CJ_Parker wrote on Jan 28, 2018, 10:07:
Bullshit. They were boasting as early as 2013 that they had 200 - 300 people (including 3rd parties like Turbulent obviously) working on the game. It did not take "years".
CIG Austin and LA ramped up very quickly in early 2013 with Foundry 42 following later in the same year and also launching like a rocket in terms of headcount.

Bullshit. CIG had 48 employees as of October 2013, expanding to 161 by October 2014, 258 by October 2015 and 363 by October 2016.

It takes time to develop the metrics and infrastructure to develop content efficiently. A lot of the early content that was outsourced, like Star Marine with Illfonic, was of poor quality and significantly delayed. In fact much of the content was made to the wrong metrics and had to be largely scrapped. CIG is of course to blame for not properly overseeing the content but the core management structure simply wasn't in place back then.

CJ_Parker wrote on Jan 28, 2018, 10:07:
Completely irregardless of any of that, they released a Squadron 42 trailer at CitizenCon in 2015, i.e. when they were already long since in FULL production, that had a big fat "2016" at the end.

Yes, the game has been delayed. We're all aware of that.

CJ_Parker wrote on Jan 28, 2018, 10:07:
Squadron 42 not making it even in 2018, while a new 2017 feature for the PU like the land rush is getting priority treatment for an early release this year, is all you need to know about CIG's priorities and their project management "skills" (LOL).
How can anyone with even a tiny tad fraction of project management abilities be off by 2+ years? Impossible unless you are either totally incompetent or intentionally defrauding your audience or both...

There were delays with the core technology required and the decision was made to incorporate procedural planets into the campaign, which is a feature still undergoing a lot of work. As for the land claims in Star Citizen, I agree they're bullshit. Just because I support the game doesn't mean I approve of every decision made.

CJ_Parker wrote on Jan 28, 2018, 10:07:
If they would have ever focused on Squadron 42, we'd have long since finished playing it. Fuck, they've been talking about "reworking" the Bengal carrier literally since 2012.

If the scope of the game had been restricted then we could have had the game already but it wouldn't be the same game we're getting now. Delaying the game to improve the quality and scope is a worthwhile compromise to many but obviously there will be those that disagree.

mram wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 11:04:
It is amazingly true that this company spends far far FAR too much time in developing advertisements, updates, plans, schedules, discussions, bugfix videos, tours, etc than actually developing the game.

There are companies that don't show you anything and then magically a game just shows up. Then there's RSI where you hear tons about development and after a few years ... you keep hearing tons about development.

I've not said this much but I wish that they would just shut the hell up and finish development. Literally.

1) The community content was promised in the original crowdfunding pledge
2) It's how the community keeps track of the game and holds CIG accountable
3) Community content is funded through a separate subscription and does NOT come from pledges towards the game
4) It's how CIG raises money to develop the game because it doesn't have a traditional publisher to rely on

If you don't want to hear about the game then stop reading articles and watching videos about it. Nobody is forcing you to follow the game.

mram wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 11:04:
It is amazingly true that this company spends far far FAR too much time in developing advertisements, updates, plans, schedules, discussions, bugfix videos, tours, etc than actually developing the game.
There are companies that don't show you anything and then magically a game just shows up. Then there's RSI where you hear tons about development and after a few years ... you keep hearing tons about development.
I've not said this much but I wish that they would just shut the hell up and finish development. Literally.

This game needs exposure for funding its development. Advertising and being in the news is the only way for a crowdfunded project to reach its goals.


https://kotaku.com/why-video-games-cost-so-much-to-make-1818508211
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop
http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Video_game_costs

It is amazingly true that this company spends far far FAR too much time in developing advertisements, updates, plans, schedules, discussions, bugfix videos, tours, etc than actually developing the game.

There are companies that don't show you anything and then magically a game just shows up. Then there's RSI where you hear tons about development and after a few years ... you keep hearing tons about development.

I've not said this much but I wish that they would just shut the hell up and finish development. Literally.

Although my implication was that they were intentionally going slow, it doesn't matter. They are developing SQ 42 too slowly regardless. It's a single player linear mission starfighter game with an FPS component. They've had the voice work for 4 years. They showed a Stanton walkaround 3 years ago. They should have been able to create the assets and finish the missions already. They should have done a beta last year and released either late last year or early this year. It's ridiculous.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 28, 2018, 07:02:
It's not being developed deliberately slowly. What people overlook is that due to the nature of crowdfunding CIG didn't have any established studios - there were only five employees when it went to Kickstarter. It took years to build up multiple studios around the world and to take on the hundreds of developers they now have.

Bullshit. They were boasting as early as 2013 that they had 200 - 300 people (including 3rd parties like Turbulent obviously) working on the game. It did not take "years".
CIG Austin and LA ramped up very quickly in early 2013 with Foundry 42 following later in the same year and also launching like a rocket in terms of headcount.

Completely irregardless of any of that, they released a Squadron 42 trailer at CitizenCon in 2015, i.e. when they were already long since in FULL production, that had a big fat "2016" at the end.

Squadron 42 not making it even in 2018, while a new 2017 feature for the PU like the land rush is getting priority treatment for an early release this year, is all you need to know about CIG's priorities and their project management "skills" (LOL).
How can anyone with even a tiny tad fraction of project management abilities be off by 2+ years? Impossible unless you are either totally incompetent or intentionally defrauding your audience or both...

So, stop making bullshit excuses for them that did not fly three years ago and still have not grown any wings. The management of this project is a complete clusterfuck driven by marketing instead of an actual production and development (= delivery) plan.

If they would have ever focused on Squadron 42, we'd have long since finished playing it. Fuck, they've been talking about "reworking" the Bengal carrier literally since 2012.
They are definitely delaying shit fully on purpose and putting a focus on monetization (e.g. new ship sales, land rush, fancy tech demos for event reveals to extract more monies from fools etc.) instead of actual delivery.

jdreyer wrote on Jan 27, 2018, 22:08:
All of the things you mentioned aren't working are things that exist in the PU. SQ 42 is a separate code base since it doesn't need a lot of that stuff. Just because they haven't shown it, doesn't mean it's not done. They'd be careful to either hold things back.

Actually, Squadrton 42 needs all of the things I mentioned. What it doesn't need is any of the networking technology, which is why I didn't mention that.

It's not being developed deliberately slowly. What people overlook is that due to the nature of crowdfunding CIG didn't have any established studios - there were only five employees when it went to Kickstarter. It took years to build up multiple studios around the world and to take on the hundreds of developers they now have. And due to the massive amount of funding raised it was decided to increase the scope and fidelity of the game. Core ships for Squadron 42, like the Idris, have only recently been completed due to their immense scale and we haven't had recent updates on other ships like the larger Bengal Carrier. That's without even taking into account the Vanduul ships, most of which haven't been official demonstrated. The Vanduul Kingship is over 2.5km long.

It took a long time for CIG to even produce a single vertical slice for the game and, as I said before, it was missing any real gameplay. It was great for showing off the environments and atmosphere of the game, as well as the excellent motion capture acting, but no-one can look at that and think CIG is simply holding back the rest of the game. We've yet to see any of the Vanduul—the main antagonists of the campaign—outside of Arena Commander (released three and a half years ago).

To be fair I'd rather they get it right first time than rush it out and permanently damage the reputation of the game. It's already been delayed substantially, they may as well take the time required to do it properly. Star Citizen is different because that will be constantly evolving.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 27, 2018, 20:09:

jdreyer wrote on Jan 27, 2018, 14:30:
Given how long they've been working on SQ42, I'm wondering if they're intentionally holding it back. They are probably concerned if they release it, lots of people will lose interest in the MMO game.

Not a chance. They haven't demonstrated capable AI to date, they're adding the procedural technology (which has only just been added to 3.0 and does not yet include planets), some of the main ships haven't been completed (like the Bengal Carrier), the main renderer is still in progress (Vulkan), the flight mechanics are still being worked on, etc. The vertical slice basically avoided any gameplay mechanics other than flying and first-person combat, which was disappointed due to the poor AI.

Don't get me wrong, it's going to be a great game when it's released but we're a long way from that. The move to Item 2.0 took much longer than they expected, as did Object Container Streaming - the latter is not due to much later this year and it's essential for streaming in large ships without killing performance. There's zero chance of Squadron 42 being ready this year.

All of the things you mentioned aren't working are things that exist in the PU. SQ 42 is a separate code base since it doesn't need a lot of that stuff. Just because they haven't shown it, doesn't mean it's not done. They'd be careful to either hold things back.

Alternatively, they could develop the game more slowly than they otherwise would. And it doesn't require a huge conspiracy of people to keep quiet. It could be as simple as not staffing SQ 42 with enough people, and Robert telling Erin what to go slowly on so they don't progress too quickly. Pow.

jdreyer wrote on Jan 27, 2018, 14:30:
Given how long they've been working on SQ42, I'm wondering if they're intentionally holding it back. They are probably concerned if they release it, lots of people will lose interest in the MMO game.

Not a chance. They haven't demonstrated capable AI to date, they're adding the procedural technology (which has only just been added to 3.0 and does not yet include planets), some of the main ships haven't been completed (like the Bengal Carrier), the main renderer is still in progress (Vulkan), the flight mechanics are still being worked on, etc. The vertical slice basically avoided any gameplay mechanics other than flying and first-person combat, which was disappointed due to the poor AI.

Don't get me wrong, it's going to be a great game when it's released but we're a long way from that. The move to Item 2.0 took much longer than they expected, as did Object Container Streaming - the latter is not due to much later this year and it's essential for streaming in large ships without killing performance. There's zero chance of Squadron 42 being ready this year.

CJ_Parker wrote on Jan 27, 2018, 04:34:
spikes and disconnects.

And that is with currently ZERO actual gameplay systems installed. Complex gameplay systems like the advertised super-detailed economy, smuggling, bounty-hunting, exploration, recon, multicrewing capital ships etc. etc. etc. will put shitloads of additional stress on all of the systems involved (constant checking of parameters, mission generation on the fly when certain conditions are met, millions of AI agents blahblahblah... it's insane what they have promised).

You forgot the face mapping feature that maps your facial expressions onto your avatar in real time.

Christ Roberts know this exactly, of course. He's just stringing people along because why not? It's giving his life a purpose and a nice pay check every month.

Given how long they've been working on SQ42, I'm wondering if they're intentionally holding it back. They are probably concerned if they release it, lots of people will lose interest in the MMO game.

mellis wrote on Jan 26, 2018, 16:34:
I never get the hate over this title. What they're trying to achieve and what they have achieved is such a feat of computer engineering that it's frankly mind blowing from a technical perspective.

Spoken like the typical SC cultist.

What exactly is "mind blowing from a technical perspective"?

It is not hard to make something look pretty (especially when it runs like ass as a result). It is also not exactly mind blowing when their "MMO" still only supports -at the very most- a dozen players per instance before you start getting insane lag spikes and disconnects.

And that is with currently ZERO actual gameplay systems installed. Complex gameplay systems like the advertised super-detailed economy, smuggling, bounty-hunting, exploration, recon, multicrewing capital ships etc. etc. etc. will put shitloads of additional stress on all of the systems involved (constant checking of parameters, mission generation on the fly when certain conditions are met, millions of AI agents blahblahblah... it's insane what they have promised).

So, on a technical level the game has developed exactly as predicted by the "haters". Even this barebone tech demo version with zero gameplay systems runs like shit. They will never manage to make it a true MMO with hundreds of people in the same space at the level of fidelity that they have been advertising all the time.

Single player Squadron 42 (if ever completed) will surely be one hell of a fine looking game and it will hopefully have all the fidelity and features we have been hoping for. That's the easy part though and no one ever doubted that they can pull it off. It's single player. It's easy as pie. Just takes time and resources to build something amazing looking...
Talking 'bout time... it would have been cool if we actually would have gotten that game in 2014 or at the latest 2016 (as advertised via the S42 trailers).

Star Citizen, the online game, is a whole different ballpark and so far they have run (and not overcome) the exact technical hurdles that all the oh-so evil "haters" have seen coming from light years away.

I mean, anyone with a fraction of knowledge of tech should know that you can not have the advertised fidelity and a MMO at the same time.
You would have to create a tech beyond the speed of light where the bits and bytes travel from server to client and client to client in an instance via metaphysical teleporting. Not gonna happen. Christ Roberts is never going to defeat the laws of physics.

Latency is not an anti-SC conspiracy theory but a scientific fact. And when you have to account for people in Zimbabwe playing the game at 600ms latency with someone in the US at 20ms latency then that will always pose huge issues when you are trying to have a game with super-realistic physics like damage models and all of the "FIDELITEH" shit they have promised.
All that stuff will never be working at the level they have advertised due to scientific, physically existing realities of server/client infrastructures (including basic, simple things such as cable or wireless connections from A to B that impose a limit on the speed at which bits and bytes can travel).

Christ Roberts know this exactly, of course. He's just stringing people along because why not? It's giving his life a purpose and a nice pay check every month.

Damn, that website has so much going on my eyes almost started to bleed.

jdreyer wrote on Jan 27, 2018, 03:11:

Hump wrote on Jan 26, 2018, 21:06:

mellis wrote on Jan 26, 2018, 16:34:
I never get the hate over this title.

well....lets start with mid 8 figures theyve been handed. Most devs couldve made 3 triple AAA games with that amount.....

PLEASE, what are you talking about. It costs $50M to make a AAA game these days...

Oh, wait. Never mind. You're right.

CDPR made Witcher 3 for $81 million. Think about that for a moment.

Hump wrote on Jan 26, 2018, 21:06:

mellis wrote on Jan 26, 2018, 16:34:
I never get the hate over this title.

well....lets start with mid 8 figures theyve been handed. Most devs couldve made 3 triple AAA games with that amount.....

PLEASE, what are you talking about. It costs $50M to make a AAA game these days...

Oh, wait. Never mind. You're right.

Kxmode wrote on Jan 26, 2018, 20:41:
Not this. Nobody signed up for a 5+ year mission to create the most expensive tech demo in the history of gaming. We just wanted a new 30-mission Wing Commander game. But it's really no one's fault except Chris Roberts. He didn't control the feature creep. He allowed it to fester.

"He allowed it to fester" suggests a very passive involvement. From my observations, it's been quite the opposite: he's driven the scope creep.

mellis wrote on Jan 26, 2018, 16:34:
I never get the hate over this title.

well....lets start with mid 8 figures theyve been handed. Most devs couldve made 3 triple AAA games with that amount.....

Speak for your self dude. I was skeptical of this game when it inflated a few years ago, but at this point I'm witnessing what to me seems to be a true PC game coming to life (yes, slowly).

I get all the skepticism stemming from the ship sales, but that -is- a means to fund a game of this magnitude without a publisher. You can buy a $45 package and be done with it.

Flying around the PU and seeing the weekly updates one can see where it's heading and I like it.

even the writer is having a difficult time explaining wtf it is they are doing.

RedEye9 wrote on Jan 26, 2018, 19:21:

mellis wrote on Jan 26, 2018, 16:34:
I never get the hate over this title. What they're trying to achieve and what they have achieved is such a feat of computer engineering that it's frankly mind blowing from a technical perspective.

If they put Star Citizen out half baked, it'll tank and everyone can say I told you so, but then what? It'll pretty much be the end of any hope of an esoteric or original idea getting triple A funding independent of a major publishing house.

If however they take their time (as such an undertaking demands), there's a strong chance they'll create GTA in space (albeit without the hookers probably...maybe a stretch goal), and it will be beneficial for the entire industry especially those who have a great idea but just can't get it funded because it's missing the obligatory lootboxes, world-war-2-in-space, gender fluid characters or whatever else the cookie-cutter publishing trapper-keeper's demand.

Frankly, even if you hate Star Citizen and/or Chris Roberts - if they succeed it'll be good for the indie gaming industry as a whole and that can't be a bad thing...

^this

Not this. Nobody signed up for a 5+ year mission to create the most expensive tech demo in the history of gaming. We just wanted a new 30-mission Wing Commander game. But it's really no one's fault except Chris Roberts. He didn't control the feature creep. He allowed it to fester.

The people who support project feature creep 2.0 are insane.

Should just call it Freelancer 2.0, in spirit of his past and repeating every mistake again.