Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

In fact when I talk about competitor, I mainly talk about Elite Dangerous post Odyssey in some future.
And it's not about borrowing CIG's tech/engine but more CIG looking at what FDEV do and vice versa. And in this case, with CIG having a public roadmap and FDEV not, it's mainly FDEV looking at what CIG do.

Yeah sure. The reason they can't publish a roadmap with dates for stuff like SQ42 releasing, or the progress on its components (story, mission design, mission implementation, props modelling), features such as interstellar travel or a new station being made available is all down to the risk of Frontier stealing the idea...

That said, it's funny to imagine. Because if you're correct, the idea that CIG themselves are convinced that Frontier would implement the SC roadmap faster than them is absolutely hilarious.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
I think the real struggle with the roadmap is not technical at all but only political/marketing.
The roadmap, as they want to show it, is a double-edged tool :
  • it shows the real internal structure of the project, how many ressources are put on each part of the project
  • it give to competitor (FDEV or other) a good view of what is worked on
  • it give to the community and haters many arguments to complain/criticize management (and they will do)
  • it can show in pure light wasted ressources (ex : 5 guys coding full year a feature abandoned at last)
  • it represent the internal structure of the company
  • others I don't think about
It's not insignificant.
I think also that at the beginning of the year, the real state of their internal roadmap was not what CIG wanted to show publicly. During the year, CIG may have reshuffled some teams/tasks just to present the roadmap in its best light. Reshuffling working teams/tasks can take some significant time.

Also, in many ways, the scope creep and completely unnecessary added complexity newly proposed for the roadmap is a very accurate reflection of what has happened to the development of the game and its scope growth. Imo CIG has managed to dodge the bullet of accountability many times by virtue of adding scope/fidelity/ambition and using that as a way to justify delays. Exactly the same, but at its own scale, seems to be happening with this "roadmap".
 
Last edited:
No, we have 12 threads in here because it's HILARIOUS.

And as Stephen King put it:

ā€œThere are always worse things waiting. You think you have seen the most terrible thing, the one that coalesces all your nightmares into a freakish horror that actually exists, and the only consolation is that there can be nothing worse. Even if there is, your mind will snap at the sight of it, and you will know no more. But there is worse, your mind does not snap, and somehow you carry on."

Here's to another 12 threads of carrying on!
 
I think the real struggle with the roadmap is not technical at all but only political/marketing.
The roadmap, as they want to show it, is a double-edged tool :
  • it shows the real internal structure of the project, how many ressources are put on each part of the project
  • it give to competitor (FDEV or other) a good view of what is worked on
  • it give to the community and haters many arguments to complain/criticize management (and they will do)
  • it can show in pure light wasted ressources (ex : 5 guys coding full year a feature abandoned at last)
  • it represent the internal structure of the company
  • others I don't think about
It's not insignificant.
The funny thing is, all those are actually positives — they're the very reason why you have a roadmap to begin with. So no wonder CI¬G don't want to deliver it: open and clear communication is wholly antithetical to their way of doing business.

That's not what CIG publish each year in its "accounting" (not sure of the term) document ?
Not really. Their ā€œaccountsā€ either come in the form of what they hand over to the tax man, or in the report they've occasionally published for the backers. The former is a standard dry list of cash positions, which is not itemised in a way that lets you see where they money has gone — just that it has gone. And even then, so much is just shuffling around between the dozen shell companies they've erected that there's no telling if the money has actually gone at all (but then, that's the whole purpose of shell companies). The latter is all about not explaining where the money has gone, but rather to show how much they've accumulated and brag about it.

You will also show stuff that can be used by your competitors against you/take advantage on you ?
Only if you do it poorly and if you have problems actually delivering what you say, in which case it's not really competitors taking advantage so much as you failing to keep up with the general march of time. If that happens, it is only right that you get slapped around by the competition. It's kind of how this whole open market thing is supposed to work…

That’s why we are 12 threads in here, right?
There are 12 threads because the project has been such an abject failure and such a comedy of errors for such a ridiculously long time that the bog-standard discussion that happens around all games has run up against DB scheme boundaries in three different forum versions. Of course, you know this already, but it must really upset you something fierce since you must so compulsively bring it up at every opportunity and try to make it seem like it's a problem with the posters rather than the failed project.
 
So hilarious that only in ED forums you find 12 threads about it ;)


Oh you should check out SomethingAwful’s many thread incarnations. The endless refunds subreddit. Derek Smart’s forums of course ;)

This tier of dedicated FUDdery is niche though naturally. But if you want more casual derision about SC, just check the comments under most any gaming article or mainstream YT vid ;)
 
Ho I know them. But 120 000 posts just from the community of one game is an ED's exclusivity. The NMS, X4, Astroneer, etc communities are way less worried about CIG and SC.
It’s even funnier once you realize most of the posts are only from a hand full of guys
 
Too bad it's not actually true. :ROFLMAO:
After all, SC has been in development since 1997 too, and still hasn't been released, so it has ED beat by a good half-decade.

The NMS, X4, Astroneer, etc communities are way less worried about CIG and SC.
So they're negative-worried, then? How on earth does that work?
But yeah, if you want to see people being worried about CI¬G and SC, there's no beating r/sc and Spectrum.
 
Last edited:
it is also hilarious that most of the posts in this 12 threads are triggered by SC white knight like you.

I always imagine this happening when the residents of this thread see someone post something that suggests they like or enjoy SC.

fyMW.gif
 
Too bad it's not actually true. :ROFLMAO:
After all, SC has been in development since 1997 too, and still hasn't been released, so it has ED beat by a good half-decade.

To be fair, I remember on the old Frontier Developments website there was a page for Elite 4 from about 1998-ish.
 
Back
Top Bottom