I agree. In its current state it really is boring as ****. Uninstalled it after a few days. Will revisit in a year or so again, but not holding my breath.
Can't compare ED to SC.
******Official Star Citizen / Squadron 42 Thread******
- Thread starter Raumarik
- Start date
I agree. In its current state it really is boring as ****. Uninstalled it after a few days. Will revisit in a year or so again, but not holding my breath.
Can't compare ED to SC.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,932
I agree Elite Dangerous is just tedious , shame as it has a great engine it could have been so much more.
Fingers crossed SC delivers.
Fingers crossed SC delivers.
Same here, there was absolutely nothing disappointing about what they showed us, its as good as we've had in any other single event, the only reason people are disappointed is because of what they didnt show and were led to believe we'd see. For that reason, apparently everything else is irrelevant and void of recognition for what it is, or downplayed because other aspects failed to materialise.
The problem is probably the fact that its being developed openly, at every step of development. You look at 99% of cases, and you know only what they want you to know, you see only what has been authorised, which is almost always selective snippets like trailers, and dont really give the audience a true representation because anything that doesnt work flawlessly can be removed or reattempted till it works and thats the footage you'll present.
CIG are doing all of this openly, they're saying what they're working on, they're showing us the flaws, the 'what we have' rather than the 'what you should have when its done'. People got bent out of shape and are venting because we were led to believe we'd see something, and they didnt deliver on that, but if we didnt have that open communication with them, we'd be tuning in knowing nothing other than what they show, which is what we saw.
A lot of what they're trying to achieve is uncharted territory, they're not just settling for 1 key selling feature - the most realistic looking, the most planets, the biggest assets, the largest scale gaming universe etc, and dialling in the rest because [key feature] makes it better than the previous game with a lesser feature.
That takes time, and it takes a lot of different skilled teams to achieve it. Its not just tons of modellers, tons of programmers etc, and 1 team stopping what they're doing isnt going to speed up other areas. Too many people seem to think that if it takes 9mo for a woman to have a baby, get 9 women and do it in 1mo. It just takes what it takes, and getting frustrated with it not being as fast as we'd all like it to be, is just pointless. If they sacked off all these new ships, the netcode still wouldnt be with us, and the same can be said with many other things that are used to blame other areas being incomplete.
Personally, it annoys me that people use this open access development and complain that things dont go to plan, like they have so much access to all the other developers and they're all nailing it and CIG are just falling flat, when the reality is we know nothing about games, we dont even know whats being built until its about 2yrs from release - not because thats when they've started, but because thats when they've got far along enough to talk about it and start hyping it up, spending marketing dollars on it and cherry-picking what we know. This "People are so used to single and multiplayer games which usually only take 1-2 years to make." is nonsense people seem to believe [Evo, i agree with the rest, but '1-2 years' is wrong, and im hoping its not worded quite how you intended]. They take 1-2 years to refine on the previous game, with a near identical title, its just new storytelling and textures. COD releases titles every 18mo or so, but theres TWO independent studios working on it, they're each releasing a game every 3 years, and they're using the same engine every single time with only minor changes behind made to it. We hear nothing about them until they're about 18mo away, when the studio/publisher wants to start spending money on marketing - and even still they get delayed by a year or so.
We want access to information, yet cant act appropriately when we're given it and we see the reality of what happens in private. They've stopped giving estimates - they still exist, they just know its not worth the trouble of being honest with us cos **** happens and we clearly cant handle knowing about these setbacks. Maybe now they stop telling us what they're working on, what they'll have to show... because when they're saying all this stuff, its not done, its not there sitting on a drive with the days counting down, its WIP and they're saying what they genuinely believe they'll have available.
- Do we really think its better to have them say "dunno, we'll have to wait till the day" and still actually see exactly what we see?
- Is it better to show something thats bad, just because they said they'd show it? Is that going to make you happy, seeing something in a bad state just to satisfy an obligation of what they said they'd have? (and lets pretend we wouldnt expect something SQ42 related if it hadnt been said)
- Or should they be open, and we just be mature about it and acknowledge if they dont think its ready, they not happy to show it off, it cant be worthwhile for them, and coming on stage and having to give that disappointing news hardly the easy option.
They're all sucky options, cos sadly everything doesnt always fall perfectly into place, and when that happens, plan B needs to be one of the above - in future be secretive, show something negative, or be honest. If its be secretive or honest, you're ultimately seeing the same presentation. If its to present the bad stuff...
