Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - RSS Headlines   RSS Headlines   Twitter   Twitter

Star Citizen Alpha 2.4

The Roberts Space Industries website announces the release of a patch for Star Citizen, updating the alpha version of Cloud Imperium's space game to version 2.4, calling this the "biggest and most important update since Star Citizen Alpha 2.0." This adds new currency and purchase options to the game, imbues their persistent universe with some actual persistence, and puts more virtual items on sale, and more. This post has the detailed patch notes, and here's an overview:
Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 is now live! This major update to Star Citizen’s persistent universe is now available in your launcher. Alpha 2.4 introduces the first iteration of in-game persistence and shopping, as well as major changes to the controls, updates to the ship roster (including making the massive Starfarer flyable in-game), bug fixes, balance updates and more! In short, this is our biggest and most important update since Star Citizen Alpha 2.0.
View
102 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >


102. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 21, 2016, 10:27 Slashman
 
Comet, you might be forgetting that people can go back and read the previous posts in this thread.

You are the first person to write a whole article's worth of pro-SC fluff and your reasoning that its business as usual for AAA games.

Pretty much everyone up to that point was either writing short posts for or against based on their opinions and one person took the time to explain the current spawning mechanics.

You started this nonsense. And now you're talking like you just stepped in to be the neutral voice of common sense.

And sorry, but no one has to share your optimism or opinion about this game no matter how bright eyed and bushy tailed you get. Unless you're a veteran game developer with years of AAA experience under your belt then you have no better grounds to stand on than any of us.

For the record I've talked to at least one such person and found they aren't all that optimistic either. Needless to say I trust their take more than yours, even if they turn out to be wrong. (And no that person isn't Derek Smart)

You said people should be concerned about the TOS but then ask what that has to do with the company's ability to put out the game. I dunno...why would they need that kind of TOS in the first place if everything is peachy in SC land?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

101. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 21, 2016, 02:42 Kxmode
 
Comet, I have to laud your posts. You're obviously very passionate about defending Star Citizen. However, remember this site isn't the official RSI forums or the Subreddit. Blue's News has always been a bastion of free expression for and against many things. Sometimes a little too free as you've no doubt seen in post removals from time to time. I'm simply saying, please don't turn this site into the third official wing of Star Citizen's marketing. It's not going to work here.  
Avatar 18786
 



William Shakespeare's "Star Wars" Act I, Scene 1: Aboard the rebel ship. / Enter C-3PO and R2-D2. / C-3PO: "Now is the summer of our happiness / Made winter by this sudden, fierce attack!" / R2-D2 — Beep beep, Beep, beep, meep, squeak, beep, whee!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

100. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 20, 2016, 19:01 Comet
 
Drive to convince you? Security blanket?
Important to me?
No grounds to doubt this project?

When did I ever said there were no grounds to doubt this project?

I'm not trying to convince anyone. But you sure have your mind set that the project will fail for whatever reason.

You know what is the difference between you and me?
I don't create drama. I just look at the facts and numbers.

I don't think Chris is a genius. Don't claim I said something that I didn't.
But is this about Chris or Star Citizen?

You want to attack the person or the company policies? Go ahead.

But so far I have only seen speculation, some personal attacks and doubts they can achieve the goal.

You're emphasizing the negative and not seeing any of the positive

I'm on the other hand am neutral. If you haven't understood that yet than it is your problem.
I see the risks of a project like this. How feature creep could kill it and so on.
I've mentioned this in previous posts but it seems that you haven't noticed that part of my posts.

You see, you believe that I'm defending CIG or Chris or whatever simply because I gave examples of other AAA games with similar budgets and scope, that started development at about the same time as SC and will still take some time to be released.
Or how great developers have had their ups and downs and sometimes succeeded and sometimes they didn't.

This is not a defense. This is just reality.

Understand this and perhaps you might learn something.
It's easy to pass judgment but hard to judge fairly.

As in typical gossip magazine style, everyone wants to give an opinion about the most crowdfunded game of all times.

When someone simply points out another project like Mass Effect that started development at aout the same time and that we have only seen a couple of trailers, that information is dismissed.

Instead people prefer to judge the project based on their opinion of a person or certain business decisions.

As if only that factor will determine the success or failure of the project.

Your post Slashman just shows the problem.
You talk about TOS changes that you are right to be upset about.
But what does that have to do with CIG being able to create the game or not?

I don't know if they can. I have no reason to believe either of that. Same goes for many other AAA games in production.

I just wait and see.
I don't judge or anything. Star Citizen trailers look good. Their ideas for the game seem nice. They have the money. The team and so on.

And that is it. Same goes for other games I'm looking forward to and by the way. That I'm actually more interested in than SC.

If you don't understand this neutral , wait and see mindset than perhaps you're the one with the obsessive behavior.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

99. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 19, 2016, 14:15 Slashman
 
Comet, if you want to keep repeating that SC is AAA game development business as usual and have it become your security blanket, awesome. Do it.

But you really need to start asking yourself why this is so important to you. Most of the rest of us just talk about SC when there is a headline. Apart from Derek Smart, no one else here gives that much of a rat's ass otherwise.

If the latest TOS changes don't bother you, good for you. I hope your investment pays off. But the fact that you want to keep acting like there are absolutely no grounds for anyone to doubt this project, and that as multiple people have repeatedly pointed out, that Chris Roberts isn't really the genius you think he is, makes you seem a bit compulsive obsessive.

Why this drive to try to convince the rest of us.

The rest of us don't have that faith. Get over it...or not.

This comment was edited on Jun 19, 2016, 15:27.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

98. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 19, 2016, 12:03 Comet
 
If I understand correctly most of the people that believe the project will fail is because of Chris Roberts.

A 300+ project with several managers dealing with different parts of the game development and you guys think Chris is doing everything?

Some of you mention Rob Irving and point to interviews he did to support your opinion on why you believe the game will fail. I've watched these interviews and I only see a great developer stating that he joined the project because he loved the idea but left because it became a big 300+ people production. Same goes for Eric Peterson.
It's the difference between typical smaller budged Indie development vs big budget AAA development. And many devs these days prefer smaller projects because they indeed let you be more creative working with smaller teams.

That's what devs like Ken Levine did as well as many other devs in the industry that were tired of working in exaustive AAA games.
http://gingearstudio.com/why-i-quit-my-dream-job-at-ubisoft
http://gamerant.com/why-video-game-developers-are-going-independent/

Anyway. Let's suppose your right. That Chris has doomed the project and so on. And no one else his helping him keep the ship afloat.

First of all. Why is it that Chris Roberts is such a well know developer?

The answer is simple. He was extremely successful at the time.

Taken from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Roberts_(game_developer)

He developed about 10 games during his career.
Times of Lore, Bad Blood, Wing Commander 1, Wing Commaner 2 (as produccer), Strike Commander, Privateer, Wing Commander 3 and Wing Commander IV, Starlancer and Freelancer.

All of them were successful and only 1 of them he failed to deliver(Freelancer).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freelancer_(video_game)

Still the game was not cancelled. Most of the game development was done during Chris Roberts time on the project. But Microsoft instead of canceling decided to release it with a smaller scope.
As was stated back in the day. The issue was not that the game was in a development mess. The issue was not that it wasn't a good game.
The issue was that they couldn't deliver everything on time with the scope they wanted.
Still the game has a Metacritic of 85% and 8.9 user score. http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/freelancer

And this is the problem of your opinion.
Your argument is based on one single game that Chris Roberts was unable to deliver on a timely cost efficient matter.
What about the other 9 games?
And what about the fact that all his games (Freelancer included) were a success?

If your argument is that the game will fail because of Chris Roberts and his ambition, fact still is that he only screwed up in one game out of 10. He reached complete success in 9 out of 10 games.

I think people are just jumping into conclusions way too soon.
jdreyer made a good post where he gives a valid argument.

SC Alpha only has 2 systems and we haven't seen all these 100 systems coming together yet.
I have no idea how much development has progressed behind closed doors.
Perhaps they will push the game to 2018. Perhaps they are running out of money and so on and on.

But that is the thing.
I don't know how much EA has done with Mass Effect Andromeda either. Or so many upcoming games that we have seen small demos or trailers and started development at about the same time as SC.
I'm just taking the cautious approach. Giving them the same benefit of a doubt as I give other developers that have taken 5+ years to build their high budget AAA games.
I waited 5 years for GTA V and loved the result. I waited 4 years for The Witcher 3 and loved the result. I did hate AC Unity result

If I don't complain about EA delaying Mass Effect to 2017, a game that started development in late 2012 and that we have only seen a few minutes of footage why complain about SC?

