Soldato
Until the game either folds or is released i do not see how any one me included can decide either way if its a `scam` or not, its all hear say and crystal ball like.
******Official Star Citizen / Squadron 42 Thread******
- Thread starter Raumarik
- Start date
Caporegime
It was crowd funded, that crowd funding was raised to make the game, you raise cash you don't have to make the game with.
2012, but semantics.... They raised a lot more cash than they anticipated, massively more, as i understand it Chris put a vote to the backers asking if they should stick to the schedule or expend its scope and with it development time, backers voted for the later.
Games do take years to make, 6 years so far is not that unusual, some games have taken 10, tho i don't think it will take quite that long or longer, IMO this will be in beta in 2 years, this is one of the, no, this is THE largest most complex game in history.
Add to it that CIG do sticking to their promises that progress is playable for us all, that in its self takes time because every patch needs to be QA'ed.
I took the development start from Wikipedia, which states: "Star Citizen is an upcoming massively multiplayer, space trading and combat game developed and published by Chris Roberts' company Cloud Imperium Games for Microsoft Windows and Linux. Development of the game began in 2011, and is being mostly financed from a large crowdfunding campaign. The game was originally planned for a 2014 release, but significant delays in production and the expansion of gameplay features have led to postponement. Squadron 42, a single-player story driven game set in the same universe as Star Citizen, is also being developed. Neither game has a set release date."
QA on the game would be ongoing anyway. Regardless of whether it's released as a public alpha, all internal builds would be subject to QA as part of the ongoing development process otherwise development would be pointless.
Saying it's the largest, most complex game in history is all fine and well, but at the moment it isn't close to being a game so everything about it is just a promise. Do you have access to everything that they're promising in the current alpha? I doubt it. Loads can be promised during development and nothing close to that can be delivered in the final product. The fact here, is that unlike most games where the studio or publisher has been funding the entire development, this has been funded by a community of players that are simply hoping it'll be as good as they say it is, and the entire development around the game is becoming somewhat of a joke to those of us standing by watching and waiting for it to release fully before buying it. Where are you getting two years away from beta? Is that stated by the studio, or have you just made an educated guess based on where the game is right now? What if they decide to do another engine overhaul because they don't like the one that they're using now? They did that before and development got pushed back years.
What I'm trying to get at is how are people still investing blindly into this game when, up until now, it's becoming such a silly development cycle?
Can I ask a genuine question? Why does it bother you so much? You have readily admitted you are standing by and waiting which is fine, the backers are the reason that this game is even being developed and they are the ones who are bearing the risk so I am curious as to what you are getting out of it at this point by pointing out what many people are already aware of. It's like you and a few others in this thread have taken it as a personal affront that people have chosen to spend their money as they wish.
Just to clarify I don't disagree with anything you are saying, in fact as someone who is heavily invested in the development (as others here know well) I have grown increasingly jaded with Chris Roberts and the development process but I've just become indifferent to the whole thing. Do I think it will be as grand in scale as he has promised? Definitely not. Do I think even in half its promised state it would still be up there as one of the most in-depth/engaging space sims released? Potentially but again no guarantees. I have contemplated pushing for a refund a few times but decided against it as ultimately I backed it in good faith, I had my eyes wide open when I pledged (so your assumption that people are blindly pledging is a massive generalisation, though the bulk of my funding came in 2013/2014) and subsequently any 'loss' is on me as nobody put a gun to my head.
I do get the impression that some people just want to see it fail simply so they can say 'look I told you so, you're an idiot for ever putting your money in'. I'm not suggesting you are one of those individuals but you don't have to look far to find them. My response to them, as I outlined above is...if it fails it fails, so be it won't be the first or last time I lose money on something, thankfully I backed well within my means (never put in more than you are willing to lose and all that) and the individuals who stretched themselves to back the game are foolish. For me at least, if it ends up delivering I will be more than happy that I helped in some small part for that to be achieved.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Anyone can write anything they want on Wikipedia, that article is wrong.
Crowdfunding started on October 18 2012, this is the original Kickstarter page, scroll down to the bottom to see the Project Launch. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen/updates
This line:
Is also wrong, its scope changed massively due to the size of the funds intake, this happened before the 2014 release date.
Edit: to be clear i have been a backer since Feb 2013.
Last edited:
Caporegime
del.
It doesn't bother me that people have invested money in this, but it does bother me that on the current trajectory, us gamers are being lead along and there's a very real risk of failure here. I'm concerned about the gamer and how the industry is going with game development, and a product started by and continuing to receive huge monetary support from the community for not much to show for it is a worrying trend that I don't want to see more of. And who do the developers answer to? In a normal studio, it's the publisher and share holders. Does such a thing even exist for Star Citizen, or is it solely those backing the game? Because as you've said, if it fails and you lose your money, it doesn't matter to you because you didn't back much. But what about for those that backed the high amounts? What recourse do they have if the game fails?
I don't want the game to fail, but I do think it's far too ambitious a project to fully see the light of day with everything promised implemented, and it wouldn't be the first time that gamers have been left with an incomplete product that's failed to deliver. I have been a gamer for over 25 years and it concerns me that currently, this sort of model of game (paid testing) is what we're getting these days. Having said that, I backed Subnautica (back in December 2016 when the early access product that it was back then was actually very playable and had a lot in it already, and I paid £7.49 which was a bargain) and also Astroneer (again, an Alpha title that I paid £12 for but got a more-than-playable multiplayer experience). Both of these were risks, but when I took them both of these games had a lot of playability already, with loads of streamers and YouTube videos showing what you could and couldn't do. The Star Citizen Kickstarter campaign was launched and there wasn't much game at that point, but people put money into it anyway (hence the blindly backing comment I made earlier) and are still going on faith alone that the product will be delivered and will be as described, simply because that's what they're being told. I'm all for hope, but how far into development is this game going to get before we actually see something close to a finished product? Two years to beta was mentioned, but is that actually going to happen or is that just guesswork?
Caporegime
Apologies for the /snip of your post but this was the bit I was interested in. For me, I wouldn't use 'bother' - I'd use 'interest' instead. I find it fascinating to see the justification, and blind allegiance to SC for those who are so heavily invested in the game - mentally as well as financially - versus those at the other end who see a blatant scam and can see nothing good in SC. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground, although you're probably the closest poster on this forum I've seen to having a dog in each race.
I'm only half joking when I say that I can see SC being used as a case study in University Pyschology classes in future years.
This is a very good point and one that I echo completely. It does concern me that people have been able to get so heavily invested in the game and there's hardly anything to show for it even 6 years into the development cycle, and it just seems acceptable to a lot of people when the developers keep pushing things back further and further for whatever reasons they give.
My post about it being a scam comes from a genuine place of concern because I simply cannot fathom how much people have put into the development of this game and yet are still totally ignorant of how much of a joke the development is becoming. It really makes me worry for our gaming industry because I don't want this to become the norm but right now the people that have invested in the game are saying it's ok to have such a model exist. And the comment about losing money and it only being a small amount and therefore ok simply says to the developers, and others in the industry that it's ok for this to happen and thus might create a trend.
Firstly why does it matter what people have backed, high or low? You seem to suggest I haven't backed much and therefore it doesn't matter to me. I didn't disclose how much I have backed so I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion, what I did say is I didn't stretch myself in doing so, as I said before I am 'heavily' invested in the game. You are still working on the assumption that people are backing without any realisation of the risk involved which as I said is a gross generalisation. Also people are grown adults and don't need to be white knighted, they backed a game on the vision of the development team, if they weren't comfortable with that position then don't back (and many including yourself have taken that exact stance).
Like I said earlier I don't disagree with some of the negatives highlighted previously but a lot of this seems to be treading a well-trodden path and doesn't really add anything new to the discussion. As Magnolia alluded to earlier there seems to be the vocal contingent on each end of the spectrum (i.e. ardent supporters and the 'it's a scam' bandwagon) and very little in-between, makes it hard to have an informed or balanced discussion about it.
I think your concern about the gaming industry and the move towards early access etc. games is a valid one but I think a little out of context when talking about SC. It's a completely different animal and one we are unlikely to ever see repeated, a crowd-funded game to the tune of nearly $200m? I can honestly say I believe this a one-time only event.
Quite...it's why I rarely bother visiting this thread.
i thought the 2011 referred to the prep work CR did to create the stuff for the original pimp trailer, but i might be wrong about that.
it's about time they had a code freeze on this, and finish up the game as it is now, anything else they want to add they can do as extras/expansion later on, which would also help to keep interest in the game. S42 is desperately needed, imo, to keep people occupied while they polish the main game.
I think most disappointment comes from people that would really like to play Star Citizen, but are just dumbfounded at the monstrosity it has become.
The pay2win economy is going to be so utterly broken at launch it's becoming less and less appealing for people that just want to buy the game and play it when it launches. People with fleets they've built up over the years of development, and money to pour into in game currency post-launch are going to be in a playing in a different league.
Giving money to CiG at this stage is simply paying them to not release the game. The monetisation freak show that spawned from the kickstarter is completely out of control now. Pay2Win is a such a deeply entrenched mechanic that they can't back out from anymore.
The pay2win economy is going to be so utterly broken at launch it's becoming less and less appealing for people that just want to buy the game and play it when it launches. People with fleets they've built up over the years of development, and money to pour into in game currency post-launch are going to be in a playing in a different league.
Giving money to CiG at this stage is simply paying them to not release the game. The monetisation freak show that spawned from the kickstarter is completely out of control now. Pay2Win is a such a deeply entrenched mechanic that they can't back out from anymore.
Soldato
I really don't get the 'pay2win' argument with regards to SC,
what are people paying to win?........
Is winning getting a ship?
Is that the end-game?
what are people paying to win?........
Is winning getting a ship?
Is that the end-game?
They can't code freeze, literally can't due to the dependencies many of which are still in development. They have backed themselves into a corner now and it's all or nothing.
We've no verified source for exactly when development started, 2011/2012 arguably aren't really about development at all unless you consider a concept artist drawing a Vanduul Scythe, Hornet and Bengal and Crytek shoving it in a 30s demo video with some nice music as development. Personally I think most soap adverts take more effort than that, but that is essentially all they had come December 2012. They didn't really do anything of any real value game-wise until 2013. Then they arguably made a few key errors which meant a lot of that had to be redone in 2014 when they started getting their workstreams sorted. They were a bit of a state before then though IMHO. It was only when Foundry 42 was opened properly in the UK that things really kicked off which is odd when you consider the Austin offices were originally going to be the development hub for the project, then it got downsized and people shifted to Santa Monica.
that's the same as literally any big name game that offers cash-bought assets. people who play seriously are always going to have better stuff. it's the same even when items aren't buyable - some seriously player in Elite will always have better gear than you if they have the time to play/trade 7 hours a day etc. it's the way of gaming.
i mean freeze the code as it is and develop it, ie stop adding in new ship and cac like sandworms etc etc
Soldato
The ships really are not causing coding issues that are causing development delays. The new ships are relatively much easier and quicker to code for as the code is being progressed but all the code is not even in for a single ship, there is still all the refactor for component health & damage, wear and tear etc that needs to be implemented on every ship.
They set goals that were huge in 2014 and were never really viable but people literally put so much monies in that them not attaining those goals will cause such a **** storm that they are now trying to work through it all. If you have seen 3.0 to 3.2 you will see that they are finally making some progress in major code areas such as the persistent log in/log out.
The big push to really see what CIG is going to achieve is 3.3/3.4. If they get that sorted then it really is time for assets, locations and then working through the mechanics that are in to improve them.