Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed

The Squadron 42 campaign for Star Citizen is delayed until 2017, reports Kotaku UK, saying the news was revealed during a livestream from CitizenCon. The first chapter of the single-player side of the space simulator was most recently supposed to come to backers this year, but this news confirms rumors of a delay that surfaced last month. On the bright side, Eurogamer notes that Cloud Imperium Games released a new video showing off how planets will be procedurally generated in the game, along with other tidbits, including a sandworm, though they don't specify whether this is showing us Beetleguise or Dune. Back to the delay, the Kotaku UK story offers two slides with details on the state of the project, and here is what those say:
S42 Primary Tech Hurdles

Content

Most of our base technology is now complete
Still in Progress:
Subsumption

  • Pathfinding Logic
  • Full Animation Integration
  • Improved Combat Logic
  • Mission System Integration
  • Enhanced Fight AI

Object Container Streaming
CPU and GPU Optimizations

S42 Status Update

Content

  • All chapters and gameplay features at grey-box or better
  • Taking one chapter to final ship quality - flushes out any technical, integration and polish issues.
  • Building Technology & Systems for the long term and the whole SC universe - no short cuts!

View : : :
212.
 
Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
Oct 18, 2016, 06:46
Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed Oct 18, 2016, 06:46
Oct 18, 2016, 06:46
 
Yeah, that's pretty much what I expected: labels like 'early access' or 'released' do colour perception of the product in front of you.

To an extent that's fine. If a studio 'releases' something you see as broken and unfinished, you know their expectations and yours are out of whack. But 'early access' and 'beta' are not get out of jail free cards. If I had a dollar for every time I've seen someone on a forum write "Relax, it's just a beta, all this is going to change", I could probably fund a space MMO myself.

You look at SC and see 'early access', and because THEY also describe it in those terms you think everything's fine.

But when you look at what they've managed to put in front of people for the time and number of people involved, it's REALLY substandard. There's a popular misconception that in games you get nothing, nothing, nothing, BOOM it all comes together in a big rock-music montage at the end - a misconception that's fed by the way publishers keep projects dark until the latter stages.

That is pretty much the polar opposite of reality. In (well-planned, well-organised) game dev, progress (in terms of features) tends to be logarithmic. Everything flies together at first. Then, as systems evolve and mesh together, feature progress slows and content production ramps up.

CIG have tried to do everything backwards, and it shows. Will people cough up enough money for them to muddle through? Maybe. I'm kinda torn on what I want to happen. I don't want people to be disappointed and lose their money for nothing. I don't want crowdfunding as a whole to be blighted by a colossal failure. But at the same time, does this kind of arrogance and incompetence deserve to succeed? Not talking about individual programmers or artists here, just the top brass.

Frontier have done everything as right as can realistically be done. They focused and delivered a solid MVP, fulfilled their backer pledges, and have been building on it ever since. CIG basically tore up their promises to their backers as soon as they saw the $$$, made a procession of stupid, wasteful decisions that caused grief to the devs working on the game, and funded their excess by milking fans with glitzy, misleading high-content-bandwidth footage that can't POSSIBLY scale to the size of game they're attempting. If that shit works... it's kind of a kick in the teeth to studios who are trying to do the right thing. I don't know if I can stomach seeing Chris Roberts preening on YouTube atop a pile of burnt-out programmers and artists.

So, that's MY cards on the table Will they get enough funding? I think they'll get enough for SOMETHING. Maybe they'll get over this hump to a place where they can start charging a subscription and grow the game in a more sensible fashion. Or maybe they'll crash and burn. Which would be a shame because there was no need for that to happen.
Date
Subject
Author
2.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
3.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
6.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
11.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
16.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
72.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
75.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
78.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
79.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
80.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
81.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
82.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
84.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
85.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
58.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
59.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
4.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
9.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
41.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
47.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
5.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
10.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
46.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
49.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
7.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
12.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
13.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
14.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
15.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
18.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
19.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
34.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
40.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
42.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
43.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
45.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
48.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
50.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
51.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
53.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
44.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
83.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
87.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
37.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
60.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
61.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
62.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
63.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
64.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
65.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
66.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
73.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
67.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
69.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
71.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
8.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
17.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
23.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
54.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
55.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
24.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
25.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
26.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
30.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
56.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
29.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
36.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
38.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
77.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
31.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
32.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
33.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
39.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
35.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
68.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
70.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
74.
Oct 10, 2016Oct 10 2016
76.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
94.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
97.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
86.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
92.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
96.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
99.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
104.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
106.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
108.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
110.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
111.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
112.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
113.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
114.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
117.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
118.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
119.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
120.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
121.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
122.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
123.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
            Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
124.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
             Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
125.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
              Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
137.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
              Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
126.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
            Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
128.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
             Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
129.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
              Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
135.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
              Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
130.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
             Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
131.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
              Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
132.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
               Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
115.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
116.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
109.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
133.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
134.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
136.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
138.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
139.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
142.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
145.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
146.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
149.
Oct 13, 2016Oct 13 2016
154.
Oct 13, 2016Oct 13 2016
88.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
89.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
91.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
93.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
95.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
101.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
107.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
105.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
100.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
102.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
103.
Oct 11, 2016Oct 11 2016
127.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
140.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
141.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
143.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
147.
Oct 13, 2016Oct 13 2016
148.
Oct 13, 2016Oct 13 2016
144.
Oct 12, 2016Oct 12 2016
150.
Oct 13, 2016Oct 13 2016
152.
Oct 13, 2016Oct 13 2016
153.
Oct 13, 2016Oct 13 2016
157.
Oct 13, 2016Oct 13 2016
158.
Oct 13, 2016Oct 13 2016
159.
Oct 13, 2016Oct 13 2016
162.
Oct 13, 2016Oct 13 2016
174.
Oct 14, 2016Oct 14 2016
176.
Oct 14, 2016Oct 14 2016
160.
Oct 13, 2016Oct 13 2016
161.
Oct 13, 2016Oct 13 2016
163.
Oct 13, 2016Oct 13 2016
165.
Oct 13, 2016Oct 13 2016
169.
Oct 14, 2016Oct 14 2016
164.
Oct 13, 2016Oct 13 2016
166.
Oct 13, 2016Oct 13 2016
167.
Oct 14, 2016Oct 14 2016
155.
Oct 13, 2016Oct 13 2016
156.
Oct 13, 2016Oct 13 2016
168.
Oct 14, 2016Oct 14 2016
172.
Oct 14, 2016Oct 14 2016
173.
Oct 14, 2016Oct 14 2016
178.
Oct 14, 2016Oct 14 2016
180.
Oct 15, 2016Oct 15 2016
190.
Oct 15, 2016Oct 15 2016
195.
Oct 16, 2016Oct 16 2016
196.
Oct 16, 2016Oct 16 2016
181.
Oct 15, 2016Oct 15 2016
177.
Oct 14, 2016Oct 14 2016
170.
Oct 14, 2016Oct 14 2016
175.
Oct 14, 2016Oct 14 2016
182.
Oct 15, 2016Oct 15 2016
183.
Oct 15, 2016Oct 15 2016
184.
Oct 15, 2016Oct 15 2016
185.
Oct 15, 2016Oct 15 2016
188.
Oct 15, 2016Oct 15 2016
189.
Oct 15, 2016Oct 15 2016
192.
Oct 16, 2016Oct 16 2016
193.
Oct 16, 2016Oct 16 2016
194.
Oct 16, 2016Oct 16 2016
191.
Oct 15, 2016Oct 15 2016
187.
Oct 15, 2016Oct 15 2016
197.
Oct 17, 2016Oct 17 2016
198.
Oct 17, 2016Oct 17 2016
199.
Oct 17, 2016Oct 17 2016
200.
Oct 17, 2016Oct 17 2016
201.
Oct 17, 2016Oct 17 2016
202.
Oct 17, 2016Oct 17 2016
203.
Oct 17, 2016Oct 17 2016
204.
Oct 17, 2016Oct 17 2016
207.
Oct 17, 2016Oct 17 2016
            Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
208.
Oct 17, 2016Oct 17 2016
             Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
209.
Oct 17, 2016Oct 17 2016
              Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
210.
Oct 17, 2016Oct 17 2016
               Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
211.
Oct 17, 2016Oct 17 2016
                Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
205.
Oct 17, 2016Oct 17 2016
206.
Oct 17, 2016Oct 17 2016
186.
Oct 15, 2016Oct 15 2016
 212.
Oct 18, 2016Oct 18 2016
Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
213.
Oct 18, 2016Oct 18 2016
214.
Oct 18, 2016Oct 18 2016