Star Citizen Development Discussion (Is Derek Smart Right?)

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
59
91
interesting quote from one of the commentators in that article:
"I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Star Citizen cannot live up to the hype. There are so many systems in that game. The layers upon layers of complexity are amazing for the deep-diving player, but it’s the casuals who will ultimately decide if the game is a hit or a miss. And the game is far too complex to be the next big MMO."
And the guy is totally wrong. Catering to the lowest common denominator and making games 'easy for the masses' is exactly what's wrong with AAA development today and why Star Citizen has raised the amount of money it has. The guy just basically doesn't 'get it'.
 

Worthington

Golden Member
Apr 29, 2005
1,425
13
81
I'm a SC supporter, and the game has a ton of potential. But there is a point in there. I don't know that they can make everyone happy (I'm pretty sure they can't). The reason people "make games for the masses" is because they sell.... to the masses. SC doesn't necessarily have that issue since they've gotten a good (huge) chunk up front but it's an interesting point to make and it's something SC should be aware of.
 

Red Storm

Lifer
Oct 2, 2005
14,214
215
106
interesting quote from one of the commentators in that article:
"I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Star Citizen cannot live up to the hype. There are so many systems in that game. The layers upon layers of complexity are amazing for the deep-diving player, but it’s the casuals who will ultimately decide if the game is a hit or a miss. And the game is far too complex to be the next big MMO."
Thankfully SC is not going to be the "next big mmo", which is often synonymous with "a game for casuals". I don't want that, and I'm willing to bet many fans of the space sim genre don't either.
 

Worthington

Golden Member
Apr 29, 2005
1,425
13
81
It is most certainly an MMO (and I'm sure they want it to be big :) ), whether or not they want to call it one. Obviously not a typical fantasy MMO like WoW but their goal is to simulate an entire galaxy of people trading, fighting, exploring, mining, selling goods, buying goods, etc etc. That's about as MMO as you can get.
 

Red Storm

Lifer
Oct 2, 2005
14,214
215
106
Any Early Access on Steam selling dlcs which are not made yet?
The ships aren't dlc. They are essentially "thank you gifts" for pledging money to the game's development. Ship sales aren't planned to continue post release.

It is most certainly an MMO (and I'm sure they want it to be big :) ), whether or not they want to call it one. Obviously not a typical fantasy MMO like WoW but their goal is to simulate an entire galaxy of people trading, fighting, exploring, mining, selling goods, buying goods, etc etc. That's about as MMO as you can get.
Oh no it definitely is an mmo. I meant the part about it being the next big one. The most popular games are also incredibly generic and aimed at the lowest common denominator, which thankfully games like Star Citizen and Elite Dangerous are not.
 

Chipopo

Junior Member
Dec 7, 2016
11
3
16
What's your analysis on the validity of the claim? The article doesn't read well or make the authors look well educated on the matter. Reads more like empty click bait. The people casting stones at SC are using the typical DS obfuscated BS that he's infamous for. Basically, the votes for SC in this poll are coming from misguided folks.
I think that the article is correct in comparing the project to No Man's Sky, and that in fact the scale of the fallout for this project is likely to be even worse because of all the backer money tied to it. Of course, because of the unique funding model, the fallout will take a different form.

Take the Holiday Livestream from a few days ago as an example. It was one of the most embarrassing displays I have ever seen from a "AAA" videogame developer. And I don't just mean in terms of all the technical shortcomings, the garish costumes, the extended periods of dead air, the cringeworthy dialogue and tedious interviews. I mean in terms of the disconnect between what the user base expected and what CIG delivered.

What occurred was a rolling cascade of expectation that began earlier in the year in the lead up to Gamescom. At the time, people had a lot of questions about what direction the game was taking. The AtV's and RtV's were filled to the brim with minutia about character and ship models but light on information regarding actual gameplay for SC, not to mention the complete void of details on SQ42 . People in the community began to anticipate E3 and Gamescom for answers to many of these questions. Then news came out that CIG would be skipping E3 this year. So focus centered on Gamescom. Keep in mind, Gamescom is 8 months into the year, and during all that time people were hungry to see what CIG had in the oven.

Gamescom delivers with the 3.0 demo. But it also came with Chris's stated expectation that 3.0 would be ready by December 2016. In addition to this, no SQ42. But ok, maybe CIG is saving that for CitizenCon. So people start to defer their expectations for SQ42 to CitizenCon.

CitizenCon comes, and SQ42 is again a no show. People flew out from all over the country to what was ultimately a meager showing with a demo that was more or less a repeat of Gamescom but not as interesting. The backers were pissed off and disappointed. In order to mitigate the disappointment, CIG puts out a mini-doc showing that they were days away from completing the SQ42 Verticle Slice, but it just didn't come together in time. So now expectations are differed yet again, this time to the Anniversary Stream.

Anniversary Stream comes. No SQ42.

There is only one substantial stream left in the year, the Holiday Stream. The final deferral left. After that, it's another 8 month wait until the next Gamescom.

Minutes before going live, Chris puts out an email saying that the SQ42 VS is not only not going to be there, but that the entire demo has been scrapped entirely. Something that only a couple months earlier they said was days away is now gone (a repetition of what had happened with Star Marine at the start of the year). It also becomes evident that 3.0 is nowhere near ready, even though CIG's last word on the topic was the expected 2016 release. The bubble of expectation bursts, and is continuing to burst, all over the reddit and official forum. The backers are utterly gobsmacked. It's worth noting that the show was not substantially worse than the Anniversary stream in terms of content, but because of the deferred expectations cascade, the fallout has been an order of magnitude larger.

This is what I mean when I say that Star Citizen flopping might take a form that is different from NMS. For NMS, a game was released which forced people to reconcile the reality of the product with the expectations that were built up beforehand. For SC, a game may or may not come out in 2017, but they are dependent on their backers continuing to believe in the dream to stay afloat, and this belief is becoming more precarious and disconnected as time goes on. You can only defer expectations for so long.
 
Last edited:

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
59
91
I think that the article is correct in comparing the project to No Man's Sky, and that in fact the scale of the fallout for this project is likely to be even worse because of all the backer money tied to it. Of course, because of the unique funding model, the fallout will take a different form.
I don't have that much money in it. About $300 between two accounts and about $500 in my joysticks/tablet setup (which I can repurpose for other games). CIG has been very upfront about their goals, what it will take to reach them, etc. They've been public in ways that Happy Games wasn't, and ways that would have clearly mitigated the backlash that NMS received. They weren't open and what was delivered was different than what was promised. The difference here is that CIG has been open, ableit flawed, but very open about the state of things, especially more recently. Because I have access to this information, my expectations are tempered. I think this stands for most SC backers that have invested enough to follow along. That said, unless someone is willing to wade through countless videos, watch all the AtV's, etc. it's reasonable difficult to have a 30,000ft view on the project. Even I'm often 'enlightened' to things being done that I missed in random AtV vids or w/e.

Take the Holiday Livestream from a few days ago as an example. It was one of the most embarrassing displays I have ever seen from a "AAA" videogame developer. And I don't just mean in terms of all the technical shortcomings, the garish costumes, the extended periods of dead air, the cringeworthy dialogue and tedious interviews. I mean in terms of the disconnect between what the user base expected and what CIG delivered.
The livestream was pretty rough. I watched it via twitch with WTFOsauras and everyone was cringing. That said, I think the quality was more indicative of their financial thriftyness. They likely pulled this together using mostly interns and low level crew. Had they done a fancy, super PRO production, they'd have caught crap for spending money on a 'ship sale'. Can't win either way. Frankly, I like that they err'd on the side of going cheap and dirty. Anything more would have simply been an even greater distraction.

