Well, it would take a miracle for them all to get delivered, so I'm guessing there's some correlation.
Last edited:
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
Well, it would take a miracle for them all to get delivered, so I'm guessing there's some correlation.
I edited it to add the bit about income because they would be the ones with the most to lose.
It`s my biggest problem with SC... those a-holes have ruined it for us all, I really wish them all the worse at this point just for this, otherwise i don`t care, they are no longer making SC, now its just some... i don`t know some kind of abomination
To be honest, all of the "old school" developers, except maybe for "uber entertainment", that have used KS to fund their "resurfacing" have been major failures and nostalgia driven cash grabs based on over promising. Elite:dangerous, Wasteland 2, Pillars of eternity, Carmageddon reincarnation... All came out unfinished, buggy as hell, underdeveloped, and far worse than the games they promised to improve upon.
But SC... They are in their own league far far below the worst of the publishers.
All this has thought me is: Old farts are old farts and publishers or any other form of external leadership are a must for dev teams bigger than 3-4 people
Well, we all lose if we don't have the right faith. Or so I'm told by the guys who knock on my door when I have a hangover.
I keep telling them I worship Bacchus...[ugh]
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
*Mod hat off
That is also another myth, that by now hopefully should be starting to become clear:
That is also another myth, that by now hopefully should be starting to become clear:
Last edited:
This is why I try pretty hard *not* to compare FDev and GIG - One is an established game dev, one isn't: We don't know (from here) what FDev's residual income is from "Kinectimals" this year, or what they've spent on supporting "Dog's life".Or how many up-to-speed-with-COBRA coders they have. Income/Expenses for "Planet Coaster" are out of the window until their FD has done their sums, but that'll be millions either way. I'd rather compare CIG with I-Novae.
But we can see what what was crowdfunded with the two projects. ED: £1,578,316 SC: $135,192,158 (at the time of writing).
Last edited:
An XKCD 'toon is as good a 'Nature' paper in my book.
Err, OK.
Not what you originally said, so grab an actual dictionary, look up "hate", and get back to us.
Also, for pity's sake, work out what the 'shift' key is for. Protip: You don't help your case by making yourself look like a drooling imbecile.
As much i dislike his use of the word "hate" the shift key usage comes from being a non-english user and most like having his primary language being german. It has nothing to do with being a "imbecile" and trying to ride on it as a mean to quench his voice is the same as calling everybody a hater for having a different opinion about something then yourself.
Ich spreche sehr gut Deutsch. Sie verwenden "Shift" die gleiche, AFAIK.
edit: I speak German pretty well. They use "Shift" the same, AFAIK.
Last edited:
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
*Mod hat off
Well, that has nothing to do with your original premise: "In the intervening years, CR has got a lot more money"
Which I presume meant all the way to present. Not just the kickstarter or crowdfunded part. Otherwise your statement seems void of any real meaning and is just stating the too obvious. Each company is doing what it thinks is best to get revenues/funding in according to their values and business model. For the most part one sales actual products, the other sales promises. But that is by the by.
I think the comparison of revenues/funding in these last past years is very relevant to also dispel the myth that CIG´s budget => more than anybody else => success. And I hope it is clear that CIG´s funding tracks very reasonably with revenues of comparable development houses out there, including FDEV.
CIG´s funding alone (asuming that RSI tracker is accurate) will not represent automatic success, the quality and competency of its management and coders and how they spend that money will.
Well, that has nothing to do with your original premise: "In the intervening years, CR has got a lot more money"
Which I presume meant all the way to present. Not just the kickstarter or crowdfunded part. Otherwise your statement seems void of any real meaning and is just stating the too obvious. Each company is doing what it thinks is best to get revenues/funding in according to their values and business model. For the most part one sales actual products, the other sales promises. But that is by the by.
I think the comparison of revenues/funding in these last past years is very relevant to also dispel the myth that CIG´s budget => more than anybody else => success. And I hope it is clear that CIG´s funding tracks very reasonably with revenues of comparable development houses out there, including FDEV.