We all heard about SC just when it was just a concept. We saw a new company being built from scratch to create this game.
This is a process few in the public have ever followed so closely before.
IF SC was being built by EA we would probably only have seen some teaser last year and perhaps a trailer this year at E3 as they would have never shown anything in the first couple of years of game development.
How do I know this? That's what they are doing with Mass Effect. That started development in 2012. One teaser last year and a small trailer this year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_Effect:_Andromeda

It is hard to understand why some of you are so ready to consider SC a failure taking into count that :

- There are 300+ devs working on the title much like many other AAA titles
- They have been developing the game for the last 3 and a half years and most of these more complex AAA titles can take 4-5 years to build
- Even if Chris Roberts will doom the project and is the source of all your criticism, fact still is that he has succeed in 9 out of 10 projects before.
- Chris may be a newbie in game development, but they do have some really talented people working on this.
- Rob Irvin left CIF for whatever reason. But if SC development is going so bad why are there 300+ people working on the project and some of them top devs that could get a job elsewhere?

Aren't some of you jumping into conclusions way too early?


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

97. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 19, 2016, 10:26 Quboid
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Jun 19, 2016, 09:53:
Thanks for the assist.

Yeah, I could have phrased that better ... I wasn't as helpful as I'd hoped
 
Avatar 10439
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

96. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 19, 2016, 09:53 Mr. Tact
 
Thanks for the assist.  



Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

95. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 19, 2016, 09:29 Quboid
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Jun 18, 2016, 12:42:
Quboid wrote on Jun 18, 2016, 09:19:
Poor Mr. Tact. It's not a complicated concept; 1. you did something stupid, 2. you took steps to repair the situation, ergo you came to your senses. Congratulations on step 2.
Er, isn't that exactly what I said?

Yes, I was hoping a different phrasing would jog RedEye9 into getting it.
 
Avatar 10439
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

94. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 18, 2016, 19:56 Slashman
 
Kxmode wrote on Jun 18, 2016, 16:53:

That's one reason why leader designer Rob Irving left CIG. In the interview, you get the sense he's under NDA constraints, but you also get the feeling that, before leaving CIG, he knew Roberts had elevated his game to dangerous levels of scope creep. Likely to the point that it made development and production unsustainable; something he didn't want on his professional resume. Now it's probably worse with the hard deadline Roberts set for SQ42.


That's exactly what I've been saying. Rob Irving isn't some low-level disgruntled employee. If everything was A-OK, why the hell would he leave a project like this? This dude worked on Wing Commander Prophecy. This is exactly the kind of thing he'd want to see succeed.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

93. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 18, 2016, 16:53 Kxmode
 
jdreyer wrote on Jun 18, 2016, 15:23:
I want this to succeed, but I don't see how it does. They've promised 100 systems, and delivered 2. That's like saying you're going to run a 26-mile marathon and after the first 2 hours you've gone a quarter mile.

Using your analogy, over one million people gave you 116 million dollars to finish a 26-mile marathon.

jdreyer wrote on Jun 18, 2016, 15:23:
Roberts is an amazing dreamer and a shitty project manager. The scope of this project is out of control. They could probably finish it if they had three or four more years, but they will run out of money long before then.

That's one reason why lead designer Rob Irving left CIG. You get the sense in the interview there's an NDA constraining what he says, but you also get the feeling that, before leaving CIG, he knew Roberts had elevated his game to dangerous levels of scope creep. Likely to the point that it made development and production unsustainable. He probably didn't want something that he realized would implode on his professional resume. Now, it's probably worse given the hard deadline Roberts set for SQ42.

jdreyer wrote on Jun 18, 2016, 15:23:
I just hope they finish SQ42, as inane as the dialog was, the combat should be fun.

I wouldn't hold out hope. Just wait and see what happens.

This comment was edited on Jul 12, 2016, 00:56.
 
Avatar 18786
 



William Shakespeare's "Star Wars" Act I, Scene 1: Aboard the rebel ship. / Enter C-3PO and R2-D2. / C-3PO: "Now is the summer of our happiness / Made winter by this sudden, fierce attack!" / R2-D2 — Beep beep, Beep, beep, meep, squeak, beep, whee!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

92. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 18, 2016, 15:23 jdreyer
 
Comet wrote on Jun 17, 2016, 15:58:
Quote from the article:

This however, is not your typical single-player fighter-only game of the ’90s. Players can buy multiple ships, customize them, capture and control mid-sized capital ships with the help of other players, lead boarding parties with first-person shooter gameplay, loot, trade, explore, name trade routes, etc.

As I read your post it doesn't really matter anything anyone will argue.
As I mentioned in previous post and will mention again.
I don't see them doing anything out of the ordinary and gave plenty of examples of top of the tops devs that have faced all kinds of issues.

You consider that SC will fail based on your opinion of Chris Roberts more than anything else. They have 300 people working on the title and obviously different people managing different parts of the game. But it doesn't matter. You have already decided they will fail.

You make some point about promised features that they haven't talked about much. In all honesty I'm sure some features will be changed or not included just like it happens in most game development.
But from one or other feature not making it into to final game to not delivering the core promise is another thing.

But anyway. Your entire opinion is based on your distrust of Chris Roberts and the promises they made.

But could you please just answer the following question?

Is CIG any different from other devs be it following the traditional funding model or crowdfunding and if so what makes them different?


I want this to succeed, but I don't see how it does. They've promised 100 systems, and delivered 2. That's like saying you're going to run a 26-mile marathon and after the first 2 hours you've gone a quarter mile. And that's just one problem among so many: they haven't built all the ships, they can't populate an instance with more than a few people, they have only built a few character models, etc. etc.

Roberts is an amazing dreamer and a shitty project manager. The scope of this project is out of control. They could probably finish it if they had three or four more years, but they will run out of money long before then.

I just hope they finish SQ42, as inane as the dialog was, the combat should be fun.
 
Avatar 22024
 



The land in Minecraft is flat, Minecraft simulates the Earth, ergo the Earth is flat.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

91. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 18, 2016, 12:42 Mr. Tact
 
Quboid wrote on Jun 18, 2016, 09:19:
Poor Mr. Tact. It's not a complicated concept; 1. you did something stupid, 2. you took steps to repair the situation, ergo you came to your senses. Congratulations on step 2.
Er, isn't that exactly what I said?
 



Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

90. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 18, 2016, 09:19 Quboid
 
Kxmode wrote on Jun 18, 2016, 02:13:
RedEye9 wrote on Jun 16, 2016, 19:20:
Mr. Tact wrote on Jun 16, 2016, 18:46:
RedEye9 wrote on Jun 16, 2016, 15:42:
Congratulating someone for spending a thousand dollars and wanting it back. Got it. I came to my senses and understand the concept now. Your right it was not that difficult, thanks for helping me through this senseless period of my life.
Not so obvious to some, apparently. Congratulations on getting it wrong, again. I was not congratulating him for spending a thousand dollars and wanting it back. I was congratulating him for regaining his common sense, which if had been in place previously, would have prevented him from spending $1,000.
Once again your right it was not that difficult, thanks for helping me through this senseless period of my life.

You two have engaged in dangerous levels of crazy talk.

Poor Mr. Tact. It's not a complicated concept; 1. you did something stupid, 2. you took steps to repair the situation, ergo you came to your senses. Congratulations on step 2.
 
Avatar 10439
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

89. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 18, 2016, 02:13 Kxmode
 
RedEye9 wrote on Jun 16, 2016, 19:20:
Mr. Tact wrote on Jun 16, 2016, 18:46:
RedEye9 wrote on Jun 16, 2016, 15:42:
Congratulating someone for spending a thousand dollars and wanting it back. Got it. I came to my senses and understand the concept now. Your right it was not that difficult, thanks for helping me through this senseless period of my life.
Not so obvious to some, apparently. Congratulations on getting it wrong, again. I was not congratulating him for spending a thousand dollars and wanting it back. I was congratulating him for regaining his common sense, which if had been in place previously, would have prevented him from spending $1,000.
Once again your right it was not that difficult, thanks for helping me through this senseless period of my life.

You two have engaged in dangerous levels of crazy talk.
 
Avatar 18786
 



William Shakespeare's "Star Wars" Act I, Scene 1: Aboard the rebel ship. / Enter C-3PO and R2-D2. / C-3PO: "Now is the summer of our happiness / Made winter by this sudden, fierce attack!" / R2-D2 — Beep beep, Beep, beep, meep, squeak, beep, whee!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

88. cash for vag Jun 17, 2016, 21:32 RedEye9
 
Kosumo wrote on Jun 17, 2016, 20:36:
Comet wrote on Jun 17, 2016, 15:58:
Is CIG any different from other devs be it following the traditional funding model or crowdfunding and if so what makes them different?


Well, hiring your wife into a senior position and then not being open about the fact that she is your wife while getting funding by pre-selling DLC to costumers to an unfinished (bearly started) game is VERY different - would you not agree?

Chris Roberts ain't that purty, if a little nepotism get's him a little nookie, so be it.
 
Avatar 58135
 



“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

87. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 17, 2016, 20:36 Kosumo
 
Comet wrote on Jun 17, 2016, 15:58:
Is CIG any different from other devs be it following the traditional funding model or crowdfunding and if so what makes them different?


Well, hiring your wife into a senior position and then not being open about the fact that she is your wife while getting funding by pre-selling DLC to costumers to an unfinished (bearly started) game is VERY different - would you not agree?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

86. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 17, 2016, 19:29 Slashman
 
Comet wrote on Jun 17, 2016, 15:58:

Is CIG any different from other devs be it following the traditional funding model or crowdfunding and if so what makes them different?


They are being lead by a crazy person?

You expect me to say that the people working on the game are somehow different from other normal game industry workers? What is the point?

Any large game project hires people from the industry to work in it. Most people are going to work if the pay is good because it's food on the table.

So yeah, the person in charge of the project is the major source of worry for everyone who knows what he's like. In pretty much every previous scenario, he's needed to be reigned in and in some cases had the game taken away from him (Freelancer). Feel free to keep pretending he doesn't matter here and I guess I can understand why you think everything is A-OK.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

85. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 17, 2016, 15:58 Comet
 
Quote from the article:

This however, is not your typical single-player fighter-only game of the ’90s. Players can buy multiple ships, customize them, capture and control mid-sized capital ships with the help of other players, lead boarding parties with first-person shooter gameplay, loot, trade, explore, name trade routes, etc.

As I read your post it doesn't really matter anything anyone will argue.
As I mentioned in previous post and will mention again.
I don't see them doing anything out of the ordinary and gave plenty of examples of top of the tops devs that have faced all kinds of issues.

You consider that SC will fail based on your opinion of Chris Roberts more than anything else. They have 300 people working on the title and obviously different people managing different parts of the game. But it doesn't matter. You have already decided they will fail.

You make some point about promised features that they haven't talked about much. In all honesty I'm sure some features will be changed or not included just like it happens in most game development.
But from one or other feature not making it into to final game to not delivering the core promise is another thing.

But anyway. Your entire opinion is based on your distrust of Chris Roberts and the promises they made.

But could you please just answer the following question?

Is CIG any different from other devs be it following the traditional funding model or crowdfunding and if so what makes them different?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

84. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 16, 2016, 20:49 Slashman
 
Comet wrote on Jun 16, 2016, 18:07:

Sorry but I don't understand. Deliver a game other than what they have initially promised? Doing a FPS/space sim/MMO was the entire point of the campaign from the start. Check the following article from November 2012 :
http://gamerant.com/star-citizen-graphics-details-mods-pricing/


Read that article over and tell me where you saw the words First Person Shooter or FPS in it. Maybe I missed it. They advertised a persistent universe hostable by players for multiplayer and full modding capability. No Pay to Win (ha!).

Where is the server/client Alpha build for private servers now?

Call of Duty in space was NOT in the initial pitch for this game. And if they had stuck to what was in that article and kept it reasonable, then they'd have a hell of a lot less problems now. Because I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how it will work when you have 8 guys boarding a ship fighting against another 8 guys in full FPS combat, while a full-on fleet battle rages around you with other events of the same type taking place.

Most of the crowd funded projects that have succeeded have been those with a clear and concise set of design goals. Not 'make it up as you go' design from a guy with a history of never knowing when to stop.

You talk about AAA projects failing during development. That's a call that the publisher makes when they take stock of the state of the game using specific milestones and metrics to gauge where things stand, and the possibility of the game being fit for sale at the end of the dev cycle. Does it appear to you that anything of the sort is implemented for SC based on what is known about how Roberts does things?

This comment was edited on Jun 16, 2016, 20:56.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

83. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 16, 2016, 19:20 RedEye9
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Jun 16, 2016, 18:46:
RedEye9 wrote on Jun 16, 2016, 15:42:
Congratulating someone for spending a thousand dollars and wanting it back. Got it. I came to my senses and understand the concept now. Your right it was not that difficult, thanks for helping me through this senseless period of my life.
Not so obvious to some, apparently. Congratulations on getting it wrong, again. I was not congratulating him for spending a thousand dollars and wanting it back. I was congratulating him for regaining his common sense, which if had been in place previously, would have prevented him from spending $1,000.
Once again your right it was not that difficult, thanks for helping me through this senseless period of my life.
 
Avatar 58135
 



“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
102 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >