Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

[thistle]

When was the last time they changed and expanded the scope? Reworking the same stuff, well for example the mobiglas still uses flash because thats an old implementation. Keep using Flash which has been defunct for over a year or rework it with a new system? Iterative development.

That's not iterative development. Iterative does not mean redoing the same things as the top man decides the stuff already done isn't now (but was then) what he wanted. Iterative is about small portions added (and yes updated) as the project continues, its about not having to wait until the whole thing is done before release. Irony. SC is waiting until the heat-death of the universe before release, while still rewriting everything multiple times and not releasing it.

That's not how that works. You can't crank out a 1.0 version with the little budget they have without people continuing to give them money.

Because they decided to do it that way after people gave them too much money. The plan absolutely WAS to release a version 1 in what, 2015, 2016, 2017 etc. Now they aren't even pretending or trying. Why bother when they make more money?

You're right, that's why they're working on 2 games. And building a gamedev studio ontop! If CIG was an established game development studio with 1000+ people available to work on games from the get go, yeah then i'd agree there would be a problem. Thing is, they're not, and are just now growing to that size.

This is a fantasy.

 

[thistle]

Still not at AAA company levels. Also why compare with ED? It's a cool game sure, but the most complex systems there are the galaxy generation and BGS.Other than that a cool spaceflight simulator.

And in 2014, ED was a much, much simpler game. Took 8 years to get it to it's current state.

Yes it's true, CIG have not yet designed or written the "complex systems" they need.

 

[varonica]

What track record? We're talking about release. They've not released anything yet

Yes indeed, the track record of not actually releasing anything, that's what makes up the track record. I shudder to think they would want to ruin such a perfect track record by actually releasing something!

 

[Ebob]

Nautilus’s homing mines, sentry mines & anti-mine drones have no precedent. They were the last major scope creep. Announced in Aug 2019. (For $675, at a concierge-only event, which cost $275 to attend. They certainly monetised the hell out of their last fling with foolishness )

So that’s over 7 years of scope creeping all told. Deeply dubious, and with production repercussions still to this day. And for many, many more years to come.

Not exactly, in the 54M-60M Letter from the Chairman they had given the choice to vote for a Minelayer ship so I suppose it's not a new concept.

 

[Xink]

Squadron 42, perhaps late this year or late next year. (I know, "haha this year +1" I know, grass is green) SC itself? Probably 2024-2025 as a full 1.0 Release.

What are you basing this on?

 

[VR Golgot]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLAMMuymaRA&ab_channel=BoredGamer

False, this existed way back in 2016

Yep, true.

Awkwardly some of the key elements Chris mentioned in 2020 were supposed to be in game by 2015 (physical damage, fire damage etc)

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pWIeT33C-g&t=20m40s


Yet here we are, with none of them in game. And the CEO still talking about them as a grand future vision.

Woot?

 

[Viajero]

What track record? We're talking about release. They've not released anything yet

CIG has tried and failed to release SQ42 numerous times:

• Estimated 2014, failed
• Estimated 2015, failed
• Answer the Call 2016, failed
• Answer the Call 2017, failed
• Beta Q2 2020, failed and delayed to Q3
• Beta Q3 2020, failed
• "Done when it is done"

This should be more than enough to hint at very serious technical and management issues in the project of developing and releasing SQ42. Then add to that the cherry on the cake of all the issues we can observe in the PU related to broken physics, AI and missions, to name but a few, all crucial for SQ42 too, and that most likely impact equally any code there may be for SQ42. With this track record in mind, stating like you do that the chances of CIG releasing SQ42 right are "very high" seems a tad off the mark and possibly recklessly disingenuous.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Yes it's true, CIG have not yet designed or written the "complex systems" they need.

Early days. Once the pipelines are done things will really speed up!

 

[Agony_Aunt]

What are you basing this on?

 

[VR Golgot]

Not exactly, in the 54M-60M Letter from the Chairman they had given the choice to vote for a Minelayer ship so I suppose it's not a new concept.

Sure, but no mention of the technical specifics. Mines that track ships, drones which chase them in turn, free-floating AI turrets etc. These are technical challenges which are categorically scope creep unless planned for in advance.

