Yes, who paid for the originally advertised product should be upset about the shift that happened over time. Roberts and his crew were very clever in circumventing the limitations of a project based crowdfunding approach that would end in shipping a finished product (and what next?). They changed the whole concept of the endeavour to an open end development project, an ongoing work process without a defined end, necessary to make the best game ever made. After jumping on the crowdfunding train they jumped on the early access train. It would be interesting if the online-debate actually mirrors what backers think about this, as I find it hard to believe that a majority is like 'yeah, go for it'. I mean, how hard is it to influence a narrative online?
Star Citizen Thread v6
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
Nobody forced anyone to back into a crowdfunding video game venture, there's always a risk inherent to it, ask for a refund if you are not happy with it's direction, simple. The community absolutely had a say in the increased scope and the continuity of the crowdfunding campaign, the addition of new features etc. The majority won, simple. The continuous increased funding throughout the 2014 year and onward clearly show's that.
You backed a Chris Roberts game with everything that it entails, his history in video-game developing history is well known for being highly ambitious and delay prone, but you backed anyway so how's that's anyone fault but you?
Chris is just doing what he always tried to do in all of it's career. To make the all encompassing living breathing universe space game and a LOT of people share this vision with him. That's why the game keeps on going and will keep on going.
Pretty much all video-game's change during development, kickstarter or crowdfunding projects even more. It's nothing new. It's the norm actually in game development, it's a horse beaten to death by now. If one is not ready to accept changes in scope, direction, gameplay, release dates they should stay far far away from video-game crowdfunding and even pre-ordering. Stick to sure bet's and only pay for a game you know you like and can run well.
The community is not supposed to have control over the direction of the game that's Chris Roberts task, the community allows for CIG to keep going in the direction they decided to go. By voting for it, engaging in forum, pledging money, watching it's video-report's and so on.
The majority of the backers have no problem waiting for Star Citizen, only the hard-core minority follows it's development closely, most gamers aren't interested in being guinea pigs and test broken builds BUT they will surely log-in when the game reaches a more polished state. Star Citizen interest is not even peaked, I'd say it's only in it's infancy.
Well to I never talked about "magical new asset streaming technology" or even think I understand what that means, those are your words. But to make it simple just look at how in Star Citizen the tech allow's for players to use 3rd Person Camera mode view freely while quantum jumping while in ED you have to be locked into the cockpit 1st person view loading animation.
This tech not only allows for this but also is integral part of allowing players to share other players ship's and move independently while they travel.
Just a few examples, it gets complex in terms of animations when you have to make good looking believable animations for both 1st person and 3rd person or showcasing said animations in real-time to a large amount of players in the same network.
I'm very happy with the project and absolutely love that they shifted the project accordingly with the possibilities that we backers gave them. The reason me and many others backed Star Citizen was to make something truly groundbreaking , not something "basic". It's exactly for being ambitious and the expanding the scope that Star Citizen is still going strong. There's no question about that.
Last edited:
And as always you type a huge amount of words while intentionally dodging the Huge Elephant In The Room: There is no huge scoop, there are no great gameplay loops, there is no big universe, there are no jumps to other systems, there is absolutely nothing but a broken pile of garbage that doesnt even come remotely close to the game being promised for 2014. If the game was currently at 2014+ level with stuff being added you may have had a feeble point. Now you're just using hollow promises as a lame excuse for why we all got infinitely less than promised years after the date.
And please spare us all the 'yeah but scope yadda yadda best gamer ever yadda yadda future yadda yadda pipeline tech fidelity!' just tell us when you expect the game to reach the quality promised for 2014. That means actual gameplay loops for a variety of professions, multiple systems to travel too, basic persistence as gamers have known since the early 80s, standard 60FPS in a fairly stable state.
Come on, I challenge you: when do you expect we are gonna get this super limited version? Right, so please be quiet about your imaginary scope.
This has to be one of my favorite threads and the hardest to keep up with.
But I think what I've come away with here is that most all of us want SC to succeed here. Or at least we want to see what comes of it. We have hopes and we have doubts and even those who are extrem fans of Roberts and SC can't help but wonder.
I'm no lawyer (but I did stay ... just cheap humor) but if,eventually, Roberts doesn't come through with something (other than an Alpha or Beta) then he might spur a very large law suite. Keep in mind, of course, that I'm just guessing.
By the way, while I'm babbling, what game has the record for longest development in comparison to SC (trying my best to stay on topic).
