The Star Citizen Thread v5

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

milligna

milligna
GordFreeman said:
Well... you guys sure need to keep propping up expectations that you can knock down. That much is obvious.
Click to expand...

Oh c'mon. You really going to pretend CIG and the SC community isn't propping up expectations more than a TAD? It's down to a few sarcastic backers on the Frontier forums, that's why expectations about Star Citizen are unreasonable at best?

oh yeah, ianw must be behind that "BDSSE" thing. FuriousMeow was the one who claimed it would be "deadlier than COD." I'm the one personally responsible for mumbling that they'd be able to support thousands of players simultaneously in a magical nested instances system.

Basil Fawlty voice: OH I SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE it's my fault, is it? Oh, of couuuuurse!
 
Last edited:

ianw

I
GordFreeman said:
Well... you guys sure need to keep propping up expectations that you can knock down. That much is obvious.
Click to expand...

We didn't announce 2.7 - sorry 3.0 as the fix all new network code wonder patch - due this year (that they are now - privately - dampening expectations on).

I think you need to address CR CIG/RSI/whatever they are calling themselves this month re building up expectations.
 

hairychris

hairychris
GordFreeman said:
HAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!

Their crowd funding levels say otherwise! [wacko]
Click to expand...

That isn't profit. It's pre-orders, and by a relatively small number of people vs the entire computer game market although a significant number of people who are crazy about Chris Roberts games.

There is very little market other then people who are already invested. Unless CIG can break into the mass market (which will require millions of $ in advertising and a fully released product, preferably available via a 3rd party provider like Steam or Origin) they are scuppered.

The big bucks is in the market populated by the big'uns like EA, Activision, etc are pushing out Battlefront, Battlefield, COD, etc.

Tell me how CIG can get a self-supporting sales model using the tactics - pushing additional ships/pledges - that they are now.
 
Last edited:

Marcus

Marcus
idkmybffjill said:
I can explain why the idea of the MVP isn't an issue. Because people like you hear it and immediately think "WOW Chris just admitted Star Citizen is going to be a gutted empty shell and everyone will be disappointed!" Meanwhile, people who have been paying attention to the development over the years think "that means what Chris has been saying all along; not all the stretch goals talked about will be in at launch day." See the difference? See, there's even evidence to support that we're still getting a rather robust feature set at launch, considering within the next few months we'll be landing on fully rendered planets and carrying out rover drive-bys.
Click to expand...

milligna said:
Wouldn't it make more sense, especially to the backers that don't fall into one or two highly convenient polarized camps, if open development involved merely EXPLAINING what the MVP consisted of? All these hundreds of hours of videos, why not spend five minutes in one of them telling the backers what CR considers the MVP?

Wouldn't that be SOMEWHAT helpful to more than a few backers who you don't immediately sneer about as "people like you," hmm?

Because leaving it fuzzy and open to interpretation is better for business, isn't it. Leave it as a matter of faith... then only the foul unbelievers, LEAVERS, and special snowflakes would POSSIBLY quibble. Whereas the pure and those that Walk With Chris, knows what he means. Innately. Completely. Because in His Presence his Grace allows us to understand game development.
Click to expand...

It looks like Milligna beat me to it, but I have to say I dont agree with your interpretation of my opinion.

I dont see how its unreasonable to ask what the definition of the MVP is and what it mean for the games completeness on release?

Its a question I have posed here several times over the last couple of days, but have yet to get a satisfactory answer.

Surely its incumbent on CIG to define what Star Citizen will actually be when its released if they asking people to give them money to help release it?

As far as I can see they havent done so.
 
Last edited:

Osmanthus

O
GordFreeman said:
Are you kidding me?! What kind of logic is that? Playing a game that I perceive as 'better' has never stopped me from playing another game.

See Osman. This all or nothing mentality is not mine. It is that of regulars here. It's pathetic.
Click to expand...

Hey, I was just asking you to clarify. Why are you insulting me?
 

GordFreeman

G
hairychris said:
That isn't profit. It's pre-orders, and by a relatively small number of people vs the entire computer game market although a significant number of people who are crazy about Chris Roberts games.
Click to expand...

So...... what.....

Their game is resource heavy. It was known to be this way from the start. It's not the first game built around this philosophy and it won't be the last. It is not a recipe for suicide. The amount of support up to this point would prove otherwise.
 

Monk

Monk
Marcus said:
It looks like Milligna beat me to it, but I have to say I dont agree with your interpretation of my opinion.

I dont see how its unreasonable to ask what the definition of the MVP is and what it mean for the games completeness on release?

It a question I have posed here several times over the last couple of days, but have yet to get a satisfactory answer.

Surely its incumbent on CIG to define what Star Citizen will actually be when its released if they asking people to give them money to help release it?

As far as I can see they havent done so.
Click to expand...

Correct, no MVP defined. We are left to decide what is a minimally viable product on our own...for some folks that is one thing, for others it is another. CIG/RSI are building quite the situation for themselves should an MVP ever be released.

It is especially pertinent that they disclose their definition of MVP as we have already had multiple release windows over the years that have come and gone with barely a satisfactory of an explanation at any point.
 

hairychris

hairychris
GordFreeman said:
So...... what.....

Their game is resource heavy. It was known to be this way from the start. It's not the first game built around this philosophy and it won't be the last. It is not a recipe for suicide. The amount of support up to this point would prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

Please address the rest of my post.

hairychris said:
That isn't profit. It's pre-orders, and by a relatively small number of people vs the entire computer game market although a significant number of people who are crazy about Chris Roberts games.

There is very little market other then people who are already invested. Unless CIG can break into the mass market (which will require millions of $ in advertising and a fully released product, preferably available via a 3rd party provider like Steam or Origin) they are scuppered.

The big bucks is in the market populated by the big'uns like EA, Activision, etc are pushing out Battlefront, Battlefield, COD, etc.

Tell me how CIG can get a self-supporting sales model using the tactics - pushing additional ships/pledges - that they are now.
Click to expand...

Ya.
 
Last edited:

Dementropy

Dementropy
Initial support and funding are great for any studio. After all, development can't take place without a budget in place to allocate to the departments doing the work. For SC to be *profitable*, it has to sell copies upon release to an amount that overtakes the amount of funding used. To say it's already profitable implies that people are profiting off the amount of money that is already there. But all of that money goes to paying salaries, developing the game, making good on stretch goals, marketing, making sure the project stays on track, etc. - right?
 

hairychris

hairychris
GordFreeman said:
No.

Why should I?
Click to expand...

Maybe because by only quoting that part you might give a.... coloured version of what I actually said?

Being resource heavy is one thing. The fact that CIG are mis-selling their product to the only people who can actually run their game is another.

Please be honest.
 
Last edited:

Stigbob

Stigbob
idkmybffjill said:
I can explain why the idea of the MVP isn't an issue. Because people like you hear it and immediately think "WOW Chris just admitted Star Citizen is going to be a gutted empty shell and everyone will be disappointed!" Meanwhile, people who have been paying attention to the development over the years think "that means what Chris has been saying all along; not all the stretch goals talked about will be in at launch day." See the difference? See, there's even evidence to support that we're still getting a rather robust feature set at launch, considering within the next few months we'll be landing on fully rendered planets and carrying out rover drive-bys.
Click to expand...

The issue here is that you simply don't understand what an MVP is. Let the dictionary help.

Minimum = the least or smallest amount or quantity possible, attainable, or required.
Viable = capable of working successfully; feasible.
Product = an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale.

By combining the above you get the smallest possible quantity of successfully working game that you've already bought. No matter which way you refactor it that's not a good thing.


Bonus definition

Minimum viable product = link NSFW
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=minimum viable product
 

milligna

milligna
Dementropy said:
Initial support and funding are great for any studio. After all, development can't take place without a budget in place to allocate to the departments doing the work. For SC to be *profitable*, it has to sell copies upon release to an amount that overtakes the amount of funding used. To say it's already profitable implies that people are profiting off the amount of money that is already there. But all of that money goes to paying salaries, developing the game, making good on stretch goals, marketing, making sure the project stays on track, etc. - right?
Click to expand...

Despite the limited edition Porsche, multiple salaries for family members, and vacations to Maui and Monaco, ostensibly they claim every penny goes back into development. It's convenient to make such claims when there's zero transparency or oversight. Gee, what could possibly go wrong.

Very strange to hear some of the fans claim it's "already profitable" tho, huh? Seems a bit distasteful considering perma-crowdfunding mode. Then again CIG/RSI/Whatever-Acronym-Is-Handy was never a company to be guided by taste or common sense.
 
Last edited:

ianw

I
GordFreeman said:
No.

Why should I? I made my point. I don't believe any of your rhetoric describing what CIG needs to survive.
Click to expand...

Well Chris himself said - and the latest refund emails seem to confirm - that they are dependent on continued funding - after getting north of 120 mill (x 4 for no publishers).

But the longer it goes with them not making things work the more at risk that continued funding becomes.

3.0 looks like next year now - assuming 2.6 doesn't run into prolonged difficulties.

It's difficult to claim their recent record gives rise to much optimism.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom