[Megathread] Star Citizen

[kenn9530]

You can now in 2020 but Crobear was saying you would get everything promised in the original kickstarter by the end of 2015. Go back and look at the quote if you need to.



What's your point? Just because a company could put more man hours in does not mean it's ok for Star Citizen to be a flop of development progress despite putting 6 million man hours in...

They still gave the backers the basics of what was pitched in the kickstarter, it had all the basic features that was planned to be included in the kickstarter so they give backers what they planned plus more by the end of 2015 and even more onto of that by the end of 2016.

Why is it not ok for a game to develop a game as much as it is needed, thats why most of the game released recently are not as good as they can be as most need at least another year to be really ready for release, RDR2 got about 7 years development for a PC release and it was still not ready to be released, a game should take as long as it needs to be ready for release, not just rushed out for no reason other than they want to push it out.

[XDurionX]

If anyone ever needed an explanation on Stockholm Syndrome and / or sunk cost fallacies, this thread is it.

[1001]

They still gave the backers the basics of what was pitched in the kickstarter, it had all the basic features that was planned to be included in the kickstarter so they give backers what they planned plus more by the end of 2015 and even more onto of that by the end of 2016.

Why is it not ok for a game to develop a game as much as it is needed, thats why most of the game released recently are not as good as they can be as most need at least another year to be really ready for release, RDR2 got about 7 years development for a PC release and it was still not ready to be released, a game should take as long as it needs to be ready for release, not just rushed out for no reason other than they want to push it out.

Absolute madness, you're off on one Kenn.

[Edge-]

They still gave the backers the basics of what was pitched in the kickstarter, it had all the basic features that was planned to be included in the kickstarter so they give backers what they planned plus more by the end of 2015 and even more onto of that by the end of 2016.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/c...a-20-available

"A huge universe to explore, trade and adventure in" - Was trading in the game by 2.0, which seems like the last big update of 2015?

"Constantly expanding and evolving universe" - It was expanding, but IIRC it was very tiny when 2.0 launched.

"Micro updates rule!" - Content was not added on a weekly or bi-weekly basis in 2.0

"Squadron 42 - A Wing Commander style single player mode, playable OFFLINE if you want" - It's 2020 and this still isn't playable, online or offline.

"Life during wartime" - Related to SQ42, so not ready.

"The conflict never ends" - There were no "conflicts" that I'm aware of in 2.0

"Actions of the players impact the universe and become part of its history and lore" - This was not ready by 2.0, and still doesn't appear to be.

"Allowing user generated content is a key design goal" - These were not ready by 2.0 and seemed to arrive years later.

"It’s about the gameplay and your interactions with others" - 2.0 had this, but it remained limited.

"Fully dynamic economy driven by player actions" - Nope

"The cost of society" - Related to above, nope.

"Money isn’t everything" - Related to above, nope.

"Space is empty but you’re never really alone" - Distress beacons were added in 2018 - https://www.pcgamer.com/star-citizen...and-new-ships/

"Bigger ships offer bigger multi-player action" - Yep, they were makin more big ships!

"Full rigid body simulation of all spaceships" - I guess we can count this, but given that this work appears to still be ongoing it could go either way.

"Intelligent Flight Control System (IFCS)" - Related to above.

"Dynamic Ship Maneuverability" - Related to above.

"Ship Components matter!" - I believe this was in, so yep!

"10X the detail of current AAA games" - Erm...sorta, at least if you enjoyed playing at like 10FPS

"Everything you would imagine would move or articulate on a spaceship or a device – does!" - Not sure if this was in 2.0 or not

"Range of scale never seen before in a game" - I believe it was in for 2.0 with proper scaling.

"Really feel the scale of ships and space battles" - There was dogfighting, but nothing really "at scale" nor could you watch fights from the bridge of a carrier by 2.0

"Joystick, gamepad, mouse, keyboard are all supported." - Yep!

"Advanced peripheral support" - Unsure if this was included by 2.0 or not

"Virtual Reality is here!" - Nope, they're still wokin on that - https://www.roadtovr.com/star-citize...upport-silvan/

"Next generation, TODAY" - Well, they're no longer on Cryengine 3 proper, but we'll still count this.

"A PC gaming enthusiast’s friend!" - Not really a feature, but this counts too I suppose.

So no, actually. A number of the features from the KS were not delivered by the end of 2015 with 2.0. And many that were included were rough/rudimentary and still in need of a ton of testing and work, and if "minimum viable product" is where you're setting the bar for this, then that's a whole other problem.

[MrAnderson]

Is this satire?

If there is one thing whiteknights are known for, it is the denial of knowledge, facts and constructive analysis.. There is so much evidence of that in this thread alone.

I never thought of critics and haters as the whiteknights of gaming Negativity & Drama but it's a great analogy.

Knowledge: Game W, X, Y and Z from studio A, B, C and D got delayed and took years to finish and came out fine.

It's dooomed

Facts: Company funding and player engagement steady for years with last years showing a massive growth.