CIG´s funding alone (asuming that RSI tracker is accurate) will not represent automatic success, the quality and competency of its management and coders and how they spend that money will.
Last edited:
No. The internet does not own the English language. And SC 'citizens' are not going to own this thread. Get over it.
I was trying to say that that SC has had a lot more more "goodwill" backing than ED, but the point is taken. I duly retract. *bows out*
Last edited:
While technically true, there are two factors because of which these numbers aren't good comparisons.
One: Elite: Dangerous' crowdfunding campaign ran for two months. Star Citizen's has been running since Oct. 2012, so over four years now.
Alternatively, you could say that Elite's campaign ran until the game's release, so from Nov. 2012 to Dec. 2014. That would be a bit over two years. In this case, the crowdfunded sum for Elite should be higher, as they ran on their own site after the Kickstarter campaign concluded. However, CIG have been far more aggressive with selling things in their online store than Elite has in that time. (They still are: you can't buy yourself an Eagle in Elite's store, let alone an Anaconda.)
Two: Star Citizen's crowdfunding ran on Kickstarter for 33 days only, otherwise it has all been on their own platform. As far as I know, we can't verify whether the numbers they are reporting there are accurate, and they do have an interest in making them look better. So long as a statistic is self-reported and can't be independently verified, but the organisation has an interest in making it look good, it shouldn't be trusted. Yes, I know that some claim that Star Citizen's numbers are not just inaccurate but being actively and grossly manipulated, but until I see definite proof one way or the other, I'll just say that their accuracy is a matter of belief, not fact. The same goes for how much money Elite: Dangerous raised on their own site after their Kickstarter campaign was over.
However, Kickstarter's numbers are more reliable, mostly because they process payments through a third party, and Kickstarter itself has an interest in making sure the numbers are accurate.
Anyway, I know these weren't the main points of your post, I just thought I'd elaborate on them because they are bound to come up elsewhere in the future too.
Last edited:
So back on the topic of planets and stations and transitions:
Ben, the question for me was never whether there's any hidden transitions or the likes. What gave me pause was the completely static station hanging in the sky like if it was geostationary - but it can't be because it was so close that you could make out the individual rings without zoom even. Even if we assume that it was 30 times the size of the ISS, it was still extremely large - or rather, the planet was extremely small compared to earth. But for the most part, the fact that the station hung there, completely static, told me everything I needed to know about the immense fidelity and realism of this demonstration.
Note that I am completely fine with a game just being a game and not taking these things verbatim - just look at Borderlands and how things are awkwardly suspended in the sky.
No, the issue is that CIG has stated that this is going to be the the be-all, end-all of space sims. The ultimate in realism. Fans since tried to argue that there's a difference between a "sim" and a "simulation", an argument so silly I hope it sticks to them forever). When a company claims grandiose things, their work shall be measured accordingly.
I'd much rather CIG take a page out of Frontier's behavior and not spit big words, just focus on making the game. Let it speak for itself. And for crying out loud stop selling ships that cost several hundred dollars.
Ben, the question for me was never whether there's any hidden transitions or the likes. What gave me pause was the completely static station hanging in the sky like if it was geostationary - but it can't be because it was so close that you could make out the individual rings without zoom even. Even if we assume that it was 30 times the size of the ISS, it was still extremely large - or rather, the planet was extremely small compared to earth. But for the most part, the fact that the station hung there, completely static, told me everything I needed to know about the immense fidelity and realism of this demonstration.
Note that I am completely fine with a game just being a game and not taking these things verbatim - just look at Borderlands and how things are awkwardly suspended in the sky.
No, the issue is that CIG has stated that this is going to be the the be-all, end-all of space sims. The ultimate in realism. Fans since tried to argue that there's a difference between a "sim" and a "simulation", an argument so silly I hope it sticks to them forever). When a company claims grandiose things, their work shall be measured accordingly.
I'd much rather CIG take a page out of Frontier's behavior and not spit big words, just focus on making the game. Let it speak for itself. And for crying out loud stop selling ships that cost several hundred dollars.
Last edited:
Indeed - I twitched at you saying that too but his capitalisation is nothing like German capitalisation. OT perhaps but important to know no-one's being that kinda nasty
Explanations for an Station being more or less Geo Stationary is not much of an Problem.
Gravity aint the only Force in Effect.
If an Station can use Propulsion to Balance its Position it could actually maintain an Locked Position in the Planets Stratosphere if it wanted. Similar to an Helicopter.
Which means its Position is not forcibly set in Orbit
pls note
I dont know what the case is here. Because I dont know the scene you talk about.
So I dont know if they made an Explanation or anything for it.
But in General most things can be made possible. An Station which is Fairly Close to the Planet and Sets its Position Fixed to the Planet rather than using an Orbital Position is not Impossible
As for Games Claiming to be the Best and the End of all Times etc etc.
If I were to avoid any Game doing that 99.8% of the Games out there would be out.
I mean have you checked the Steam Store lately.
Make an Self Experiment.
Browse the Game Store and then mark any Game that claims to be the Best, Biggest, Revolutionary, Breathtaking or whatever other Claims of Superiority you can think of
Alone Yesterday when I browsed Games for Black Friday Sales. I read this Statement of this Game for whatever reason being the new best whatever. So often that I am hardly noticing it anymore.
If the Game says. Hey we will just be another Space Game and after us there will be other better Space Games. Nobody will Buy it
How old is the Cobra engine?
…just mindbogglingly unrealistic to the point where it ventures beyond mere scifi and straight into the realm of Spelljammer-style fantasy.But in General most things can be made possible. An Station which is Fairly Close to the Planet and Sets its Position Fixed to the Planet rather than using an Orbital Position is not Impossible
…and the list would be pretty small because no-one in their right mind makes that kind of claim without qualification (or misinterprets “breathtaking” as being a claim of superiority). They are all “best in the series (according to some review)”, or “biggest (because the previous installations were, factually, smaller)”. It's all in relation to something else or quoted from someone who ostensibly have a solid base of comparison. And yes, “revolutionary” is pure PR speech that means they're trying to sell a sub-par product. Every time. So you stay away from those.Browse the Game Store and then mark any Game that claims to be the Best, Biggest, Revolutionary, Breathtaking or whatever other Claims of Superiority you can think of
Sure they will. Anti-marketing is very much in vogue at the moment. Beyond that, if someone claims that they're making the last, best-ever anything, you know they're lying through their teeth and shouldn't be trusted.If the Game says. Hey we will just be another Space Game and after us there will be other better Space Games. Nobody will Buy it
Last edited:
Das ist gut das du deutsch sprichst weil ich selbst deutscher bin.
Trans: Good thing you can speak german, because i am german myself.
And i know my english can be sometimes horrible
In some cases yes, but in others it can have the opposite effect(realization of scope creep and terrible value for money). Its amazing how often the term 'faith' is used in relation to Star Citizen, I suppose it is like a religion in that there is no evidence the promised land really exists and hoping you will get there some day.
Last edited:
I mean have you checked the Steam Store lately.
Make an Self Experiment.
Browse the Game Store and then mark any Game that claims to be the Best, Biggest, Revolutionary, Breathtaking or whatever other Claims of Superiority you can think of
Alone Yesterday when I browsed Games for Black Friday Sales. I read this Statement of this Game for whatever reason being the new best whatever. So often that I am hardly noticing it anymore.
If the Game says. Hey we will just be another Space Game and after us there will be other better Space Games. Nobody will Buy it
Ah but how many can you find that claim they're going to be the best Everything simulator? Not just space but cities and jobs and farming and more?
I think people had a lot more faith when they claimed SC would be the ultimate space game - what they had planned could have been for some people. Contrast that to where we find ourselves now and it becomes increasingly hard to swallow
- Status