• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Star Citizen Development Discussion (Is Derek Smart Right?)

Page 19 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,486
65
91
unless cig puts sq42 on the ps4 and xbone. Watch ;)
I dunno. I've never bought a space sim of any kind, but if Roberts delivers anywhere near the scope he's promising, and the FPS combat is good, and the reviews are good and graphics look good, then I'd drop a hundred on it in a heart beat.

I was not impressed by the bit that Sabrewings just linked. But at some point . . . To borrow from Stalin, quantity has a quality all its own. If there were truly a hundred unique systems of that graphics & physics quality, then that is something I'd want to explore - and own.
werepossum....if you have 10 minutes I think you'll find this interesting. It's the content creation tool CIG built in action.....live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahGLguBQBQ8 ("artist guided, but procedurally generated")
 

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,486
65
91
Nice video. Any life form,animals,aliens on planets in plan?
In that video, towards the middle, they place four space crabs of different sizes. It was kind of a joke since the crab was created for an in-hangar fish tank.

I honestly don't know the plan for flora, fauna, and aliens. I suspect it will be more artist driven than procendurally driven.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
werepossum....if you have 10 minutes I think you'll find this interesting. It's the content creation tool CIG built in action.....live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahGLguBQBQ8 ("artist guided, but procedurally generated")
Interesting, but not impressive. Except for the graphics, SimEarth did better decades ago. Are you going to be happy with a couple hundred barren worlds with scattered mines and a space port or two? He specifically referenced a biome brush, but except for automatically laying down some supposedly sulphur lakes and manually adding a few crudely drawn giant joke crabs, we saw no actual biome.

Put it this way. Suppose I've visited a half dozen such procedurally generated worlds. Probably each has some version of unobtainium being mined. What on Earth would incent me to visit the next?

How is this better than No Man's Sky, which is already out and generally underwhelming?
 
Last edited:

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,255
3,802
126
also if you actually look at the procedural stuff they have done so far its just bumpmapping crap with hand done parts or visual tricks to make you think its procedural.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,255
3,802
126
one of the biggest problems with this game is its not a game. Its a bunch of pieces of ideas duct taped together. Real game design is creating a vertical slice of the entire game and then asking "is this fun" "No?" "Why not?" redo redo redo. Read Tynan Sylvester talk about game design and you will see how horrible this thing is actually going to be.

But they have no choice. They have to show new bits and pieces of stuff to open the whales wallets. Take the space worm for instance. He just created so much engineering debt with that one promo video and hes done that a thousand times over the past 5 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: master_shake_

Sabrewings

Golden Member
Jun 27, 2015
1,942
35
51
  • Like
Reactions: huskystafford

Sabrewings

Golden Member
Jun 27, 2015
1,942
35
51
That was fast. Game still in alpha, and already aim bot...
I'm not surprised at all. Alpha is when these things will be most likely to happen. They're not to the point where they can easily integrate an anti-cheat mechanism without potentially redoing that work later. I imagine they will address this specific hack, but a strong solution will come later. Also, this is a good reason to have an Alpha as it allows them to see what people will do to try and mess with the system.
 

sham63

Member
Apr 29, 2010
51
1
71
Well......for once we somewhat agree on something! They were definitely using a marketing tactic to raise more revenue. But it wasn't done quietly or quickly. Over a year earlier they were on record telling anyone who would listen that the games would split into two products and sold separately. I don't have any problems with that.

And I also agree with you (and have said before in the other thread).....space sims are a niche product and I think CIG has mostly saturated that market. The people who believe that CIG will get a large influx of cash from the release/sale of SQ42 are going to be disappointed. Most people interested in SQ42 have already purchased that product. The MMO, Star Citizen, might have a little more head room since it's an MMO....
I am sure there are still a lot of gamers like me who do not money into nonexistent products. If the SQ42 is ever released and gets good reviews, then I will put money into the project by buying it. I do not understand why people are putting so much money into a game that is far from finished.
 

Sabrewings

Golden Member
Jun 27, 2015
1,942
35
51
I do not understand why people are putting so much money into a game that is far from finished.
I won't speak for everyone, but here's my take. I'm a big proponent of voting with your money. The way most "gamers" these days buy up rehashed ideas year after year, they're voting that mediocre content is okay. This game publishers would never make. They know it's risky and don't want to risk their money. That's fine. Avenues like Kickstarter, Early Access, crowdfunding in general allow customers to make decisions normally left to publishers. "What game looks worth it to me?" Worth it to a publisher is what makes a lot of money. Worth it to a customer is (to me) something new and never done before. People put money into projects like this because publishers won't and they see something they like. It's a risk, but only as large a one as you feel like contributing. Don't want to contribute? I totally understand, and I don't think you should in that case. If it comes to retail, you get another game to buy that hopefully stands out to you and delivers something you enjoy. If it doesn't make it out, you lost nothing.

In my case, my record on crowdfunding games (including early access on Steam) has been largely positive and I enjoy the process of watching it evolve. There are a couple games (both on Steam) that the devs appear to have slapped a "1.0" on the cover and left it unfinished just to keep Steam off their backs. I consider them losses, but the successes have far outweighed them (Kerbal Space Program, Don't Starve, Elite: Dangerous, Everspace). In this case, I already have enough time and enjoyment in what has been produced by this team to be worth the price of admission.
 

aigomorla

Cases and Cooling Mod PC Gaming Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 28, 2005
17,688
686
126
Well speaking for a consumer point, i have some issues with how CIG is handling the game.

1. I dont approve of his model on "funder raiser" ships.
Putting 1000 dollar price tags on ships to me is right along the lines of Pay 2 Win.
Given that we dont know if these ships will be attainable without the usage of real money, however its already in the pay 2 win category.

What Pay 2 win has shown us in any MMO, is it will destory the game, and the community.
Look at Black Desert for an example at what Pay 2 Win has done.

2. He should of done it as exapansion packs and not just 1 large package.
True the consumer has a greater bang for the buck on the finished project, however we would have a solid retail platform if he did all the extra's as expansion packs.
He should of focused on the game aspect of space and space combat, then expanded on exploration on sector scales, to ground combat, and ground exploration. By doing too many at once, its not hard to see that the game will have major set backs, and also have major delays.


To me i think tho, 1 is the biggest peeve, which is why i dont support the game.
Its like Blizzard going:
"Hey guys were making WOW2 and need a fundraiser to continue development. Then blizzard saying what if we price a 1000 dollar mount which is a dragon that can hold a gazillion items, ferry around your clan, and have a nuclear laser."

You guys see my point?


But dont get me wrong, ive seen the game, my friends play it, and it looks great for an alpha... but i think it holds the record of being the longest running alpha in gaming history. Some games have developed 1 and a sequal in the time frame of this single Alpha.

If CIG can pull this game out by 2020, i'll be amazed, otherwise i honestly think the company will implode on itself especially with inflation and other costs/expenses increasing as people will just get annoyed at its "fund raiser" and other cash grab attempts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: master_shake_

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,255
3,802
126
they also sell missiles that cost $70. Golden ammo anyone? When has that ever worked? Christ Roberts can do no wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: master_shake_

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,255
3,802
126
they sold a lot of people with no so great lives big dreams about a alternate world.
 

Sabrewings

Golden Member
Jun 27, 2015
1,942
35
51
Well speaking for a consumer point, i have some issues with how CIG is handling the game.

1. I dont approve of his model on "funder raiser" ships.
Putting 1000 dollar price tags on ships to me is right along the lines of Pay 2 Win.
Given that we dont know if these ships will be attainable without the usage of real money, however its already in the pay 2 win category.

What Pay 2 win has shown us in any MMO, is it will destory the game, and the community.
Look at Black Desert for an example at what Pay 2 Win has done.
I'm curious. How do you see it as P2W? As it is now, the larger ships are demolished by single seaters in 1v1. What exactly would they be winning?

Assuming the game is completed, the larger the ship you have more expensive insurance, more fuel costs, higher docking fees, higher re-arm costs, and more manning costs if you don't have friends to ride along with you and help out. They're not an "I win" button (partially because there is no "winning," but also) due to the inherent difficulty in operating them. Above a certain level, even with NPCs it takes multiple people to operate. So, sixteen people defeat one person (assuming they don't run, which they could), isn't that how it should work?

On top of that, the universe will be 90% NPCs, so again what is anybody winning?

2. He should of done it as exapansion packs and not just 1 large package.
True the consumer has a greater bang for the buck on the finished project, however we would have a solid retail platform if he did all the extra's as expansion packs.
He should of focused on the game aspect of space and space combat, then expanded on exploration on sector scales, to ground combat, and ground exploration. By doing too many at once, its not hard to see that the game will have major set backs, and also have major delays.
I'll have to disagree. We have that right now with Elite: Dangerous. Look to the overwhelming negative feedback at paywall expansion packs.


To me i think tho, 1 is the biggest peeve, which is why i dont support the game.
Its like Blizzard going:
"Hey guys were making WOW2 and need a fundraiser to continue development. Then blizzard saying what if we price a 1000 dollar mount which is a dragon that can hold a gazillion items, ferry around your clan, and have a nuclear laser."

You guys see my point?
I don't. Blizzard has the advantage of being an established studio (4700 employees) that has the liquid capital to finance their own games.

But, to carry your analogy, that dragon would need to require a dozen handlers, dozens of cows per day in food, and scare away anyone you want to trade with.


But dont get me wrong, ive seen the game, my friends play it, and it looks great for an alpha... but i think it holds the record of being the longest running alpha in gaming history. Some games have developed 1 and a sequal in the time frame of this single Alpha.

If CIG can pull this game out by 2020, i'll be amazed, otherwise i honestly think the company will implode on itself especially with inflation and other costs/expenses increasing as people will just get annoyed at its "fund raiser" and other cash grab attempts.
To put it in perspective, FO4 took four years with an existing engine and a studio of thousands of people, and CIG are developing what is easily argued a larger and more complex game. The future of the game does of course directly depend on the funding, but it's really hard for us as outsiders to know how close they are to the limits of their cash reserves. In the early days they took the huge excess and invested it, as well as a few private investors. I tend to agree with sham above in that there are a lot of people not interested in crowdfunding but will buy a retail product with good reviews. SQ42 should sell pretty well and give them a cash infusion.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,255
3,802
126
stop lying. Fallout 3 was made by 80 people. im sure fo4 wasnt made by "thousands" Bethesda is like 1000 people total. Your game is bad.

sq42 has already sold to all the people who are interested in it. How many have they "sold" so far? Look it up. Now look up how many copies of gta5 sold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: master_shake_

Sabrewings

Golden Member
Jun 27, 2015
1,942
35
51
stop lying. Fallout 3 was made by 80 people. im sure fo4 wasnt made by "thousands" Bethesda is like 1000 people total. Your game is bad.

sq42 has already sold to all the people who are interested in it. How many have they "sold" so far? Look it up. Now look up how many copies of gta5 sold.
You're right, my mistake. I mixed up Bethesda and Blizzard. So, to pick a Blizzard game, World of Warcraft is listed as "4-5 years".

GTAV has sold 65 million copies as of 2016. Are you saying they will never reach that level? It sounds like they could have a lot of market out there, even when you factor PC only.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,255
3,802
126
they will never have that market saturation.

Look at this and tell me how many people will want to deal with that:

 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Skill based space combat vs mashing a button that fires autolocking lazer beam...
Okay, but for $140 million sure we can get a bit more than that.

I won't speak for everyone, but here's my take. I'm a big proponent of voting with your money. The way most "gamers" these days buy up rehashed ideas year after year, they're voting that mediocre content is okay. This game publishers would never make. They know it's risky and don't want to risk their money. That's fine. Avenues like Kickstarter, Early Access, crowdfunding in general allow customers to make decisions normally left to publishers. "What game looks worth it to me?" Worth it to a publisher is what makes a lot of money. Worth it to a customer is (to me) something new and never done before. People put money into projects like this because publishers won't and they see something they like. It's a risk, but only as large a one as you feel like contributing. Don't want to contribute? I totally understand, and I don't think you should in that case. If it comes to retail, you get another game to buy that hopefully stands out to you and delivers something you enjoy. If it doesn't make it out, you lost nothing.

In my case, my record on crowdfunding games (including early access on Steam) has been largely positive and I enjoy the process of watching it evolve. There are a couple games (both on Steam) that the devs appear to have slapped a "1.0" on the cover and left it unfinished just to keep Steam off their backs. I consider them losses, but the successes have far outweighed them (Kerbal Space Program, Don't Starve, Elite: Dangerous, Everspace). In this case, I already have enough time and enjoyment in what has been produced by this team to be worth the price of admission.
That's a fair outlook. One can treat crowd funding games as a hobby like any other. Some people have a spare fifty, some a spare grand or eighteen. It's not my cup of tea, but as long as people invest what they are willing to lose, and understand the stakes, I see nothing wrong with it. The constant promises that the game is right around the corner bothers me though. It may be necessary, but it isn't honest.

they will never have that market saturation.

Look at this and tell me how many people will want to deal with that:

There is nothing that says that has to be THE final control scheme. Most people seem to want joystick control, and people have been complaining that it is mouse-based. I think they are probably looking at console ports, since that's where the real money is. (Well, that and marketing, apparently.) I can see mappable controls supporting very complicated controllers, with some people purchasing or building heavily armored ships with auto lock weapons while others go for highly maneuverable fighters for dogfighting.

Honestly, the only viable model I see for a quality game of this scope is MMO, like WOW in space. Gamers pay one hefty lump sum to get the basic game, then pay a recurring fee to support the servers and fund further development. A few times a year, expansion packs come out with new systems. Funding would be a challenge combination of fundraising & presales, initial game sales, monthly charges, expansion packs, and in-game purchases to get better ships. Maybe start with an in-system only mining ship, salvage ship, courier, or freighter so you are limited to one system. Maybe even start limited to one planet - I can see a shuttle-based tutorial, leading into a system navigation tutorial, leading into a stellar ship tutorial. New players could also sign on as crew, but frankly with a brand new game (no established clans) I don't see that working well except perhaps on a mission by mission basis. Too hard to coordinate schedules. Might work as a form of co-op though. The "whales" would be able to skip that phase, not only because they already have stellar ships but also because through the alpha and beta they know the mechanics inside and out.

Frankly my best guess is that this flops harder than Michael Moore on the high dive. But I can see why the promise has raised so much money. It really isn't just another game.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY