[Megathread] Star Citizen

[kenn9530]

I see you edited your quote, a bit after the fact of course but it doesn't matter. You were asked to compare SC to other games that you view as SC being equal to or better than and you rattled off some titles. NOW you try and walk that back and say it is about 'what the game offers the players to do'. Yeah no. That isn't what you were asked and it is fucking wrong anyways.

You are trying to say something like "CoD is just about running around a small map shooting people" or something like that right? So little gameplay! Yet how many millions of people play that game? Want to compare twitch numbers? That'll be a fun one. SC is not in the same league of PubG or CoD and for you to try and make the claim it was is fucking laughable.

Your the one making assumptions as i was always talking about what the game offers because there is not point in discussing what game is better as its personal choice.

Doesnt matter how many play a certain game doesnt mean it has more content than another game does it. Space games are always for a niche community and thats why they dont get made that often, companies would rather remake the same thing over and over like COD because people will just buy it, CoD, fortnite and similar gameplay is so bland its makes you not want to play any game.

[Kyanion]

Your the one making assumptions as i was always talking about what the game offers because there is not point in discussing what game is better as its personal choice.

Keep on backpedalling I'm enjoying this.

You ignore that even if SC was only at 10% of which it isnt, that 10% is equal or better than 100% of other games. Even over a year ago SQ42 was around 40% complete but you like to ignore things like that.

What does that 'better' word mean in your post?

You want some games ED, COD, PUBG, the list can go on easily, even what SC is now is at least equal or better than 100% released games in terms of things to do.

Better you say??

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Dude there are SC fans in this very thread that have warned this patch was a buggy mess. I don't think they are on a potato either. @Val the Moofia Boss want to chime in here?

i5-3570 CPU
20 GB of RAM
Radeon RX 580

I can normally run games at 2560 x 1440 at 60 FPS. With FFXIV, it can dip down into the 40's sometimes but usually it's still high framerate.

With Star Citizen, however, I have to run the game at 1920 x 1080 on the lowest possible graphical setting and I still get about 30 FPS in cities, near stations, on plant surfaces, and while on large ships like the 890 Jump. I get buttery smooth 60 FPS when I'm in my 325a out in space. I can run the game at higher resolutions and at higher graphical settings and still get smooth performance while in my ship out in space, but it's just unplayable if if I'm in the aforementioned high intensity areas.

My low framerate a times has never really bothered me, because in prior patches the game will still FUN and it was an enjoyable experience nontheless. However, 3.9 is objectively near unplayable.

I've had a few crashes this patch, but the vast majority of the bugs were server related, not client related.

• Random 30ks (server crash). If you log in on a server, you'll be lucky if it doesn't crash within 30 minutes.

• Quantum Drive not working, where it either says I don't have enough fuel (when I do) or my target is obstructed (when it isn't) so I have to reboot my ship or QT to another location and THEN qt to my destination.

• Personal inventory disappears when you log out. No point wasting five minutes stocking up on food and water when you won't be able to play long enough to need to use it, much less actually have the food and water in your inventory when you DO need to use it. Better off holding backspace.

• Bounty missions bug out. You get a bounty, QT to the quantum beacon, travel to the marker on your HUD, and... a friendly NPC spawns. If you kill the NPC, you may or may not get crimestat, and you won't fulfill the contract.

• FPS guns not firing when you hold down the left click button, which has led to me dying during FPS combat because I exposed myself to take a shot at my enemies and then couldn't kill them. You have to holster your gun and then bring it out, and then it MIGHT work again. Then again, FPS combat is really horrible right now due to latency (not talking about framerate stuttering; I can be firing into a dude's chest in medium armor with a F55 for two seconds and he won't go down, but then he pulls out his little pea shooter and kills me with four shots, even though I was wearing heavy armor).

• Elevators not working.

• Delivery missions bugged.

• QTing to a point on Hurston may or may not end with you spontaneously exploding while hundreds of KM over the surface.

• Your ship spontaneously exploding for no apparent reason with no one around or anything to collide with.

[1001]

Space games are a niche as it is, so having 2.7 million interested in it is more than good.

It's not 2.7 million though is it. They reckon it is about half of that amount. And 'only' getting 1.35-1.7 million over 8 years compared to that naff Elite game which sold 3.5 million copies is not that great tbh.

You want some games ED, COD, PUBG, the list can go on easily, even what SC is now is at least equal or better than 100% released games in terms of things to do.

LOL, just LOL. By all means do go on

Lets add something to this briefly. SC is being made with 500+ staff compared to Elite's 100+ staff, it has also spent $330 million apparently compared to Elite's $65-$80 million so it really should be better with that in mind, like a lot better and when it comes to graphics it is but when it comes to gameplay, mechanics and variety it really isn't.

Im talking about what it offers not if whats a better game as thats subjective, but i would say WoW is a bad game as its terrible and boring offering no challenge and i played it 10 years and the gameplay is essentially the same as vanilla.

No you said the 10% of SC is better than the 100% of other games. That 100% means the whole game, location, characters, gameplay, story etc.

SC offers more than what RDR2, dark souls, and other games, but those games offer different things and are mostly just doing the same thing over and over.

As opposed to running the same missions over and over or moving cargo from A to B over and over or shooting the same old pirates over and over or visiting the same old planets over and over?

[kenn9530]

Keep on backpedalling I'm enjoying this.



What does that 'better' word mean in your post?

In terms so you understand, SC has enough content now than some games that are fully released.

snip

So provide information backing yourself up, and Elite has been released for 6 years while there will be many waiting until SC has fully released before buying, pretty much most of ED playerbase will jump onto SC at least when its complete.

ED is a single player with multiplayer support and basic planets, SC is a universe with detailed planets and everyone is going to be on the same shard, ED is just bland and had no depth, doesnt feel like a space game at all.

I was talking about what the game offered in things to do so dont adjust the meaning to suit whatever you want to say.

[MrAnderson]

They are also utterly wrong because kenn9530's genius claim about how RDR2 cost more in salaries alone is based on the premise that the game took six years to develop and that 1600 people all Rockstar studios worked on it, which supposedly amounts to 100 million a year for just salaries. Which doesn't take into account things like how all studios did not work on RDR2 throughout the entirety of the six years of its development (it's almost as if between the start of RDR2's development and its release Rockstar also released GTAV and GTA Online, which until its own release was the primary focus of the company with only Rockstar San Diego working on RDR2 at that point) or the fact that quite a lot of these 1600 people were hired contractors that were in on a project only to do a specific job and then were gone instead of being on the company's payroll for the six years of development straight.

RDR2 took 8 years and involved around 2k people.

GamesBeat: How did you think about the scope of the game? I can imagine conversations like, “Well, let’s make it two or three times bigger than the original Red Dead. We can get 2,000 people to work on it for eight years.”

Nelson (RDR2 Game Director): [Laughs] That’s not quite the way it works.

Nobody starts out thinking they’ll work for eight years. We just kind of go. Once you hit this tipping point in development, where you have a world and you have a narrative that you roughly think are going to work, and then you have the elements, the mechanics, the things that are going to support the narrative — the game tells you what it needs and what it doesn’t need, what’s superfluous and what’s not.

Once the team was full steam, really rolling and making the thing–I guess there were things we could have cut to save a bit of time. But really, for the whole thing to feel resolved as a whole piece of work, it needed everything that we put in it. You just have to finish it.

[Kyanion]

snip

I'm curious to hear what they'd say in relation to your claim that the vast majority of bugs are server related and not client related. Because we get posts like this:

most of the time crashes and stuff are rare you mostly see the issue after a patch, and many reasons you get a crash is because you have a potato running the game, but who said the alpha was meant to be smooth and bug free.

despite videos being posted of game breaking bugs, doors failing to open, people stuck, exploding instantly for no reason and so on.

- - - Updated - - -

I know you have a hard time understanding so SC if the game was at 10% then that 10% would be equal to or better than 100% of a completed game. SC now is essentially good enough with optimisation to be a full game now.

LOL Okay, so it is good enough to be a full game, yet it isn't. Hell they should just release it now because it is good enough to be a full game. Hell you've said it is on par with Pubg and CoD!

- - - Updated - - -

snip

Come on now, SC at 10% is better than CoD, you'll just have to get over it. Imagine if you will, SC at 100%. Okay I mean the year will probably be 2027 and the game won't actually be released in a completed state but they had to get something out as the money is drying up. But imagine SC at 100%. No game will even get close to it! SC at 10% is already on the level of CoD and PUBG man!

- - - Updated - - -

RDR2 took 8 years and involved around 2k people.

From the same article:
GamesBeat: Were you on Red Dead Redemption 2 at the beginning?

Nelson: Yes, but not directly, not every day. I’ve been here all along, but early on, I was focused on finishing some other things. I’ve been on Red Dead 2 full-time for three-and-a-half-to-four years. That’s the way we work. We roll on-and-off projects as necessary.


Wouldn't that imply that 2000 people weren't on the project 8 years straight? I mean Rob Nelson wasn't.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Wouldn't that imply that 2000 people weren't on the project 8 years straight? I mean Rob Nelson wasn't.

I seriously doubt the programmers and the artists were making the game for 8 years. More than likely, 8 years ago the game planners were beginning pre-production work on the game, ie working out the game design and mechanics and experimenting with prototype mockups and stuff. Once they had that all worked out, THEN they swung into full production with game programmers and artists doing their stuff.

Similarly, GTA V "development" began in 2008, but it wasn't until 2010 that they actually went into full production, so the programmers and artists were working for three years, not five.

[1001]

In any business recently launched losing half of it's costumers in the first year is a sign of failing to pick up steam. It's not rocket science. The launch made lacklustre numbers and was aggravated by the desperate plan of launching the planetary landings DLC with the same price of the base game which backfired and sold poorly. After that lacklustre update after update and change of focus went to consoles to recoup some of the losses culminating with the cancellation of an official PVP competition and maintenance mode by a skeleton crew while they focused on other IP's. Oh and ofc selling 9% of the company to the Chinese Tencent to get some capital injection.

A/ The sale numbers clearly disagree with you. And if selling 3.5 million copies is bad then what does it say for Star Citizen's 1.5 million paying backers?
B/ An article I can't lay my hands on said MMO's can expect to lose 70% of their customers in the 1st month. The locust mentality if you like. Keeping or getting 50% to upgrade a year later is pretty damn decent by comparison.
C/ If the majority of the Elite team are working on the expansion then it would stand to reason that the other team is smaller. There's no conspiracy to be found there

You seem rather desperate to throw stones especially for someone living in a glass house. Why is an investment from Tencent bad when CIG have taken multiple investments despite saying they would be investor free after $23 million and in the face of raising hundreds of millions?

Their original plan, as you might be recalled, was to have a big paid seasonal update every year which was abandoned after the Horizons (2015) fiasco mentioned above. The last seasonal update called Beyond only came in 2018 and free of charge to try to get back some sympathy from the community.

Yeah, their season plan did not go over well, people were confused by it so they did what any company would do, change it up. No dirty secret there either.

Why would you think your opinions are "dirt"? It's public information and I'm sure if you wrote it on a public forum is because you don't mind other people reading it.

You tell me, you're the one seeking high and low for proof that I am a fanboy.

You prefer Elite to Star Citizen and that's your opinion and a valid one just like me preferring Star Citizen is also valid. Nothing to be ashamed of but it's also pertinent to the discussion since it shows a bit of where all that negative bias against Star Citizen comes from.

No not at all, my like or dislike for Elite has no bearing on my opinion of Star Citizen. I judge that as much as I can on against its own claims, progress, merits etc.

How many times you went back looking for 6 year old quotes from Chris Roberts or dev's talking about him to attack his persona or the project of Star Citizen?

Are you his bodyguard then?

- - - Updated - - -

So provide information backing yourself up, and Elite has been released for 6 years while there will be many waiting until SC has fully released before buying, pretty much most of ED playerbase will jump onto SC at least when its complete.

Yeah right... pulled straight from your asshole

ED is a single player with multiplayer support and basic planets, SC is a universe with detailed planets and everyone is going to be on the same shard, ED is just bland and had no depth, doesnt feel like a space game at all.

You can't bait me with this Kenn, trying to shift the conversation from you proving SC's 10% is better than other games' 100% is not going to work.

I was talking about what the game offered in things to do so dont adjust the meaning to suit whatever you want to say.

And so was I. You said games were boring because you do the same thing over and over while that is exactly what you do in SC. At least in other games they loops are much more engaging, bug free etc. You're going to have to face these facts one day.

[Mehrunes]

Since where did it state they just hired contractors of which would cost them even more than using current staff they already have, they made a large team of 1600 and the company have well over 2k staff so it doesnt make much sense to hire more than a small amount of contractors since they are not cost effective.

Even if only half the 1600 were full time on RDR2 that would be at least 240 million in salary at a low 50k salary average. Thgen add 100 million marketing since they spent that much on GTA5 at least.

Any studios over 500 staff are going to spend a ton developing a game regardless.

Since when did I state they just hired contractors? How about you address what you're actually quoting instead of your fantasies? And your claim that it'd cost them even more to use contractors than their current stuff when the very point of a contractor is to hire them to perform a very specific task after which they GTFO so that the company doesn't have to keep paying them for doing nothing when they aren't needed throughout the entire development, precisely to avoid your brilliant calculations of "salary budget for the project is simply X amount of years times Y amount of workers".

Anyway, what I actually said was quite a lot of the total amount of people working on RDR2 were contracted workers. The last time you were spreading your wisdom about RDR2's salary budget Edge- tried to educate you (with no effects) that people like QA workers (and RDR2 credits 340 testers alone in its QA section of the game's credits), voice actors (almost 300 before you even get to local population voices, at which point I stopped counting because there were so many of those), facial scans, motion capture and the like. They aren't on a permanent payroll because that is what would cost more and be less cost-effective. Using even the basest of logic would lead you to that conclusion. For most of the game's development there wouldn't even be anything to work on for the people in those positions. Just so happens each of these sections is some of the longest in RDR2's credits roll. Facial scans alone take like a quarter of the thing.

RDR2 took 8 years and involved around 2k people.

Which is irrelevant to the point that I was making because I was addressing kenn9530's claims about it and those were what I covered in my post.

Nelson: Yes, but not directly, not every day. I’ve been here all along, but early on, I was focused on finishing some other things. I’ve been on Red Dead 2 full-time for three-and-a-half-to-four years. That’s the way we work. We roll on-and-off projects as necessary.

I wonder what were those things he was finishing for 4-4.5 years before going to RDR2 full time. Could it be the teeny tiny thing that is the highest-earning media title ever created that Rockstar released between RDR2's inception and its own release? But hey, maybe GTA V just spontaneously developed itself.

[kenn9530]

Yeah right... pulled straight from your asshole



You can't bait me with this Kenn, trying to shift the conversation from you proving SC's 10% is better than other games' 100% is not going to work.



And so was I. You said games were boring because you do the same thing over and over while that is exactly what you do in SC. At least in other games they loops are much more engaging, bug free etc. You're going to have to face these facts one day.

In games like COD there is 1 gameplay loop thats it, in SC there is many so if you get bored you can do something else, SC offers more gameplay options that most games.

What good does it do to want SC to fail, if for some reason SC did fail then there would be no new space game being made for another decade so players who want a space game would suffer and whos to say any developer would even attempt it again.

