psyron
Banned
Though i like the cognitive dissonance part ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpz85MHdBD8
Edit:
OUps, wrong video ...
Last edited:
- Status
Though i like the cognitive dissonance part ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpz85MHdBD8
Edit:
OUps, wrong video ...
from the 49 million letter about funding sc
"Star Citizen is still much less than the other published backed AAA games that have similar levels of ambition (some would even say a little less ) like GTA V, Watch Dogs or Destiny."
this is INTERESTING i remember a podium discussion with CR where he mentioned 20million crowd funded would equal like 100-150 million traditional publisher funding. so right now he is at about 200-300 million traditional funding and says they way behind "normal AAA titles" funding wise ...
very interesting change of argumentation IMHO.
"Star Citizen is still much less than the other published backed AAA games that have similar levels of ambition (some would even say a little less
) like GTA V, Watch Dogs or Destiny."this is INTERESTING i remember a podium discussion with CR where he mentioned 20million crowd funded would equal like 100-150 million traditional publisher funding. so right now he is at about 200-300 million traditional funding and says they way behind "normal AAA titles" funding wise ...
very interesting change of argumentation IMHO.
Oh no you don't! I'm not going there! You're on your own on that one my friend!
from the 49 million letter about funding sc
"Star Citizen is still much less than the other published backed AAA games that have similar levels of ambition (some would even say a little less
this is INTERESTING i remember a podium discussion with CR where he mentioned 20million crowd funded would equal like 100-150 million traditional publisher funding. so right now he is at about 200-300 million traditional funding and says they way behind "normal AAA titles" funding wise ...
very interesting change of argumentation IMHO.
Indeed. Different figures but he also contradicts a previous argument he makes as part of his sales pitch in this article linked from his kickstarter page
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...-melt-your-pc-with-new-space-sim-star-citizen
"I can make it for this price because I'm not making it inside the system," he said. "If I did it inside the system that would be $20+ million."
Just one more example of this thread serving as a 'CR/CIG watch' and catching them out in the middle of delivering yet more spin and .
Last edited:
from the 49 million letter about funding sc
"Star Citizen is still much less than the other published backed AAA games that have similar levels of ambition (some would even say a little less
this is INTERESTING i remember a podium discussion with CR where he mentioned 20million crowd funded would equal like 100-150 million traditional publisher funding. so right now he is at about 200-300 million traditional funding and says they way behind "normal AAA titles" funding wise ...
very interesting change of argumentation IMHO.
Well the old line does not help him get more money. At least he is admitting that CIG do not have the founds to finish what they have started. It will be interesting to see how much the game changes in order to appeal to a larger audience so that they can sell game packages to new costomers.
The game has already dropped much of its "hard core" game play by introducing the follow the mouse control system. The fact that AC plays like a FPS also means that AC will appeal to a much larger audience as well. SC has a large fan base that already believes that the ground/ship FPS aspects of SC will be the aspect that they will play the most, and will even contain the most content.
LOL how much has changed
Last edited:
I know, that article is so damning. Every time I go back to it I shake my head in amazement. It reads so phony to me now after all the sales and boasting about millions and millions of dollars of income, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.
"I'm a gamer," he told Eurogamer. "I've never made any game I've made in my life because I'm like, oh, I'm going to sell a million or two million or three million copies and make lots of money."
...errr, yeah right...
Last edited:
Now there's a blast from the past. Swept under the rug and about as distant and likely to return as Camelot.
Last edited:
OK, so which one of you made this? Whoever it was, good to see some video game journalism looking at it from the point of view of a gamer rather than working on behalf of developer's PR machine.
http://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2014/01/29995-escapist-video-spurs-debate-star-citizens-legacy/
http://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2014/01/29995-escapist-video-spurs-debate-star-citizens-legacy/
Last edited:
That's an interesting video and article, although the way they conflate backing with early access seems unhelpful.
To my mind, early access is primarily a consumer experience. You buy something to say you were in there before it was cool, or to have the edge over the other guy come release day. Reviewing early access stuff as if it was a complete product makes perfect sense - it gives consumers the information they need to make good purchasing decisions.
Backing a project should be more like a shareholder experience - you put money in to a concept, have input at stages along the way, and eventually walk away with something that may or may not turn out to have been a good investment. So reviewing a crowdfunded game like a finished product doesn't make sense - for example, if the developers put a feature in one week to provoke a reaction, and a reviewer writes up a negative reaction, it becomes harder for the developers to involve the community the next time.
On the specific topic of Star Citizen, I'm not saying CIG are perfect, but I agree with Fivebyfive the big problem is backers not holding them to account. Things like 10 for the Chairman are a golden opportunity to make them really think about problems from a player's perspective, and while there have been a few really good questions, there's a tendency to just push them for ever more features instead of really thinking about the aesthetics driving the game. psyron is right that it's really difficult to channel antipathy into critical friendship. but some of Frontier's best decisions were forged from the most rancorous DDF threads so it's definitely worth the trouble
That's an interesting video and article, although the way they conflate backing with early access seems unhelpful.
To my mind, early access is primarily a consumer experience. You buy something to say you were in there before it was cool, or to have the edge over the other guy come release day. Reviewing early access stuff as if it was a complete product makes perfect sense - it gives consumers the information they need to make good purchasing decisions.
Backing a project should be more like a shareholder experience - you put money in to a concept, have input at stages along the way, and eventually walk away with something that may or may not turn out to have been a good investment. So reviewing a crowdfunded game like a finished product doesn't make sense - for example, if the developers put a feature in one week to provoke a reaction, and a reviewer writes up a negative reaction, it becomes harder for the developers to involve the community the next time.
On the specific topic of Star Citizen, I'm not saying CIG are perfect, but I agree with Fivebyfive the big problem is backers not holding them to account. Things like 10 for the Chairman are a golden opportunity to make them really think about problems from a player's perspective, and while there have been a few really good questions, there's a tendency to just push them for ever more features instead of really thinking about the aesthetics driving the game. psyron is right that it's really difficult to channel antipathy into critical friendship. but some of Frontier's best decisions were forged from the most rancorous DDF threads so it's definitely worth the trouble
I agree with much of what you have said. But I think the point is that it cuts both ways. Backing a project should be like a share holder experience, I would say stake holder because you aren't going to make any dividends. But that breaks down when the developer is treating its backers like little more than cash cows. And its hard to hold the developer to account and be a stake holder when they control what gets asked, what points of view get air time etc, and are abusing that control with maximum profit always the goal and in mind rather than a collaborative approach with the stake holders. This has been my experience of being a star citizen backer, a backer very much in name only. And having been treated as a cash cow you are disregarded in favour of those who will be the next wave of cash cows, and so on. The endless insatiable desire/need for money means they can not carry out their side of the bargain.
Last edited:
Problem is right now SC is at its peak of hype, so no one is holding anyone accountable for nothing on CIG. They have been really smart in controlling this hype by slowly releasing "content" for SC. People were getting anxious about the DFM "ok here it is, AC. Buggy as hell because you ask for it" (CR himself said that AC was in that state because backers were desperate) and people looks at this like "aww CR is awesome he listen to us. We wanted AC and he gave it to us so he is cool". I'm 100% sure CIG knows how to handle this fanaticism and is going to go like this for years.
I still have hopes for the FPS module. The cryengine was made for that, if they screw this up that's it for SC, who are they going to blame is FPS module is a joke?
I still have hopes for the FPS module. The cryengine was made for that, if they screw this up that's it for SC, who are they going to blame is FPS module is a joke?
Last edited:
Well, the AC module is not really screwed, the problem was it was released too soon. It's flight model/IFCS/thrusters/sound/balancing and many other aspects are basically incomplete, it was rushed out instead of being complete to the v1.0 stage. In honesty, that is pretty much CIG's fault, they said at PAX that people would get v1.0 a few weeks after but they got a barely functional v.8 out with a ton of missing features. The next big iteration on all those aspects will be in about 2 weeks during the games con when they release patch 13 (aka v.9).
I'm also interested to see what Iifonic has up there sleeve for the FPS portion of the game. Their Nexuiz game looked pretty interesting.
NO. Ilfonic's Nexuiz was completely lacking.
For those who don't know the story, Nexuiz was an open-source game based on one of the open-source Quake engines. It was well-loved for above-average graphics, complex movement, and fantastic weapon-swap chain-combos you could pull off. Unfortunately, the project was under control of one guy, who eventually sold out and gave the game rights to Ilfonic, to make a commercial edition. The resulting Nexuiz is a watered-down game, with few of the elements that made the original great (especially since it was designed to appeal to console gamers), but with fancy graphics since it used the Unreal engine. Fortunately, Ilfonic left the original Nexuiz up, and eventually the community spun it off into a new game, Xonotic, with the aim of continuing development where the game left off.
Now maybe Ilfonic has improved, since those days, but they certainly showed where their priorities were back then. As such, I'm still somewhat bitter toward the company, and I don't expect anything great out of them.
Also, Bains, there definitely should be a limit in how much the developers of a crowdfunded game listen to their backers. Granted they hold some "stake" in the game, but it is not their game to make. They can advise on certain development aspects, but the main point is that the developer sticks to their own design and vision of the game. I can't tell you how many Starcraft 2 players backed Planetary Annihilation, then spent time on the forums trying to turn it into Starcraft 3.
Sadly, it doesn't appear that this has happened with Star Citizen, but then, I'm not all that confident that CIG had their own design and vision for the game, other than with regards to graphics and immersion.
Got my computer upgraded so last night I went over to Star Citizen and jumped into the Commander Arena bit that became available to players under number 350,000.
I must be so in love with elite I can't see straight, but it's really hard to see out the windows. The cockpit really doesn't compare to elite.
Nothing wrong with it and I'm not putting it down, but there is this pretty intrusive bar running right down the middle and I felt as though I was looking through side windows, sorta.
The feeling is very Caldari
I must be so in love with elite I can't see straight, but it's really hard to see out the windows. The cockpit really doesn't compare to elite.
Nothing wrong with it and I'm not putting it down, but there is this pretty intrusive bar running right down the middle and I felt as though I was looking through side windows, sorta.
The feeling is very Caldari
Well if you no longer have a soul, it ends up being free.
Nexuiz used the CE 3 and it was the first 3rd party(non Crytek) game which used it. I think that CIG chose Illfonic because they have a lot of CE experience. (Illfonic and Crytek are also working on the new AMD Ruby demo.)
You are correct. I remember it was rumored to be the Unreal engine, but when it was officially announced, it was the Cryengine. It's been so long, and I haven't given them a thought since.
- Status