theyarecomingforyou wrote on Apr 23, 2016, 03:22:
The game isn't episodic, it's a trilogy.

You can argue the semantics all you want. They took a planned full game release, broke it into smaller easily manageable sections and planned to release those.

You can call it a trilogy, and extended SP, whatever you want. It does not detract in ANY way from the fact it will be sold as individual episodes (replace terminology with whatever you please. The semantics don't change it. lol) instead of a full game.


Yet another kick starter promise broken. But you still continue to defend them as if they can do no harm and we are just misunderstanding "episodes" from "trilogy" (3 episodes. lol)

Flatline wrote on Apr 19, 2016, 18:52:
Not to particularly pick a fight or anything, but now that S42 is an episodic single player game, do you think it's going to rake cash in like never before? I mean, consoles are out, and single player games are not as hot as hot multiplayer games.

The game isn't episodic, it's a trilogy. Plus the appeal is that there's nothing else like it. How many times have we heard that singleplayer games are dead only to have a singleplayer game own the market (look at Fallout 4).

Flatline wrote on Apr 19, 2016, 18:52:
Plus, how many backers do they have now? Those are all people who are going to get the game and not actually have to pay for it. They've already front-loaded their revenue from S42 and burned through it a long time ago.

The game has 1.3 million backers, so there's massive scope for further sales. Further, the development costs are the money raised so far - anything further allows the continued development of the game. There's also no evidence they they 'burned through' all the money. In fact they have continued to expand, which is not the sign of a company in financial difficulties. They're pulling in $2m a month and there hasn't been a huge amount of visible progress recently.

With regards to the phenomenon of "wanting to see it fail":

For the record, I bear not one iota of ill will towards anyone who has typed a line of code, shaped a polygon, or mixed audio for this title.

What upsets me is seeing glib, arrogant, useless assholes skate by on the bent backs of genuinely competent developers. If Star Citizen achieves anything, it will be entirely due to the superhuman efforts of programmers, artists and sound engineers achieving the impossible in a hail of shit. But who will get the credit? Who will be interviewed? Whose abject fuckwittery will be retrospectively deemed visionary? It's not that I want SC to fail. I just can't stomach the prospect of it succeeding.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Apr 19, 2016, 15:02:
Not to mention the huge amount of money that will come when S42 is released.

Not to particularly pick a fight or anything, but now that S42 is an episodic single player game, do you think it's going to rake cash in like never before? I mean, consoles are out, and single player games are not as hot as hot multiplayer games.

Plus, how many backers do they have now? Those are all people who are going to get the game and not actually have to pay for it. They've already front-loaded their revenue from S42 and burned through it a long time ago. You'd have to probably approach 10 million players worldwide to see boatloads of cash come in. And single player space combat sims that don't touch consoles are a niche of a niche of a niche. I would be surprised if 25% of the player base that would be down to play this & have the machine to play it still is out in the market.

Wolfox wrote on Apr 18, 2016, 17:30:
It seems your faith is waning, though you still try to be optimistic. I'd say that's fair. I'm curious myself to see in what state Star Citizen will be by the end of the year, and for the record, I hope it meets your expectations then.

I'm still confident it will be a good game, I'm just not confident it can be delivered in the timeframe they are claiming. I've always been critical of some aspects of the game. For instance, I don't like the way CIG has prioritised ship development whilst other playable content has taken a back seat.

The Half Elf wrote on Apr 18, 2016, 17:56:
But as you said, what was 'PROMISED' and what they are doing are two ENTIRELY different things.

Deliver on what you promised 1st, then add goodies 2nd. But there are things they have done that are just fucking mind boggling like building a motion capture studio.
At the end of the day it wasn't about making a game, it was about financing Chris Roberts to make a STUDIO that is going to make a game which is a huge difference.
One of the reason's I requested a refund (only in for 50 to get both S42 and SC) is because the more I watch the more I get angry. I payed for development of the game. Not posters, not display models and cases, not t-shirts, not costumes and name tags and jewelry for the dev team. I paid for a GAME.

I understand your argument, it's just not that simple. The additional funding is going to making a better game - it couldn't simply be added in a patch or expansion. All the merchandise is being handled by the community team, which is funded by subscriptions - it's not coming out of the game funds

Mordhaus wrote on Apr 18, 2016, 19:55:
I won't go into another long diatribe. All I will say is this, RSI has repeatedly denied that they are in a financial crisis, now they have done little but release new purchasable ships (or made available again ones that were supposed to be limited edition) and have multiple free week trials.

This smacks of a company that is running out of funds, not even whales can keep defending RSI for much longer.

They're pulling in $2m a month, combined with money from other deals and tax breaks. For instance, CIG recently appeared in an advert for Time Warner cable and they did a major promotion with AMD. Not to mention the huge amount of money that will come when S42 is released. CIG is taking on more staff all the time, which is not the sign of a company with major financial difficulties.

I get that a lot of people resent popular projects and want to see this project fail but I don't understand why. If it fails it fails but if it doesn't then we end up with a great game. Nobody should be buying this game now unless they're willing to accept the risk that it might fail. I backed from the beginning and have been very happy with the progress - it's been slow, without a doubt, but the game is going far beyond what was originally promised.

It's one thing to say the game is overly ambitious and point out that nearly every release date provided has been missed; it's another to claim the project is an outright scam, as some of the trolls around here do.

Kxmode wrote on Apr 19, 2016, 00:59:

Kosumo wrote on Apr 19, 2016, 00:09:
Chris going backwards on an unicycle

"Star Citizen is never going to be finished." I think that's the first truth Chris has ever stated.

He cannot compare his definition of finish to Blizzard's or CCP's. For them finished means the game's going gold. It is actually a feature complete title ready to be shipped. Can you imagine Eve Online launching with like 3 systems and 2 planets and 70% of features missing? It's not even a game at that point. lol

Not to contradict you or anything but fun fact: EVE online launched in an absolute shambles. I know because I was there. The publisher/investor they had backing them pulled out and they were left with a game that is so very different to the EVE of today it is not funny.

EVE's story is so incredible because it is one of the few MMOs I know that started with an absolutely minuscule player base and gradually grew to incredible numbers for an indie MMOG.

CCP literally dragged EVE from mostly a shell with very few working systems to a great game. Not a game for everybody, but you can't dispute their dedication and efforts.

Spektr wrote on Apr 18, 2016, 19:18:

rudra wrote on Apr 18, 2016, 17:02:
apparently you just arent intelligent enough to understand the difference between Star Citizen and Mass Effect - most notably, the entirely different technology involved, but also the massive corporate infrastructure at EA vs none of it at CIG

Did you forget to take your pills again?

I will try to understand your thinking. Andromeda and Star Citizen are different games made by different people working for different companies and as such they are completely different and so, people should be forbidden to compare them or be subjected to spitting on their face in public?

another dumbass? yeh if you cant figure out the difference between Star Citizen and Mass Effect, and are too stupid to see them both as anything other than "compooter gamz", theres not much to say - fact is, the situation is so different theres no comparison to begin with, other than the most absolutely basic (and contextually irrelevant) points

its pretty clear cut how stupid you would have to be to ignore that... so, feel free to do it, and get pissy about it too, i dont give a fuck

Comet wrote on Apr 18, 2016, 16:48:
Mass Effect Andromeda. Started development in 2012. Planned release date - 2017.

Star Citizen. Started development in 2013. Planned release date for single player SQ42 (according to latest trailer) 2016. Planned release date for Star Citizen - 2017+

What we have seen so far of Mass Effect Andromeda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-Qx5vtu_vo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG8V9dRqSsw

What we have seen so far of Star Citizen and SQ42:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FF-ewiwmhs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSXcdvd-ME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP6Ma_tfDlU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok_JC-ClscY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBYRIZA44Eg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rQDDc7Pxlc

I'm not going to "defend" CIG. Release dates have changed and all that.

But I fail to understand why is there so much speculation around this game.

You want to know why? Because all that they have demoed so far are disjointed game "systems" and new ships and ship gifs for 1000s of dollars. How can you blame people for not believing a word of it? People in the knowhow, who have done actual game development and post on these boards, have posted time and time again that this is NOT how it's done. You don't keep adding systems while a game is in development, while its not done, its simply a road to pure failure. Why is it so hard to understand that?

This comment was edited on Apr 19, 2016, 04:30.

Shit, Quick, Buy Now!

You don't want to miss out on the launch of Star Citizen/SQ42 in it's "minimal viable product*" release!

*Words form the scummy chairman form the above linked to video.

Chris Roberts, What a guy scummy c**t!

p.s. He need more of your money so he can fly back and forth between the four studios and work some more on making his great Hollywood movie PC video game (full of crap motion caputed, Chris Roberts directed, cut scene you can't skip - staring his great actress wife, Sandi)

Kosumo wrote on Apr 19, 2016, 00:09:
Chris going backwards on an unicycle

"Star Citizen is never going to be finished." I think that's the first truth Chris has ever stated.

He cannot compare his definition of finish to Blizzard's or CCP's. For them finished means the game's going gold. It is actually a feature complete title ready to be shipped. Can you imagine Eve Online launching with like 3 systems and 2 planets and 70% of features missing? It's not even a game at that point. lol

Dude, you are peddling backwards!

Chris going backwards on an unicycle

Lol at the believers - guys, he has your money and he wants more of it!

Fools

Kxmode wrote on Apr 18, 2016, 22:35:

The Half Elf wrote on Apr 18, 2016, 19:47:
Where exactly did you find the budget/cost of all the Mass Effect games?

Mass Effect 3 - $40 million - "EA's money-maker for that period was Mass Effect 3. That game's budget has been estimated at around $40 million, and it has sold over 3.5 million copies to date."

Using the scale and scope of ME3 it's reasonable to conclude Mass Effect 2 cost $25-30 million and Mass Effect 1 cost $15-20 million.

I would say those are reasonable estimates although they wouldn't include advertising.

The Half Elf wrote on Apr 18, 2016, 19:47:
Where exactly did you find the budget/cost of all the Mass Effect games?

Mass Effect 3 - $40 million - "EA's money-maker for that period was Mass Effect 3. That game's budget has been estimated at around $40 million, and it has sold over 3.5 million copies to date."

Using the scale and scope of ME3 it's reasonable to conclude Mass Effect 2 cost $25-30 million and Mass Effect 1 cost $15-20 million.

Eventually someone over there has to, you know, ship an actual game. I'd be fine if that was Squadron 42. Work on the PU forever until it runs out of cash for all I care. I just want a good, single player space sim.

Mordhaus wrote on Apr 18, 2016, 19:55:
I won't go into another long diatribe. All I will say is this, RSI has repeatedly denied that they are in a financial crisis, now they have done little but release new purchasable ships (or made available again ones that were supposed to be limited edition) and have multiple free week trials.

This smacks of a company that is running out of funds, not even whales can keep defending RSI for much longer.

This is my take as well. They keep doing free weekends and now a whole week. It smacks of desperation.

Spektr wrote on Apr 18, 2016, 19:18:

rudra wrote on Apr 18, 2016, 17:02:
apparently you just arent intelligent enough to understand the difference between Star Citizen and Mass Effect - most notably, the entirely different technology involved, but also the massive corporate infrastructure at EA vs none of it at CIG

Did you forget to take your pills again?

I will try to understand your thinking. Andromeda and Star Citizen are different games made by different people working for different companies and as such they are completely different and so, people should be forbidden to compare them or be subjected to spitting on their face in public?

Not forbidden but nonsensical. Apples and oranges. Although rudra was perhaps a bit rude, his point stands.

I won't go into another long diatribe. All I will say is this, RSI has repeatedly denied that they are in a financial crisis, now they have done little but release new purchasable ships (or made available again ones that were supposed to be limited edition) and have multiple free week trials.

This smacks of a company that is running out of funds, not even whales can keep defending RSI for much longer.

Where exactly did you find the budget/cost of all the Mass Effect games?

