Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
People do accept that. Everyone accepts that fun can be found, especially if playing with friends.
But choosing to ignore anything objective due to a subjective sentiment is the issue some people have.
I agree with the first part. Some of the old arguments do get tiresome.
But expecting games with budgets under $100 million to pick up the slack of a $500 million one is nonsensical.
People don't do that though. I never really see SC fans discussing content amongst themselves. They always want to argue with other people or take digs at other games as a way of getting back at the criticism. It's a strange coping mechanism indeed.
People have fun with Garry's Mod. It's not a game. People had fun with Second Life. It's not a game either. As long as you are with friends, fun can be had pretty much anywhere.
SC is devoid of what defines a game, so far, apart from mining when it used to work properly, but again it was an isolated game loop that was connected to absolutely nothing else (and it's now broken until they fix important issues). There's a 3D engine, a broken physics engine, and barely enough networking to have some janky fun with a group of people, with everything made out of explodium and random insta deaths there's indeed some potential for some good laughs. Still not a "game" per se, and very, very far from being the promised "BDSSE".
SC is devoid of what defines a game, so far, apart from mining when it used to work properly, but again it was an isolated game loop that was connected to absolutely nothing else (and it's now broken until they fix important issues). There's a 3D engine, a broken physics engine, and barely enough networking to have some janky fun with a group of people, with everything made out of explodium and random insta deaths there's indeed some potential for some good laughs. Still not a "game" per se, and very, very far from being the promised "BDSSE".
It's more "fun is anecdotal in SC, why the funding doesn't collapse ?"
Holy Strawman Batman. You just cannot stand the idea of personal fun not being some global truth can you.
Let's put it this way:
The regular stream of angry refundians speak to funding gained, but a deficit of fun, in those particular cases. Perhaps this might clarify for you that your personal enjoyment does not actually constitute the experiences of all people at all times. Very weird I know.
Last edited:
So it seems the rear of the Hull A may lose collision detection when extending?
Full Vid
If that's a deliberate bit of trickery to get the sliding sections to work for now, it seems like a bit of an issue for the bigger Hulls. The rear sections are habitable for those
Guess the real Hull fun will start when we've got guys traversing inner-tubing like this...
(source)
(Unless the 'cargo refactor' brings comedy glitches of its own in 2022 o'course)
If that's a deliberate bit of trickery to get the sliding sections to work for now, it seems like a bit of an issue for the bigger Hulls. The rear sections are habitable for those
Guess the real Hull fun will start when we've got guys traversing inner-tubing like this...
(source)
(Unless the 'cargo refactor' brings comedy glitches of its own in 2022 o'course
)
There is more gameplay in that tunnel than the whole of Skyrim!
And you cannot stand the idea that fun can be the main reason why newcommers fund SC...
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Thing is, we have no actual idea where funds come from. CIG, the most transparent developer ever, has gone to extensive lengths to avoid being explicit about that particular point in their yearly financial blog. That should tell you a lot already. If CIG had a demonstrable way to claim that most funds came from newcomers they would be probably be showing it right, left and center at every opportunity.
But not only it has not done that but it has also even hidden the geographical origin of its sales in its report to UK authorities. There all we can do is speculate. Although as far as I remember (and I may be wrong) there was some rough analysis done some time ago based on tracker figures (both funds and new accounts) suggesting most of the money actually seems to come from old whales. Maybe someone has the details. Still very speculative anyways.
What we do know for sure is that arguing the objective overall quality of a thing just based on anecdotal and personal fun of said thing does not make much sense. Have all the fun you want with it, though.
Last edited:
I can believe it's primarily "newcomers" funding it, because they have the "omg I was able to get out of the seat and walk around the ship!!!" moment and think all their Christmases have come at once. Further down the line they realise what a state the whole thing's in, no significant development progress has been made, the novelty wears off, and it's on to greener pastures. But along comes a new generation of newcomers, the grift repeats, and Roberts continues to take his cut.
That, and the deeply entrenched, sunk cost whales who continue believe that some day all the fudsters will be proven wrong. Because no matter how much fun you're having, that still hasn't happened.
Nah, as mentioned ad nauseam, I’d actually rather people get fun out of SC than none. Anyone finding SC, and enjoying it, is fine by me.
Illogical nonsense does annoy me though, for sure. So you basing another post on a nonsense premise (yet again), to arrive at a nonsense conclusion (yet again), could annoy me. If it wasn’t all so silly
PS, one day, you should consider the idea of basing your beliefs on some actual tangible evidence. It’s a radical suggestion I know.
In this case, the file diving that suggested whales provide the bulk of SC’s cash, not new blood, would probably be of interest ¯\(ツ)/¯
Hence the reason Ci¬G can't release the Hull C (or D or E) any time soon. The Hull C wasSo it seems the rear of the Hull A may lose collision detection when extending?
Full Vid
If that's a deliberate bit of trickery to get the sliding sections to work for now, it seems like a bit of an issue for the bigger Hulls. The rear sections are habitable for those
Guess the real Hull fun will start when we've got guys traversing inner-tubing like this...
(source)
(Unless the 'cargo refactor' brings comedy glitches of its own in 2022 o'course
As of now, transitions between physics grids are so broken we can't reliably get on and off a ship ramp or transition along a static docking tube...never mind traverse between two separate physics grids connected by yet another retractable physics grid on a moving ship.
There's also the issue of the cargo physics, all tied to the object container system...the Hull A doesn't yet have the ability to work as advertised with detachable, pre-loaded cargo boxes, it still uses the old fixed internal cargo grid system despite the graphic representation of appearing otherwise...as does the Argo Raft....or the Prospector, Argo Mole or Starfarer for that matter with their (supposedly) detachable hoppers designed to use the same non existent detachable object container physics.
Nice idea but null point for execution. As usual, Ci¬G sold a ship concept before the essential game mechanics to support it's basic operation are possible...or having at least been proved as viable
Last edited:
![[VR] Merkir](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/141/141091.jpg?1553527154){kind=avatar}
Guess the real Hull fun will start when we've got guys traversing inner-tubing like this...
(source)
Ahaa... is that CIG's sandworm pipeline? Any day now...
It's not a game, "It's an alpha!" as i have been told many, many, many times. Or is it no longer alpha? Doubt
Here's an example of the fun I have here instead of talking about something that'll never happen.
I still believe strongly that there are several 'shadow investors' or dodgy money in the mix somewhere. There simply aren't enough whales, free spending or not, to consistently supply the amount of funding month after month or year after year to even begin to tally the funding tracker. I've been involved with this thing for way too long to be convinced that even a constant stream of subscribers, new $50-$100 backers or the preverbial and much maligned $1k-$35k whales buying up pixel spaceships or jpegs as being the sole source of Ci¬G's considerable annual income.Nah, as mentioned ad nauseam, I’d actually rather people get fun out of SC than none. Anyone finding SC, and enjoying it, is fine by me.
Illogical nonsense does annoy me though, for sure. So you basing another post on a nonsense premise (yet again), to arrive at a nonsense conclusion (yet again), could annoy me. If it wasn’t all so silly
PS, one day, you should consider the idea of basing your beliefs on some actual tangible evidence. It’s a radical suggestion I know.
In this case, the file diving that suggested whales provide the bulk of SC’s cash, not new blood, would probably be of interest ¯\(ツ)/¯
As much as I'm a concierge level backer and fairly typical with regard to the spending habits of the majority of that particular group or trend...I haven't given Ci¬G a penny for over 2 years...and I'm by no means alone in that regard. There's only so much you can tie down to sunk cost fallacy for the development of a space game before it becomes highly unlikely...or even nonsensical
Last edited:
Space Engineers?