Kxmode wrote on Oct 12, 2016, 13:38:
Because you're Wulf Knight; a WHALE of a Citizen to the tune of $22,000 (probably more). You're infamous for be banned from RSI forums for hacking their system to buy a Javelin Destroyer. Yeah, you're "that guy."

lol , that shit never gets old. Just because I have Wulf in my nick. Go back to Derek for your information .. shows ever one here who you are ... it does you well ...

Honestly if you want the game to come out, you should THANK any space whales that giving RSI 1000s of dollars to bring you the game ... but knowing you , you'll go thank Derek for all the miss-information for you to spread .. like calling me someone because I use a similar nick ... lol .. shit is funny to see the same over and over when you have no idea what you are spewing ...

This comment was edited on Oct 12, 2016, 13:46.

NasWulf wrote on Oct 12, 2016, 08:05:

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Oct 12, 2016, 06:38:
...

Honestly I don't know why you keep coming here (or myself for that matter) and trying to show most these morons how things are coming along and how their "facts" are non-facts. The Tech that RSI and the other teams have produced for SC and SQ42 is just jaw dropping and no one around here could do the same or wish they could do the same.

Every time a SC post comes up on this site you get the same people spouting the same shit over and over, it truly amazing and deplorable (ah ah , see what I did there). At this point you can see most of the same people complaining aboit the same complaints ... it will run out of money ... it's all a lie there is no game ... none of it can be achieved, they don't have the time, money, or talent ... people are leaving so that must mean things are going wrong! ... spacewhales are spending 1000s to make nothing but .gifs! ... all I wanted was a wing commander clone ... all we want is the truths! ... edit: one of my favorite but forgot to add the I spent $100 on the kick-start so I deserve to see all their financial records ... bla bla bla ... it's like clock work around here .. the same people, the same shit.

I promised myself I wouldn't engage in tomfoolery, but you are someone who needs to be put in their place. You come back here because you're Wulf Knight; a WHALE of a Citizen to the tune of $22,000 (most definitely more today). You're infamous for be banned from RSI forums for hacking their system to buy a Javelin Destroyer. Yeah, you're "that guy." You have a lot of money invested in this game. So any slight against it goes beyond simple emotional attachment. It's a side business on the gray market.

Peeeling wrote on Oct 12, 2016, 10:08:
... with less money ...

Battlefield 4 cost $100 million to make, so you could assume BF1 took about the same if not a little less since they are re-using the same engine with newer updates.

Starwars the Old Republic was the highest rated cost to develop (MMO of its time) and was between $150 million and $200 million

Blizzard disclosed that the cost of four years of post-launch upkeep on the blockbuster MMO was $200 million but took 4.5 years to develop and cost $63,000,000 .. sooo to say CIG has less money that what wow took to develop is another falsehood. I know shocking right?

If this project takes another 4 years to DEV and fund raising falls to nothing then you might have a argument about their money running out, but as is .. parts of the game are out, more systems/gameplay is coming, SQ42 (late as hell, I know shocking to see a release date slip in the gaming industry) is coming in 6 - 8 months, money is STILL flowing into their coffers ... so on ..

its the same ole arguments ... you/or no one here including myself has a clue on CIGs financial situation other than the fund raiser counter on the web site. You don't know about the brand deals (Saitek HOTAS), side deals, private deals .. etc.

edit ..

I know your current argument is that they are wasting money retooling things, but a lot of that is part of the DEV cycle and is going to help them in the long run to bring those 100+ systems with better tools (the part that showed off the in-game editor shows that). I know you would be PISSED if they launched the game say this year before they retooled their ship pipeline and you got the ship you paided for, then in 6 months when they are doing reworks/retools or we'll call it DLC and the next set of ships come out and look 10x better but you're stuck with your out dated ship ... Remember this is a new company that had to build it's staff and TECH from the ground up and yes you can see Chris is anal on a lot of things ... but to say that they retool everything all the time is going to make them run out of cash is just a guessing game that only the higher ups in CIG know the answer too, and the way they continue to pull in funds (it was mentioned in the presentation around the 55:10 mark, that it was the best day to date in SC for funding) goes to show that they are in it for the long run, retools and everything .......

This comment was edited on Oct 12, 2016, 13:18.

If DICE tried to turn BF1 into an MMO, they would fail and go bust.

If Blizzard tried to upgrade WoW to the fidelity of BF1, they would fail and go bust.