At least deal with facts, not something you THINK might be accurate, lets go for 100% accurate.

The Half Elf wrote on Apr 18, 2016, 18:03:

Comet wrote on Apr 18, 2016, 16:48:
Mass Effect Andromeda. Started development in 2012. Planned release date - 2017.

Star Citizen. Started development in 2013. Planned release date for single player SQ42 (according to latest trailer) 2016. Planned release date for Star Citizen - 2017+

What we have seen so far of Mass Effect Andromeda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-Qx5vtu_vo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG8V9dRqSsw

What we have seen so far of Star Citizen and SQ42:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FF-ewiwmhs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSXcdvd-ME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP6Ma_tfDlU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok_JC-ClscY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBYRIZA44Eg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rQDDc7Pxlc

I'm not going to "defend" CIG. Release dates have changed and all that.

But I fail to understand why is there so much speculation around this game.
Crowdfunded game or not, it is a AAA budget title.
I don't see anyone saying Mass Effect Andromeda will fail although it has been in development for about the same time as Star Citizen and has shown considerably less footage.

If Star Citizen game development was not so "open" to the public, with Alpha modules for people to try and so on, the image we would have of Star Citizen development would just be the polished pretty trailers.

So why the criticism when in truth most people don't really know much about game development or the real state of an in development game when they first show some gameplay footage in gaming conventions?

FYI. When The Witcher 3 was first announced, they showed some pretty cool in game footage. Seemed polished and all that.
The final game graphics were a bit different and people criticize CD Projekt Red because of it.
In a reply to those criticisms CD Projekt Red stated the following

"If you're looking at the development process," Iwinski begins, "we do a certain build for a tradeshow and you pack it, it works, it looks amazing. And you are extremely far away from completing the game. Then you put it in the open-world, regardless of the platform, and it's like 'oh shit, it doesn't really work'. We've already showed it, now we have to make it work. And then we try to make it work on a huge scale. This is the nature of games development."

Full article at Eurogamer if you want to read about development of Witcher 3.
That first footage was released in 2013 and they expected the game to be released in 2014.
But here is the important part. As stated by the developer, even though they expected the game to be released next year or so, according to him, "they were extremely far away from finishing the game.". He then states "you then put it in the open-world and it doesn't really work"

To put it simple. Demos don't mean anything. The one thing we all do know is that they have quite a few people working on the game. Some well known game veterans that worked on recent titles.
These game probability of success or failure is precisely the same as other AAA titles out there.

I won't predict SC failure just as I won't predict Mass Effect Andromeda or other AAA titles that have been in development during the last few years.
I'll just wait for the finished product. That according to them is not that far off. If it never comes out, than we can discuss it. Right now, let's just wait.

Witcher dev's have 3 SHIPPED games under their belt.

EA/Bioware has how many SHIPPED games, and 3 Mass Effect games SHIPPED.

Why even bring up Andromeda? It's going to ship regardless due to it being a huge franchise with EA as the publisher. No question about it.

And Witcher 3 had some visual difference, but 95-98% of what was shown was in the final version of the game.

You argue like my sister. As Bill Burr would say... If a women is right she will argue the point until it's dead. If a women is wrong she'll find another subject to bring up (typically one that really pisses ya off).

And how the hell do you call SC at AAA title? To be a AAA title you have to ship a AAA game. I've seen a ton of great amazing tech demo's but to call them a AAA game is beyond a reach.

He's not saying the game is AAA quality, but AAA budget. As Star Citizen has raised more money than any of the individual Mass Effect games costed to make (and by the end the number may approach the cost to make that trilogy combined!) this is a fair comparison. Your reference to credentials is also fair.

rudra wrote on Apr 18, 2016, 17:02:
apparently you just arent intelligent enough to understand the difference between Star Citizen and Mass Effect - most notably, the entirely different technology involved, but also the massive corporate infrastructure at EA vs none of it at CIG

Did you forget to take your pills again?

I will try to understand your thinking. Andromeda and Star Citizen are different games made by different people working for different companies and as such they are completely different and so, people should be forbidden to compare them or be subjected to spitting on their face in public?