We're not all gullible simpletons you know [squeeeee]
Star Citizen Thread v6
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
We're not all gullible simpletons you know [squeeeee]
The point is that many people would have backed based on certain expectation as generated by CIG. They might have thought, ok, $40 now and i get to play a game in 3 or so years. Because that is what CIG was saying. Or that you know, that money now so i can play 3.0 in the new year, because apparently its just around the corner. And then CIG change the scope and the narrative, and suddenly you now have a new deadline because they have decided to change what they are making. And yes, thanks to the efforts of some people, backers can now get refunds, something CIG tried very hard to stop people doing, and have even changed their TOS in an attempt to stop people refunding. And the more CIG messes with people, and the longer it goes on, the more people might avail themselves of that opportunity.
Some people expected there already be a fully playable game by this point, when its not even 10% complete yet.
No idea what you even mean by that.
I'd like to know too, I don't understand the usage here.
There are legitimate substantiations to people's concerns but again CIG didn't take money at gunpoint. Perhaps they didn't convey that there would be substantial challenges to trying to convert or adjust the code for a first person shooter to that of an open world game. I'm pleased in knowing people are getting their money back given their dissatisfaction. That's their right.
Upon looking at the proposal it was clear to me that I was funding a project and NOT buying a product. Apparently it wasn't that clear to other people or perhaps they didn't want to see it that way. Rumors and bad press start circulating and now it may become too much of a mess if too many people back out.
I'm researching things but still hopeful in the project. I at least want to become acquainted with someone handling the audio concerns.
Last edited:
Star Citizen is great!
It might be great one day. For the moment, not really. If you gave someone who had never heard of SC a copy at the moment, sat them down, let them play, i think they might appreciate the graphics and effects, but would be left saying "Is this it?", because most of the game is still missing. Star Marine, arguably one of the more feature complete components of SC is pants compared with many arena shooters.
If 3.0 is everything CIG say it will be, then it will be a big step in the right direction. But it still has a long long way to go before the game is even in a state where someone can sit down and play it like a full game.
I understand people can like what is already there, and that's great. But sometimes the hype gets out of hand. We had people a year or more ago saying that SC was already a better game than ED.... seriously. Fortunately a majority of backers are a bit more realistic than that.
They took people's money and then changed the goals significantly. The usualy response to this on the reddit sub is that CIG asked people and a majority voted for increased scope. Yeah, well, a majority isn't everybody.
If only CIG had delivered on their initial promises first, there could have been a working game out there by now, and then CIG would have been free to increase the scope. There was no need to increase the scope at that time, and i'm baboozled why they did it. I can only assumed they got overexcited with the amount of money they got and thought with so much money, anything was possible. But developing a project takes more than just money, it takes good management, and that is a concern when it comes to CR.
I wouldn't and didn't say the SC was a better game than ED. ED IS a finished game. SC just has the potential to overshadow ED if CIG gets it together.
There is a lot of hype but SC for me was really enjoyable. 8 people in a Vanguard Hoplite had a bit of the "Party Van" experience going on. I'm fond of the memory.
You missed my point about the SC is great statement. I didn't want to post something without a reference to Star Citizen.
No. People gave them their money and they changed things based on what the majority of backers wanted. That's something any company would do for their customers.
This might have been said already, I'm still catching up to the rest of the thread, but... take your cell phone, point the camera at your monitor, and record the action. Even 30-45 seconds would impress a great many people, I'd imagine. Even if the quality isn't great, as long as it's clear that there is an 8v8 event taking place, and that things are functioning as planned, that would be a nice boost of confidence in CIG's ability to actually pull off what they're promising. Use a cell phone, a digital camera, an old VHS shoulder mount, anything. Set it up, sit it at an angle where the monitor can be clearly seen, and make the magic.
ED is not a finished game. I mean, you play it, how can you not know that? Both games are still under heavy development. ED also has the potential to overshadow SC if CIG drop the ball or EDs full potential is realized. But the main point is, we don't need these comparisons that some backers (not you!) try to make. The hope is that both games will be awesome space games in the end. Each catering to a slightly different demographic with some overlap. The main difference at the moment is that ED has been released for over 2 years and people have been able to enjoy varied gameplay loops and progress their commanders, compared with SC which seems to be stuck in development hell.
Which is why i really wish CIG had gone for the inital scope release, and then built upon it. Then we could have had 2 fully playable space games at once, both of them enjoyable, and both getting regular updates making both better.
Some fans say "I'm glad CIG are taking their time and getting it right instead of releasing a buggy game" as thought its so black and white. If only CIG had gone for a smaller (but still high quality) release, there could have been the best of both worlds.
Erm... ok, whatever.
You missed my point about the SC is great statement. I didn't want to post something without a reference to Star Citizen.
Yeah, unfortunately, those sort of statements might give people the wrong impression about your motivations. Its kind of like something CIG marketing would write, just throwing out "SC is great" for no reason. We can go slightly off topic here to make jokes without worrying if the mods will step in.
I have no right to tell you how to post here, and understand you are excited for the game, but your posting style certainly screams junior marketing driod. You might want to dial it back.
Again, you are presenting just 2 options like they were the only 2 options. Remain small or grow big.
They could have started small and expanded after release, pleasing both those who wanted smaller scope and earlier release and those who wanted bigger scope and are fine with a later release.
EDIT: Ill give what i think is a pertinent example.
The game is currently lacking in gameplay loops and careers. The crowning achivement of the game so far seems people standing on a station saluting each other (joke).
But they decided to make planetary landings a focus now. Why? Was it because ED released Horizons? CR just had to also get planetary landings in SC at this point? We know CIG decided to change planetary landings well before the plan for 3.0 was revealed.
So, they are now using planetary landings as one of the reasons for delays, because of the increased scope. Why not instead focus on space based gameplay for 3.0. Careeers and missions, get full gameplay loops in the game set in space, then expand and do planets. You can always have a small team on the side working on the planetary tech.
Then for 3.0 people would have had a much more playable "game".
Ok, maybe it sounds like im saying CIG should have done it that way because thats the way FD did it with ED. But to me, it does seem like the better way. Give players something to play and get it out there in a reasonable timeframe, and SC might by now have had mining, trading, piracy, etc, as well as more space based locations, even if only in a basic form.
The crowning achievement of the game so far seems to be people standing on a station saluting each other, and not t-posing or collapsing through the geometry
Oh really?
Whenever did the majority of backers voiced their wanting?
Do you have any source and data, that substantiate your claim?
Otherwise I'll file this as the usual post-truth PR nonsense.
Half-related bonusquestion: can an consumer make an informed decision if he is being lied to about its implications?
Well, it was a majority of those who responded on their forums in the poll CIG ran. I do not believe by a long way that was a majority of backers.
Exactly.
You also have to wonder what the people who voted yes in the poll were expecting.
Many might have thought, great, another year or two to build it out with more content. They might not have been expecting that its going to add 5-10 years more to the development.
Around the Verse: Secondary Viewports
TLDR
Source: https://relay.sc/transcript/around-the-verse-secondary-viewports
[video=youtube;IZ4mou4OR4U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ4mou4OR4U[/video]
Behind the Scenes: Secondary Viewport
- The new Secondary Viewport tech uses the new Render to Texture System to allow such things as comms calls and holographic volume rendering in the PU and Squadron 42
- The new system creates a more immersive experience as it makes UI and game holographics seem a part of the world instead of a simple overlay while also improving performance
- The same tech will be used for many additional different systems such as visors, comms calls and mirrors further down the line
- The Renter to Texture System starts at the engine level and accounts for such things as if objects are going to be streamed, the appropriate rendering size and of objects for the “screen” that they'll be displayed upon
- The Rendering System has a fixed memory budget that uses a texture pool, similar to a shadow pool, rendering in powers of two to allow for the movement closer and further away and the adjustment of lower or higher resolution progressively
- One benefit of render texture is that it can be reused on multiple objects with the only downside being that it requires a manager for mouse pointer interactivity
- The Camera Calling System and the Facial Animation System communicates with the render texture manager to determine the exact size and level of details for the facial animations and character animations
- This real time rendering allows for changes in character ships, costumes and locations as well as it allows a character to view any projection, 2d or 3D from any angle while moving
- This allows the rendering of any object without the need for the duplication of material set up, and with shaders allows for the fading, dissolving and tinting of objects as they reach borders without the usual clipping
- This technology basically creates an immersive telepresence that plays well with player-to-player comms and for effective mission briefings
- Though developed rather quickly they still aim to optimize performance further, like with using environ probes to avoid having to render background scenes inside of a video call
- Beyond performance, they want to stabilize it more and improve the finalized effects such as with flickering or interlacing lines when there is a poor signal or if the display is damagedS
I'd suggest that the reason that most video game KickStarters miss their estimates is that the devs suspect that putting the true development time down would put off potential backers.
"We can get more money by fibbing" is a very strong argument in favour of regulation.
- Status