You don't mean....:O
Star Citizen Discussions v7
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
You don't mean....:O
Do you have any proof that they are going to fail as a company and are unable to finish what they start? Because they keep on bringing in money and keep on improving the Alpha. Neither of those are terribly indicative of your guesswork end points.
The point you miss is...they should NOT be improving an "Alpha" as you put it.
They SHOULD be working hard to get the preAlpha stage finished and actually have an Alpha build to show off. By their schedule and roadmap, 4.0 would be their first Alpha stage.
Even if this were an Alpha build, it would still be the wrong time to polish the game and focus on playability, balance, fidelity and the like. Too much is going to change between now and Beta and by its nature, much of what CIG are doing now is likely to be reworked or thrown out.
As for what you are saying....
I, personally, have no doubt that CIG will release a game called Star Citizen. While every sign I see suggests they are running out of money, and that they are taking in less over the course of a year than they spend, I think it likely that they have enough of a reserve fund to finish the game.
Likely...but not certain.
What I am not sure about is what that game will look like. I think it fairly unlikely that CIG will release the game with the promised 100 systems.
Or rather...I think they'll release it with about ten, only call it a Beta so they don't have to keep that promise. I think a lot of people are going to be hugely disappointed by what CIG will eventually provide and I suspect that the game, for all its hype, will be disappointing for many players who somehow expect it 1..to get around the limitations inherent in a space sim and MMO and 2...somehow avoid the trap of hybrid games by doing all the genres to a very high level instead of half hearted at all.
But do I think that CIG will release SC? Yes.
I'm just wondering who Chris will blame for THIS particular failure.
I guess DayZ are always "improving" on the Alpha too so it's fine to not have to worry about supporting a finished product anymore when it comes to PC gaming. I mean why would you? Messing about with having to have something that stands on it's own merits and has to face consumer review, all that inconvenient support for consumer hardware, polishing out bugs to a point where something works reliably. Optimisation and support staff. Those days are gone. It's all about the experimental perpetual pre-release in constant development, discarding the need for design in favour of infinite scope. That's where the big money is and it's super convenient, you can brush off bad press with the words "er it's an alpha" and reviews no longer count, there's virtually no consumer protection in many territories allowing you to take piles of cash with no regard to standards for what constitutes a product.
EA are so dumb releasing a finished game and expecting people to pony up on P2W when the Chris Roberts solution proves that PC gamers will happily hand over money for P2W assets without even needing a finished product just so long as they follow the narrative that it's all "supporting the game" even when the "game" has already collected more cash than EA spend on the vast majority of their stuff and exists in a state of barely more quality than the average steam green light offering. "supporting the game" seems to mean stuffing it in a big black box of un-measurable metrics like "eventually making a better product" in reality sustaining some more fat pay slips again on an entertainment product being developed in reverse; PROFIT->pretty graphics->some lore->content design->maps->practical network technology->core gaming mechanics->critical path MMO game loop stuff.
EA are so dumb releasing a finished game and expecting people to pony up on P2W when the Chris Roberts solution proves that PC gamers will happily hand over money for P2W assets without even needing a finished product just so long as they follow the narrative that it's all "supporting the game" even when the "game" has already collected more cash than EA spend on the vast majority of their stuff and exists in a state of barely more quality than the average steam green light offering. "supporting the game" seems to mean stuffing it in a big black box of un-measurable metrics like "eventually making a better product" in reality sustaining some more fat pay slips again on an entertainment product being developed in reverse; PROFIT->pretty graphics->some lore->content design->maps->practical network technology->core gaming mechanics->critical path MMO game loop stuff.
Last edited:
“Are going to” is usually used to indicate a future tense, not the past.
…aside from the whole “keep bringing in money” and “keep on improving the alpha” parts, which rather point to that very end.
Last edited:
It's just some hyperbole.. But I find it amusing that you are asking people to provide proof.
I too believe that the game will be released eventually, but not as promised.
But I'm fairly sure that the systems at launch was cut to 5-10 a while back, not sure if that was for 3.0 release or something else though.
I'm not bothered about five systems - what I'm really excited about is the fact that SC will launch with 100 systems!
Source: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/about-the-game/universe
Mu77ley
Volunteer Moderator
Keep on improving the alpha?! LOL
The last alpha update that was released to the public was over 7 months ago!!!
And it was crap.
No, 3.0 will have a fraction of one system. 5-10 was the new goal for the 'release', that doesnt exist according to the same CR because 'releases are a thing of the past anyway', but he didnt say only 5-10 systems, or if he did he didnt mean that but something else, but he doesnt need to clarify it because its all about the gameplay you'll will have but already have because its already released which is a thing of the past but its out now and you can play it and its amazing and it will only become better and they'll add the remaining 95 systems but they wont start with just 5 that was just a misunderstanding.
Open development, ya know.
Turns out I remembered it a bit wrong, 100 systems is the goal eventually indeed.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/...ase-get-an-official-cig-confirmation-a/350872
Yup, thats the one. Bonus points if you can find the quote detailing what 'five gameplay systems' mean, and when 'eventually' is.
Yup, thats the one. Bonus points if you can find the quote detailing what 'five gameplay systems' mean, and when 'eventually' is.
Well, I found the reddit thread where I read it first from. Sadly my browser refuse to let me go there. https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitize...r_systems_reduced_from_100_at_launch_to_5_to/
Is that the one?
As for when "eventually" means, I'll have to guess at the real release which comes after the first release.
Don't worry. If they don't launch with 100 systems it will be because CIG expanded the scope.
And the last meaningful update was 2 years ago. There is not much difference in the PU from 2.0 and 2.6.
Don't worry. If they don't launch with 100 systems it will be because CIG expanded the scope.
Nope - it'll be because they don't have 100 systems, any mechanism for traversal, or anything to put in the systems that the renderer can handle.
They'll have to look into the very depths of the handbag to find some lost netcode to make that even a remote possibility
Nah, I mean what CR means with 'I didnt mean five star systems but gameplay systems.' What exactly is a gameplay system, and which five does he have in mind. and what about whatever is not included in his 'five gameplay systems'? It is a trick question, he never specified it.
That is what I find so odd about this whole project. Its all about 'never seen before', 'amazing fidelity', 'return of PC gaming' etc, but when pressed he always ends up pushing with vague non-information. "There will be five gameplay systems at some point in time." is about as meaningless a statement as it gets.