[Megathread] Star Citizen

[KyrtF]

So you don't understand game development or knew how Chris Roberts allways managed is games yet you put 600$ dollars into it. Smart move, literally a Smart move.

What he actually said was that when he realised what CR was doing, he moved to get his money back.

Oh no I I don't doubt you at all, I know for a fact that you are lying, you are not Evocati and you never played the 3.0. You are lying, like usual. You're FUD is getting more and more pathetic as it goes, wonder how much low can it go.

You don't have to be Evovati. There are leaks up on YouTube.

They aren't flattering.

We also have the performance during GC17 and the devs confirming some of the issues in ATV.

Pointing out that it has bugs and poor performance only reinforces your ignorance and overall bullshitery. If I would have to bet I would say you have never even reported one bug for Star Citizen, that's how much you care about it's development.

Ultimately, the problem isn't the bugs or performance issues. Its pre-Alpha. Those things are expected.

What IS wrong about the project is...

1. Six years and counting of development with at least $110 million spent and CIG dtill have not finished the engine, have a poor flight model, have non viable netcode, and can't seem to get even the most basic systems working correctly
2. Chris Roberts priorities, which sees him appear more worried about needless cosmetic detail than core systems. CIG has created a lot of stuff that by rights should not exist until CIG have an engine in place and they have locked down the core mechanics. Neat as FOIP might be, CIG shouldn't even be touching such technologies until the engine and netcode are in place. Thanks to this mismanagement, CIG are having to rework assets and have already tossed work from third party developers who weren't kept up to date with engine changes.
3. The way CIG are treating their backers. Look at how often they've changed the TOS for example. Look at what they have changed. Chris Roberts got up on stage last year and flat out lied. There's no other way to describe it. CIG are making it more difficult for themselves to be held accountable, cutting back on their promises and you all are letting them away with it.

And if you can't have fun even when testing....THIS IS A GAME. It should be fun. If a playtest version isn't fun, somethings gone wrong.

Well but I was being objective, objectively what can you actually DO in Elite besides Flying Space ships (shoot stuff, mine stuff, scoop stuff, transport stuff, land on stuff) and Driving a buggy?

Apparently, given your list, more than you can do in SC.

Both games turned out to be extremely boring at launch and never actually made an impact since that. They went from arguably hundreds of thousands of active players to just hundreds in a relatively short time because the game lacked engaging mechanics.

Even if that were true, at least those games are released and working.

Yes they keep improving the game but you only have one First Impression and they blew it. The damage is done. They will now dwindle from update to update but will never really pick up from that and become a powerhouse in the gaming scene.

And SCs "first impression"? Thanks to CIG stupid decision to open up the game to "play" during Alpha, its first impression has been, is and will be that of a poorly performing bug ridden mess with a toxic community and no help for the new player.

How do you think SC is going to recover from that? Especially when CIG keep hyping new patches that have the same problems...or create demos for cons that are in some ways even worse?

ED and NMS have a player base. But people like you need to realise the space sim market is a niche market. Expectations of getting 5 or 10 million players as some of you seem to suggest are VASTLY overblown, more so SC is only going to launch on one platform.

A lot of players interested in SC have already paid for the game. If SC matches the numbers ED or NMS have, it'll be lucky. Thanks to their plan, interest is already waning. I'm sure 3.0 will cause a big buzz at cc17 but the real test will be how much it will raise in 2018.

Star Citizen is already falling behind the curve. The graphics issued at GC 17 were showing their age. Only the planets looked decent. There are games from 2013 that look better than SC does now.

And for a game whose sole legitimate claim to "excellence", the one real aspect which separated it from ED and NMS and the rest was its attention to graphical detail....that its graphics looked so poor is a huge problem.

You really need to stop thinking of Star Citizen as something special and look at it as if it were any other game.

A game that has spent 6 years in development...a game that has had $110 million spent on it...a game that is being worked on by almost 400 people and a number of third developers...a game which has switched engines...a game which has spent so long in development the models it has are now outdated...a game which is still in the pre-Alpha state, working towards finishing its engine and adding in netcode and which still hasn't even gotten its physics grids working properly.