Gamescom delivers with the 3.0 demo. But it also came with Chris's stated expectation that 3.0 would be ready by December 2016. In addition to this, no SQ42. But ok, maybe CIG is saving that for CitizenCon. So people start to defer their expectations for SQ42 to CitizenCon.
He said he hoped. CR is a dreamer. He expected this to be done already too. However, they've also said, repeadetly, that the entire problem here is they are breaking new ground and they don't always know the lengths that they will need to go to to make something work. The dates given are target dates, not release dates. It'll only confuse you and give you the wrong expectations if you look at the dates as anything more than a hopeful target date. Once I accepted this reality, my expectations have become more manageable.

CitizenCon comes, and SQ42 is again a no show. People flew out from all over the country to what was ultimately a meager showing with a demo that was more or less a repeat of Gamescom but not as interesting. The backers were pissed off and disappointed. In order to mitigate the disappointment, CIG puts out a mini-doc showing that they were days away from completing the SQ42 Verticle Slice, but it just didn't come together in time. So now expectations are differed yet again, this time to the Anniversary Stream.
Why put out a crappy vertical slice though? Especially if it's just hacked together from an incomplete build that might raise more questions than it answers. If reality was it wasn't ready for presentation, I'd rather be told that than given something that hurts the brand. A rushed game is forever bad.

Minutes before going live, Chris puts out an email saying that the SQ42 VS is not only not going to be there, but that the entire demo has been scrapped entirely. Something that only a couple months earlier they said was days away is now gone (a repetition of what had happened with Star Marine at the start of the year). It also becomes evident that 3.0 is nowhere near ready, even though CIG's last word on the topic was the expected 2016 release. The bubble of expectation bursts, and is continuing to burst, all over the reddit and official forum. The backers are utterly gobsmacked. It's worth noting that the show was not substantially worse than the Anniversary stream in terms of content, but because of the deferred expectations cascade, the fallout has been an order of magnitude larger.
The issue here is 'they didn't show anything from SQ42'. It's important to remember that they're just now wrapping up a long, long technical development phase, not a content development phase. The underlying point in many of the tech demos they've shown recently is that it's tech that applies not only to Star Citizen, but to SQ42 as well. So it's not as if they're not showing anything. They're showing things that apply to both games. The homestead demo was pretty awesome in that it not only showed a mission in game, it wasn't distinguishable between a Star Citizen mission or a SQ42 mission. WHy was that? Because it wasn't for either, and was instead a demo of the tools they've built to rapidly build content.

That said, you can't please everyone. The people that will say it didn't live up to their internal hype likely had unreasonable expectations. Just my two cents.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,415
3,939
126
Lol. Unreasonable expectations based on Christ Roberts insistence he can do anything. The reason why the games become more broken as time goes on is because of this attitude of his and his inability to actually manage a project to completion.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,415
3,939
126
the ships are dlc. They have added "insurance" wtf that is and they were big on a "grey" market. Cig knew they made a tulip bulb bubble and didnt care because people had a incentive to buy more ships. i.e. sell them later for more because reasons.
 

bbhaag

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2011
4,717
530
126
Do you have any evidence to back up those claims? "Because reasons" isn't really saying much beyond your own personal beliefs which you've made very clear. Are you saying you have actual evidence that CIG knowingly sold ships with LTI to support a grey market?
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,037
343
136
It's hard to call a game that's already pulled in 150mil (I saw 138, but have seen other places say as high as 180. Either way the exact number doesn't matter in what I'm trying to say) a flop. If anything it may be a disappointment, but I couldn't call something that's made that kind of money a flop. I'm not sure how many players are playing the Alpha but those strike me as die hard fans so unless they really change it up (possible) those people will still be playing.

And the guy is totally wrong. Catering to the lowest common denominator and making games 'easy for the masses' is exactly what's wrong with AAA development today and why Star Citizen has raised the amount of money it has. The guy just basically doesn't 'get it'.
And here comes the elitist attitude towards gaming. whee....

I'm a SC supporter, and the game has a ton of potential. But there is a point in there. I don't know that they can make everyone happy (I'm pretty sure they can't). The reason people "make games for the masses" is because they sell.... to the masses. SC doesn't necessarily have that issue since they've gotten a good (huge) chunk up front but it's an interesting point to make and it's something SC should be aware of.
It really depends on if they want to keep selling in massive numbers. I'm told Eve is a massive pain in the learning curve but it does make a nice niche of money for itself.

Thankfully SC is not going to be the "next big mmo", which is often synonymous with "a game for casuals". I don't want that, and I'm willing to bet many fans of the space sim genre don't either.
What is it then? Is this where we get told that it's so new it defies all attempts to categorize it? I could go hybrid, but I wouldn't dismiss it as not an MMO.. is there a player driven persistent universe that isn't an MMO? I'm drawing a blank on if there is one..

The ships aren't dlc. They are essentially "thank you gifts" for pledging money to the game's development. Ship sales aren't planned to continue post release.



Oh no it definitely is an mmo. I meant the part about it being the next big one. The most popular games are also incredibly generic and aimed at the lowest common denominator, which thankfully games like Star Citizen and Elite Dangerous are not.
You're splitting hairs here. Calling them 'thank you gifts' is like a hooker saying she's accepting 'donations'. They're selling ships. If it's not selling ships, how many of those people that are donating and getting a free ship as a 'thank you' are donating more than the cost of said ship? When I looked at buying one (didn't buy one but was looking to see how they were doing it) I didn't see anything other than a sales price with my cart. Do I get the option to increase my donation during checkout? If not, then it's a sale plain and simple.. and I'm not sure what you'd call and add on for a game that's not DLC.. of course.. that normally is an add on for a game that's already out, so if you want to split hairs then maybe? you have an argument it's not DLC. Either way it's not a 'thank you'.

I don't have that much money in it. About $300 between two accounts and about $500 in my joysticks/tablet setup (which I can repurpose for other games). CIG has been very upfront about their goals, what it will take to reach them, etc. They've been public in ways that Happy Games wasn't, and ways that would have clearly mitigated the backlash that NMS received. They weren't open and what was delivered was different than what was promised. The difference here is that CIG has been open, ableit flawed, but very open about the state of things, especially more recently. Because I have access to this information, my expectations are tempered. I think this stands for most SC backers that have invested enough to follow along. That said, unless someone is willing to wade through countless videos, watch all the AtV's, etc. it's reasonable difficult to have a 30,000ft view on the project. Even I'm often 'enlightened' to things being done that I missed in random AtV vids or w/e.
<snip>

He said he hoped. CR is a dreamer. He expected this to be done already too. However, they've also said, repeadetly, that the entire problem here is they are breaking new ground and they don't always know the lengths that they will need to go to to make something work. The dates given are target dates, not release dates. It'll only confuse you and give you the wrong expectations if you look at the dates as anything more than a hopeful target date. Once I accepted this reality, my expectations have become more manageable.[/QUOTE]

How clear are they being when they change up with no notice? If everyone was expecting 3.0 in Dec and he waits until Dec 16th? (not sure the exact day but could look it up, but lazy as a day or two doesn't change my point, if I'm really off and they said back in Nov it wasn't coming then please correct me) to say "sorry, next year" is that being open and clear? I'm not suggesting they should tell every single point of dev (though maybe they should as most investors do expect those kind of updates) but they should be more clear on the timelines.

CR saying this is when you should expect something, then one should expect it sometime around then. The constant changing at close to the last min of things is the major flag and issue for a lot of people. Hes running the company, so if he can't get a clear idea of when something will be ready, then he's either a bad leader that hasn't a clue what anyone is doing, or a bad leader that screws his team by not listening to them say when things should be expected. I'd probably agree with you more if the game wasn't already years behind schedule.... with no end in sight.

Why put out a crappy vertical slice though? Especially if it's just hacked together from an incomplete build that might raise more questions than it answers. If reality was it wasn't ready for presentation, I'd rather be told that than given something that hurts the brand. A rushed game is forever bad.
A game that never comes out is what? I wouldn't call 4+ years rushed..

The issue here is 'they didn't show anything from SQ42'. It's important to remember that they're just now wrapping up a long, long technical development phase, not a content development phase. The underlying point in many of the tech demos they've shown recently is that it's tech that applies not only to Star Citizen, but to SQ42 as well. So it's not as if they're not showing anything. They're showing things that apply to both games. The homestead demo was pretty awesome in that it not only showed a mission in game, it wasn't distinguishable between a Star Citizen mission or a SQ42 mission. WHy was that? Because it wasn't for either, and was instead a demo of the tools they've built to rapidly build content.

That said, you can't please everyone. The people that will say it didn't live up to their internal hype likely had unreasonable expectations. Just my two cents.
The issue is people expected to see something from SQ42.. based upon what CR and crew said. Another last min change up. If it wasn't for the fact that the people crowd sourcing this were the investors, I'd say they should go full Duke Nukem and say it'll be done when it's done.. as they can't do that because of the funding coming from people they should really get it together and have a realistic timeframe to expect things.. and not wait till the last min if there's a change.

Edit: It's been pointed out to me that the time frame for when SQ42 will be seen wasn't for sure by CR and crew for the holiday stream. I thought I had read it but have stuff to do so can't look it up. I put this here because I could be wrong about that one.. though I'm still right that they do set expectations and then change them, just possibly not on SQ42
 

SLU Aequitas

Golden Member
Jul 13, 2007
1,252
26
91
I think that the article is correct in comparing the project to No Man's Sky, and that in fact the scale of the fallout for this project is likely to be even worse because of all the backer money tied to it. Of course, because of the unique funding model, the fallout will take a different form.
I disagree in general with the comparison to NMS and fallout. The core of the fallout surrounding NMS came in faked demos for content that was never in and still isn't in the game, as well as Sean's consistent misleading answers in interviews. With Star Citizen, despite it's flaws, we've consistently seen real live demos, and consistently been delivered those slices and played them. I've been playing Star Marine today in fact (and it's actually really good for a first pass :)).

Fun side fact since it's still relevant to this thread, but Mr. Dr. Smart hailed NMS as a great game and flogged those who were trying to grab refunds.

Take the Holiday Livestream from a few days ago as an example. It was one of the most embarrassing displays I have ever seen from a "AAA" videogame developer. And I don't just mean in terms of all the technical shortcomings, the garish costumes, the extended periods of dead air, the cringeworthy dialogue and tedious interviews. I mean in terms of the disconnect between what the user base expected and what CIG delivered.
Very much this. The main SC thread I've said similar, it was amateur hour in the production, even compared to their normal quality. I really like the rest of your post as it sums up the non-production issues disappoint very well. The one thing to caveat this is I'll never expect them to really have a fully professional presentation (and if they did, certain people would be screaming that CR is embezzling us backers again).

What occurred was a rolling cascade of expectation that began earlier in the year in the lead up to Gamescom. At the time, people had a lot of questions about what direction the game was taking. The AtV's and RtV's were filled to the brim with minutia about character and ship models but light on information regarding actual gameplay for SC, not to mention the complete void of details on SQ42 . People in the community began to anticipate E3 and Gamescom for answers to many of these questions. Then news came out that CIG would be skipping E3 this year. So focus centered on Gamescom. Keep in mind, Gamescom is 8 months into the year, and during all that time people were hungry to see what CIG had in the oven.

Gamescom delivers with the 3.0 demo. But it also came with Chris's stated expectation that 3.0 would be ready by December 2016. In addition to this, no SQ42. But ok, maybe CIG is saving that for CitizenCon. So people start to defer their expectations for SQ42 to CitizenCon.
CR did repeatedly caveat that 3.0 was dependent on 2.6 progress, and that he wasn't setting a deadline for 3.0 by year end. In fact, I believe he had a line about being shot for his deadlines. Regardless, he stated his hopes, and that I agree developed expectations of 3.0 by year-end.

CitizenCon comes, and SQ42 is again a no show. People flew out from all over the country to what was ultimately a meager showing with a demo that was more or less a repeat of Gamescom but not as interesting. The backers were pissed off and disappointed. In order to mitigate the disappointment, CIG puts out a mini-doc showing that they were days away from completing the SQ42 Verticle Slice, but it just didn't come together in time. So now expectations are differed yet again, this time to the Anniversary Stream.

Anniversary Stream comes. No SQ42.

There is only one substantial stream left in the year, the Holiday Stream. The final deferral left. After that, it's another 8 month wait until the next Gamescom.
And this is why we need less streams and CIG needs to improve their communications w/r/t expectations on these events ahead of time. I think this set the stage for the disappointment with the Holiday Stream.

Minutes before going live, Chris puts out an email saying that the SQ42 VS is not only not going to be there, but that the entire demo has been scrapped entirely. Something that only a couple months earlier they said was days away is now gone (a repetition of what had happened with Star Marine at the start of the year). It also becomes evident that 3.0 is nowhere near ready, even though CIG's last word on the topic was the expected 2016 release. The bubble of expectation bursts, and is continuing to burst, all over the reddit and official forum. The backers are utterly gobsmacked. It's worth noting that the show was not substantially worse than the Anniversary stream in terms of content, but because of the deferred expectations cascade, the fallout has been an order of magnitude larger.

This is what I mean when I say that Star Citizen flopping might take a form that is different from NMS. For NMS, a game was released which forced people to reconcile the reality of the product with the expectations that were built up beforehand. For SC, a game may or may not come out in 2017, but they are dependent on their backers continuing to believe in the dream to stay afloat, and this belief is becoming more precarious and disconnected as time goes on. You can only defer expectations for so long.
Just wanted to add again that I thought this post was a good add (even if I don't agree with all the points). I'm also assuming the 2017 refers to the SQ42 portion, as SC will definitely not be released in 2017 (even their roadmap for 4.0, which merely takes us from alpha to beta stage of testing, would be slated for the 2017 YE, assuming they were to somehow maintain the +1/year ratio and "caught up" next year).
 

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
19,661
16,686
136
Why did they start making SQ42? I thought it was a space game, why waste resources on a FPS? Was it included in stretch goals? Why? I can see it being a cool dlc affecting gameplay (?) AFTER the game was released.
 

SLU Aequitas

Golden Member
Jul 13, 2007
1,252
26
91
<snip>

And here comes the elitist attitude towards gaming. whee....
I wouldn't call it elitist as so much the general consensus among a lot of backers in that we wanted a PC-centric title on a classic PC genre. In fact, the entire premise of the kickstarter/funding was that by doing it direct, we did not have to worry about ticking off boxes to cater to the masses just to get more customers. That being said, CR/CIG have also been putting a lot of effort into making the game accessible while still having depth.

What is it then? Is this where we get told that it's so new it defies all attempts to categorize it? I could go hybrid, but I wouldn't dismiss it as not an MMO.. is there a player driven persistent universe that isn't an MMO? I'm drawing a blank on if there is one..
I'd classify SC as an MMO-Space Sim :D In all honesty, it's kind of hard, since I don't see it as MMO-focused as say WoW, but it's more so than what Elite Dangerous was.

How clear are they being when they change up with no notice? If everyone was expecting 3.0 in Dec and he waits until Dec 16th? (not sure the exact day but could look it up, but lazy as a day or two doesn't change my point, if I'm really off and they said back in Nov it wasn't coming then please correct me) to say "sorry, next year" is that being open and clear? I'm not suggesting they should tell every single point of dev (though maybe they should as most investors do expect those kind of updates) but they should be more clear on the timelines.
Again, we're not investors. Investors suggests we have an equity stake in CIG, which we don't. People will always have expectations, realistic or otherwise. In CIG/CR's defense, they have stated repeatedly that they're giving us info as soon as they can, and as a result, the timeframes provided are not deadlines. This has been said over and over again, for example when they posted their internal development tracker.

Where they need to improve I think is being proactive and monitoring the community to jump in and state, "hey, as an FYI, the SQ42 demo is probably not going to be on the upcoming stream", and even a day before really isn't good enough.

I'd probably agree with you more if the game wasn't already years behind schedule.... with no end in sight.

A game that never comes out is what? I wouldn't call 4+ years rushed..
So, coming back to this one, as a reminder, they didn't have anywhere close to a full size studio for the first couple of years, and no, the original release schedule when this game was going to be a much, much smaller scope single-player game is simply not realistic.
 

SLU Aequitas

Golden Member
Jul 13, 2007
1,252
26
91
Why did they start making SQ42? I thought it was a space game, why waste resources on a FPS? Was it included in stretch goals? Why? I can see it being a cool dlc affecting gameplay (?) AFTER the game was released.
SQ42 is the single player portion of the game. It's been part of the core game since the original kickstarter.

If you mean Star Marine (the FPS shooter game-within-a-game), it's a means of showing off progress and allowing CIG to gather better feedback regarding the FP portion of the game.

If you mean first person in general, that was always a core part of the game. Combat was to be part of that, with explicit mentions within the original group of stretch goals, which you can find Here.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,415
3,939
126
there have been a ton of fake demos in sc. pupil to planet. The old star marine "demo" from like 2 years ago. The hey this is me blowing up on the deck of a big ship. Its all gear towards selling more jpegs. pu 3.0 was fake
 

bbhaag

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2011
4,717
530
126
the ships are dlc. They have added "insurance" wtf that is and they were big on a "grey" market. Cig knew they made a tulip bulb bubble and didnt care because people had a incentive to buy more ships. i.e. sell them later for more because reasons.
Do you have any evidence to back up those claims? "Because reasons" isn't really saying much beyond your own personal beliefs which you've made very clear. Are you saying you have actual evidence that CIG knowingly sold ships with LTI to support a grey market?
there have been a ton of fake demos in sc. pupil to planet. The old star marine "demo" from like 2 years ago. The hey this is me blowing up on the deck of a big ship. Its all gear towards selling more jpegs. pu 3.0 was fake
Do you have any evidence of these things you are accusing CIG of? First it was LTI and the grey market too sell ships. Now it seems you've moved on too fake demos and the deck of big ships. Can you provide any evidence that 3.0 is fake and CIG is just selling jpegs.
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,037
343
136
I wouldn't call it elitist as so much the general consensus among a lot of backers in that we wanted a PC-centric title on a classic PC genre. In fact, the entire premise of the kickstarter/funding was that by doing it direct, we did not have to worry about ticking off boxes to cater to the masses just to get more customers. That being said, CR/CIG have also been putting a lot of effort into making the game accessible while still having depth.
I thought it was always going to be PC-centric. If anything I don't think the infra is there to support this MMOish game on one of the consoles. What I was responding to was the

And the guy is totally wrong. Catering to the lowest common denominator and making games 'easy for the masses' is exactly what's wrong with AAA development today and why Star Citizen has raised the amount of money it has. The guy just basically doesn't 'get it'.
It's really hard for me to not see that as elitist. Making games 'easy for the masses' isn't what's wrong with AAA dev. That's another topic, but I don't think it's around making things easy to pick up.

<snip>
Again, we're not investors. Investors suggests we have an equity stake in CIG, which we don't. People will always have expectations, realistic or otherwise. In CIG/CR's defense, they have stated repeatedly that they're giving us info as soon as they can, and as a result, the timeframes provided are not deadlines. This has been said over and over again, for example when they posted their internal development tracker.

Where they need to improve I think is being proactive and monitoring the community to jump in and state, "hey, as an FYI, the SQ42 demo is probably not going to be on the upcoming stream", and even a day before really isn't good enough.

So, coming back to this one, as a reminder, they didn't have anywhere close to a full size studio for the first couple of years, and no, the original release schedule when this game was going to be a much, much smaller scope single-player game is simply not realistic.
You're right, I'm wrong comparing it to investors. In reality it's even worse as it's customers. I've never heard of a project that's been sold to a customer that has these kind of delays. Also I've never seen a project that's sold and then keeps pushing things out because they're adding stuff. I've always said if you're happy with it, more power to you, but you can't deny those that aren't. That's a lot of what this thread is, those that aren't happy with the way things are being done.

Having said that, I do appreciate the comments you provide. I may not agree with everything you say, but I have learned a few things and you haven't been a dick about it.

there have been a ton of fake demos in sc. pupil to planet. The old star marine "demo" from like 2 years ago. The hey this is me blowing up on the deck of a big ship. Its all gear towards selling more jpegs. pu 3.0 was fake
There have been a lot of demos. I wouldn't call them fake.. I remember reading some of them were questionable if they were running the way CIG said they were, the most recent was a sand worm that was in a different instance.. don't recall the details but there were questions about what was happening vs what CIG said was.
 

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
19,661
16,686
136
SQ42 is the single player portion of the game. It's been part of the core game since the original kickstarter.

If you mean Star Marine (the FPS shooter game-within-a-game), it's a means of showing off progress and allowing CIG to gather better feedback regarding the FP portion of the game.

If you mean first person in general, that was always a core part of the game. Combat was to be part of that, with explicit mentions within the original group of stretch goals, which you can find Here.
Gotcha, thanks for clearing that up for me, i had thought that SQ42 = Star Marine (a FPS addon that was added by stretch goals).
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,415
3,939
126
Do you have any evidence of these things you are accusing CIG of? First it was LTI and the grey market too sell ships. Now it seems you've moved on too fake demos and the deck of big ships. Can you provide any evidence that 3.0 is fake and CIG is just selling jpegs.
I cant prove it aside from the fact it isnt in your hands. I also saw some interesting edits in that demo. Very interesting. As for the pupil to planet do you think that was in engine? lol. It was a cut scene.

All we have to do is look at their horrible track record. in the other thread you had guys believing 3.0 would come before Christmas and now they would be lucky to get 2.6. You people are delusional.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,415
3,939
126
this whole thing started as a good idea but then turned into smoke and mirrors to sell jpegs. They are going to end up investigated by the fed.
 

Chipopo

Junior Member
Dec 7, 2016
11
3
16
CR did repeatedly caveat that 3.0 was dependent on 2.6 progress, and that he wasn't setting a deadline for 3.0 by year end. In fact, I believe he had a line about being shot for his deadlines. Regardless, he stated his hopes, and that I agree developed expectations of 3.0 by year-end.
I have an issue with Chris making these estimates even when he includes the caveat, because he hasn't been off by weeks or even months but by years. People expect these estimates to be based in at least some reality. What people hear when Chris says "I'd say it'll be done in roughly 4 months" is "we're almost done!" yet time and time again we find that they are nowhere near done. Just this November CIG was talking about filming mocap for the 3.0 questgiver NPC's. Now how is it that just two months previous the projection was for December, when lots of essential footage hadn't even been shot and processed yet?

In addition to this, there's the issue of the fanbase aggressively pushing Chris's estimates as if they were reliable and without the given caveats. The backers are just as eager to see their investment bear fruit as CIG is, so they can be very aggressive in pushing the game without the liability CIG has themselves. Ultimately though this wouldn't be such a big deal if Chris weren't so grossly (and consistently) inaccurate.
 

bbhaag

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2011
4,717
530
126
I cant prove it aside from the fact it isnt in your hands. I also saw some interesting edits in that demo. Very interesting. As for the pupil to planet do you think that was in engine? lol. It was a cut scene.

All we have to do is look at their horrible track record. in the other thread you had guys believing 3.0 would come before Christmas and now they would be lucky to get 2.6. You people are delusional.
So beyond your own personal feelings about this project can you provide any evidence for what you've accused CIG of doing?
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,415
3,939
126
i mean how many times do they have to be late or pull things before you see whats going on? Its been over 4 years and there still isnt a vertical slice. What do you need?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY