The Star Citizen Thread v5

[VidarSnipes]

Seems fair since it's for 2 full games, Squadron 42 + Star Citizen. Star Citizen alone increased so much in scope and quality that I feel it's still a great bargain all in all.

No, it doesn't seem fair. The advertised price is 60$, and the true average (and that's per ship, loads of people have more than one) is almost twice that, and yet no fans of SC mention that out loud.

Edit: And the expanded scope means nothing if the advertised features didn't materialize after all this time. Promises are cheap.

 

[briguy168]

None of that talks about any kind of price or TTA balancing, so the question remains: is it an assumption that the supposed assumption is erroneous?

That quote wasn't about TTA or price balancing. That quote was to answer that OFFICIALLY it was know that the RL money to UEC conversion wasn't indicative of final in-game prices; that those prices will be inflated once the game was released. The balance of TTA/price is an assumption based upon the design not being final. You don't think they would try to balance out TTA so that someone who only has an Aurora can get a Constellation within a reasonable amount of time while still giving the ship "value" to the backers who forked over money for them? Do you honestly think that Elite: Dangerous has the right model of ship progression (Anaconda costing 146,969,451)? I've played about 15-20 hours and I've barely made enough to purchase a Viper from trading w/ ~150k lefto over and this is using the many trade tools that are available.

I personally think CIG will not be that hard core and mission payout will be a bit more forthcoming than in Elite but this is my personal opinion.

So yes the assumption that the TTA will be huge based on an ill-informed assumption about an analogy that CR described in a video (that basically mirrors what he posted ~3 years ago) is erroneous.

 

[Necronaught]

Want a picture of the future? Imagine the NMS scenario reflected by Star Citizen, with a million more upset customers stamping on Croberts face, forever.

 

[briguy168]

They have a simple choice they either admit the games pay2win and embrace it, deterring the vast number of gamers who never touch pay2win games. Or they shaft the backers who've paid stupid prices for in-game stuff.

It could go either way, on the one hand they might not care that much about people who never buy game items as they are not big spenders. But they already have the whales money and can chase a new customer base.

It's a ticklish situation.

Always with this black and white dichotomy.....? They could figure out a balance that satisfies the majority of people who only have the base ships vs. the people who have spent a lot of money on ships. IMHO, if you didn't do your due diligence to research before you bought, it's completely on you for making the assumption that expensive ships = "I win" button when it's been plastered everywhere that ship price is not indicative of wining a battle outside of skill.

 

[kilvenny]

That's the thing - it's highly unlikely they have a giant pile of cash sitting around. The monthly outgoings with all these studios and 330 odd people must be exceeding their incomings by a decent amount. So any reserves are being constantly whittled away.

I did a rough estimate of their costs (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y4VYHqDEY4uWa2J2FMBeYtgN65Dd-l01JN6MwF3XxGg/edit?usp=sharing)

This is by no means an accurate account of what they have spent or what is left over. This was done with industry averages and the only purpose for this was to illustrate the POTENTIAL funds they MAY have.

Interesting numbers. Your high value of expenditure is in the ball back of my     packet calculation. Just for reference ED's budget was 4M GBP per year for 80 dev's (circa 50K GBP per dev). I also understood that SC had a significant amount of Sub contract eg for Star Marine. I suspect that there will be some very high earners also to factor in. Last year I remember reading a quote attributed to CR that if incoming dropped below 3M USD per month he would get concerned, so I think you are correct about burn rate exceeding incoming for most of this year.

I was interested in the comments made by CR about the price of ships in game, that seems to be a very real effort to encourage people to buy more ships now, which is of course the fastest way to get income in. 400 dollar ship is circa 8 sc game sales.

i hope for everyone's sake who backed or purchased that they have enough funds to reach a point where they can get something stable out there that encourages the general public to buy, because the concept is something that needs to be realised, so that people can see that a "complete" game can be done. I believe we are at the critical point, 3.0 needs to be stable and the networking vastly improved so that the foundations are in place to build on.

 

[LeSabre]

Always with this black and white dichotomy.....? They could figure out a balance that satisfies the majority of people who only have the base ships vs. the people who have spent a lot of money on ships. IMHO, if you didn't do your due diligence to research before you bought, it's completely on you for making the assumption that expensive ships = "I win" button when it's been plastered everywhere that ship price is not indicative of wining a battle outside of skill.

How exactly do you do due diligence on purchasable assets when:

1. 'Purchasable' does not always mean 'playable now'.
2. CIG change ship stats and other factors on a whim, often enough to completely change certain ships' roles.
3. There is no actual game to accurately test quality/value of assets in.
4. It's all subject to change.