Chief
But I think what I've come away with here is that most all of us want SC to succeed here. Or at least we want to see what comes of it. We have hopes and we have doubts and even those who are extrem fans of Roberts and SC can't help but wonder.
I'm no lawyer (but I did stay ... just cheap humor) but if,eventually, Roberts doesn't come through with something (other than an Alpha or Beta) then he might spur a very large law suite. Keep in mind, of course, that I'm just guessing.
By the way, while I'm babbling, what game has the record for longest development in comparison to SC (trying my best to stay on topic).
Chief
Last edited:
Your justifications for Chris Roberts deciding to scam his backers are quite amusing. In order of appearance:
"No one forced you to back a project that you were interested in." Well yeah no kidding. No one forced anyone to back Unsung Story so I guess Playdek was totally correct!
"Lots of people wanted them to increase scope!" Okay, I didn't, and many others didn't as well. They might not have not have been the majority but not everyone followed the development as closely as others. I never saw the poll and never got to vote, which I am sure you will say was my fault but I don't normally go around assuming someone is going to hold a poll that basically reads "Should we make a different game Y/N?" More to the point, the core of your argument is "Most backers wanted it to increase in scope" and even *IF* that were correct they didn't take "most of their backer's money" they took "all of their backer's money."
"Whales keep giving them money!" That doesn't make it any more right.
"You should have known he was going to scam you!" Everyone who backed Unsung Story should have known it would become a multiplayer PVP game. It's their fault they backed it anyways!
"but all games change in development!!" They don't take money first saying "we're going to make X" and then decide to make Z a few years later with your money. Preorders typically don't happen until the concept of a game is solidified. Once again this can 100% be used to defend Playdek and their handling of Unsung story.
"Chris was a failure most of his career, and he's continuing his storied career of failure with SC!" Well for once we agree.
"Crowd Funding is a risk." Yes, we agree again, and yet somehow SC is the only crowd funding campaign I've backed that has failed. (And it has, because they are no longing making the game they were crowdfunding)
When nearly all your arguments can be used to defend Playdek and Unsung Story which has been considered the biggest failure of crowd funding to date (and only because SC hasn't announced it's out of money yet) then I think it's safe to say your arguments are decidedly poor and blinded by your need to defend CIG and SC for whatever weird reason.
At the end of the day, CIG started a campaign to bring us SQ42 and a PU with very specific features and scope. They have failed to deliver, and instead waste vast quantities of talent, currency, and time on some nonsense they decided everyone who gave them money wanted. That, by definition, is a bait and switch.
Last edited:
Uh, correct me if I'm wrong... but isn't Quantum Drive SC's equivalent of supercruise - within-system travel? In which case... no, you aren't locked into first-person view in supercruise, you can go into the camera suite like normal.
I'm sure we'll find out what camera options Star Citizen has for inter-system jumps ... once they get around to adding more than one system into the game, of course.
His arguments have been debunked ages ago. Which already shows how weird this development is.
The 'poll' didnt include a 'sure, take another decade if you need it.' option, and it was answered by less than 1% of the backers. Its just CIG shifting the blame to the victims with the help of people like JohnMice. Keep in mind that after the poll it was generally assumed SC would launch in 2015 after a 6-12 month delay. Also keep in mind that around that DS became the arch-enemy for saying they would probably not release in 2015, which was considered ludicrous by the 'scope expanders'. The fact that we're now hoping that one step in the pre-alpha stage might make it in 2017 telsl you all you need to know. The scope argument is manufactured nonsense, plain and simple. And people like JohnMice fully know it."What? I promised you something in return for your money? Well, JohnMice said it is okay if I dont so tough luck to you!"
No honest business works like that, and no honest customer defends it. The rest is just "you should have known CR is a liar so dont blame him!". Again, you dont need to be scholar to detect the hole in that logic, and see the ethical failure that goes with it.
Last edited:
Presumably you're not bothered then if it IS a scam and failure and the whole thing collapses - everyone losing that money is perfectly fair and they should have expected it?
Pretty sure that won't stand up in court. You can't scam people then say "ah but you should have known so it's fine" - that doesn't change anything, and there's no way it's OK to assume everyone was well informed about that. It's often been a surprise to the backers who've come in here.
This remains completely irrelevant to the question you have been asked.