.If anyones interested, theres a half-decent post on Reddit about game development - https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/56xx77/new_to_the_game_but_with_a_caveat/
Someone who knew people and occasionally saw some of the work behind the scenes at Bethesda and the work needed to repurpose the engine to get it to where it ended up. As Evo correctly pointed out, for an MMO, and the scale of work needed for refactoring the engine, they're still on reasonably good time. Its just that people dont know this because these studios dont advertise something they know is years away and not worth publicising yet. We only see what publishers are revving up to start selling to their audience, and we're spoon fed only what they want us to see, and are 'not ready' to talk about anything else. CIG are being open, i'd rather that than what we get with other studios & publishers with a PR team manipulating us.
Same here, there was absolutely nothing disappointing about what they showed us, its as good as we've had in any other single event, the only reason people are disappointed is because of what they didnt show and were led to believe we'd see. For that reason, apparently everything else is irrelevant and void of recognition for what it is, or downplayed because other aspects failed to materialise.
The problem is probably the fact that its being developed openly, at every step of development. You look at 99% of cases, and you know only what they want you to know, you see only what has been authorised, which is almost always selective snippets like trailers, and dont really give the audience a true representation because anything that doesnt work flawlessly can be removed or reattempted till it works and thats the footage you'll present.
CIG are doing all of this openly, they're saying what they're working on, they're showing us the flaws, the 'what we have' rather than the 'what you should have when its done'. People got bent out of shape and are venting because we were led to believe we'd see something, and they didnt deliver on that, but if we didnt have that open communication with them, we'd be tuning in knowing nothing other than what they show, which is what we saw.
A lot of what they're trying to achieve is uncharted territory, they're not just settling for 1 key selling feature - the most realistic looking, the most planets, the biggest assets, the largest scale gaming universe etc, and dialling in the rest because [key feature] makes it better than the previous game with a lesser feature.
That takes time, and it takes a lot of different skilled teams to achieve it. Its not just tons of modellers, tons of programmers etc, and 1 team stopping what they're doing isnt going to speed up other areas. Too many people seem to think that if it takes 9mo for a woman to have a baby, get 9 women and do it in 1mo. It just takes what it takes, and getting frustrated with it not being as fast as we'd all like it to be, is just pointless. If they sacked off all these new ships, the netcode still wouldnt be with us, and the same can be said with many other things that are used to blame other areas being incomplete.
Personally, it annoys me that people use this open access development and complain that things dont go to plan, like they have so much access to all the other developers and they're all nailing it and CIG are just falling flat, when the reality is we know nothing about games, we dont even know whats being built until its about 2yrs from release - not because thats when they've started, but because thats when they've got far along enough to talk about it and start hyping it up, spending marketing dollars on it and cherry-picking what we know. This "People are so used to single and multiplayer games which usually only take 1-2 years to make." is nonsense people seem to believe [Evo, i agree with the rest, but '1-2 years' is wrong, and im hoping its not worded quite how you intended]. They take 1-2 years to refine on the previous game, with a near identical title, its just new storytelling and textures. COD releases titles every 18mo or so, but theres TWO independent studios working on it, they're each releasing a game every 3 years, and they're using the same engine every single time with only minor changes behind made to it. We hear nothing about them until they're about 18mo away, when the studio/publisher wants to start spending money on marketing - and even still they get delayed by a year or so.
We want access to information, yet cant act appropriately when we're given it and we see the reality of what happens in private. They've stopped giving estimates - they still exist, they just know its not worth the trouble of being honest with us cos **** happens and we clearly cant handle knowing about these setbacks. Maybe now they stop telling us what they're working on, what they'll have to show... because when they're saying all this stuff, its not done, its not there sitting on a drive with the days counting down, its WIP and they're saying what they genuinely believe they'll have available.
- Do we really think its better to have them say "dunno, we'll have to wait till the day" and still actually see exactly what we see?
- Is it better to show something thats bad, just because they said they'd show it? Is that going to make you happy, seeing something in a bad state just to satisfy an obligation of what they said they'd have? (and lets pretend we wouldnt expect something SQ42 related if it hadnt been said)
- Or should they be open, and we just be mature about it and acknowledge if they dont think its ready, they not happy to show it off, it cant be worthwhile for them, and coming on stage and having to give that disappointing news hardly the easy option.
They're all sucky options, cos sadly everything doesnt always fall perfectly into place, and when that happens, plan B needs to be one of the above - in future be secretive, show something negative, or be honest. If its be secretive or honest, you're ultimately seeing the same presentation. If its to present the bad stuff...
If anyones interested, theres a half-decent post on Reddit about game development - https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/56xx77/new_to_the_game_but_with_a_caveat/
Someone who knew people and occasionally saw some of the work behind the scenes at Bethesda and the work needed to repurpose the engine to get it to where it ended up. As Evo correctly pointed out, for an MMO, and the scale of work needed for refactoring the engine, they're still on reasonably good time. Its just that people dont know this because these studios dont advertise something they know is years away and not worth publicising yet. We only see what publishers are revving up to start selling to their audience, and we're spoon fed only what they want us to see, and are 'not ready' to talk about anything else. CIG are being open, i'd rather that than what we get with other studios & publishers with a PR team manipulating us.
I agree with about 90% of what you are saying here but its ok to moan and be wrong, even to moan knowing you're wrong to do so.
People are allowed to get frustrated, they are allowed to vent that frustration, even heaven forbid be critical of CiG and Chris, eh? is it not ok to understand what he is doing and why and agree and like it and yet still get frustrated with it?
I think it is, i think its healthy, i certainly don't think an 'all is endlessly well' bubble is.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 11,536
- Location
- Bucks
You do understand that they building up the game, which is a different model than SC. Both games seemingly have a 10 year plan - so lets all calm down give it 10 years when they are finally both finished and argue about it then.
I enjoy both for what they are at present and look forward to them both offering more over the years.
I think people are allowed the odd gripe. Back when I bought in I thought I was going to be playing Squadron 42 and SC by now.
Now delays happen, fine, but it's annoying to read about huge chunks of effort and backer's money being wasted due to outright gross incompetence like the Star Marine farce.
Now delays happen, fine, but it's annoying to read about huge chunks of effort and backer's money being wasted due to outright gross incompetence like the Star Marine farce.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 11,536
- Location
- Bucks
absolutely they are throwing away money like no tomorrow, but people keep on giving them more so they have that luxury for now.
They will probably never run out of money, and when your in that position your gonna do stupid stuff.
and yeh Star Marine was a cluster ****, and I really feel sorry for Illfonic.
They will probably never run out of money, and when your in that position your gonna do stupid stuff.
and yeh Star Marine was a cluster ****, and I really feel sorry for Illfonic.
I agree, Star Citizen does look and sound great and I was taking about the state of both games in the future. ED plans to allow you to leave the ship, walk on planet surfaces, inside space stations, and engage in FPS combat which is why I said their content scope would be similar even if their way of implementing it as gameplay differs. I was more reflecting on the approaches and how things might turn out when both games are 'complete'. As in, a win-win draw 
but I suspect SC will get the big numbers purely through marketing. However, anything can happen.
As for Elite Dangerous being tedious, with mining, community goals & missions, bounties, trading, powerplay I think there is currently plenty of hours of game play in it and as said above; it's a growing game not a static one. Right now ED is the 'better' game purely because there is a playable game there whilst Star Citizen, atm, isn't a better game because the public code isn't designed to be a proper game atm (if that makes sense).
Anyway, time will tell but I'm going to enjoy watching both these titles develop
but I suspect SC will get the big numbers purely through marketing. However, anything can happen.As for Elite Dangerous being tedious, with mining, community goals & missions, bounties, trading, powerplay I think there is currently plenty of hours of game play in it and as said above; it's a growing game not a static one. Right now ED is the 'better' game purely because there is a playable game there whilst Star Citizen, atm, isn't a better game because the public code isn't designed to be a proper game atm (if that makes sense).
Anyway, time will tell but I'm going to enjoy watching both these titles develop
Where does this suggestion that SC will probably be more popular because of marketing come from? They dont do marketing, what they do is communicate. Any media comes from people asking them stuff and them answering, or them openly telling the community about stuff. Its not like CIG are buying banner ads, and superbowl spots to get recognition. People know about it because they can see and hear about whats happening, and theres something new to say about the project.
I think its pretty laughable that communication would be the key to success, and not the stunning level of detail they're going into creating the game universe, its assets, and the various roles within it. Frontier can do things however they wish, but they're not going for any of the same ideals that CIG are, their commonality isnt much more than both being is space. They're making a $20m game with $20m. CIG are making a $200m game with $200m. To think people might only appreciate one more than the other because they've been open, and not because one has had around 10x more funding to make a better game, is kidding themselves.
Anything CIG do that people consider as 'marketing', Frontier can do too - CIG isnt spending a cent on *marketing*, so who or what is stopping Frontier & ED? I've no idea what they're doing on ED, but i follow Planet Coaster which is Frontiers latest title, and they're doing weekly 1h livestreams and last weekend streamed for about 6-8hrs.
I think its pretty laughable that communication would be the key to success, and not the stunning level of detail they're going into creating the game universe, its assets, and the various roles within it. Frontier can do things however they wish, but they're not going for any of the same ideals that CIG are, their commonality isnt much more than both being is space. They're making a $20m game with $20m. CIG are making a $200m game with $200m. To think people might only appreciate one more than the other because they've been open, and not because one has had around 10x more funding to make a better game, is kidding themselves.
Anything CIG do that people consider as 'marketing', Frontier can do too - CIG isnt spending a cent on *marketing*, so who or what is stopping Frontier & ED? I've no idea what they're doing on ED, but i follow Planet Coaster which is Frontiers latest title, and they're doing weekly 1h livestreams and last weekend streamed for about 6-8hrs.
When they have a feature complete game ready to sell of course they will advertise the **** out it...
In any case marketing is not just paying for ads. That Gamescom presentation = Marketing
So we're going to apparently brush over the number of players/backers on each game, one of which released 18mo ago, and focus entirely on sheer speculation on your part?!? $128m and not a penny spent on advertising it, just events and communication.
Still havent heard why if its such an obvious formula, why Frontier havent bothered, because all ED needs is advertising to make it popular, right??
Still havent heard why if its such an obvious formula, why Frontier havent bothered, because all ED needs is advertising to make it popular, right??
So we're going to apparently brush over the number of players/backers on each game, one of which released 18mo ago, and focus entirely on sheer speculation on your part?!? $128m and not a penny spent on advertising it, just events and communication.
Still havent heard why if its such an obvious formula, why Frontier havent bothered, because all ED needs is advertising to make it popular, right??
Speculation? If you think they are going to release this game without any directly paid for adverts you're off your rocker.
In any case to advertise simply means to promote. There does not have to be a cost involved to advertise. Their promise of what the finished product will be is the promotion, and in this sense they have advertised harder than anyone in the history of the industry
@Jaws
Okay, fair enough.
Im not a betting person, but I wouldnt bet on CIG using funding to try and sell more copies (i feel they'd rather spend say $5m on future development, directly on the game itself and peoples wages, than giving that money away in exchange for promotion) but i dont know and cant honestly say one way or another. They've got as far as they've got without needing to use funds to sell the game, they've used them to make a better game and let that sell itself, and by being open and honest where its been advantageous - and in some cases when its not, bugsmashers and live demonstrations arent optimal ways to show your work, but it embraces that open spirit and often that 'sells' the project too.
These days, free press (social media
) can get you a long way, short of TV spots and in-store promotions (neither which fit PC-exclusive title these days) im not sure theres much point trying to reach much wider than they can get naturally, by paying for advertising. Things like the AMD promotions might work, which dont really cost them money (possibly potential sales lost?), but not banner ads and off-site promotional stuff to reach new audiences.
I just find it a weird rational, or perhaps just a weird way of putting it, that marketing is what will make SC better than another game. I could list half a dozen things i'd put ahead of that which has more of an impact with a gaming audience, and maybe the vast amount of direct communication CIG has with the community and what in turn filters out in the gaming community, is generating a constant reminder and hitting a wider audience, i still dont see it as a determining factor in its success. I see it as a huge factor in its funding and free advertising/marketing, and would allow them the possibility of never needing to go down the route of paid advertising to succeed (even if it may be more financially rewarding), but the success of the end product wont come down to marketing by any stretch - if it does, then IMO it wont be the game we've been hoping for, and given the effort already and what we're seeing, it'll be ruined potential.
I'd accept self-promotion (maybe a more appropriate term for what you're referring to? i guess its no better either) has certainly been a huge part of SCs success funding it to get it where it is, but its success will only be judged by the end product.
I think whats grating at me is im reading 'A is better than B because of marketing' as being somewhat undermining of what i see SC achieving, and being honest, not really seeing ED as a threat even if they do all the things SC does, just because it all appears to be happening on lesser scale (visually, complexity, budget, storytelling etc).
CIG are trying to build a heavyweight, Frontier i feel are being more sensible and going middleweight, if both do a decent job then it really shouldnt be much of a contest going blow for blow, but if CIG's offering cant tie its own shoelaces then it'll KO itself. CIG just need to avoid KO'ing themselves, and marketing wont be the reason it wins.
For real?
It feels too trolly to be real, and yet so very plausible by SC community standards to be certain Congrats & thx if you're being legit, and if you're not, then
Okay, fair enough.
Im not a betting person, but I wouldnt bet on CIG using funding to try and sell more copies (i feel they'd rather spend say $5m on future development, directly on the game itself and peoples wages, than giving that money away in exchange for promotion) but i dont know and cant honestly say one way or another. They've got as far as they've got without needing to use funds to sell the game, they've used them to make a better game and let that sell itself, and by being open and honest where its been advantageous - and in some cases when its not, bugsmashers and live demonstrations arent optimal ways to show your work, but it embraces that open spirit and often that 'sells' the project too.
These days, free press (social media
) can get you a long way, short of TV spots and in-store promotions (neither which fit PC-exclusive title these days) im not sure theres much point trying to reach much wider than they can get naturally, by paying for advertising. Things like the AMD promotions might work, which dont really cost them money (possibly potential sales lost?), but not banner ads and off-site promotional stuff to reach new audiences. I just find it a weird rational, or perhaps just a weird way of putting it, that marketing is what will make SC better than another game. I could list half a dozen things i'd put ahead of that which has more of an impact with a gaming audience, and maybe the vast amount of direct communication CIG has with the community and what in turn filters out in the gaming community, is generating a constant reminder and hitting a wider audience, i still dont see it as a determining factor in its success. I see it as a huge factor in its funding and free advertising/marketing, and would allow them the possibility of never needing to go down the route of paid advertising to succeed (even if it may be more financially rewarding), but the success of the end product wont come down to marketing by any stretch - if it does, then IMO it wont be the game we've been hoping for, and given the effort already and what we're seeing, it'll be ruined potential.
I'd accept self-promotion (maybe a more appropriate term for what you're referring to? i guess its no better either) has certainly been a huge part of SCs success funding it to get it where it is, but its success will only be judged by the end product.
I think whats grating at me is im reading 'A is better than B because of marketing' as being somewhat undermining of what i see SC achieving, and being honest, not really seeing ED as a threat even if they do all the things SC does, just because it all appears to be happening on lesser scale (visually, complexity, budget, storytelling etc).
CIG are trying to build a heavyweight, Frontier i feel are being more sensible and going middleweight, if both do a decent job then it really shouldnt be much of a contest going blow for blow, but if CIG's offering cant tie its own shoelaces then it'll KO itself. CIG just need to avoid KO'ing themselves, and marketing wont be the reason it wins.
For real?
It feels too trolly to be real, and yet so very plausible by SC community standards to be certain Congrats & thx if you're being legit, and if you're not, then CiG spend a ton of money on marketing. CitizenCon, trade show appearance, all the streaming and website stuff. The lines between Community Management and Marketing are quite blurred these days, but whatever you call it, it costs a fair chunk of change.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 3,222
- Location
- Stoke-on-Trent
So we're going to apparently brush over the number of players/backers on each game, one of which released 18mo ago, and focus entirely on sheer speculation on your part?!? $128m and not a penny spent on advertising it, just events and communication.
Still havent heard why if its such an obvious formula, why Frontier havent bothered, because all ED needs is advertising to make it popular, right??
Events are advertising, show floors are advertising, magazine articles are advertising.
Paul I know you're at the complete end of most people and won't have a bad word said about the whole project but to say they don't advertise?
It's exactly what Citcon is knowing every major gaming game site will have articles on it, yes they want to show new stuff and update people but it's as much about getting exposure as anything else. They don't just want to rely on old backers regularly chucking their credit card at the game, they want new blood.
I wrote a long message about fairness, mismanagement, poor choices, fan boys... then deleted it. Because fan boys are fan boys... and OMG if you want a laugh, try saying some constructive in the Reddit SC subforum. Jesus... it's like you just insulted their mothers.
Good video Speed. Enjoyed it. The sad thing is it kinda made me wanna buy them
Good video Speed. Enjoyed it. The sad thing is it kinda made me wanna buy them
Heh thanks I love doing the videos can't really do much else until my back is better. Glad you liked it.
Also just done some outtakes from my favorite star citizen video ever hehe...
Last edited:
There stands a man with deep pockets
I like the look of the Polaris, but I'd have to sacrifice Starfarer Gemini and Carrack. both of those have too much utility value to sacrifice for a combat ship, plus it's a bit too big considering the max crew! It's definitely something to work for though.
Also, finally watched the CitCon presentation. I can see why folks were getting their knickers in a twist about no S42, but I believe it was withheld for good reason. If you're not impressed by the planetary exploration they showed then I don't know what will. Great example of how everything will integrate, as well as emergent gameplay. I'm happy I've seen enough of the individual bits and pieces they are working on that I'll be more than satisfied when it all comes together. Until then i'm happy for them to take their time and get it right!