theyarecomingforyou wrote on Nov 23, 2016, 15:32:
Delivering (in the processing of giving) is different to delivered (has already given). I shouldn't have to teach you basic English just to have a discussion about this. What we've seen and got to play is in excess of what was originally promised. Only if CIG goes bankrupt and is unable to complete the development is there an issue but funding is at record levels. The original pitch was for five ships (Aurora, Hornet, 300i, Freelancer and Constellation) - all of those are flyable, along with the Mustang, M50, Gladius, Cutlass, Avenger, Gladiator, Starfarer, Retaliator, Scythe, Glaive, P-52 Merlin, Khartu Al, Vanguard, Reliant, Sabre and Argo, with the Caterpillar, Herald and 85X due in the next patch in the next few weeks.

Not only that but the fidelity is dramatically beyond what was originally promised. And in the next patch we get Star Marine, which is the first-person combat element of the game - that's something that was originally a stretch goal. Is the game taking longer than was originally estimated? Absolutely, but the reason is the increased funding and scope of the game. As an original backer I support what CIG is doing.

Go back and look at the original pledge - it looks awful in comparison to what we're able to play now and what's coming up soon.


It's a crowdfunded game. The way it works is that people pay money AHEAD of time and fund development of the game. If you fail to grasp the fundamental business model then there's really nothing to discuss.

You still haven't answered my question, is there a playable Alpha, of the PSU or Squardron 42 yet?

How do I not grasp the business model? If there was a playable Alpha, one could argue that the incoming funds are because of the Alpha gameplay, and might infer that CIG is making correct decisions as far as software development is concerned. However, as it stands, there is no Alpha of the PSU or Squadron 42, so CIG is still just selling hope.

Arena Commander, Hanger Module, Social Module, none of that is even close to an Alpha of what was promised in the Kickstarter or afterwards.

What we've seen and got to play is in excess of what was originally promised.

A rich universe focused on epic space adventure, trading and dogfighting in first person?
Single Player – Offline or Online(Drop in / Drop out co-op play)?
Persistent Universe (hosted by US)?
Mod-able multiplayer (hosted by YOU)?
Star Citizen Novella?
Ships listed in the original KS?

"At its core Star Citizen is a destination, not a one-off story. It's a complete universe where any number of adventures can take place, allowing players to decide their own game experience. Pick up jobs as a smuggler, pirate, merchant, bounty hunter, or enlist as a pilot, protecting the borders from outside threats. Chris Roberts has always wanted to create one cohesive universe that encompasses everything that made Wing Commander and Privateer / Freelancer special. A huge sandbox with a complex and deep lore allowing players to explore or play in whatever capacity they wish. That universe is Star Citizen."

You ARE fucking kidding, right?

It's a crowdfunded game. The way it works is that people pay money AHEAD of time and fund development of the game. If you fail to grasp the fundamental business model then there's really nothing to discuss.

And that's a deplorable evasion. He didn't question the principle of crowdfunded development. He simply said (rightly) that successful fundraising does NOT imply good game dev practices.

This comment was edited on Nov 24, 2016, 07:21.

grudgebearer wrote on Nov 21, 2016, 12:23:
So there's a playable alpha of the PSU and Squadron 42 already? Or are you considering the hanger module, Arena Commander, and social module on par with an actual alpha ?

Delivering (in the processing of giving) is different to delivered (has already given). I shouldn't have to teach you basic English just to have a discussion about this. What we've seen and got to play is in excess of what was originally promised. Only if CIG goes bankrupt and is unable to complete the development is there an issue but funding is at record levels. The original pitch was for five ships (Aurora, Hornet, 300i, Freelancer and Constellation) - all of those are flyable, along with the Mustang, M50, Gladius, Cutlass, Avenger, Gladiator, Starfarer, Retaliator, Scythe, Glaive, P-52 Merlin, Khartu Al, Vanguard, Reliant, Sabre and Argo, with the Caterpillar, Herald and 85X due in the next patch in the next few weeks.

Not only that but the fidelity is dramatically beyond what was originally promised. And in the next patch we get Star Marine, which is the first-person combat element of the game - that's something that was originally a stretch goal. Is the game taking longer than was originally estimated? Absolutely, but the reason is the increased funding and scope of the game. As an original backer I support what CIG is doing.

Go back and look at the original pledge - it looks awful in comparison to what we're able to play now and what's coming up soon.

grudgebearer wrote on Nov 21, 2016, 12:23:
The fact that CIG is selling people on hope, does not mean he's doing something "right" in terms of software development, just that he's doing something right in terms of fundraising.

It's a crowdfunded game. The way it works is that people pay money AHEAD of time and fund development of the game. If you fail to grasp the fundamental business model then there's really nothing to discuss.

It would be incredible if after years of people jerking off to No Man's Sky which failed spectacularly is then followed up by a pretty great Star Citizen game that everyone appears to hate. Personally I feel it looks like simplified casual shit (the meat of the game, space flight, still remains garbage), but pulling off something like that would screw up everybody's compass. I don't think the hardcore fans who flushed away thousands of dollars can handle another such Hillary-like failure in their lonely lives.

If I may, you as the resident AAA developer on hand, what titles have you shipped or been involved with? Just looking for a point of reference here as you tend to judge CIG for their development as one who knows gaming development. I myself am a developer, not in gaming, I just want to see how well to take your development comments with.

It's keeping them apart that's difficult.

Peeeling wrote on Nov 22, 2016, 07:04:

Am I wrong on how this works?

If anything you're low-balling the problem.

I'd be interested to know what fraction of backers are imagining running through one of these massive ships in FPS combat, while a battle rages outside and beam weapons tear through the ship. Shooting out a window, leaping outside onto the hull and diving in through the hole a missile has made.

I'm interested to know how you get so many people in one place in a huge open world like that...

Am I wrong on how this works?

If anything you're low-balling the problem.

I'd be interested to know what fraction of backers are imagining running through one of these massive ships in FPS combat, while a battle rages outside and beam weapons tear through the ship. Shooting out a window, leaping outside onto the hull and diving in through the hole a missile has made.

This comment was edited on Nov 22, 2016, 09:56.

given that they continue to contribute more money into the project CIG must be doing something right.

Right. Because nobody ever succeeds off the back of popular support by promising things they can't or won't deliver. I certainly can't think of any recent examples of that coming to pass.

>StarCitizen is currently 4th on the list and the game is nowhere even near completion.

That list is pretty interesting. SWTOR takes the cake at 200m and since that's an MMO with an emphasis on a SP campaign (SO THEY SAID, MF'rs, 6 games in one hunh?! #@$@#$) so if SC is going in that direction they can gather a lot more money before it's going to release.

Desinty's an interesting item, that definitely came out feeling like half a game but it was a pretty good game and with a lot of extra content coming since release seems to have become a well rounded game. (sort of like battlefront) It's a weird co-op / mmo hybrid though at 140 million. Maybe it will take more to implement SC as pitched.

The third item is GTA V which is a great game! And it has a whole SP campaign plus a seperate MP game which SUUUUCCCCKKKKKEEEEEDDD at launch! So SC is looking just like GTA V! We're looking great! Best selling game of all time (I think? It's a fucking monster)

That is mostly sarcasm, I hope the project is going to turn out well and what they're showing looks amazing but the technical side of pulling all these parts together into one working game that will be online seems too demanding for todays internet and computers. The size and scope of these ships in a SP game is possible but trying to put them in an online space where you can run into almost any ship at any time is nuts. Most game that offer that have to load you into different games to show you the inside of the ship, inside of a base, inside of a space station, surface of a planet, etc. you can theoretically have that all loaded in memory but we're talking about a shit ton of data loaded into RAM so it can be used instantly and who knows what's thats going to do for framerates with multiple idris' attacking a javelin or a Bengal and having dozens if not hundreds of players involved in dozens of different ships.

The amount of data that needs to be in RAM for all that to happen instantly, spur of the moment, is WAY past what anyone else is doing and I'd guess it's going to be at least 32GB of RAM, no idea what the video cards will use or need.

Am I wrong on how this works? A typical video game on my Win 10 pc uses between 2-4gb of ram, normally never goes above 4. But if you wrap multiple "games" into SC like this then you're going to double, triple or quadruple that footprint...right?

This comment was edited on Nov 21, 2016, 13:55.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Nov 21, 2016, 12:02:

grudgebearer wrote on Nov 21, 2016, 10:04:
In the end this will be more of a 'bait and switch' scheme. They are selling everyone on product A, but what will be released will actually be product B. It will fulfill all of the requirements for delivering a product for the Kickstarter rules, but won't be anything close to what was promised.

CIG is delivering far in excess of what was promised in the original Kickstarter. Further, the vast majority of backers came in after the Kickstarter. It's fair enough to criticise the delays but when the end result is going to be substantially better most people are fine with that - in fact CIG continues to attract large numbers of new backers and additional funds.

We get it, Star Citizen isn't for you. But clearly it is for a lot of other people and given that they continue to contribute more money into the project CIG must be doing something right.

So there's a playable alpha of the PSU and Squadron 42 already? Or are you considering the hanger module, Arena Commander, and social module on par with an actual alpha ?

The fact that CIG is selling people on hope, does not mean he's doing something "right" in terms of software development, just that he's doing something right in terms of fundraising.

grudgebearer wrote on Nov 21, 2016, 10:04:
In the end this will be more of a 'bait and switch' scheme. They are selling everyone on product A, but what will be released will actually be product B. It will fulfill all of the requirements for delivering a product for the Kickstarter rules, but won't be anything close to what was promised.

CIG is delivering far in excess of what was promised in the original Kickstarter. Further, the vast majority of backers came in after the Kickstarter. It's fair enough to criticise the delays but when the end result is going to be substantially better most people are fine with that - in fact CIG continues to attract large numbers of new backers and additional funds.

We get it, Star Citizen isn't for you. But clearly it is for a lot of other people and given that they continue to contribute more money into the project CIG must be doing something right.

If this is 'fine', I'd love to know what you would deem 'not fine'.

While it might technically be OK for a AAA game to still be unfinished after 4-5 years, that only holds for certain values of 'unfinished'.

This comment was edited on Nov 21, 2016, 11:26.

Quietus wrote on Nov 21, 2016, 00:28:
Most AAA games have established game franchises that already have all the game mechanics worked out and the company infrastructures setup from previous titles.
It takes time to establish a company, build the infrastructure and acquire the right talent.

Star Citizen is only in the start of it's fifth year of open development for a AAA title. Most AAA titles take from 5-6 years or more to develop in a closed environment.
While the game is an open development alpha and not feature complete, it is playable. I'm very realistic in that the current live build 2.5 is a very unstable build. Give it the time that a AAA title takes to mature.

It's the most ambitious game title to date with tech that needs to be built to achieve, not a title that a game publisher pushes out before it's ready like No Man's Sky.

I think the issue is that this is the start of year 5, and the 2.5 build, is not anywhere close to the actual game. It's not even in the realm of a real Alpha at this point still.

Kosumo wrote on Nov 20, 2016, 22:02:
Edit, sorry, my bad, this is more a Ponzi scheme not so much a pyramid scheme.

In the end this will be more of a 'bait and switch' scheme. They are selling everyone on product A, but what will be released will actually be product B. It will fulfill all of the requirements for delivering a product for the Kickstarter rules, but won't be anything close to what was promised.

Quietus wrote on Nov 21, 2016, 00:28:
Most AAA games have established game franchises that already have all the game mechanics worked out and the company infrastructures setup from previous titles.
It takes time to establish a company, build the infrastructure and acquire the right talent.

Star Citizen is only in the start of it's fifth year of open development for a AAA title. Most AAA titles take from 5-6 years or more to develop in a closed environment.
While the game is an open development alpha and not feature complete, it is playable. I'm very realistic in that the current live build 2.5 is a very unstable build. Give it the time that a AAA title takes to mature.

It's the most ambitious game title to date with tech that needs to be built to achieve, not a title that a game publisher pushes out before it's ready like No Man's Sky.

A voice of reason in a sea of waaaaa.

This game is doing just fine.

Unless you've personally worked on AAA games, please don't talk about how SC is doing just fine for a AAA title.

Most AAA games have established game franchises that already have all the game mechanics worked out and the company infrastructures setup from previous titles.
It takes time to establish a company, build the infrastructure and acquire the right talent.

Star Citizen is only in the start of it's fifth year of open development for a AAA title. Most AAA titles take from 5-6 years or more to develop in a closed environment.
While the game is an open development alpha and not feature complete, it is playable. I'm very realistic in that the current live build 2.5 is a very unstable build. Give it the time that a AAA title takes to mature.

It's the most ambitious game title to date with tech that needs to be built to achieve, not a title that a game publisher pushes out before it's ready like No Man's Sky.

Slashman wrote on Nov 20, 2016, 21:26:

Creston wrote on Nov 20, 2016, 18:03:

That's at least one thing I'm rooting for RSI on. Don't compromise for the sake of lesser hardware. Build the most hardware destroying game out there. We've been in need of another Crysis.

Wait...is that like another crisis or Crysis? I always get the two mixed up.

This is neither, this is just a pyramid scheme sorry.

Edit, sorry, my bad, this is more a Ponzi scheme not so much a pyramid scheme.

Slashman wrote on Nov 20, 2016, 21:26:

Creston wrote on Nov 20, 2016, 18:03:

That's at least one thing I'm rooting for RSI on. Don't compromise for the sake of lesser hardware. Build the most hardware destroying game out there. We've been in need of another Crysis.

Wait...is that like another crisis or Crysis? I always get the two mixed up.

You pick