To reiterate you said
You have since been asked to explain what special asset streaming technology is required for 1st and 3rd person views, and you've failed to show ANYTHING to explain that whatsoever and demonstrated you have no idea how it matters nor how things are done in Elite though you're entirely sure it's bad and wrong. Closest you've gotten is some hand waving about sharing animations which isn't even faintly the same. Supercruise has never been any kind of loading screen whatsoever - it would be very easy to conclude you don't even play Elite.
Sorry, but it's just nonsense. You're making unfounded claims about wonderful things that CIG/RSI are doing which you can't back up and that you don't understand.
I think it's safe to assume you're never going to be able to answer, and I'm not asking again so there's no way I can be done for badgering. Checking back I see this thread and contesting people's views here is literally why you joined this forum so I'm done, there's nothing useful to come out of engaging with this.
Those two bolded parts are mutually exclusive. If community can stop CIG going in one direction with the game, they have control with the direction of the game.
It doesn't even have cargo yet. Can't store what you don't have.
Sometimes it's best to not engage. Check post history, use ignore function. It's nice to have here to discuss SC but sometimes it's not discussing just proselyting with no basis in reality, only pure faith in the creator.
Perhaps you missed the points I was making.
The fact is that only by timely delivery of a quality product that CIG will reduce the current amount of flak that they are getting - even on their own forum. A good many of these complaints relate to their failure to meet delivery dates. These are not interpretations but simply holding CIG to account against what they have said. Remember that in December 2016 CIG confirmed that 3.0 would be out in December 2016.
Chris is on record stating that SC and SQ42 were fully funded. His statement that you quote post dates that. So is a clear statement that not only are both projects not funded, but that CIG are reliant on ongoing donations, totally contradicting his previous assertion. So which statements of his can we ever trust?
And the actual question I was asking was which of SQ42 or SC are CIG now devoted to. As per the funding quotes the clear previous focus was SQ42, whereas now it seems to be SC. Possibly.
Just as an observation pop to the cig Web site. I'm seeing 'liars' and 'lies' popping up very often. ymmv
Last edited:
This, alongside the constant retconning of timelines and nonsense-spewing about how gamedev supposedly works, is actually hands down my biggest gripe with the project...
3.0 as it's being marketed right now is NOT the game I was sold 2 years ago.
I was sold a spacegame with spacetravel, exploration and trading in a living, player-driven economy.
Gameplay that centred around contact hubs (space stations and planetary zones) to pick up missions and sell goods/intel and different races and factions with their own clearly defined areas of space.
Now we're getting a mostly planet-based game with a small handful of systems with a couple dozens planets to explore and the promise that those planets will be so stupidly full of content that it'll keep 500,000+ people occupied for months to come.
The reason I'm most likely going to refund post-gamescom is not that I have any particular issue with how CIG handles production, I think it's -backwards, inefficient and frequently insincere, but all that doesn't matter if the game ends up being something I'd enjoy playing.
It is simply that the scope of the game has shifted away from something I'd enjoy playing and into something I didn't back.
One of my primary hopes for Star Citizen was espionage gameplay and exciting exploration since these are both things Elite isn't going to offer me in a similar fashion anytime soon.It's downright laughable to me how people believe SC will have exploration at all in their pathetically tiny release-planned universe if I look at how insanely quickly small groups of ED players (2000-3000 people) explore, chart and demystify entire sectors.
I already look forward to seeing the same 50 randomised "exploration signatures" pop up on my space scanner >__>
It'll make Unidentified Signal Sources pale in comparison....
Also for information... if we talk about "games always change in development" it means that certain features are altered or cut.
Way too much time goes into creating pre-production prototypes and design documents and selling the publisher or shareholders on this to fundamentally change course during production. (...perhaps SC hasn't passed pre-production yet...?)
A game's core design doesn't change under normal development circumstances, only when projects end up in development hell or similar trouble. (Hmm... would SC..? Nahhhhh...)
Last edited:
PU footage fresh from the SC subreddit: https://gfycat.com/PoorReflectingCentipede
Meanwhile Lumberyard go open source
https://aws.amazon.com/it/blogs/gamedev/now-available-lumberyard-on-github/
https://aws.amazon.com/it/blogs/gamedev/now-available-lumberyard-on-github/
Meanwhile Lumberyard go open source
https://aws.amazon.com/it/blogs/gamedev/now-available-lumberyard-on-github/
Confusingly I don't think the license is open source as described in their faq
- Status