The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
I think that you miss the point a bit. This is BioWare removing a cut-scene, not in any way changing a mechanic, to streamline gameplay.
If CIG are implementing stuff like unskippable cinematics, or gameplay like enforced manual loading of ships and other trivialities then the whole experience will ultimately suffer. It doesn't matter what platform you're talking about, it's a gameplay decision.
Bringing up FDev/ED, we might complain about some of the gameplay loop, but the interactions in stations can be completed in a very streamlined fashion so you can get on with doing what you want to do. Without instant cargo transactions, repairs, etc ED would be massively annoying. Now this doesn't simulate a starport very well but it does keep the focus on the flying. Hell, even the most detailed flight sims don't (as far as I know) make you wait around for refueling, do a walk-round check, etc before you get to the point of the simulation.
Hopefully CIG don't implement trivialities like this, that's all I'm saying.
FWIW I'll be very annoyed if I can't run around my ship in ME:A!
I kind of agree with you, although it's a yes & no at the same time situation.
It's not necessarily a cost saving when you build on the cloud: if you're buying cloud-based high availability and high horsepower services then it is really not cheap, as what you want is scalability which cannot easily be provided in a corporate datacenter.
A cloud-based solution is certainly the most sensible option in most cases, though, as maintaining an in-house datacenter is an absolute nightmare: the physical racks and pieces of hardware loaded in them is the least of your problems!
I have many regrets in life, but that isn't one of them. I did have rep to give(no rep left to give you though Frank, which is regretful
then... one report to you and one to Frank too for the nice words.
thank you for the report but
honestly i didn't do anything, this SC updates problem is exactly like a spoon who hits you every time .. lol
the spoon trailer is a masterpiece though.
31.882.445 of views... isn't it incredible ?
I'm of two minds about that.
- Add the option to do small cargo loading ourselves
- Add the option to pay a dockmaster to handle cargo loading
- Force paying a dockmaster on larger ships (For safety reasons i could not imagine a huge bulk cargo carrier use their own crew at a space dock when more experienced crew is at hand)
So for smaller ships like the Freelancer and Constellation and perhaps the larger Caterpillar it could be done. Even the internal bay on a Starfarer.
But anything LARGER makes no sense - especially ships like the HULL series that are container vessels and often require tender ships to carry containers in orbit.
- It gives players a choice
- Doing it yourself might save time
- Paying someone is more expensive but you might save time
- If the fee is reasonable in both directions the savings of doing it yourself might make it worth doing it yourself
- Paying for cargo loading could also trigger risks of smuggled goods being discovered
So depending on how it's implemented and IF they add good gameplay AROUND it then it could work.
True, so it comes down to several points:
- If we use a cloud and/or virtual server we can control the amount of server space we need and downscale as well if we do NOT need a certain space.
- Having an owned server park means we have X cost and unless we REMOVE a server we are stuck with both cost and service.
- And if we want to scale UP we need to buy more hardware
- Having a rented server means we pay a fee that can be modular depending on how much space we need
- Having a fixed and owned park means we need to pay to service all of them all the time
Personally I would go for virtual servers if I have a multiplayer oriented game since I can control the need for hardware in an easy manner compared to all the hassle with owning hardware myself and the book keeping that involves.
And if my own server burns down im in trouble compared to a rented virtual machine where they would shift to another server (yes, of course, if THEIR entire server park burns down everyone is in trouble...)
Another important positive point is that if you are selling pre-orders for a game you can't make, by saying cloud a lot you don't have to waste valuable "we've gone bust sorry everyone, never mind we tried. Read your TOS of course I keep the millions I've paid myself" money on server infrastructure.
Why start paying for an infrastructure long before the game is released? That makes no sense either.
Or would you seriously believe anyone would save a huge amount of money for server park hardware when they can RENT the darn things all over the world to when they need it.
Personally I'd first check what corporations would charge me for providing a virtual server service. As they are in it for profit themselves, they will charge you for all that convenience and flexibility. Your argument is a bit like saying you'd take a restaurant over cooking yourself, because you can always up/downscale your menu by picking different things from the menu, and if you dont eat much the wasted ingredients are not your problem. Its all true, but restaurants do tend to charge for all this fun and convenience.
Surprised at the general sentiment in this thread asking people to chip in and "save" the game https://forums.robertsspaceindustri.../celebrate-2-6-1-show-your-support-buy-a-chit
Personally I'd first check what corporations would charge me for providing a virtual server service. As they are in it for profit themselves, they will charge you for all that convenience and flexibility. Your argument is a bit like saying you'd take a restaurant over cooking yourself, because you can always up/downscale your menu by picking different things from the menu, and if you dont eat much the wasted ingredients are not your problem. Its all true, but restaurants do tend to charge for all this fun and convenience.
Of course.
Perhaps i should clarify.
Of COURSE I would investigate the cost benefits and their pricing.
Even if it is more expensive it's better in the short run until I know if I need to expand the server park and if I reach the X amount of players I aim for.
Once I have a stable player base I can then decide if it is more cost effective to RENT or get my OWN servers.
- - - Updated - - -
I cannot really see the point in that.
You either want to back the game or not and if you cannot afford it and need to save 5 dollars each month or quarter between patches then perhaps spending money on an unfinished game in Alpha is a very stupid idea.
And if you saved 5 dollars a month why put it THERE during the time you are saving it? Just put it in a jar at home or at a bank so IF you need it for something else you still have them.
The OP in that thread is not a smart person.
And neither of the posters seems to agree with him either.
Last edited:
I would contend, though, that cargo loading has next-to-nothing to do with core gameplay, and would be something that people would skip after doing it a couple of times... and by making skipping a costed option is would penalise the vast majority of the player base.
All of these sub-tasks are, to all intents and purposes, mini-games. One of the current trends in gaming is for fewer of these as they interrupt the main game.
I'm really waiting to see where CIG go with the cinematics, proper popcorn-at-the-ready, as what we do know isn't promising. CR thinks that he's a film director, there's 1200 pages of scripts, and CIG have spent millions on mocap. I'm wondering what the betting is for this turning into a hugely irritating unskippable screen-fest! [hehe]
The use of the term "cloud" to supposedly fix problems is a major annoyance to people who do know a bit about infrastructure, but is essentially a magical incantation if you don't (aka ).
You don't fix anything by having it in the cloud. Cloud hosting doesn't mean that you can do a lot of stuff easier all of a sudden (you still need to build your apps the right way). All you're doing is running them on someone else's computer that you're renting.
EDIT: The folks who I'm working for are in the process of pushing a lot of apps to Azure. The whole cloud/datacenter issue has been bouncing round my team for years!
Last edited:
The use of the term "cloud" to supposedly fix problems is a major annoyance to people who do know a bit about infrastructure, but is essentially a magical incantation if you don't (aka ).
You don't fix anything by having it in the cloud. Cloud hosting doesn't mean that you can do a lot of stuff easier all of a sudden (you still need to build your apps the right way). All you're doing is running them on someone else's computer that you're renting.
Exactly.
- It's convenient
- Costs more but you delegate responsibility
- It CAN be cheaper than running your own hardware (depending on how much you need and global coverage)
You've missed the point (which admittedly was delivered in a sarcastic humorous way). CIG don't look to me like a company with much confidence in their own ability to deliver what they've promised.
The TOS change, if nothing had changed about their own opinion on the can it be done question they would not have felt the need a few years in to include the "we can fail and keep you money" clause. That on it's own should be panic stations for anyone with money in this.
The total disregard for past promises, they want people to conveniently forget what they've said and when they said it.
Don't bother with a patcher it's a waste of time if there's no future.
Don't bother with a good flight model same as above.
Don't bother fixing ancient bugs, same again.
Don't bother with server infrastructure, same again.
Don't bother expanding the game area, ships are key.
Don't bother with a tutorial just remove the broken one, no new customers are coming anyway the invested don't need a tutorial.
Put your effort into ship sales and progress video's that consist entirely of talking heads with no gameplay ever seen. They keep the money coming in from the already invested.
For many it's not an affordability issue...it's why bother at this point.
For some buying thousands in digital ships while living in their parents basement is an actual problem, but not unique to SC.
Buying chits for patchwork is laughable....this whole process was a promise by devs to share the game to its backers. The data rates CIg are paying for because they clearly cannot rectify this patcher problem is on them.
Backers shouldn't have to subsidize this...not that they have to, but it's a laughable consideration at the core.
After all the money that CIg have raised on ship images and promises...now a backer asks backers for patch subsidy?
Lol
He seems to have misjudged the mood of the crowd. [big grin]
Most of the comments there make me feel like there is still hope for humanity...
Nah, they're just saving their money for the upcoming concept sale....
uah..so like
3.0 rolls in everything is fine again....
They would normally hide this stuff in "Concern" but are more focused on Spectrum now to notice. All this stuff will disappear along with the forums.
- Status