It's doooomed

Constructive analysis: Showcase of several cases were games from major publishers along with other crowdfunded mmorpgs by indie studios face the same issues.

It's dooooomed

[1001]

I never thought of critics and haters as the whiteknights of gaming Negativity & Drama but it's a great analogy.

All I'm seeing is a lame attempt at deflecting and it just gives an insight that looking deeper into your disingenuous claims is classed as doomsaying... Hardly the mentality of someone being receptive to knowledge or analysis. Ah excuse me, you only want "positive" thinking and "constructive" analysis, aka views that mirror your own :rolleyes

[Majestic12]

All data is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

Knock yourself out.

We've already gone over this. Citizens are registered people on the site and practically means nothing for the sake of your argument. You claim a specific majority of backers support CIG's decisions which is complete speculation.

Don't try to use statistics to fool people and say anything to make CIG look good.

That stats don't say what you claim, don't even try it again.

- - - Updated - - -

You are a bit wrong Mr. A's graphs only shows money coming in, not how it is distributed.

My bad, I mean how it's spread over the months of a year, not actual distribution meaning x cash goes to y.

[MrAnderson]

The only reasonable explanation for a company continuous growth in funding and player engagement is that the customers are dissatisfied.

With that reasoning Anthem has a lot of satisfied consumers.

Cue Bohemian Rhapsody

[Elim Garak]

Old customers are dissatisfied and stop giving money, new customers give money - growth happens and we have both dissatisfied and happy customers. The good news is that it cannot go forever. Also, growth can come from other sources as well, not specifically new customers. Maybe they've got investors.

I know they don't teach this in Matrix.

[kenn9530]

snip

They put out everything that was relevant to the origional kickstarter plan, the game was changed so things in the kickstarter were not going to happen anymore, they still put out the base line of what the kickstarter was by the end of 2015 and even included a fair amount more.

[Edge-]

They put out everything that was relevant to the origional kickstarter plan, the game was changed so things in the kickstarter were not going to happen anymore, they still put out the base line of what the kickstarter was by the end of 2015 and even included a fair amount more.

Every single thing I quoted is quoted directly from the original KS, not including stretch goals. It still doesn't seem to track with what was included in the game by Alpha 2.0 at the end of 2015.

[MrAnderson]

Old customers are dissatisfied and stop giving money, new customers give money - growth happens and we have both dissatisfied and happy customers. The good news is that it cannot go forever. Also, growth can come from other sources as well, not specifically new customers. Maybe they've got investors.

I know they don't teach this in Matrix.

Shouldn't funding go stagnant after 8 years by that logic? How does it explain the growth in player engagement in twitch/youtube?

Why teach when there's still so much to learn.

[Elim Garak]

Shouldn't funding go stagnant after 8 years by that logic? How does it explain the growth in player engagement in twitch/youtube?

What logic? Why should it go stagnant? More and more players get suckered in than initially were at KS. It's even easier now - they have progress and a build to show - it's way easier to sucker people in. That's what marketing does. Plus investors. They too can be suckered in.

[MrAnderson]

What logic? Why should it go stagnant? More and more players get suckered in than initially were at KS. It's even easier now - they have progress and a build to show - it's way easier to sucker people in. That's what marketing does. Plus investors. They too can be suckered in.

But why do you think they're more "suckered" in than the initial funders? How do you distinguish new funders from old funders? How can it be easier now that there's a playable build when before was just an idea? Why do people keep funding it and joining the alpha when they can play during free-flights, see reviews on youtube or streamers play the game live on twitch? Wouldn't that expose the "scam" and "doom" the game instead of boosting it's players and funding?

Why didn't Anthem keep their marketing and suckering new players and investors then if it's so easy when there's a build to show?

[Elim Garak]

But why do you think they're more "suckered" in than the initial funders?

Are you suggesting that the money stream is supported by exclusively old backers? That's crazy!

Why didn't Anthem keep their marketing and suckering new players and investors then if it's so easy when there's a build to show?

Anthem again? Where did it touch you?
Marketing doesn't work when the game is released and it sucks. That's probably why they didn't spend money on it. They are not idiots.
The game that's in development and basically early early access - bring on the suckers! Complaints? It's just alpha, man!

[MrAnderson]

Are you suggesting that the money stream is supported by exclusively old backers? That's crazy!

Nah that's the haters narrative, only whales are supporting Star Citizen now since nobody else likes the game. /s

Anthem again? Where did it touch you?
Marketing doesn't work when the game is released and it sucks. That's probably why they didn't spend money on it. They are not idiots.
The game that's in development and basically early early access - bring on the suckers! Complaints? It's just alpha, man!

So why do games didn't Anthem released in a early access then? Why do early access/crowdfunded games even need to release if they know they'll just end up dead?

[Majestic12]

The only reasonable explanation for a company continuous growth in funding and player engagement is that the customers are dissatisfied.