Elite Dangerous could add space legs tomorrow if it so chose. A SRV type drone with a telepresence system and a capacity for HoloMe, and the use of weapons equipment and armour.

Refining the system would take longer but the system itself would be doable. There are single devs able to create FPS systems these days and do so with decent graphics and gameplay.

FD wants to do things better than that and ultimately, they've realised something CIG and especially Chris Roberts hasn't. That game design has limits. That game development has its own costs vs benefit rationale. That you cannot add everything you want to a game bevause there will always be more. That simulation is fine...but ultimately, a game needs to be fun.

You might like to think both hames are dwindling...but both are still selling and both are still being improved.

[1001]

Yeah but for what ? Get another bigger and better ship? Interact with targoids aka shoot the big guy... rep faction = grind , all resolves around the same basic mechanics (flying + shooting) and the goal is always the same, get that better bigger ship.

For what? For fun of course, this isn't meant to be a solution for an existential crisis. You play the game to have fun. If you want bigger ships, get bigger ships. If you don't want them don't fucking get them, if you want rep with local factions for better payouts then do it (it's easy and there's no grind for this), if not don't do it. If you want to smuggle for fun then do it, same if you want to mine, or blow up other ships or trade or whatever. Why does there have to be a "For what?" when you're looking at other games?

EVA, steal other players ships, shoot them or team with them, land on planets, walk on them, drive buggys or space bikes, explore planet stations, go inside player hubs, get quests, etc...

Yeah but for what ? Get another bigger and better ship? Interact with people aka shoot the other guy... shooting people = grind , all resolves around the same basic mechanics (flying/walking + shooting) and the goal is always the same, shoot the other guy and get the ship.... /s

[MrAnderson]

...zit....You might like to think both hames are dwindling...but both are still selling and both are still being improved... zit....

Same with Star Citizen, the rest is all bollocks, you write a lot of stuff you don't know about and you make false claims about stuff you clearly can't or don't want to understand.

A year from now and you will be complaining about the same old meaningful stuff while Star Citizen will keep on developing just fine, racking more money and more players as it goes.

Eventually you will get tired and move on and find something else to obsess about.

As if you think Star Citizen looks bad... I wonder what do you think of Elite or NMS graphics...

[Orange Joe]

any normal human gamer, after seeing how this build (labeled 3.0 but it has 10% from the 1 year ago promised 3.0), would get a refund

i have never saw in my 1992-2017 gaming life a game more trashier than this. and there is no salvation, no amount of fixing and polishing can save this. it needs a complete rewrite, with another lead developer at head (not roberts who is an incompetent snake oil salesman).

p.s. 10fps on 3000$+ rigs with max 6 players. wtf is that hahahaha.

Normal gamer here. It was $40, if I lost out on that oh well. Seriously, This faux outrages people are suppose to feel is kinda amusing.

I backed the game knowing full well in advance it might not ever get made. I'm not gonna lose any sleep over $40 if it doesn't get made.

[KyrtF]

Same with Star Citizen, the rest is all bollocks, you write a lot of stuff you don't know about and you make false claims about stuff you clearly can't or don't want to understand.

A year from now and you will be complaining about the same old meaningful stuff while Star Citizen will keep on developing just fine, racking more money and more players as it goes.

Eventually you will get tired and move on and find something else to obsess about.

Star Citizen doesn't exist and won't exist for several years.

A year from now I'll still be waiting for it, and I'll still be playing ED and NMS.

But right now....there's no guarantee SC will be released.

Like it or not...CIG has wasted a huge amount of money and time on this and they've made several big mistakes.

Most telling is that they are running out of money.

Going by their own figures, they've only raised $160 million. To you and I that sounds like a lot.

But I know...and so should you...that for what CIG want to create, a budget of closer to $300 million is far more realistic.