Since when did I state they just hired contractors? How about you address what you're actually quoting instead of your fantasies? And your claim that it'd cost them even more to use contractors than their current stuff when the very point of a contractor is to hire them to perform a very specific task after which they GTFO so that the company doesn't have to keep paying them for doing nothing when they aren't needed throughout the entire development, precisely to avoid your brilliant calculations of "salary budget for the project is simply X amount of years times Y amount of workers".

Anyway, what I actually said was quite a lot of the total amount of people working on RDR2 were contracted workers. The last time you were spreading your wisdom about RDR2's salary budget Edge- tried to educate you (with no effects) that people like QA workers (and RDR2 credits 340 testers alone in its QA section of the game's credits), voice actors (almost 300 before you even get to local population voices, at which point I stopped counting because there were so many of those), facial scans, motion capture and the like. They aren't on a permanent payroll because that is what would cost more and be less cost-effective. Using even the basest of logic would lead you to that conclusion. For most of the game's development there wouldn't even be anything to work on for the people in those positions. Just so happens each of these sections is some of the longest in RDR2's credits roll. Facial scans alone take like a quarter of the thing.

RDR2 is pretty much the same as GTA5 so at the very least the total costs to make RDR2 would be the same as GTA5 but likely much more using more staff and more time.

Main point is any large studio is going to spend alot of money during development.

[Kyanion]

I wonder what were those things he was finishing for 4-4.5 years before going to RDR2 full time. Could it be the teeny tiny thing that is the highest-earning media title ever created that Rockstar released between RDR2's inception and its own release? But hey, maybe GTA V just spontaneously developed itself.

What?? No way! Wow I bet SC wishes it could just spontaneously develop itself!

- - - Updated - - -

In games like COD there is 1 gameplay loop thats it, in SC there is many so if you get bored you can do something else, SC offers more gameplay options that most games.

Guess that is why SC is the number 1 game in the world. Nope.
Guess that is why SC is the number 1 game on twitch... Nope...
Guess that is why people choose SC as their game of choice because of all of the gameplay options...Nope...

Damn this isn't going well. I better fire up COD.

[1001]

In games like COD there is 1 gameplay loop thats it, in SC there is many so if you get bored you can do something else, SC offers more gameplay options that most games.

So why compare a single loop game to a multi loop game? that's stacking the deck in your favour. I think you should compare it to MMO type games, they have multiplayer, lots of locations to visit, lots of things to do, different types of gameplay loops etc. Comparing a Swiss army knife to a butter knife is not very useful.

What good does it do to want SC to fail, if for some reason SC did fail then there would be no new space game being made for another decade so players who want a space game would suffer and whos to say any developer would even attempt it again.

I don't care if it fails or not, that's irrelevant to me. That doesn't mean it should be free from scrutiny though. And if people want to say it's the best game ever then we're allowed to see if their statements hold up.

And if developers don't try again maybe it's because they can see how expensive and time consuming it is and that the returns on investment simply wouldn't be worth it.

[Kyanion]

In games like COD there is 1 gameplay loop thats it, in SC there is many so if you get bored you can do something else, SC offers more gameplay options that most games.

Also it would help if those options were fun. But then again randomly exploding for opening a door on a ship is quite the gameplay option.

[kenn9530]

Guess that is why SC is the number 1 game in the world. Nope.
Guess that is why SC is the number 1 game on twitch... Nope...
Guess that is why people choose SC as their game of choice because of all of the gameplay options...Nope...

Damn this isn't going well. I better fire up COD.

And did is say its the best/most popular game in the world nope, its a space game and has a limited interested playerbase so try again.

So why compare a single loop game to a multi loop game? that's stacking the deck in your favour. I think you should compare it to MMO type games, they have multiplayer, lots of locations to visit, lots of things to do, different types of gameplay loops etc. Comparing a Swiss army knife to a butter knife is not very useful.



I don't care if it fails or not, that's irrelevant to me. That doesn't mean it should be free from scrutiny though. And if people want to say it's the best game ever then we're allowed to see if their statements hold up.

And if developers don't try again maybe it's because they can see how expensive and time consuming it is and that the returns on investment simply wouldn't be worth it.

I wasnt comparing it i was saying the so called 10% of what you believe is SC now has just as much to do as many games released at thier 100%, and SC is far more complete than 10% as SQ42 was around 40% complete over a year ago.

[Kyanion]

And did is say its the best/most popular game in the world nope, its a space game and has a limited interested playerbase so try again.

That is my point, I'm trying to see what you can even compare it to if 10% is equal to 100% of other games. It isn't COD or PUBG in terms of 'gameplay options' if the gameplay options are boring, buggy messes. It only takes 1 gameplay loop if that gameplay loop is very good, hence COD being viewed as very good by many people. I don't play it but I respect what it is and why it is what it is. SC gets none of that respect. But of course since you're backpedalling like a master you have to cherry pick one thing out of a post and go for it.

[kenn9530]

That is my point, I'm trying to see what you can even compare it to if 10% is equal to 100% of other games. It isn't COD or PUBG in terms of 'gameplay options' if the gameplay options are boring, buggy messes. It only takes 1 gameplay loop if that gameplay loop is very good, hence COD being viewed as very good by many people. I don't play it but I respect what it is and why it is what it is. SC gets none of that respect. But of course since you're backpedalling like a master you have to cherry pick one thing out of a post and go for it.

Your sole reason for being in the thread is to talk BS as much as possible hoping everyday the game will fail, you have no value to discussing anything with the game, its sad you waste anytime in a thread where your only interest is the failure of the product.

[1001]

I wasnt comparing it i was saying the so called 10% of what you believe is SC now has just as much to do as many games released at thier 100%,

Of course you are comparing. By saying 10% is better than 100% there has to be a comparison made to reach that conclusion.

and SC is far more complete than 10% as SQ42 was around 40% complete over a year ago.

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. I've re-read it multiple times and it still makes no sense to me. Can you rephrase it?

[MrAnderson]

A/ The sale numbers clearly disagree with you. And if selling 3.5 million copies is bad then what does it say for Star Citizen's 1.5 million paying backers?

Frontier agrees or else they wouldn't have cancelled their yearly seasons plans, cancelled their official PVP tournament+prize money and focused on other franchises. Their release sold reasonably for a niche game (825k in the first months) but the general gaming community called the game convoluted and shallow. "A mile wide, but an inch deep" and didn't stick for long. Compare the evolution of Elite with NoManSky for example and it's night and day.

As for comparing with Star Citizen numbers, you can't, first because there's no updated official numbers to how many backers have bought a game package and second because one is game still in development but has seen it's unit price/value increase with time (more than double now with the separation of the online universe and single-player campaign) while the other has had 3 official releases in multiple platforms (PC, XBOX, PS4) and as seen it's price go for as low as 5$.

But if you're interested why players left Elite for Star Citizen you can find a good example here:

[Kyanion]

Your sole reason for being in the thread is to talk BS as much as possible hoping everyday the game will fail, you have no value to discussing anything with the game, its sad you waste anytime in a thread where your only interest is the failure of the product.

Okay so you backpedaled so far you're back to attacking what was said and who said it instead of trying to cover for the BS you got called out on. I'm not the one claiming 10% of SC is equal to COD or Pubg bud. Oh wait you claim it is better! My bad.

Again, if you don't like what I have to say don't reply to me or put me on ignore. Stop attacking me though, it is getting old.

- - - Updated - - -

As for comparing with Star Citizen numbers, you can't, first because there's no updated official numbers to how many backers have bought a game package and second because one is game still in development but has seen it's unit price/value increase with time (more than double now with the separation of the online universe and single-player campaign) while the other has had 3 official releases in multiple platforms (PC, XBOX, PS4) and as seen it's price go for as low as 5$.

Hasn't stopped people on both sides from comparing SC and ED though. Also, how long does sC get this 'still in development' pass? When it reaches Duke Nukem Forever years?