With that reasoning Anthem has a lot of satisfied consumers.

Cue Bohemian Rhapsody

There are so many holes in your argument it's actually ridiculous.

I challenge you to show statistics that support your original claim:

And the big picture showcases the grand majority of the backers supports CIG decision as the constant growth in funding and players show year after year.

Can you?

For example:

In the document, we have 2,740,391 citizens. (Unique registered accounts on the site). If we assume the same 50% ratio as before(confirmed by Turbulent back in the day) between citizen and backer, we get roughly 1 370 195 rounded down. In a year (from 2019-07-22 to 2020-07-22) citizens increased by 391 340 which would roughly translate to 195 670 new backers.

You can take the %-ratio and change it to whatever you want. Put out the facts to support your claim.

• Where is your data to support what the grand majority of backers, 685 097 in this example, feel about CIG's current decision? For all you know these guys could be Derek Smarting it up on Spectrum as we speak with the rest of the vocal community.
• Where is your data that shows funding spent per backer, as to see who is responsible for what amount in relation to the funding increase? For all you know Kenn practically could have funded the growth all by himself.
• Where is your data that eliminates the idea that the new backers aren't simply spending more money than new backers did before due to the sheer amount of assets you can now buy in Star Citizen which has increased over time?
• What growth of players are you actually talking about? Citizen != Backer != Player. A very small minority actually ends up playing games pre-release, it's always like this.

You're leaking, buddy. I can poke holes in your claim forever. You are confusing so many things and you have absolutely nothing to go on to support your claim. Total funding increasing and people registering new accounts on the site does not prove your argument.

I know you can't provide anything, you know you can't, so just drop the spiel already and admit you were wrong. You probably won't, and then this will be another one of those issues that will keep popping up in this thread until the project is finished one way or another. Then people will keep complaining we post about the same shit as always and the cycle will repeat.

- - - Updated - - -

Almost forgot: This is what I actually came here to post.

A fellow developer's very reasonable take on the state of Star Citizen.

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

It's a good read no matter which side you're on. It doesn't look good for SC period.

[MrAnderson]

In the document, we have 2,740,391 citizens. (Unique registered accounts on the site). If we assume the same 50% ratio as before(confirmed by Turbulent back in the day)

What 50% ratio "back in the day" ? What day? Is data immutable now? Are you saying that as the game become more playable and the content more engaging that the converted ratio of "pledgers" or "backers" never grew along with the funding and player engagement of streaming twitch/youtubers show?

Is this financial and player engagement growth out of thin air?

How do you explain the growth of Subscribers along the years as shown in the financial reports?

[Majestic12]

What 50% ratio "back in the day" ? What day? Is data immutable now?

It's an example. I based the example on the 50% ratio that was confirmed back in the day when people wanted to celebrate citizen milestones and wondered how many were actual backers.

I also specifically wrote:

You can take the %-ratio and change it to whatever you want.

Somehow I knew you'd get stuck on this part grasping at straws, which is why I posted that sentence specifically. It could be 40%, 30%, 60%, 70%. Provide a train of thought and evidence to support your claim based on the data you posted, period.

Are you saying that as the game become more playable and the content more engaging that the converted ratio of "pledgers" or "backers" never grew along with the funding and player engagement of streaming twitch/youtubers show?

How can you ask this, when I specifically posted an example where number of backers grew no matter what the % actually is if CIG would pull the data?

You're stalling, and it isn't working.

Also, playable in this case is subjective. The game has tons of issues and is borderline unplayable for a lot of people. The broken mess of a game is covered neatly in the credible reddit post I put forward.

Just because the game has more features now than before, it doesn't make it more playable.

Is this financial and player engagement growth out of thin air?

Backers, whichever actual demographic they belong to, spent money on digital assets in the game. That's all we know period. If you make a claim about what the majority of backers think and feel, the burden of proof is on you.

How do you explain the growth of Subscribers along the years as shown in the financial reports?

Now you're flailing and all of a sudden we're back years ago instead of today where your original claim rests.

Number of backers has continously increased so it would make sense that subscribers also increased. You have no idea who is actually subbing and why. Back in the day it used to be to support shows, which maybe they want more of that.

You made a very specific claim about a grand majority of backers today. How many % is that, even? 80%? You can't even put forward a solid base for 50% and what they think. My stance is that we don't know so to make claims like that is pure speculation.

The bottom line is that you're out to make the game look good no matter what. I have to reach out and pull you down to reality. Chris also has use for someone like that too, by the way. You're my Chris and I'm your Erin.

[GreenJesus]

Oh, yes. An MMO that can't even host 50 people in a stable manner, with only half of its mechanics put in and none of them in a complete manner would truly be considered a full game.

Honestly, I think Star Citizen is a scam, but I had to laugh at this one because WoW completely fails by this metric. Can barely have a 20 vs 20 battle in the world without the server taking a huge shit. Ever try doing the brawl Tarren Mill vs Southshore? Literally a powerpoint presentation.