Yet SC is going to work out just fine, with less money, and developed back-assward, constantly 'retooling' as the goalposts shift. And constantly being interrupted to make single-use demos for conventions.

Clearly you know a lot more about games development than I do. Or less - I guess that's a possibility too.

This comment was edited on Oct 12, 2016, 10:36.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Oct 12, 2016, 06:38:
...

Honestly I don't know why you keep coming here (or myself for that matter) and trying to show most these morons how things are coming along and how their "facts" are non-facts. The Tech that RSI and the other teams have produced for SC and SQ42 is just jaw dropping and no one around here could do the same or wish they could do the same.

Every time a SC post comes up on this site you get the same people spouting the same shit over and over, it truly amazing and deplorable (ah ah , see what I did there). At this point you can see most of the same people complaining aboit the same complaints ... it will run out of money ... it's all a lie there is no game ... none of it can be achieved, they don't have the time, money, or talent ... people are leaving so that must mean things are going wrong! ... spacewhales are spending 1000s to make nothing but .gifs! ... all I wanted was a wing commander clone ... all we want is the truths! ... edit: one of my favorite but forgot to add the I spent $100 on the kick-start so I deserve to see all their financial records ... bla bla bla ... it's like clock work around here .. the same people, the same shit.

I like your determination and your passion to show these clowns what SC is going to be but like or the DEV road map but when they or something they state as truth is proven wrong, they move on to another complaint or another falsehood. And I doubt you'll ever change most of their minds. Oh and like I said before, you know almost if not all have or will get SC when its released so I think its funny in that way ...

go ahead doubters ... reply with the usual, make this thread another 40 posts, blue loves the ad rev ...

This comment was edited on Oct 12, 2016, 08:40.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 16:11:

Peeeling wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 09:01:
"They've completely retooled it"

They do that a lot. And whenever it happens it's for one of two reasons:

1. They've just spent a whole bunch of time and money doing something wrong.

2. Chris has been to an expo and seen something cool.

1) The original Kickstarter target was $500,000 and so far it's raised over $127,000,000. That inevitably has meant that the scope of the game has expanded. Expanding the scope of the game isn't 'doing something wrong'.

Actually, yes it is. If expanding the scope of the project means having to throw out hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of work, then you have done something wrong in the planning and/or execution. You aren't 'expanding' anything. It's the difference between building a house and then building an extension, and building a house, bulldozing it flat and then building a bigger one.

They keep doing this. They build a system or some content, the goalposts move, and it's back to the drawing board. Happened with the ships: hundreds of thousands of dollars of final-quality ship assets binned when they decided to change the lodding/fragmentation/damage system (incidentally, changing it to a system that requires clients to exchange gigantic damage textures for every ship they encounter).

CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 19:53:

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 19:33:
The latest footage of the game is excellent. It wasn't long ago the critics were saying it wasn't possible to make the game that Chris Roberts pitched and that the funding would run out before.

Please stop repeating this retarded lie.

What the so called "critics" are claiming is not possible (and it won't be) is the vision of the full PU, i.e. that ~100+ people per instance (or whatever number of people you deem essential for this to be called as MMO) will be sharing this universe at the advertised fidelity and CIG has shown absolutely NOTHING in that regard.

I've been around here since the beginning and the critics attacking every aspect of the game - some claimed it was a PR presentation and would never be playable (debunked); some claimed the multi-crew technology could never be achieved (debunked), some claimed procedural planets was just a pipedream (debunked), some claimed the funds would dry up and leave backers with nothing (debunked).

CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 19:53:
Remember: They have confirmed this CitCon that "travel to multiple star systems" won't be out before 4.0 (early 2018? mid 2018?). This means that the entire MMO infrastructure (multiple instances etc.) has also been delayed to AT LEAST 4.0. Until then we'll be stuck in Stanton, a single star system and a single instance with 24 players max... unless maybe they raise it to a whopping 32 players(?) ... wow ... a real MMO that is!

The new netcode, StarNetwork, is going to be released with 3.0. That will form the basis for large connected instance. Just because 4.0 is a long way away doesn't mean the game will be limited to just 24 players, as the plan is for a sever mesh that will allow everyone to share the same space except for when there are too many players for a particular server where it will then instance things. We don't know if server meshing will be in from the start or come later, so your claim that it will be 4.0 at the earliest is pure speculation.