 

[thistle]

And in 2014, ED was a much, much simpler game. Took 8 years to get it to it's current state.

Incidentally, this is nonsense, and it's key to the point people are making about SC.

2012 - 2014 what FDEV did was write the core of the game. The galaxy simulation, the basic mechanics, the front end, the back end networking, the core graphics rendering.

And then released it. Then they (iteratively) added additional modules and upgrades, through Horizons and Beyond. And yes, even Odyssey.

---

CIG has not written the core yet. They can't get it to work the way the top man sees in his mind, or the way they claimed it will, and so it keeps changing. Different teams work on the core and the networking.

And the rest of the things that have been developed by CIG since 2012? Not the core of the game, but the assets, ships, first person shooter levels. Outsourced first person models and maps, abandoned because they were the wrong height. New first person maps which nobody plays. New ships with all the bells & whistles and toilets and fripperies. Combined arms multiplayer that's (only) two years late. Hand crafted planetary locations, hand crafted stations, manually painted (procedural lol) planetary detail. All reworked over the years. Now (admittedly lovely) clouds!

This is development in THE worst way.

 

[thistle]

They don’t telescope the product off into the far future via dream stretch goals.

Perfect description.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Some might say CIG should have focused on delivering a core product first, showing the world they could deliver on that within a few years and for a limited budget, and based off the success of that,then added more stuff via additional stretch goals.

That would have been the sensible way to do it. It would have also meant less chance of promising something they couldn't deliver on.

Of course, some people might say that's a terrible way to develop a game, the best way is to try and do everything at once and fail to deliver on most of it, and those people keep supporting CIG.

 

[Viajero]

Some might say CIG should have focused on delivering a core product first, showing the world they could deliver on that within a few years and for a limited budget, and based off the success of that,then added more stuff via additional stretch goals.

That would have been the sensible way to do it. It would have also meant less chance of promising something they couldn't deliver on.

Of course, some people might say that's a terrible way to develop a game, the best way is to try and do everything at once and fail to deliver on most of it, and those people keep supporting CIG.

I believe that was probably the main idea at the beginning. I would argue though that Chris Roberts and CIG were not even competent enough to deliver the original simpler 2014 scope. Record money rolling in was the perfect way for Chris to dodge that accountability via increasing scope to justify delays.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I believe that was probably the main idea at the beginning. I would argue though that Chris Roberts and CIG were not even competent enough to deliver the original simpler 2014 scope. Record money rolling in was the perfect way for Chris to dodge that accountability via increasing scope to justify delays.

Considering that they still haven't delivered a game with a scope equivalent to the game pitched from 2012 to 2014, i have to agree!

 

[Skizomeuh]

Oh my, I can't stand it anymore. Electronic Bob, welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Are you sure about that? The 2014 game would have been a on rail planetary landing space trading sim with ship interiors. WIth ED coming along, albeit without ship interiors I doubt SC of that year would have lasted long.

Believe it or not, what I expected from Star Citizen at the time was a spiritual successor to Wing Commander which led into a spiritual successor to Privateer, both of which were like what you describe. If they had accomplished that by the end of 2014, and then continued to flesh out their game, then I would've played that for years as I waited for Elite Dangerous to at least approach the variety of worlds I could land on... especially if Star Citizen had released in 2014 with the promised mod support, private servers, and self hosting.

I mean, look at Space Engineers and Surviving Mars. I've bought every cosmetic pack they've produced. If SC also had a mod community like SE and KSP enjoy, then I would've installed mods to make the game much more suited to my personal preferences.

 

[Surefoot]

Another thing is designs being fully completed. A lot of stuff in ED is what I consider placeholders.

Lol what ? Didnt you swap SC and ED here ? Almost everything in SC is incomplete with place holders. Ever went aboard a medium/big ship ? or in just any city ? actually did you try and play SC at all ?

 

[Ebob]

Oh my, I can't stand it anymore. Electronic Bob, welcome to my ignore list.

How dare you discuss Star Citizen in the Star Citizen discussion thread! Stop being positive about the Game! Now! But oh Well, goodbye.

 

[Intrepid3D]

I know i know "this is not true VR" but it seems to work.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjHCaONdocg&t=0s