Especially since that money also has to pay for marketing, hosting and publication costs. You all proud they raised $160 million? Don't be. It isn't enough. Something will have to give.

Thats one reason why FD publish ED in this way. Neither FD nor CIG have the money to develop such a game. FD at least has the income stream of other games...CIG doesn't even have that. S42 isn't ready and should have been released ages ago. Hopefully we'll find that some of the delay in 3.0 was due to CIG knuckling down and getting to work on the engine so they could restart S42 development. Hopefully we'll get a big reveal at CC17.

Hopefully.

But thst CIG has money troubles seems self evident. Publishing...hosting...marketing a game or games is going to be very expensive. Look at Blizzard...huge economies of scale and over ten years experience hosting an MMO and still more than half their income goes on hosting and support costs.

Are we expecting Amazon to host SC for free? Is CIG going to rely on word of mouth...which would reach very few new players?

CIG has a choice of spending money to develop or spending it on hosting and marketing and publication. Either way...its running short and in trouble. What use is a MMO game if CIG don't have the money to host it?

Or do you expect a magical backer or ground breaking new technology to solve this issue?

[MrAnderson]

Star Citizen very first iteration released back in 2013. From then on it kept increasingly getting more money and players. Oposite of what happens with Elite or NMS.

This will keep going and going. Nothing changes besides games dying and star citizen still going strong.

[Nihilan]

As far as money grubbing scams go, Star Citizen is turning out to be a pretty good one. Its even got its willing shills. While i do admit to being a backer myself back in the early days in 2013/14 back when SC was supposed to just be a sweet space sim, i have long since come to terms with the fact that this is just a pyramid scheme at this point. That $75 is gone and its too small a sum for me to really care about. This whole fiasco has become a spectacle in and of itself though.

I do wonder how long Roberts will be able to drag this out and what the inevitable fallout will be not only for Kickstarter, but for crowdfunding in general. Will SC actually release, fulfilling its promises and be hailed as a paragon of what crowdfunding can achieve or will it crash and burn as i and so many others strongly suspect? Will this "game" dethrone Daikatana as the crowning testament to the perils of allowing a single developer's ego to run rampant?

[1001]

Star Citizen very first iteration released back in 2013. From then on it kept increasingly getting more money and players. Oposite of what happens with Elite or NMS.

What does this nonsense even mean?

Elite had almost 400,000 pre-sales (from the kickstarter to the release in 2014), it was then sold on Steam since April 2015, and then on XBox and then PS4. All the time those sales have been increasing the amount of money the game brings in as well as increasing the amount of players of the game. To date they have just over 2.75 million sales.

[Nihilan]

You know what the early iteration of SC was? We got to walk around inside our hangers and sit inside the fancy ships we bought but couldnt actually undock and fly around in. The ships did look really nice though.

[MrAnderson]

A simple testomony that Star Citizen is above and beyond any other games is that you have players that prefer other games but keep talkimg about star citizen no matter what.

[KyrtF]

Star Citizen very first iteration released back in 2013. From then on it kept increasingly getting more money and players. Oposite of what happens with Elite or NMS.

This will keep going and going. Nothing changes besides games dying and star citizen still going strong.

No. Star Citizens first iteration did NOT launch in 2013
Star Citizens "first iteration" as you call it jas still to be released.

Right now, all Star Citizen is is a series of modules demonstrating some of the technologies and features people HOPE will in Star Citizen.

But CIG, after 6 years of development, after $110 million spent, hae still not gotten their game engine working.

Leaving aside the AI and netcode, the leaks from 3.0 show that even the basic physics grid isn't working properly.

After six years of development.
After $110 million spent.
After growing to a team of nearly 400.

Star Citizen hasn't been released, CIG still have at least a year before they can claim an Alpha....most likely closer to two...they are running out of money and the latest ship sales have been far from successful.

No engine...no netcode...no mechanics....no gameplay....no content....aged graphics...after 6 years and and $110 million, and you are still throwing your money at them.

I really hope CIG can get their act together and start developing a game but being honest, it all seems so messed up.

- - - Updated - - -

A simple testomony that Star Citizen is above and beyond any other games is that you have players that prefer other games but keep talkimg about star citizen no matter what.

When I am at work, I can't play games. I can read forums though.

I can also reply to these posts using speech...no typing required...so it isn't as if it is much of an effort.

As it is, I support Star Citizen.

I am however highly skeptical about the ability of CIG or Chris Roberts to deliver on their vision. CR has typically failed at delivering his vision ever since Wing Commander and Freelancer fell victim to the same problems of feature bloat, bad management and perfectionism CR is currently showing wrt SC.

Chris Roberts has a great vision that I do want to be part of. He also has a well documented track history as a bad project manager and a failure. Great salesman....but not someone who can or should lead a project.

[Wilian]

It all depends on where you draw the line for what is and isn't a "tech demo". For some people, that was the 2.0 release, for others, it's the new 3.0 that was just recently put into the hands of the NDA "public" test groups (hand picked based on contribution of the previous builds). For others, it's tech demo until release.

If you want to determine it for yourself based on the features, here's what is currently being tested with the NDA group.
https://starcitizen.tools/Star_Citizen_Alpha_3.0.0

Hell, I'd classify 3.0, whenever it comes out(Year, two?) perhaps the first proper Vertical Slice of the game, not even alpha.

And for your convenience; vertical slice is a 'demo' of a product that is often presented to investors as to show how the finished game might eventually look like if they ever get to develop it with the investment.

[masterhorus8]

Hell, I'd classify 3.0, whenever it comes out(Year, two?) perhaps the first proper Vertical Slice of the game, not even alpha.

And for your convenience; vertical slice is a 'demo' of a product that is often presented to investors as to show how the finished game might eventually look like if they ever get to develop it with the investment.

This got me thinking, mostly semantics though.

With how CIG is putting the game together, won't it always be considered a 'demo' until it's at full release/beta*? CIG is just adding on the bits as it goes. The content that is in will pretty much be staying where it is. The star system that's being put together is part of the actual star system that is on the final map. The modules of Arena Commander and Star Marine are going to stay as additional modules that the players can enter from in game as simulations. The hangar is the only module that exists that has yet to be incorporated.

Not saying you're wrong, but I feel that the word 'demo' loses its meaning a bit if this were the case.

*Note: Alpha is supposed to be feature incomplete while beta is feature complete but having the bugs fixed (and in the current usage, used for publicity with other developers).

[quijote3000]

I just hope they release the game. I've been waiting forever

[KyrtF]

Note: Alpha is supposed to be feature incomplete while beta is feature complete but having the bugs fixed (and in the current usage, used for publicity with other developers).

Not quite.

An Alpha is feature complete....but lacks functionality and most assets.

As good a definition as most:

First playable
The first playable is the game version containing representative gameplay and assets, this is the first version with functional major gameplay elements. It is often based on the prototype created in pre-production. Alpha and first playable are sometimes used to refer to a single milestone, however large projects require first playable before feature complete alpha. First playable occurs 12 to 18 months before code release. It is sometimes referred to as the "Pre-Alpha" stage.



Star Citizen is still working on the engine, netcode, features, functionality, assets, gameplay. Currently, CIG are working towards an Alpha release and are currently in the pre-Alpha stage of game development.

The closest they have planned for an Alpha will be 4.0, so long as nothing is cut from 3.x.

Alpha is where they add functionality and start work on game assets to produce a Beta. Beta is where they construct most of the assets and add most of the game content to produce the Gold.

And yes....until they produce an Alpha, it will be a demo. A tech demo. And until the game is released, it'll also be vapourware because until then, it won't exist as a game

[masterhorus8]

Not quite.

An Alpha is feature complete....but lacks functionality and most assets.

As good a definition as most:

First playable
The first playable is the game version containing representative gameplay and assets, this is the first version with functional major gameplay elements. It is often based on the prototype created in pre-production. Alpha and first playable are sometimes used to refer to a single milestone, however large projects require first playable before feature complete alpha. First playable occurs 12 to 18 months before code release. It is sometimes referred to as the "Pre-Alpha" stage.



Star Citizen is still working on the engine, netcode, features, functionality, assets, gameplay. Currently, CIG are working towards an Alpha release and are currently in the pre-Alpha stage of game development.

The closest they have planned for an Alpha will be 4.0, so long as nothing is cut from 3.x.

Alpha is where they add functionality and start work on game assets to produce a Beta. Beta is where they construct most of the assets and add most of the game content to produce the Gold.

And yes....until they produce an Alpha, it will be a demo. A tech demo. And until the game is released, it'll also be vapourware because until then, it won't exist as a game

From your own source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_development
First playable is way past Tech demo. Can't go making your own definitions.

One other thing I will point out about SC development. They're using the normal development cycles in segments of their productions. Due to them making a playable version for the backers to use, they're constantly at a mix of the different stages at once.

[KyrtF]

From your own source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_development
First playable is way past Tech demo. Can't go making your own definitions.

One other thing I will point out about SC development. They're using the normal development cycles in segments of their productions. Due to them making a playable version for the backers to use, they're constantly at a mix of the different stages at once.

Ummmm...I don't know how to break this to you gently, but "Tech Demo" doesn't appear on the link to Video Game development that you posted. Leastways, I can't see it.

And the Tech Demo link goes to a totally separate page and includes the following definition...

A technology demonstration or Demonstrator model, informally known as a "tech demo", is a prototype, rough example or an otherwise incomplete version of a conceivable product

Of course, in context thats referring to a physical item.

Under computer gaming, we have this...

Computer game developers use tech demos to rouse and maintain interest to titles still in development (because game engines are usually ready before the art is finished) and to ensure functionality by early testing.

Note the part about game engines normally being ready before the art is finished? Part of that is to ensure the artwork is compatible with the game. CIG had to throw out a lot of third party stuff because they didn't keep them up to date with the engine, and they are redoing a lot more right now for the same reason.

And yes...they are mixing development cycles. And as a result, they are having to redo a lot of work which has increased development time and costs while also reducing quality by ensuring a large number of bugs. This is why hyping FOIP and VOIP and adding so many features and assets which should be added in Beta and not pre-Alpha is a bad idea.

This is a result of their need to ensure backers keep giving them money...and alongside removing any incentive to develop or release the game, is a major problem with the crowdfunding model.

None of this changes the fact that SC right now lacks functionality, gameplay, contents, mechanics and even basic stuff such as the game engine is incomplete.

CIG don't have an Alpha release to show off...they are working to create an Alpha and the releases we have are there simply to maintain interest in the product and demonstrate the feasibility of the concept and technology

Tech demos.

[masterhorus8]

Ummmm...I don't know how to break this to you gently, but "Tech Demo" doesn't appear on the link to Video Game development that you posted. Leastways, I can't see it.

And the Tech Demo link goes to a totally separate page and includes the following definition...

A technology demonstration or Demonstrator model, informally known as a "tech demo", is a prototype, rough example or an otherwise incomplete version of a conceivable product

Of course, in context thats referring to a physical item.

Under computer gaming, we have this...

Computer game developers use tech demos to rouse and maintain interest to titles still in development (because game engines are usually ready before the art is finished) and to ensure functionality by early testing.

Note the part about game engines normally being ready before the art is finished? Part of that is to ensure the artwork is compatible with the game. CIG had to throw out a lot of third party stuff because they didn't keep them up to date with the engine, and they are redoing a lot more right now for the same reason.

And yes...they are mixing development cycles. And as a result, they are having to redo a lot of work which has increased development time and costs while also reducing quality by ensuring a large number of bugs. This is why hyping FOIP and VOIP and adding so many features and assets which should be added in Beta and not pre-Alpha is a bad idea.

This is a result of their need to ensure backers keep giving them money...and alongside removing any incentive to develop or release the game, is a major problem with the crowdfunding model.

None of this changes the fact that SC right now lacks functionality, gameplay, contents, mechanics and even basic stuff such as the game engine is incomplete.

CIG don't have an Alpha release to show off...they are working to create an Alpha and the releases we have are there simply to maintain interest in the product and demonstrate the feasibility of the concept and technology

Tech demos.

In my own post, Tech Demo has a link. Click it. It is the exact same description as what you used. And you copied the exact word needed. "Prototype". Now go back to your Video Game Development link. Go find prototype. Tell me where that is. Using "incomplete" as your definition is asinine.

And your continued use of "hype" is still annoying as fuck. You're doing more hyping of anything CIG does than anyone else. They have not mentioned any of it outside of those initial videos mentioning it, along the same veins as your previous constant whining about RTT.

[KyrtF]

In my own post, Tech Demo has a link. Click it. It is the exact same description as what you used. And you copied the exact word needed. "Prototype". Now go back to your Video Game Development link. Go find prototype. Tell me where that is. Using "incomplete" as your definition is asinine.

And your continued use of "hype" is still annoying as fuck. You're doing more hyping of anything CIG does than anyone else. They have not mentioned any of it outside of those initial videos mentioning it, along the same veins as your previous constant whining about RTT.

I did click it...that's where I got the quotes to prove my point.

What you either don't understand or are deliberately obfuscating is that the definition you refer to is referring to physical prototypes, and not the specific definition which occurs later on...in the section marked Computer gaming.

Further, you also don't seem to realise that in the computer gaming industry, the term Tech Demo covers any product which... rouse and maintain interest to titles still in development (because game engines are usually ready before the art is finished) and to ensure functionality by early testing.

Which is what the current releases by CIG currently are. A Tech Demo in this case, as opposed to a physical prototype of a tangible asset, can take place at ANY phase in the development. You can even have a Tech Demo of a released product. Companies use them to generate interest for sales.

No matter how you want to try and rewrite English and the terminology of software development, it remains the case that SC is in the pre-Alpha state and is currently nothing but a series of Tech Demos inyended to rouse and maintain interest in the project and demonstrate to backers that progress...glacially slow progress but progress nonetheless...is being made.

[masterhorus8]

I did click it...that's where I got the quotes to prove my point.

What you either don't understand or are deliberately obfuscating is that the definition you refer to is referring to physical prototypes, and not the specific definition which occurs later on...in the section marked Computer gaming.

Further, you also don't seem to realise that in the computer gaming industry, the term Tech Demo covers any product which... rouse and maintain interest to titles still in development (because game engines are usually ready before the art is finished) and to ensure functionality by early testing.

Which is what the current releases by CIG currently are. A Tech Demo in this case, as opposed to a physical prototype of a tangible asset, can take place at ANY phase in the development. You can even have a Tech Demo of a released product. Companies use them to generate interest for sales.

No matter how you want to try and rewrite English and the terminology of software development, it remains the case that SC is in the pre-Alpha state and is currently nothing but a series of Tech Demos inyended to rouse and maintain interest in the project and demonstrate to backers that progress...glacially slow progress but progress nonetheless...is being made.

You're cherry picking your words, dude. The part that you bolded, "incomplete version of a conceivable product" has more meaning. A conceivable product has not been conceived yet, hence "-able". Words have meanings. (I did say this was semantics earlier today).

"Computer game developers use tech demos to rouse and maintain interest to titles still in development (because game engines are usually ready before the art is finished) and to ensure functionality by early testing. Short segments using finished game engines may be presented as game demos." From the Tech Demo link. No change in the definition. Only saying when it's used. What they show in their ATV segments are closer to tech demos than what they have on stage or on the floor of the conventions, and certainly not what is playable, which as you so kindly pointed out earlier, was the First playable stage.

And again, you then point out pre-alpha, which is the first playable stage, past pre-production, where proof of concept is.

I'll just tack this on the list with the word "hype" for you.