[Megathread] Star Citizen

[KyrtF]

This is something I still don’t understand, I mean, unless I’m missing something here, they are supposed to release a single player game (Squadron whatever?) before releasing the MMO version of it, right? Why ain’t they just getting that shit done and over with before focusing this much on the MMO part of the game anyway?

Largely because S42 and SC use pretty much the same systems.

Or are intended to.

Until the engine for Star Citizen is finished...or at least those elements common to both...there is a limit as to how much of S42 CIG can produce.

If we are lucky, now that SC has (supposedly) added AI to 3.0...or at least the basic AI...that might be enough to allow them to give S42 a serious push. They still need to improve large parts of it, but it'll be a start.

[Rennadrel]

This is something I still don’t understand, I mean, unless I’m missing something here, they are supposed to release a single player game (Squadron whatever?) before releasing the MMO version of it, right? Why ain’t they just getting that shit done and over with before focusing this much on the MMO part of the game anyway?

Two teams working on different projects but are linked in pretty much every way. So a lot of the design that goes into SQ42 has to go into SC, and vice versa. A lot of the bugs with game mechanics in particular, can be similar between the two games if they are coded the same way. I think that's where there might be a bigger roadblock. Trying to get some of the mechanics to work in an MMO might be more challenging than in a single player, especially when you factor in client side and server side things in an MMO, while a single player everything is restricted to one individual experience.

[Malibutomi]

Bad management, wasting of backer money, $10k/developer/year....

Short end for a long debate:

“We try to be quite smart about development costs, so we do a lot in the UK and two-thirds of our developers are in Europe. It’s far more cost effective. Over here you can have two developers for the price of one in the US. In the places where there’s game development in the US, the price of living is really high. We’re up in Manchester and it’s a lot cheaper to live there than in LA. The average salaries in the industry are less for that reason.”

It’s not just the cost of living, though: “We get basically 25 per cent of the UK cost back from the government. And that allows us to hire more people. We wouldn’t have as big an office in the UK if that deal wasn’t there. I think that was a very good move for the government to do that, because now we have around 250 in the UK, by far our biggest group of people"

http://www.mcvuk.com/articles/develo...itment-and-rel

That's basically what i said a few days back, dev salaries are a lot lower in europe.

[1001]

Bad management, wasting of backer money, $10k/developer/year....

Short end for a long debate:

“We try to be quite smart about development costs, so we do a lot in the UK and two-thirds of our developers are in Europe. It’s far more cost effective. Over here you can have two developers for the price of one in the US. In the places where there’s game development in the US, the price of living is really high. We’re up in Manchester and it’s a lot cheaper to live there than in LA. The average salaries in the industry are less for that reason.”

It’s not just the cost of living, though: “We get basically 25 per cent of the UK cost back from the government. And that allows us to hire more people. We wouldn’t have as big an office in the UK if that deal wasn’t there. I think that was a very good move for the government to do that, because now we have around 250 in the UK, by far our biggest group of people"

http://www.mcvuk.com/articles/develo...itment-and-rel

That's basically what i said a few days back, dev salaries are a lot lower in europe.

F42 UK's financials show they are spending £80k average on each employee ($105k).
With 250 staff in the UK at $105k per head that's $26.25 million a year - 6.5 million (25% rebate) = $19.75 million
55 staff in Germany at $105k per head is $5.75 million
And 152 in the US at twice that rate is another $32 million for a total cost of $57.5 million per year excluding contractors and so on.

No matter how they cut it it's a lot of money

[Malibutomi]

F42 UK's financials show they are spending £80k average on each employee ($105k).
With 250 staff in the UK at $105k per head that's $26.25 million a year - 6.5 million (25% rebate) = $19.75 million
55 staff in Germany at $105k per head is $5.75 million
And 152 in the US at twice that rate is another $32 million for a total cost of $57.5 million per year excluding contractors and so on.

No matter how they cut it it's a lot of money

Yeah it's a lot of money.
I'm pretty sure tho that salaries at CIG US are not double of what they are in the UK. It should be closer to the theoretical 10k/mont which would be 18.2 million not 32.
What is sure tho is CIG saves about 10 million a year by keeping most of the devs in the UK and not in the US (going by the 10k/dev/month US cost)
If the average salary is similar in Germany they save another 0.8-1 million there annually.

Final point is we ha no clue how much they spend in total, because we can't pin it down with less than 25% divergence.

[1001]

Yeah it's a lot of money.
I'm pretty sure tho that salaries at CIG US are not double of what they are in the UK. It should be closer to the theoretical 10k/mont which would be 18.2 million not 32.

But he says in that interview "Over here you can have two developers for the price of one in the US." so the cost is double. The UK developer cost per month works out to $8750 which is very low and puts the US cost ~$17500 according to CR.

[KyrtF]

Yeah it's a lot of money.
I'm pretty sure tho that salaries at CIG US are not double of what they are in the UK. It should be closer to the theoretical 10k/mont which would be 18.2 million not 32.

The two for one comes from the quote listed, which in turn is from an interview with Chris Roberts. Not only that, but the actual wage only accounts for a fraction of the $14k per head budget figure quoted. If you wanted to reflect the "discount" and assume that CIG gets its, then give them a 30% discount and sue the lower $10k figure per head instead.

It isn't as if tax breaks are unique to the UK or aren't already figured into budgets.

Having said that, given that CIG are based in Austin an LA, the accepted figure is probably closer to $14k per head as the $10k figure is somewhat out of date these days. Even using the $10k figure - that is STILL a lot of money and it is still far above what CIG are raising.

[Malibutomi]

$19.75 million / 250 devs=$79.000 /12 months = $6583 not $8750

Also you think he will say totally accurately from the top of his head in an interview?

$6500 is pretty much in the ballpark of half of the much touted 10k/dev/month


Either way they are saving about 10 million or more a year with the european studios, which is good

[Gorsameth]

People can argue over the fine point but the overarching story is the same.

CIG spends more then it has coming in (which is normal) and therefor their time to develop CS and SQ42 is limited.
Which in light of the time already spend and progress to show for it, can be seen as troubling.

[Rennadrel]

Bad management, wasting of backer money, $10k/developer/year....

Short end for a long debate:

“We try to be quite smart about development costs, so we do a lot in the UK and two-thirds of our developers are in Europe. It’s far more cost effective. Over here you can have two developers for the price of one in the US. In the places where there’s game development in the US, the price of living is really high. We’re up in Manchester and it’s a lot cheaper to live there than in LA. The average salaries in the industry are less for that reason.”

It’s not just the cost of living, though: “We get basically 25 per cent of the UK cost back from the government. And that allows us to hire more people. We wouldn’t have as big an office in the UK if that deal wasn’t there. I think that was a very good move for the government to do that, because now we have around 250 in the UK, by far our biggest group of people"

http://www.mcvuk.com/articles/develo...itment-and-rel

That's basically what i said a few days back, dev salaries are a lot lower in europe.

Pretty much everywhere that isn't America, developing software and video games is significantly cheaper. The biggest thing to note is that a lot of American developers are working constantly on new games, there are no breaks or shifts in project focus, they continually make the same games with very little deviation.

[Majestic12]

The facade is starting to crumble again:
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen..._report_is_up/

Backer patience is not infinite.

[KyrtF]

The facade is starting to crumble again:
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen..._report_is_up/

Backer patience is not infinite.

That'd be the production report that shows development of 4.0(?) starting just before Xmas and continuing for an entire year?

Assuming it doesn't get delayed of course.

[1001]

$19.75 million / 250 devs=$79.000 /12 months = $6583 not $8750

Also you think he will say totally accurately from the top of his head in an interview?

$6500 is pretty much in the ballpark of half of the much touted 10k/dev/month

Either way they are saving about 10 million or more a year with the european studios, which is good

You're making your calculations after the rebate has been applied. We don't know if that's what they are working from but we do know that $10k is the ballpark figure, pushing that ballpark figure down to $6500 seems highly unlikely when lots of studio heads agree that $10k is a good basis to work from and you have people saying it is far below modern day costs.

No I don't think he would give an accurate figure in the interview, I never claimed it was accurate but he could have easily have said their US counterparts cost half as much again, the fact is he said they cost twice as much.

[stellvia]

A dozen pages later you guys are still arguing in circles. Unbelievable.

[Rennadrel]

A dozen pages later you guys are still arguing in circles. Unbelievable.

No kidding, the constant whining and pessimistic shitposting is getting really old. All this doom and gloom crap puts me to sleep. That's why I put half the people in this thread on my ignore list, that way I don't have to read the garbage that they are posting.

[1001]

Because comments whining about what others are posting are so beneficial to the discussion....

[Afrospinach]

Oh sweet hypocrisy.

He would have to go on for nearly 250 pages to be a hypocrite.

[KyrtF]

No kidding, the constant whining and pessimistic shitposting is getting really old. All this doom and gloom crap puts me to sleep. That's why I put half the people in this thread on my ignore list, that way I don't have to read the garbage that they are posting.

To be fair - it would be nice if Star Citizen had some good news to post.

Tech demos and future promises of what MAY be if the stars align just right and news of continued delays and more bugs and blockers found don't really qualify.

Star Citizen has oodles of potential. If it meets half of that, it'll be a great game. But beyond reinforcing the notion that the game has potential, there is nothing coming out of CIG that really counts as "good news". The closest is recent months is that 3.0 was released to the Evocati....8 months after it was originally supposed to launch, and that was managed only with most of the planned content cut out. And even then, given their latest schedule, it looks like 3.,0 might get to the PTU by New Year and then to "release" around March.

Yes - the thread is full of pessimism...but if you want optimism, then you need something to be optimistic about. Blind faith that Chris Roberts will somehow turn things around or that the promises he is making can be kept isn't going to help.

[Rennadrel]

To be fair - it would be nice if Star Citizen had some good news to post.

Tech demos and future promises of what MAY be if the stars align just right and news of continued delays and more bugs and blockers found don't really qualify.

Star Citizen has oodles of potential. If it meets half of that, it'll be a great game. But beyond reinforcing the notion that the game has potential, there is nothing coming out of CIG that really counts as "good news". The closest is recent months is that 3.0 was released to the Evocati....8 months after it was originally supposed to launch, and that was managed only with most of the planned content cut out. And even then, given their latest schedule, it looks like 3.,0 might get to the PTU by New Year and then to "release" around March.

Yes - the thread is full of pessimism...but if you want optimism, then you need something to be optimistic about. Blind faith that Chris Roberts will somehow turn things around or that the promises he is making can be kept isn't going to help.

Well, I am not one of those blind faith idiots who is still grasping onto straws, I just don't flat out care about keeping up with a project that hasn't had enough updates for me to want to keep playing it, but I am also not running around screaming that the sky is falling and that SC is never going to get finished. If it doesn't, well, they'll get a chargeback from my credit card company for the $110 and $75 I spent on packs a few years ago and they will likely face a class action lawsuit over it. SC failing would be the end of Chris Roberts career in gaming, he won't get another shot at doing something like this and failing to meet expectations time and time again. He needs to just shut up and stop promising delivery dates (he should have done that over a year ago) and just keep working away. People don't need this continual reinforcement that he wants to get something out by a certain time of the year, honestly if he had said two years ago that he wasn't sure when 3.0 was going to release, he'd probably not have near as many dissenters and blatant trolls spreading misinformation like a few of the people posting in this thread.

Honestly, most of us who backed the game that have been posting here for a long while are tired of the shitposting, it's old, it's not interesting and it sure as hell isn't constructive. This thread was getting bumped when there was actual things to talk about relating to development of the game, not posts about the supposed lack in development, and that was just fine with me and I am sure others would agree. People need to just fucking stuff it, we don't care about the doom and gloom crap. I'll just start reporting people for it because it has entirely derailed this thread.

[KyrtF]

that SC is never going to get finished.

I'm sure it will be finished. I just don't think backers are going to get the game they expected.

If it doesn't, well, they'll get a chargeback from my credit card company for the $110 and $75 I spent on packs a few years ago and they will likely face a class action lawsuit over it.

If you are in the EU, I think you have a fair chance of getting your money back. If you aren't, if the latest talk about CIG doing a MVP release instead are true, then it maybe too late to look for a refund now, never mind in 3 or 4 years.

SC failing would be the end of Chris Roberts career in gaming

Yes....but define failure? I can't see Star Citizen being the game people seem to expect. Half the mechanics Chris Roberts is pushing seem wonky at best and offputting at worst and if the financial reports are accurate, then unless CIG have some hidden funding, I cannot see them having the necessary funding to survive long enough to meet all their promises.

CIG will release something called Star Citizen. It'll have space combat and FPS and procgen planets, trading and mining. But I think it won't be the game people expect because it won't have the content, and the mechanics and gameplay won't be properly polished. The Flight Model is an example...it's is terrible at the minute, but I've seen some CIG staff refer to it as "finished".

This thread was getting bumped when there was actual things to talk about relating to development of the game, not posts about the supposed lack in development, and that was just fine with me and I am sure others would agree. People need to just fucking stuff it, we don't care about the doom and gloom crap. I'll just start reporting people for it because it has entirely derailed this thread.

Whether you like or not, talking about the failures and red flags of Star Citizen is still talking about Star Citizen. You just don't like the specifics about what people are discussing.

To a large degree...that isn't their fault. There isn't much to talk about.

We have the tech demos that we can play. Talked to death.
We have the tech demo that occurred at GC17. It was a near disaster and didn't show anything.
We have the tech demo that was at CC17. It was much more impressive....but it was still largely a non interactive scripted onrails tech demo which Chris Roberts told us was showcasing stuff players would never be able to do in game.
3.0 has been released...but the bugs have overshadowed much, and can't overshadow that it is still a year late, and launching with much of the planned content cut.

The big reason that the thread isn't more optimistic as you put it, is that there is little to be optimistic about and none of the planned content or content that is out - the demos, 2.6.3, 3.0 - show any indication that things are going to change. Talk is pessimistic because there is nothing to be optimistic about. Not unless you are into blind faith, that is.

The city flyby was impressive...but it isn't as if it is in game, or even using the 3.0 systems to show stuff. It showed us an idea of what CIG want that world to look like...but gave us no indication of how likely we were to see that demo actually built into the game. We don't know how likely that will be, or if we will get the same in a low res version, or if there will be that many NPCs or whatever. But Chris Roberts telling us that the demo was showing stuff the players would not be able to do, and the dev coming out the next day telling us that most of what we see in the city will be nothing more than cosmetic window dressing isn't helping.

There's a great vision in that demo. It looked great. Just like all the other demos CIG created. But there's only so much so can talk about saying it looked great when it isn't in the game and offers no demonstration of gameplay or mechanics or content. A more optimistic outlook will require CIG to actually start delivering and delivering more than tech demos. To show real progression in their development....but that isn't likely to come till 4.0 is released. I would not even expect 3.0 to show sufficient progress. And 4.0 is at least another year away.