The only real sensible option is to not bother buying anything really, that's as much due diligence as people are afforded.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

One just have to compare the early pitch video and assets to understand, we are getting the game we dream sooner rather than later. FPS, Multicrew, Planetary Landings, Capital Ships etc, all implemented from the ground up instead of being added with late patches after the game is out, look how that turned out for EVE and other games that find themselves stuck because their engine was not prepared beforehand to accommodate those afterthought ideas. That's why they managed to do the 3.0 Demo and wow the world, because it's something truly ground breaking and never really done before. Trailblazing like DB said is a great word to describe what they are doing. So good and ambitious it's hard to grasp just when thinking about it.

What exactly makes you think you'll get it sooner rather than an awful lot later? There is no evidence in history of CIG or CR ever living up to their "you'll get it much quicker than we thought" statements. The 3.0 demo was a showpiece for gamescom (likely mvp prep), their idea of the perfect (although really cliche and dull) mission set up, there is no evidence at all that they can go from what they have now on PU to the level of quality that they showed off at gamescom, it's just another ship ad to give non-critical thinkers hope. They might make it look the same on PU, but it'll play like garbage with online multiplayer and at really low fps due to 'netcode'. I guarantee it, as they are so constantly predictable with output quality.

Just to add, the majority of SC is an afterthought idea and still they are thinking of new things to add. I don't recall EVE having many problems gameplay wise due to additional things being thrown at it, if you're talking about the walking in stations thing, well that always was just a novelty optional thing to do and the game itself did not suffer in any way aside from fun riots and lots of shouting, I was a player during that time and I never once broke away from flying around to 'walk' around a station or dress the dolly up. Just about the only thing I had to do that pulled me away from actually playing was redoing my avatar for the new char creator, little else was noticed.

 

[Tippis]

That quote wasn't about TTA or price balancing.

Yes. That was my point. I questioned whether the supposed rebuttal regarding TTA and price balancing was itself an assumption. The supposed answer to that question said nothing on that topic.

The balance of TTA/price is an assumption based upon the design not being final.

Ok. So that makes it an assumption that what the other guy was saying was erroneous. That was all I was interested in clearing up.

With that said, in the future, if you're going to call something “erroneous”, please at least have something to back up your own assumption and to demonstrate or even outright prove the error of making an assumption to the opposite.

 

[CMDR_Orlando]

Want a picture of the future? Imagine the NMS scenario reflected by Star Citizen, with a million more upset customers stamping on Croberts face, forever.

NMS as nothing to do with Star Citizen. NMS gameplay was a mystery until release. Star Citizen is being done right in front of everyone, they have Free-Fly weeks constantly allowing for people to try the game and see for themselves how it plays and if they like it.

Besides NMS is really a small budget / team indie game that got a big marketing push thanks to Sony.
Star Citizen not only has a much bigger work force and funding but also a much bigger scope.

Basically the NMS hype was an fabricated illusion. Star Citizen Hype has been slowly built in a shroud of scepticism and hope, mostly thanks to the funding they keep amassing. But since they keep showcasing things that blow people out of their mind they keep gaining a bigger and bigger momentum. This month alone will be the best month in terms of revenue and new-accounts added. And there is still Citizencon Show/Sale, November Anniversary sale and the Christmas Sale AND a whole lot of casual gamers market to cater to.

 

[Tippis]

NMS as nothing to do with Star Citizen.

Sure it does.

Before its release, NMS was a massively hyped game that failed to live up to its expectations, especially among the people who had hyped it up and who had very aggressively harassed anyone who suggested that maybe, just maybe, it was ever so slightly overhyped. Something very similar is going on with SC, and based on what they've released, the one consistent aspect is that it's not really living up to the hype. It's not much of a stretch to imagine that it, too, will not meet its hype target on release.

Should that realisation reach the ardent, very aggressive, core fanbase, there is nothing to suggest that they will not have the same reaction as the NMS fans have had.

 

[Stigbob]

Always with this black and white dichotomy.....? They could figure out a balance that satisfies the majority of people who only have the base ships vs. the people who have spent a lot of money on ships. IMHO, if you didn't do your due diligence to research before you bought, it's completely on you for making the assumption that expensive ships = "I win" button when it's been plastered everywhere that ship price is not indicative of wining a battle outside of skill.

If you can buy ships or in game cash with RL money then it's pay2win, there's no middle-ground. Games do it or they don't gamers like it or they don't it's a blocker for a lot of people. AFAIK CiG have said in the past they wouldn't do it post release, but that's big pinch of salt obviously.

The balance is impossible one side or the other will lose their minds, probably both to some degree.

Look at the drama with NMS people went nuts (proper death threat nuts) because a shallow cartoony space exploration minecraft/spore crossover was a bit delayed then wasn't the second coming of space simulation. The game's exactly as I expected it to be from watching game-play video's a space mans version of borderlands (I don't mean that in a bad way both games are daft mindless fun). There's a lot of people applying wishful thinking/online theory-crafting to games in development, then they are very disappointed when reality hits. Over-hyped marketing doesn't help.

The wishful thinking, theory-crafting and over-promising in relation to SC is much, much worse than NMS ever was. The fallout on release/cancellation/MVP will probably be equally magnified (and there's people much more heavily spending on it).

 

[darkoff]

NMS as nothing to do with Star Citizen. NMS gameplay was a mystery until release. Star Citizen is being done right in front of everyone, they have Free-Fly weeks constantly allowing for people to try the game and see for themselves how it plays and if they like it.

Besides NMS is really a small budget / team indie game that got a big marketing push thanks to Sony.
Star Citizen not only has a much bigger work force and funding but also a much bigger scope.

Basically the NMS hype was an fabricated illusion. Star Citizen Hype has been slowly built in a shroud of scepticism and hope, mostly thanks to the funding they keep amassing. But since they keep showcasing things that blow people out of their mind they keep gaining a bigger and bigger momentum. This month alone will be the best month in terms of revenue and new-accounts added. And there is still Citizencon Show/Sale, November Anniversary sale and the Christmas Sale AND a whole lot of casual gamers market to cater to.

Tell me your typical gameplay loop of star citizen?

Im sorry to say but everyone who isnt heavily invested in this just sees massive amount of hype around 1 man that hasnt delivered a game in 20 years and a man whose track record as a manager isnt pretty either. A man that continues to say yes when he should be saying no.

Also i find eventually a problematic term with star citizen. By end of next year they should have stanton finished.
Problem is that theres 100 other systems they need to finish as well. 1 year per system would lead to 100 year development time before we see star citizen complete.
hell even if they pick up the pace and deliver 10 systems per year. it would take 10 years to complete this game.
now lets say that some of backers out there are 60 already, will they see star citizen complete in their lifetime?

 

[LeSabre]

NMS as nothing to do with Star Citizen. NMS gameplay was a mystery until release. Star Citizen is being done right in front of everyone, they have Free-Fly weeks constantly allowing for people to try the game and see for themselves how it plays and if they like it.

Hang on a second, there was no mystery at all with what NMS was going to be. There were enough gameplay vids kicking around and Sean was demonstrating it often enough to see that it was always going to be a chill and relax game with a survival aspect. It does exactly what it says on the tin, all the anger and frustration people are feeling with it is because they built it up in their minds to be something it was never designed to be, a second life in space.

CIG keep showcasing things that never measure up to what ends up in the PU or things that just flat out don't exist, all hype and no show. It's definitely going to dissapoint in many ways as rather than the NMS situation where peoples imaginations run riot 'just because', CIG actually encourage people to let their imaginations go mental, they even encourage this silly 'the game is everything you want it to be' mindset until people are so twisted around in their minds that they'll buy anything, say anything, defend anything. Of course, if it comes to release and turns out to be very mediocre or worse, then they'll either defend it into the ground or mentally break, hard. Honestly, some of the mindsets are silly scary and irrational to the point where you wonder what they pad their rooms with.

From my point of view as someone who stupidly put money into it in 2012 ($125, and not a single cent more since) in the hopes of getting a fun game out of it, it's gone past being a farce long ago. Scope means exactly nothing if it never amounts to actual existing material and scope is an absolutely weak thing to be promoting them with as not once have they gone past bare bones basic gameplay with their progress.

 

[CMDR_Orlando]

Sure it does.

Before its release, NMS was a massively hyped game that failed to live up to its expectations, especially among the people who had hyped it up and who had very aggressively harassed anyone who suggested that maybe, just maybe, it was ever so slightly overhyped. Something very similar is going on with SC, and based on what they've released, the one consistent aspect is that it's not really living up to the hype. It's not much of a stretch to imagine that it, too, will not meet its hype target on release.

Should that realisation reach the ardent, very aggressive, core fanbase, there is nothing to suggest that they will not have the same reaction as the NMS fans have had.

Not living up to the hype? So why is it growing and growing every month? Why do they see boosts in growth after their show's or after every big patch?
NMS is a game based on PG with very little engaging gameplay , it's "exploration" attributes are just rinse + repeat pg assets without any meaning.

Besides that NMS still sold a lot of unites and made them a lot of money. Why? Because forum/reddit posters make for a very small percentage of an actual game community.
That little minority of hardcore followers of a game (lovers or haters) can make a lot of noise but in the big picture they are mostly just exacerbated noise.

Star Citizen is true open development, that's why we have been playing the game since it's inception basically. With every update delivered the number of players rise exponentially and as the basic foundations are put in place and the alpha grows and grows the more people will join. There is also Squadron 42 which will provide contextualization and mass-market appeal with the Hollywood cast and rich lore of it's space opera single-player campaign.

House Roberts: The Future is Bright and Full of Backers [big grin]

 

[Asp Explorer]

My lulzbucket literally exploded.

 

[LeSabre]

Star Citizen is true open development, that's why we have been playing the game since it's inception basically. With every update delivered the number of players rise exponentially and as the basic foundations are put in place and the alpha grows and grows the more people will join. There is also Squadron 42 which will provide contextualization and mass-market appeal with the Hollywood cast and rich lore of it's space opera single-player campaign.

House Roberts: The Future is Bright and Full of Backers [big grin]

Please put forth an example of the "exponential" growth of the SC player base, I really want to have a good laugh at your definition of 'exponential'.

The only growth in the alpha has been the addition of a whole station and some generic 'fetch' missions, wow. Meanwhile in other games, entire new game modes and ways to play are being rolled out. Methinks you are suffering with group hypnosis if you think the alpha has had much in the way of growth lately, it still plays exatly the same as December last year (as in, broken, janky, badly) and persistence was a massive dissapointment, oh wow, I can relog and keep my pants and my credits, wooooo so special /sarcasm.

Also, Hollywood cast being led around by CR, have you ever seen his level of directing skills? Yeah to be kind, he is a terrible director (as proven by his film making prowess). Those Hollywood actors (yawn, no game has ever done that before, yawn) are not going to shine at all, what did Matthew Lillard say about Wing Commander again? Oh yeah, it was a "piece of **** that I regretted doing", his words not mine I forsee nothing but lols from S42, as thats the one thing CR keeps delivering in spades.

 

[jcrg99]

Tell me your typical gameplay loop of star citizen?

Im sorry to say but everyone who isnt heavily invested in this just sees massive amount of hype around 1 man that hasnt delivered a game in 20 years and a man whose track record as a manager isnt pretty either. A man that continues to say yes when he should be saying no.

Also i find eventually a problematic term with star citizen. By end of next year they should have stanton finished.
Problem is that theres 100 other systems they need to finish as well. 1 year per system would lead to 100 year development time before we see star citizen complete.
hell even if they pick up the pace and deliver 10 systems per year. it would take 10 years to complete this game.
now lets say that some of backers out there are 60 already, will they see star citizen complete in their lifetime?

Once they have the tools, have learned, the process in place, the maturity of the team in place, the remaining 95 systems will come faster.

In other words, by 2021 it's possible that the SC Universe have 100-115 systems as promised when they had around 20 million dollars, that was supposed to be released by the end of 2014/earlier 2015.

Then, they will just have to polish them all, fix all the bugs and add all the missing features to the game, which include capital ships, managed by players and sold, each one, for thousands of real dollars. Support for orgs, fleets, C&C, etc.
2031 will be a great year for the space genre.

Remember, more money, more content and faster. Buy the Completionist. We don't need to wait until 2100. We still can save 70 years if we give to Roberts 1 or 2 billion dollars.

 

[DukeIronHand]

I can't take any people such as yourself seriously, you've got money in the game, you hang on every word and drip of information and you quite possibly have a monthly susbscription running yet ignoring all that bias you want to make yourself sound like the voice of reason... like all of this is benign and all it requires is the smallest switch of perception to view it as more enlightened people would view it.

Whereas in reality, it is rationalised in a way that only seems possible by Star Citizen fans.

It's really like a cult. Kinda creepy this full out defense, beyond rhyme or reason, of...what?
When the cultists are talking it up its a "game" or "release" yet when the dozens of issues or short comings are mentioned it suddenly becomes an "Alpha."

And despite years of broken promises and a buggy half baked product they still defend it blindly and continue to shell out thousands of dollars. Creepy is really the only word that comes to mind bordering on scary.

I have been watching SC for years hoping for a fine game. Now I will be surprised if it happens and even if it did I would not now join the cult. Creepy...

 

[CMDR_Orlando]

Ahah so you think because they spent time building tools and creating pipelines to haste the creating of assets. They can already make whole detailed planets in just a couple of days.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Ahah so you think because they spent time building tools and creating pipelines to haste the creating of assets. They can already make whole detailed planets in just a couple of days.

But PG is boring and repetitive, no? At least that is what CR said

 

[CMDR_Orlando]

But PG is boring and repetitive, no? At least that is what CR said

That's why they add the handcraft locations on top of it. PG is used to generate the canvas for the artists to paint. See Gamescom demo. A lot of the assets used in that underground station are re-used from the Asteroid Hangar, ArcCorp city etc