Soldato
Still no single player version this year. Glad I never gave them my cash.
******Official Star Citizen / Squadron 42 Thread******
- Thread starter Raumarik
- Start date
Soldato
Don't need to justify it myself. I can literally see via ATV development and similar where delays have occurred and why. As well as generally long term why as they have updated the tech and even explained it numerous times. Being dense and ignoring that is not my problem.
If you want to choose to ignore the facts go ahead.
Soldato
I gave them cash because it is SQ42 I would like but it still needs all game-play mechanics that the PU requires. Not sure why you would expect the single player prior to having Beta PU since they are the same linked tech.
Caporegime
I think the reason CIG are putting little fight when it comes to refunds is because they kinda did make a commitment to a given time frame, their hands are legally tied.
I agree that backers should have known this may take more years than the years Chris cited, but i also understand the dismay and frustration, i think the original pledge in 2012 was for 2014, we are now approaching the end of 2017 and still all we have is a tiny 2 to 3 year old tech demo.
The frustration isn't helped by the 2 weekly 3.0 carrot they dangled infront of us for 3 months or more, they removed that now because i think they finally realised that if you dangle a carrot infront of someone for 2 weeks and push it back another 2 weeks just as its almost in reach, and do that 8 times in a row some people are not going to react well to you.
I think thats been a primary reason for the recent rush on refund requests, and there has been a rush on them in the last few weeks.
I agree that backers should have known this may take more years than the years Chris cited, but i also understand the dismay and frustration, i think the original pledge in 2012 was for 2014, we are now approaching the end of 2017 and still all we have is a tiny 2 to 3 year old tech demo.
The frustration isn't helped by the 2 weekly 3.0 carrot they dangled infront of us for 3 months or more, they removed that now because i think they finally realised that if you dangle a carrot infront of someone for 2 weeks and push it back another 2 weeks just as its almost in reach, and do that 8 times in a row some people are not going to react well to you.
I think thats been a primary reason for the recent rush on refund requests, and there has been a rush on them in the last few weeks.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 4,313
You're missing the point though. I can't disagree with the many massive posts you have posted
P please take that as a friendly dig) what you are saying is correct. The game was going to take years, there was going to be delays, and like you say may not even happen. But I think you are only seeing it from a hardcore fans perspective. There are a great deal more people who just check in every now and again or read the emails and that's as far as they look into it. They don't understand the process like yourself. It might well be their fault for not understanding the way it works, but you can't say that CIG don't play on that. They should have stopped long time ago giving dates knowing the process they were going to take and how delays etc are happening but they don't.So for that reason, while what you are saying is correct, people still do have some argument as to the frustrations with missing dates etc in my opinion!
Soldato
You're missing the point though. I can't disagree with the many massive posts you have posted
So for that reason, while what you are saying is correct, people still do have some argument as to the frustrations with missing dates etc in my opinion!
I also understand your point, but the bit missing then is the only way to see those dates is read the schedule which states they are internal dates for production for each team, it is right at the beginning of the schedule information provided under the disclaimer section. Further to that people wanted them to give the dates initially so they did this because that is what the backers asked for overall.
The second issue with that is people are holding CIG accountable to dates and calling them 'promises' more often than not and that is so ignorant to the whole process that I wonder if these people realise what they have backed. Explanations on what the schedule is and how it works has been posted for months and people are ignoring it just to dig at CIG for missing them when there was/is no way they will hit the final date until all the blockers are gone and at that point the schedule for 3.0 would stop.
Missing smaller dates constantly would be an issue without context but they have even filled out the bullet point overview of when they encounter a problem and when a team has had to shift direction to support another to keep things moving.
If they gave no information and provided just the end date of evocati to 3.0 release I could understand if people were frustrated as there wouldn't be the information there but people just like to jump up and down without bothering to read the info available and that is ignorance which I find frustrating.
Justification in people being angry/salty is fine if we have no context and no communication but that just isn't the case. People say they don't follow it much and that is fine but then if you have the time to post to complain, it honestly wouldn't take long to skim through the actual info provided and check what they are looking at.
Edit: As an idea I backed in 2014. I checked it out last year again at 2016 when 3.0 noted and saw the scope had changed since me backing. I read through that for an afternoon and could then see what had been going on and where delays etc happened.
Then 3.0 didn't happen and I was disappointed and frustrated, but then I checked why this happened and although I do feel better info from CIG would have helped I also feel that they to a point gave reasons so okay I will take that for now. I can see they are trying, could still see things were moving forward.
I then waited till around May to recheck how it is going and saw new 3.0 dates. I read the schedule and what it meant and was glad to see progress. I watched a load of ATV's going back to around Feb to catch up and was impressed with the tech and it moving forward but knew then it wasn't going to be on time. I tried to explain this. Honestly I thought at the time it would be for Gamescon but that was a gustimate based on seeing the schedule/workload and the teams previous achievements. I have seen what is going on now and believe it will be out end of September to the public.
I believe it will be around 3-4 weeks from the 14th August till Evocati will see it. Then I believe it will be two weeks with Evocati and 2 week with PTU till released publicly. That is purely based on seeing the numbers and what is noted in the schedule.
