Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
Lots of blah, with your definition Windows 10 is still in alpha, as it gets frequent updates. (So it is in development). Likeways any game getting new features over time would be by that definition "alpha". In reality it is just an excuse for poor quality.
Man! If alpha is unfinished, is there a state that predates that? pre-alpha = not yet started? Design document stage like pre-production?
No way, Chris Roberts said it himself the whole project was going to produce a one and done high-quality product unlike all the other developers who churn out unfinished buggy games.
Maybe you could bring it up at the next Citcon.
I'm not a software developer so I'll take your word for it, but is "development release" an industry term?
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
That distinction is only in your head I am afraid. Once the developer is charging/monetizing its product and accounting for it like any other regular product there is strictly no difference between those: Tons of released products out there that continue to receive free updates of all kinds and therefore their development is still active on its way
, No Mans Sky, Space Engineers, Elite etc. Star Citizen is no different.That is like saying « don’t buy released products that are crap if you can't stand the bugs, simple as that. »
As mentioned above in the case of SC, given the game is already released, "alpha" is just a very convenient way to obfuscate the fact the game is crap
There is literally no difference between, say, a game released in Epic or Steam that happens to be crap but where the developer endeavours to improve it eventually with further patches; and a game released by CIG claiming it is an "alpha" and that they will do their best to improve it eventually with further patches. No guarantee either way.
In both cases the developer is treating the product as released, cashing in and paying taxes on profit, paying out dividends, arguing legal defense on the basis the product is released, and limiting refunds around the regulatory required period, etc etc etc. And also in both cases there is zero guarantees for the buyer that things will improve.
No difference, both cases released, both cases crap.
Last edited:
Also lots of blah. Windows 10 is not changing any of its underlying main engine. When they do, they do it in alpha for a new iteration of windows.
SC has changed its database with PES and still need Server Meshing. They are absolutely not "new features" but a deep changes of infrastructure.
These points are done in what is called an alpha.
It's not an industry term. But, as a company, you can sell whatever you want at whatever stage of development you want as soon as the customer know what he's buying. It's a commercial release. When I say "development release" I talk about the gold version of a software. CIG has a "commercial release" of SC but not a "gold release" of SC.
Again, when you buy an alpha and you know it, you get an alpha quality software (= in heavy development with bugs).
Again, when you buy a gold version of a software, you (should) get a gold standard quality software (= no heavy development and no bugs).
In both cases you have bought a "released" product but each product have a clearly different announced quality because they are not at the same stage of development. You can't compare both.
SC is commercialy available but is not a gold version. If it's not gold, you can have bugs.
Last edited:
Talking of roadmaps, from March 2022:
When is Pyro arriving?
Ah, Pyro has been completed for years, apparently.
As we can see, the "Progress Tracker" is very clear.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Many games not in « alpha » are also still in development and adding updates and improvements on a regular basis. No Man’s Sky, Space Engineers, Elite, to name just a few in the same niche.
As mentioned above in the case of SC, given the game is already released, "alpha" is just a very convenient way to obfuscate the fact the game is crap compared to other games.
SC is exactly in the same development and commercial situation as those other games (although having spent significantly more money and man hours) but it just happens to be a much crappier game.
Maybe Star Citizen should be added to Wikipedia as another example of the Buttered Cat Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buttered_cat_paradox
"Playable now" - so it's a release quality game
"It's Alpha" - so it's a buggy mess
"Playable now" - so it's a release quality game
"It's Alpha" - so it's a buggy mess
You know what keeps getting that stale air into this thread? The same old lame excuses by the SC apologists. The same old smoke bombs. The same old crap.
I think we have already established that it is a fully playable alpha that you cannot play, only test. There should be no more misunderstandings, then.
"Playable Now" - go with what the game markets. Not what some random troll pulls out their rear.
First we've seen code on developers screen during interviews. While we could not see that many details, we could see the infamous "endless if/then tree" structure and state checks at many levels that are symptomatic of poor state management and spaghetti code.
Second we can see with out own eyes the results of said code, when changing a small thing on one aspect of the game breaks almost everything else, which is a very clear indicator of buried code layers / spaghetti code.
Not when it's not released yet - dropping whole aspects of the code and doing them over and over again with no real improvement is not a good project health indicator. Usually when you are at that point the ROI dips below zero and it's about time to scrap the whole thing and start a new one from zero.