Every technical hurdle that has been attempted - 64bit precision, multi-crew ships, local physics grids, procedural tech, unifying the first and third person animations - has been achieved and there's no reason to think the same won't be true of the netcode. Don't forget that CIG isn't promising 200 player instances - it's aiming for 50 players, with any more being a bonus. Everything else is being done by server meshing, which simply transfers players from one server to another as they move around - if there are too many players in an area then it becomes instanced, with friends playing together being kept together where possible.

CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 20:03:

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 19:50:

CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 19:25:
[Whining about the game running out of money]

Huh? I didn't. Dude? Seriously. Reading comprehension? I only replied to this other dude who was fantasizing about a Disney/EA takeover.
I know that there are enough cultists to keep CIG rolling for a long time to come, though this year's CitCon seems to have upset quite a lot of cultists going by the forums.

The question is: Are these the first signs of a real crash or are they going to get away with a little scraping?

I fully acknowledge that the jury is out on that. I've never been among the people saying that they will run out of money (that's -among others- jdreyer's specialty). I've just been critical of all the broken promises, pipe dream promises, hype machine lies, the pies in the sky and the fraudulent actions of CIG.

Yeah, I admit, it's mind boggling that people keep feeding this project years on. I'll be eager to read the studies on this behavior once people start doing research on this phenomenon.

That being said, I'm going to stick to my original prognostication from over a year ago: They'll ship SQ42, but never get over 10 complete systems in the PU. For me, that will be enough anyway. I don't need 100.

Hanneth wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 21:56:
As for when 4.0, that will be late 2017. Chris said the are going for a release every 2-3 months.
3.0 - December 2016
3.1 - February-March 2017
3.2 - April-June 2017
3.3 - June-September 2017
4.0 - August-December 2017

^ LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 19:50:

CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 19:25:
[Whining about the game running out of money]

The game is consistently pulling in $30m+ a year and that's when it's pre-release, with little in the way of playable content. The release of Star Marine and Star Citizen 3.0 will bring a lot more people into the game, as will the demo of Squadron 42 which is due either later this year or early next year. The recent sale of the Polaris, a $900 ship, broke the record for most money raised in a single day. Funding isn't an issue.

There are already around a million pledgers. That's a lot for a game that doesn't exist. What's the rate of income new vs. existing subscribers?

Star Network 1.0 is scheduled for Alpha 3.0. At minimum this will allow them to use 16 cores per instance rather than the 4 that are currently used. Item 2.0 will fully come online with this greatly reducing network traffic. I would be surprised if partial dynamic instancing wasn't part of this as it is a major part of the networking code rewrite. I wouldn't be surprised if they start out with up to 100 people per instance and major areas as their own instances that you can fly into that instance.

As for when 4.0, that will be late 2017. Chris said the are going for a release every 2-3 months.
3.0 - December 2016
3.1 - February-March 2017
3.2 - April-June 2017
3.3 - June-September 2017
4.0 - August-December 2017

Some of those releases are more ambitious than others, but also over 100 people will be freed up one Squadron 42 is released. Judging on their history of being able to deliver, I think we will most likely see 4.0 in late October 2017. Probably showing it off incomplete at GamesCon. Then showing off some exotic new biome at CitizenCon.

CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 20:26:
I really don't see why EA/Disney would be interested in SC/CIG at all. There is nothing -so far- they (or DICE for that matter) couldn't do better in a fraction of the time at less risk and money. Seriously.

Technology. But in saying that, that's why I added "You're right in the practical sense though. Disney is cold hard cash..." It's a personal fantasy, but in practicality it would never happen.

djinn wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 19:58:
Agree with almost all your points, but have reservations for the above. What Palmer did with Oculus would seem to be a viable option for CIG if they ran out of cash. A lot of hard work is already paid for which is a springboard for future investors. With the SW franchise it would be added incentive to put in a few extra bucks as they could cut the convoluted stretch goals, focusing on one or two planets with loads of SW based content. A next gen Dark Forces maybe?

I don't see that happening because EA/Disney simply would not need this. Look at SWBF. EA/DICE could very easily produce a single player or (another) multiplayer Star Wars game based on their own work and their own assets.

DICE are experts at Frostbite. They have all the tools and a workflow to produce content in relatively high amounts per time unit.

What would they need CIG for? Art assets? No. DICE have photogrammetry where they port art straight from the movies to the game and say what you will about SWBF but the art (aside from looking very artificial) is second to none.

Would they need CIG for the multiplayer basis? Hell no. SWBF supports 40 players while CIG currently supports only 24 players per instance. The difference is that SWBF is somewhat stable at 40 players while SC is a lag/disconnect/crash fest many days of the week (with only a tiny fraction of the final feature set "stressing" the servers so far).

It remains to be seen whether CIG will ever be able to pull off a true persistent universe (MMO). At this time the "net code" is under extremely heavy construction (has been for months and months and won't be finished for another 12 to 18 months because SC 4.0 is the earliest where you can expect anything resembling MMO gameplay).

I really don't see why EA/Disney would be interested in SC/CIG at all. There is nothing -so far- they (or DICE for that matter) couldn't do better in a fraction of the time at less risk and money. Seriously.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 19:50:

CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 19:25:
[Whining about the game running out of money]

Huh? I didn't. Dude? Seriously. Reading comprehension? I only replied to this other dude who was fantasizing about a Disney/EA takeover.
I know that there are enough cultists to keep CIG rolling for a long time to come, though this year's CitCon seems to have upset quite a lot of cultists going by the forums.

The question is: Are these the first signs of a real crash or are they going to get away with a little scraping?

I fully acknowledge that the jury is out on that. I've never been among the people saying that they will run out of money (that's -among others- jdreyer's specialty). I've just been critical of all the broken promises, pipe dream promises, hype machine lies, the pies in the sky and the fraudulent actions of CIG.

CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 19:25:
Or why would EA/Disney undertake the massive effort of consolidating what has been worked on in L.A., Austin, Manchester and Frankfurt? There are so many, many reasons why *especially* places like EA or Disney would never ever do this... we could sit here all day and fill several novels with reasons.

Agree with almost all your points, but have reservations for the above. What Palmer did with Oculus would seem to be a viable option for CIG if they ran out of cash. A lot of hard work is already paid for which is a springboard for future investors. With the SW franchise it would be added incentive to put in a few extra bucks as they could cut the convoluted stretch goals, focusing on one or two planets with loads of SW based content. A next gen Dark Forces maybe?

You're right in the practical sense though. Disney is cold hard cash in the easiest way possible.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 19:33:
The latest footage of the game is excellent. It wasn't long ago the critics were saying it wasn't possible to make the game that Chris Roberts pitched and that the funding would run out before.

Please stop repeating this retarded lie.

What the so called "critics" are claiming is not possible (and it won't be) is the vision of the full PU, i.e. that ~100+ people per instance (or whatever number of people you deem essential for this to be called as MMO) will be sharing this universe at the advertised fidelity and CIG has shown absolutely NOTHING in that regard.

Where are the videos of dozens of fighters attacking a capital ship with multicrew ships, EVA, boarding etc. all happening simultaneously?

No one ever claimed that procedural generation would not be possible (see Elite Dangerous with its 400 billion(!!!) star systems or NMS) or anything of the sort.

What is impossible or will be impossible is to piece of all of this together into a true MMO. That won't happen. If they ever deliver the game it will be instanced like fuck with a low player number per instance.

Remember: They have confirmed this CitCon that "travel to multiple star systems" won't be out before 4.0 (early 2018? mid 2018?). This means that the entire MMO infrastructure (multiple instances etc.) has also been delayed to AT LEAST 4.0. Until then we'll be stuck in Stanton, a single star system and a single instance with 24 players max... unless maybe they raise it to a whopping 32 players(?) ... wow ... a real MMO that is!

CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 19:25:
[Whining about the game running out of money]

The game is consistently pulling in $30m+ a year and that's when it's pre-release, with little in the way of playable content. The release of Star Marine and Star Citizen 3.0 will bring a lot more people into the game, as will the demo of Squadron 42 which is due either later this year or early next year. The recent sale of the Polaris, a $900 ship, broke the record for most money raised in a single day. Funding isn't an issue.

djinn wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 19:23:

Kxmode wrote on Oct 10, 2016, 21:57:
Mass Effect 1 kind of had procedural worlds that quickly angered players; especially the M35 Mako (what a nightmare of a vehicle!). BioWare learned from that mistake and made planet missions in ME2 and ME3 much more focused.
Am I wrong in this conclusion? If I am please let me know.

Hm. Remembering Mass Effect the opposite to the audience if what you say is true. I actually liked the Mako missions as they gave the impression of an expansive universe, even if it were all smoke and mirrors. It was enough to feel like it was bigger 'world' than it actually was. As opposed to the probing missions which felt like a total gimmick in the sequels.

I don't think he just meant the probing but also the story missions. Probing was boring as hell, yes, but it was still less boring than driving around in a shitty vehicle on barren planets with horrible, clunky controls.
So I'm going to have to side with Kxmode. I also found ME1 to be the worst of the series. The Mako did not really add anything to the gameplay in terms of a fun factor. It was terrible.

But SC is definitely a different beast. CIG used the Constellation Aquila for this demo which has a rover on board as a default but the missions are going to have to be fun for everyone including the vast majority of people who don't have a rover on their ship.
It's not like ME where everyone is Captain Shepard of the Normandy with a Mako (unless this here was Squadron 42 single player footage instead of PU but they advertised it as PU footage so let's assume it is).

CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 17:20:
Maybe because people have previously watched presentations like the Star Marine reveal in 2014 and absolutely none of what was shown in that demo is in the game today even though Roberts said it would be out in early 2015? (yeah, I know, it's all Illfonic's fault, of course )

That's because it simply wasn't ready for release. Look at the original Star Marine footage and you can see that the movement is extremely janky, the weapons bounced around all over the place and it wasn't well optimised. Compare that to the latest footage we have and the difference is night and day. CIG had outsourced development to Illfonic and that resulted in a lot of problems, including the Gold Horizon level being built to the wrong scale. Now it's been developed in-house and the results show.

CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 17:20:
And you are crazy to claim that what was shown at CitCon last year is in the game now (hint: A huge chunk of CitCon last year was the S42 reveal and S42 won't be out this year and most likely not even anywhere early 2017 either... if 2017 at all). It isn't. Or at least not nearly at the quality (FIDELITEEEEHHHH!!!!11 ) and stability they have shown in all of their fabricated, fake, scripted demos.

Virtually everything they have shown off at shows and conventions these past four years is either a total no-show like Star Marine or has never arrived in the game at the quality (FIDELITEEEEHHHH!!!!11 ) they have presented and advertised. Not even close.

I'm talking about Star Citizen, not Squadron 42 as that hasn't been released yet. Star Marine wasn't shown at CitizenCon last year, though the updated version is expected in the next month or two.

The latest footage of the game is excellent. It wasn't long ago the critics were saying it wasn't possible to make the game that Chris Roberts pitched and that the funding would run out before. Now they're attacking the delays because it's the only thing they've got left. At the end of the day I care about CIG making a decent game and that's exactly what they're doing - I can cope with delays if the end product justifies it.

djinn wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 18:51:
Rabbit trail: If they get their game systems solid but eventually run out of money, this would be a very easy pitch to take to Disney and retrofit to do something in the Star Wars universe. Since everything they've done so far is already paid for I'm sure Disney would unload buckets of cash to make that happen, especially since the franchise is currently making it's own comeback.

Sorry but those are complete bullshit pipe dreams. Disney has sided with EA for Star Wars game development. If Star Citizen goes tits up, EA would have to pick up the pieces. That is very unlikely in the first place for many reasons. If Star Citizen fails it's because it is a clusterfuck of a project. Why would EA or Disney buy a clusterfuck? Not gonna happen.

Besides, many employees would jump ship and EA mostly has people familiar with Frostbite or maybe Unreal but CryEngine is kind of exotic. Star Citizen's underlying CryEngine is so heavily modified by now that it's all but a custom engine now.
Why would EA/Disney buy this shit when the people they put to work on the leftovers would need a minimum of 6 months of training before they could even begin to work productively on the project?

Or why would EA/Disney undertake the massive effort of consolidating what has been worked on in L.A., Austin, Manchester and Frankfurt? There are so many, many reasons why *especially* places like EA or Disney would never ever do this... we could sit here all day and fill several novels with reasons.
At the end of the day, EA -if they *really* wanted to- could easily shit out something like what CIG has achieved so far in a much shorter time than it would take them to build something new from the imagined ruins of SC.

You also need to get into the mindset of a corp like Disney. Disney is not interested in awesome Star Wars games. They are only interested in games as a marketing vehicle and an additional source of income.
They will always try to take the minimalistic approach.
Little effort --> Maximum revenue.
Look at SWBF and the crap EA puts out. EA and Disney are a perfect match.
Star Shitizen is the antithesis of minimalist. It is megalomaniac clusterfuckery at its best (or worst depending on your point of view).

Aside from all the practical reasons like CIG's engine, employees and studio structure, your so called "rabbit trail" would totally go against what EA and Disney stand for from a business point of view. This is simply completely unthinkable and won't happen.

P.S.: This doesn't mean that I deem it entirely unthinkable that someone would be picking up (some of) the pieces but it won't be EA or Disney for Star Wars. No fucking way.