But again with seeing the tech, the detail and the long term philosophy from CIG I don't see any reason to think that the game should be finished.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 584
bit of a random question but is there any word on if they are going to add proper Anti Aliasing in 3.0 ? The game can look stunning at times but those jaggies...
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,310
I think what lost my interest was being inundated by news posts, emails, and stacks of videos about everything - Several hour-long videos every week on different areas of development, 10 for the Chairman, Wingman's Hanger, then 10 for the coder, 10 for the texture designer, 10 for the community manager, 10 for The Lamp, 10 for the tea boy, 10 for the wife of the guy who delivers the mail to the home of the ex-wife of the guy who teaches at teh school of the son of the guy who works at the insurance company that covers the vet who did the check-up of the dog of the child of the guy who did some concept drawings of the manoeuvring thrusters on the back of the jetpack that was never used in the end, Subscriber Updates, Around The Verse, MVP Most Valuable Post, spectrum dispatch, this, that, the other, plus all the short lived (and frankly cheap and nasty) merchandising, ship brochures, ship commercial videos and so much more.....
Kinda made me wonder if they'd spent any of my money on just making the game, or were just blowing it on all this fancy glitz and videos about themselves... all with backgrounds showing big, expensive-looking plaques and signs and Dev-only branded clothing and posters and toys and 'stuff'... which probably cost more.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,310
What, ALL the videos and fluff and guff... or just the bits they say is paid for by subscribers? Certainly when I was one, only one or maybe two vids were advertised as such.
I know the low quality junk they flog in the shop costs pennies, regardless of what they charge for it, as I was again a mug and bought some of it... I've had thicker toilet paper!
But I'm sure the lovely custom jackets and etched metal plaques and things cost a few quid...
Nah, TBH I'm sure most of it isn't as bad as it seems... but when you get so many channels of them cheering about all the wonderful things they've been doing for teh past three months..... like... err.... umm.... hang on, I know this one..... err.... oh, I know, a poster for your hanger... and.... umm.... oh, a new ship that looks the same as the old one, but in a different colour.... for an extra $120 on top of what the other one cost....
In other words - So much shouting about how awesome they are, with so little to actually show for it in any capacity and only their repeated word that they will deliver... one day... eventually... probably.... if they don't change stuff first.... yeah.
See, it's when you see all ^this that you start to wonder in the back of your mind if they're actually doing anything game-wise.... and I'm sure they are, what with two massive tech demo playthroughs now, neither of which seem any closer to actual release.... it's this stuff that makes Star Citizen *look* like it's a turning out to be a complete con, and it's how it *looks* to people in general that's what's got so much doubt and naysaying flying around.
Soldato
It's taken too long from 2.0 to 3.0 for sure. The hype train can only get so far before you need to chuck some more fuel in the fire.
Fingers crossed we will see more frequent meaningful content patches in the future. I think we will but I'm going to try and keep my hype down at minimum levels to avoid disappointment if I can. I think both the pro star citizen and anti star citizen crew take things too seriously lol
Fingers crossed we will see more frequent meaningful content patches in the future. I think we will but I'm going to try and keep my hype down at minimum levels to avoid disappointment if I can. I think both the pro star citizen and anti star citizen crew take things too seriously lol
you forget that CIG don't need people in general, they have a source for revenue in the existing backers. That's partly why I detest the referral system. But it doesn't matter how it looks to others as they can click their fingers and up fingers another million, that is going to come to an end soon if they can't impress as gamescom though or if CR can convince us it's worth sticking with.
personally I'm not that fussed at this point about development to me it's going fine and I'm not expecting the game for at least two more years.
Caporegime
Orange and dark Grey?
Soldato
Okay I kind of get what you are saying there, I do disagree because you contridict yourself in your points and have missed/ignored clear points.
I would suggest that the biggest group that shout foul are those who backed but are not actively following and thus they are misinformed or going on rants without even looking at what is there. They may see some headlines from a few larger news outlets who often don't check either and go "OMG, it's failing. CIG are not really producing anything and just taking all our monies" , but if you watch and read what they are doing you will see there is leaps and bounds of new development. That is THE big problem for CIG, to control the information and make sure everyone can see it.
Now, to talk about the the videos such as the ATV show, this directly shows in detail what they are doing, how far along they are and what is new weekly. But then you say it cost subscribers or backers their funds they put in and should have spent it on development. You need to associate a cost with showing the community what you are doing and how because that is what the community wanted but then they get told "hang on, why are you making these videos that take up half a days work for 5 people and cost 'X' amount, I backed the game to be produced".
It really is a no win situation if on one side you are saying I want to get the game now, spend all your monies on developing, forget any videos, forums, communication and just get the game done but then at the same time ask them to show what they are doing and where development is at and they show where they are at weekly with it and yet you go they do not show it in any capacity which isn't correct.
Just because it isn't in your hands and playable does not mean they have not shown progress. And to say that you are not expecting things to change, re-iterate and even get scrapped completely and reworked is then just misunderstanding what development means.
Take Beyond Good & Evil 2. They have been working on it actively for 10 years and only now got the engine ready to start building the game past a small tech demo. With that they will over the next 3+ years of development still be redoing and reiterating parts as they go because that is how it works. They went back to the drawing board completely twice in that 10 years, scrapped all their work and have spent tens of millions doing so but we haven't seen it and as such no one is up in arms and even some are praising them in doing such because they know it is better.
CIG is in a similar situation in development and now people are riding them because it is done with public money and not publisher monies. Unfortunately it is something CIG have to deal with but it should be the responsibility of every backer who put monies into the game to know that it will be a long hard road, there will be lots of road blocks, forks in the road and similar. That is development. Projects get scrapped all the time by the tens of thousands a year around the world. There is a chance this will too. As slim as it is, there will always be a chance of that. It is the nature of development.
If anyone went in going awesome in 2012 I can see what CR wants, he said it will be done in 2014 I am in and want it then as that is what he has suggested as a goal and didn't think knowing the scope even then with 6 people currently in his team that they were being optimistic and best case were honestly fooling themselves. CR likely thought at the time if hit targets 100% of the time and even surpassed those targets we would have the game in 2014. So he used that date because it sells, it is salesmanship. He probably had a date that was really 2015 even for the scope of his 2012 vision but he decided it wouldn't be swallowed as well, it wouldn't get traction fast enough stating it was so far away. Was it a lie? Kinda I guess but that is marketing 90% of the time. Marketing gives best case super optimistic information because that is what sells to our human nature.
Again though even if it has been delayed. There a number that got delayed 2 years, a number that got pulled for 'X' years and then started development again. A number that got developed for 3 years, a new studio came in and then redeveloped it for another 3 years but they get a pass as (or a short period of being shouted at by press or public at worst) because it isn't public monies.
It is backers expectations and understanding that honestly needs to grow/change for a lot of this negativity. Yeah CIG have messed up, they made mistakes. They are human building a massive multi-country company from 6 people. That is significantly hard work. The growth rate they have shown compared to most companies is exponentially faster. There will be issues with teams, management and similar.
These are major factors to consider and people don't often consider them.
being dense and ignoring they're YEARS overdue w/ what they promised the KSers is not my problem. if you want to choose to ignore that fact go ahead. and that's my last comment on the matter cos you're obviously as blinkered on your view as you're accusing others of being.
Soldato
Unsure on that pal, to me currently seems like the whole design is kind of in a limbo. It has an industrialy vibe with the design choices whilst but trying to cover that up with "posh"
For example kind of like a perfectly good back road car garage. Dressing itself up to look like a mclaren garage.
I will explain more detailed on Saturday though as would be a lengthy post.
Soldato
I am just reading the facts, taking the logic of what has happened with what I know from experience and trying to understand why I feel others do not want to take those facts into account.
Yes there is a fact that a date was missed that they had as a target window but there are also facts to why this occurred. Not being blinkered is understanding those and working with. Sorry you feel that way but they are only years overdue if you ignore years of facts.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 4,313
Agreed, I were mid way through typing something quite similar. Not quite worded as strong though mind
Soldato
Agreed, I were mid way through typing something quite similar. Not quite worded as strong though mind
The difference is that I am working with both sides of the facts, both when they have missed their target dates and when made mistakes but I am also aware there are facts on why these have occurred. That is what people such as wolfie138 have no intent on reading/researching and similar and thus just get salty because a date that was given as a goal was missed.
Ignoring facts that development goals changed, that if you want you can get a refund instead of just being salty, the fact that they are providing as much open info as pretty much possible whilst still actually developing are all being ignored to run the lines of "they are lying and doing nothing with our money" is based on the fact they gave a date for release window but did not achieve.
That is a pretty one sided blinkered view. I have never suggested that I was not disappointed that they missed that date but I was also not holding them accountable to the date because the simple fact is that projects never go 100% smoothly and almost never arrive on time and quite often not on budget either. So with all that, that is why I am suggest that there is a particularly blinkered view to this and why I am happy to discuss facts if all the facts are used in the discussion. Only giving a small select facts to suit narrative is the issue here.
If I am blinkered because I have an alternative view that uses all the known data on the issues given over the years then I see no problem. Being blinkered when actually using the information to hand is also known as forming an opinion that is viable. Reading comments that are so left wing to provide a conspiracy does nothing to help.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 4,313
As I said before, a lot of what you are saying is correct. I agreed with the blinkered comment though, you are so obsequious in your replies that you are really missing and ignoring points people are trying to make and THEN accusing others of doing the same thing!!
I'm going to remove myself from the conversation too as I feel like we are almost ganging up on you and my replies to you weren't meant to 'get at you' so to speak. You clearly have a lot of knowledge and passion for the game and just want people to understand but I do feel you are the extreme opposite of those left wing conspiracy people you mentioned
I'm going to remove myself from the conversation too as I feel like we are almost ganging up on you and my replies to you weren't meant to 'get at you' so to speak. You clearly have a lot of knowledge and passion for the game and just want people to understand but I do feel you are the extreme opposite of those left wing conspiracy people you mentioned