[Megathread] Star Citizen

[Edge-]

They have already worked out a deal for using the servers so why would it cost more, once the game is complete and there isnt a requirement for a larger team then costs for servers is not really an issue.

Because if you need to add servers, that costs money?

[Gorsameth]

Its not a magic solution, even the stepping stone towards server meshing which they said they would implement would be suitable for what they require, if it was not possible dont you think many of the devs working on it would actually say its not possible.

Would we know if they think it can't be done? Chris doesn't seem like the kind of person who would tell us. And the dev's probably are not willing to risk being fired by speaking about it publicly.

[kenn9530]

Would we know if they think it can't be done? Chris doesn't seem like the kind of person who would tell us. And the dev's probably are not willing to risk being fired by speaking about it publicly.

There will be a system inplace that works regardless of what you think.

Because if you need to add servers, that costs money?

They have been working with amazon for years now, they will have a deal inplace to cover all server requirements, all they need is an average of playerbase and just pay one fixed rate since it would raise higher and lower depending on the day.

[Edge-]

They have been working with amazon for years now, they will have a deal inplace to cover all server requirements, all they need is an average of playerbase and just pay one fixed rate since it would raise higher and lower depending on the day.

You've seen this deal? Do you have a link to it?

How would they handle, say, a need to spin up a bunch of servers at launch proper? Would that be factored into their "fixed" pay to Amazon? What if they wanted to spin down servers? Would that not reduce their costs?

Having a, "We will work with you for server hosting" agreement just means that they have an agreement to work with Amazon to use their servers.

Playerbase fluctuations by day wouldn't factor into this.

You're not giving remotely clear answers, which is why I'm still asking - Does spinning up additional servers cost them anything? Do they save money if they close down servers that are no longer needed?

Where are you getting this information?

[Majestic12]

You've seen this deal? Do you have a link to it?

How would they handle, say, a need to spin up a bunch of servers at launch proper? Would that be factored into their "fixed" pay to Amazon? What if they wanted to spin down servers? Would that not reduce their costs?

Having a, "We will work with you for server hosting" agreement just means that they have an agreement to work with Amazon to use their servers.

Playerbase fluctuations by day wouldn't factor into this.

You're not giving remotely clear answers, which is why I'm still asking - Does spinning up additional servers cost them anything? Do they save money if they close down servers that are no longer needed?

Where are you getting this information?

He's theorycrafting. It's true that they have a deal, but there's no way it accounts for infinite scaling.

If you wanna contribute, you can always get yourself a Legatus pack! (Funny video about the $35k pack)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_J4...ature=youtu.be

[Cyranis]

[It] isn’t some race to the top; it’s not like Highlander where 'There can only be one!'—it is an open-ended persistent universe sandbox that doesn’t have an end game or a specific win-state."

That in a nutshell is my biggest problem with the game and why I am no longer a backer. I was really looking for it to be a space sim mmo, and it turned out something more like a pay2win version of GTA V, in space. I will certainly play SQ42 though, need to get some use out of the Gunfighters I picked up.

[kenn9530]

You've seen this deal? Do you have a link to it?

How would they handle, say, a need to spin up a bunch of servers at launch proper? Would that be factored into their "fixed" pay to Amazon? What if they wanted to spin down servers? Would that not reduce their costs?

Having a, "We will work with you for server hosting" agreement just means that they have an agreement to work with Amazon to use their servers.

Playerbase fluctuations by day wouldn't factor into this.

You're not giving remotely clear answers, which is why I'm still asking - Does spinning up additional servers cost them anything? Do they save money if they close down servers that are no longer needed?

Where are you getting this information?

All they need to know is concurrent playerbase and work around that number, until the game is released they have time to get an accurate count and finalise a suitable arrangement, SQ42 will give a good number so they have a starting base of server requirements and the beta would confirm the needs required. CiG have other things on the table that amazon would probably be interested in.

That in a nutshell is my biggest problem with the game and why I am no longer a backer. I was really looking for it to be a space sim mmo, and it turned out something more like a pay2win version of GTA V, in space. I will certainly play SQ42 though, need to get some use out of the Gunfighters I picked up.

It is a space sim MMO and there will be more npcs flying around that players so its going to be nothing like GTA 5, combat is only a fraction of SC gameplay and even if your in the largest ship ingame you can still be blown up by a prepared group so just having a large ship means nothing really.

[Edge-]

All they need to know is concurrent playerbase and work around that number, until the game is released they have time to get an accurate count and finalise a suitable arrangement, SQ42 will give a good number so they have a starting base of server requirements and the beta would confirm the needs required. CiG have other things on the table that amazon would probably be interested in.

This is still not an answer to the questions, so I take it you don't have any answers then.

[Henako]

This is still not an answer to the questions, so I take it you don't have any answers then.

C'mon. Who are you talking to? Kenn has all the answers.

[oplawlz]

I mean...this is an unsupportable position. You can argue that they're squandering money on sky-high goals that may not be really feasible, but "stealing" is flat out false.

They have a product. It's far from finished, but they've shown steady progress with it over the years, even if it's far slower than many had hoped, and they're showing the addition of some significant tech and features into it.

It's stealing in the same sense that embezzlement is stealing. "Yeah, I did my accounting work, and I also made myself and my friends wealthy by creatively spending that money on projects that didn't actually create anything."

[Kyanion]

All they need to know is concurrent playerbase and work around that number, until the game is released they have time to get an accurate count and finalise a suitable arrangement, SQ42 will give a good number so they have a starting base of server requirements and the beta would confirm the needs required. CiG have other things on the table that amazon would probably be interested in.

How do you know all these things? You can't know these things. You don't know 'amazon would probably be interested in something', you don't work for Amazon. You don't work for CiG. You have no idea what you are talking about yet you try and speak like you are in a position of authority on these matters.

- - - Updated - - -

It is a space sim MMO and there will be more npcs flying around that players so its going to be nothing like GTA 5, combat is only a fraction of SC gameplay and even if your in the largest ship ingame you can still be blown up by a prepared group so just having a large ship means nothing really.

Yup large ships mean nothing, better not pay 30,000 dollars for one.

- - - Updated - - -

C'mon. Who are you talking to? Kenn has all the answers.

Yeah answers that sound like something from an asspull, haha

- - - Updated - - -

It's stealing in the same sense that embezzlement is stealing. "Yeah, I did my accounting work, and I also made myself and my friends wealthy by creatively spending that money on projects that didn't actually create anything."

I've heard there is some shady things going on with nepotism in CiG and other financially questionable things. Who knows if any of it is true or not. Wouldn't surprise me at all, Kickstarter is rife with those sort of things.

[Edge-]

It's stealing in the same sense that embezzlement is stealing. "Yeah, I did my accounting work, and I also made myself and my friends wealthy by creatively spending that money on projects that didn't actually create anything."

Except the money is still being spend on hundreds of staff to develop the game. You may not like the progress, may not like the feature creep, may not like the continual funding, but the money is unarguably being spent on the game. Whether it's being spent wisely is up for discussion.

[oplawlz]

I've heard there is some shady things going on with nepotism in CiG and other financially questionable things. Who knows if any of it is true or not. Wouldn't surprise me at all, Kickstarter is rife with those sort of things.

I mean they spent well over 212 million dollars - a little napkin math shows a void has to exist somewhere.

[Kyanion]

I mean they spent well over 212 million dollars - a little napkin math shows a void has to exist somewhere.

I mean some companies are legit. Do I think CiG is one of them? Absolutely not, with the amount of scummy practices they've pulled, things they lie about (like deadlines) and hiring practices they've done over the years. There is no proof of it and to be honest it doesn't matter talking about it that much, not like that does anything.

- - - Updated - - -

Except the money is still being spend on hundreds of staff to develop the game. You may not like the progress, may not like the feature creep, may not like the continual funding, but the money is unarguably being spent on the game. Whether it's being spent wisely is up for discussion.

I mean I view oplawlz's statement in the exact same light as SC defenders talking about things that MIGHT be in the game, or this amazon thing they have zero proof on. Both sides are making statements that cannot be backed up and promoting it is as factual.

[Mister K]

I mean some companies are legit. Do I think CiG is one of them? Absolutely not, with the amount of scummy practices they've pulled, things they lie about (like deadlines) and hiring practices they've done over the years. There is no proof of it and to be honest it doesn't matter talking about it that much, not like that does anything.

- - - Updated - - -



I mean I view oplawlz's statement in the exact same light as SC defenders talking about things that MIGHT be in the game, or this amazon thing they have zero proof on. Both sides are making statements that cannot be backed up and promoting it is as factual.

Because development is cheap right? CiG has alone over 500 employees and not counting collaborations in external studios, you then have office, hardware and utility costs and lastly server fees.

All that, big monies

Still SC is a scam with scummy practices here to take your money riteeee?

PS: As Edge said, indeed, it is a different discussion whether it's being spent wisely and something we, little forum dwellers aren't going to be discussing on a good level without insider knowledge about the business.

[MrAnderson]

I guess SC falls into the miss all hit none catagory?

For haters expecting it to collapse yes, for people who keep playing the alpha and backing the project no.

Yup they've totally been transparent and upfront with the backers. Never lied once. Yup. You know, you seem to have all the knowledge, like you are taking everything the dev's say like it is written in stone. Just sayin'. You have knowledge about things that are being worked on and speak about them as if it is a fact these features are going to happen and nothing changes.

Again, if changing plans and features during development is lying every developer and gaming company is a liar in your book.

Hey whose problem is that? They are the ones that decided to try and do 2 games at once when they clearly couldn't handle 1. And that live playable build after how many years? That is supposed to be good enough? Haha okay

It's their project it's their call. Considering that they have managed to grow their studios from nothing to 600+ staff while maintaining an increasing player base and generate enough funding to develop both games while being valued at +half-billion dollar company you're judgement has no legs to stand on.

It is the price of objects in the store that is downright laughable really. How many multiple thousands of dollars were some of those ships? Of course whales will toss money at it, but it is just amusing how much they try to rip people off. And sorry they money they raised from Kickstarter wasn't enough, what a shame. Better keep pulling more money from your community while they can, eventually they'll wise up.

Yes people will spend money in things they like, GAAS rely on game shops, from big publishers to independent studios. Kickstarter, as the name says is to get a project going, it's never the whole amount you'll need to fund a game.

And of course make sure to end your magical knowledge post with a direct attack at a poster. That is the type of class I expect.

You've been trying to preach the "sCaM" ignorance for years and making a blind eye to any fact that disproves the petty excuses for attack a game for having problems that are common to many other games. Just for the sake of hating on a game that for whatever reason you've been obsessed about despite not liking it or play it. The only conclusion is that you're just here to troll games who like something you don't because some odd personal grudge and ultimately it's a waste of time to argue with someone who's not here to discuss a game but seeking validating for their odd obsession.

And no, nobody here who supports Star Citizen thinks the game has no problems or preaching it as a "must buy". You can acknowledge development difficulties without resorting to hyperbole for the sake of dramatization which is what most of the "haters" who've dug themselves into a state of mind that "Star Citizen must burn" constantly do.

Pointing out the flaws and discrepancy's of that narrative is not shilling for a game, it's bringing clarity and insightfulness to the many misconceptions that keep being brought up being it from lack of knowledge to simple bad faith.

Because development is cheap right? CiG has alone over 500 employees and not counting collaborations in external studios, you then have office, hardware and utility costs and lastly server fees.

Probably will end up with 600+ till the end of the year. They bought % of their web partners company in Monteral, Canada and are creating a game dev branch there. There's a big talent pool of AAA dev's in that area, specifically from Ubisoft studios.

[Majestic12]

Chris definitely set out with the intention to deliver on the project, then:

• Chris' incompetence started to show with feature creep.
• It was revealed that the most profitable stage for the project is in the development stage.

When we add everything together including that space games are niche in the first place and that CIG will supposedly stop selling ships for cash upon launch, we can therefore conclude that CIG have practically zero incentive to ever release Star Citizen as things stand now.

In honest truth, why would they?

Backers avoid this subject like the plague but the fact and the context is all there. There is no legion of niche PC gamers waiting to buy this niche product, we already did, and releasing anything means CIG shoot themselves in the foot financially.

Releasing Star Citizen is going to be a last resort kind of thing. That is with all facts on the table and a realistic view.

[kenn9530]

How do you know all these things? You can't know these things. You don't know 'amazon would probably be interested in something', you don't work for Amazon. You don't work for CiG. You have no idea what you are talking about yet you try and speak like you are in a position of authority on these matters.

- - - Updated - - -



Yup large ships mean nothing, better not pay 30,000 dollars for one.

Its simple logic that there would be a deal inplace for a reduced cost on the amount of servers required.

If you have no friends what are you going to do with that large ship and you wont be able to hire enough crew to operate it, there is always a way to counter another ship so it doesnt matter what ship you have.

I mean they spent well over 212 million dollars - a little napkin math shows a void has to exist somewhere.

the company has brought in around 420 million at this point at the very least, around 300 million from backers, the money is clearly being spent on development.

Chris definitely set out with the intention to deliver on the project, then:

• Chris' incompetence started to show with feature creep.
• It was revealed that the most profitable stage for the project is in the development stage.

When we add everything together including that space games are niche in the first place and that CIG will supposedly stop selling ships for cash upon launch, we can therefore conclude that CIG have practically zero incentive to ever release Star Citizen as things stand now.

In honest truth, why would they?

Backers avoid this subject like the plague but the fact and the context is all there. There is no legion of niche PC gamers waiting to buy this niche product, we already did, and releasing anything means CIG shoot themselves in the foot financially.

Releasing Star Citizen is going to be a last resort kind of thing. That is with all facts on the table and a realistic view.

Actually there is no profit in development since all the money that comes in goes straight to development costs, there is still plenty of players to still sell the game to, many players buy games on release day.

Your just blatently lying just because you dont like the company.

Without chris there is nothing for you to complain about as noone else would be making a game like SC for a long time, but i bet you will still be playing the game when it is released.

[masterblaster0]

Your just blatently lying just because you dont like the company.

This appears to be your go-to for people you dislike. Randomly accuse them of lying.

[MrAnderson]

Chris definitely set out with the intention to deliver on the project, then:

• Chris' incompetence started to show with feature creep.
• It was revealed that the most profitable stage for the project is in the development stage.

When we add everything together including that space games are niche in the first place and that CIG will supposedly stop selling ships for cash upon launch, we can therefore conclude that CIG have practically zero incentive to ever release Star Citizen as things stand now.

In honest truth, why would they?

Backers avoid this subject like the plague but the fact and the context is all there. There is no legion of niche PC gamers waiting to buy this niche product, we already did, and releasing anything means CIG shoot themselves in the foot financially.

Releasing Star Citizen is going to be a last resort kind of thing. That is with all facts on the table and a realistic view.

This theory of yours has a lot of flaws simply because you're making assumptions and stating them as facts when reality tells otherwise.

It's due to Chris Roberts ambition that he made the games he made and established his reputation that lead to Star Citizen crowdfunding sucess.

For good and for worst his games have always stand out and garnered a dedicated fanbase.

It's because Star Citizen scope is so big that it makes it so appealing to a lot of players, me included. Probably why it drawn your attention in the first place and you still have a game package. Also why new players keep joining after all these years and go from starter package to spending thousands in ships.

Still it's potential player base is still very much untapped because the portion of people buying crowdfunded games is much much smaller than the ones buying traditionally released games on bigger platforms like steam or that spend millions in TV adds, huge billboards in world wide campaigns.

Since Star Citizen is much more than the traditional niche space sim where the gameplay options are limited by providing more freedom and promoting social interaction which brings a lot of emmergent gameplay alike a GTA in space.

CIG as a company needs to grow to deliver Star Citizen. Big games like GTA, RedDead need thousands of devs to be made in a timely fashion and still take many years.

History has prooven that a well made marketing campaign can sell any game to the tune of hundreds of millions in pre-orders and the first months of release. See Anthem or No Man's Sky.

Squadron 42's holywood cast alone could sell any game to the tune of thousands of millions with the right marketing campaign.

They have no interest in releasing an incomplete experience and selling it to the masses as a released game. Like EA did with Battlefield4 and Anthem or Bethesda did with Fallout..

And they have no interest in reducing scope to or cut fundamental features that make a more future proof gaming experience just like the change to seamless planetary landings did.

The game has a playable alpha build constantly updated and a increasing player base which supports it and around 30k-40k paying subscribers.

It has a huge ammount of ships already ingame and huge potential revenue in small cosmetics alone (skins and interior decorations). Which are way more cost effective to produce than ships.

They haven't even scratched the surface in terms of revenue and the recent years record growth proove it.