. we are getting their internal production schedule which is set to aggressive dates to promote productivity as, in software development, people will use up all the time if you give generous estimates. how the hell does NOT releasing an update lead to more sales through marketing when producing content that the backers can play would actually get them MORE money???? O.o

So is the shine finally wearing off the great white hope of all video games?

how when what you think and get out of a game is a personal thing? no one can tell you if a game will be good or bad, something you will or will not enjoy, and you also makes the assumption that people cannot be legitimately critical of some aspects of the game and still be in full support of it and want it to succeed. /shrug

[Majestic12]

an estimate is self explanatory, if people choose to ignore what it means then that's on them. we are getting their internal production schedule which is set to aggressive dates to promote productivity as, in software development, people will use up all the time if you give generous estimates. how the hell does NOT releasing an update lead to more sales through marketing when producing content that the backers can play would actually get them MORE money???? O.o

The problem isn't generous dates, it's that they based it off Chris' blatant lie. There's no way that Chris actually believed that 3.0 with netcode etc would be released in December. If you think he did, then you should be worried because in that case he is very incompetent.
Incompetent or a liar. Pick your poison buddy. No matter how that is viewed it is bad news.

I work in the industry of software development and yes, people give optimistic dates all the time. What people don't do is blatantly lie about them like Chris did. Nobody does that. It's unprecedented what's going on here.

[Cyclone Jack]

One cannot dispute the over-eagerness of Chris Roberts and his dates, they are akin to Peter Molyneux and his features. I can't stand it when he talk about the game. I love his eagerness and his visions, but he constantly and consistently throws out bullshit dates that are impossible to hit. He shows off a bunch of stuff and says it's right around the corner when in reality its 5-10 times that. I do think that their August prediction at the early part of the year was a much more modest estimate, and it looks like they weren't too far off from that, as far as feature implementation goes. Bug fixing, on the other hand, seems to be way off. Hopefully they will learn from this and add a longer bug fixing phase to the next milestone. Still, I'll sit back and watch the game get built and jump in from time to time to play and see how things are progressing. I put my $60 in and if it fails, it would be the same as buying an EA game, so no real loss. If it turns out good, then I have a fun space game to play with my friends. In the end, its just a video game.

[Majestic12]

I hope Gamescom will be enjoyable. I feel bad for the streamers that will be playing the 2.6.3 build but usually the community part of the events have been the most enjoyable for me.