Expensive or not?

[Jenner]

I am not dismissing handcrafted assets, but it's not something to write home about, since it's basically what almost every game does.

I see the point you're trying to make, but I disagree. Just because procedural generation is technically interesting and allows a lot of content doesn't mean that handcrafted experiences are somehow lazy, which is how I read your comment. Few game companies are going to put "Handcrafted Assets!" on their box covers, so in that sense you are right - it's not a marketing bulletpoint. Plenty of my favorite games are completely hand-crafted. Skyrim wasn't generated by an algorithm, but it's fantastic. Mass Effect wasn't generated by an algorithm, but the characters and story were epic.

My point is simply that SC and ED will excel in their respective areas and that I do not believe declaring one more 'ambitious' than the other is constructive.

 

[Nagual]

Handcrafting assets is the traditional, conventional way, there is nothing ambitious about it, it has been done to death before.

That's a trifle unfair I think. Just because it's traditional or conventional doesn't make it any less ambitious. If it was only a handful of planets or systems sure, but the number SC are doing isn't small either. The amount of work to hand create a decent amount of worlds or systems would be staggering, that in itself is ambitious is it not? It would also depend on the actual content and design too. DB has gone in to a great amount of detail about procedural generation, and I think the way they are doing it is excellent, hand finishing, hand touching things etc.

Both SC and ED are ambitious in design, but from different points of view. Both games will give us the players an unparalleled amount of different gameplay. The games are focusing of slightly different paths to follow, this can only be a good thing for us.

It's slightly disappointing and sad to see some much nay saying and negativity around games that aren't even out yet. More so because both creators of the games obviously have a lot of respect for each other and each others work. :S

 

[Jenner]

That's a trifle unfair I think. Just because it's traditional or conventional doesn't make it any less ambitious. If it was only a handful of planets or systems sure, but the number SC are doing isn't small either. The amount of work to hand create a decent amount of worlds or systems would be staggering, that in itself is ambitious is it not? It would also depend on the actual content and design too. DB has gone in to a great amount of detail about procedural generation, and I think the way they are doing it is excellent, hand finishing, hand touching things etc.

Both SC and ED are ambitious in design, but from different points of view. Both games will give us the players an unparalleled amount of different gameplay. The games are focusing of slightly different paths to follow, this can only be a good thing for us.

It's slightly disappointing and sad to see some much nay saying and negativity around games that aren't even out yet. More so because both creators of the games obviously have a lot of respect for each other and each others work. :S

Indeed. + rep to you.

 

[Associat0r]

I see the point you're trying to make, but I disagree. Just because procedural generation is technically interesting and allows a lot of content doesn't mean that handcrafted experiences are somehow lazy, which is how I read your comment.

You are twisting my words, I said it's not something to write home about, as in it's the norm, it's how game art is traditionally made, like most of my favorite games as is the game I'm working on.

 

[Associat0r]

That's a trifle unfair I think. Just because it's traditional or conventional doesn't make it any less ambitious. If it was only a handful of planets or systems sure, but the number SC are doing isn't small either. The amount of work to hand create a decent amount of worlds or systems would be staggering, that in itself is ambitious is it not? It would also depend on the actual content and design too. DB has gone in to a great amount of detail about procedural generation, and I think the way they are doing it is excellent, hand finishing, hand touching things etc.

Both SC and ED are ambitious in design, but from different points of view. Both games will give us the players an unparalleled amount of different gameplay. The games are focusing of slightly different paths to follow, this can only be a good thing for us.

It's slightly disappointing and sad to see some much nay saying and negativity around games that aren't even out yet. More so because both creators of the games obviously have a lot of respect for each other and each others work. :S

You are also twisting my words, saying something is not ambitious doesn't mean it's something negative, it just means it isn't ambitious, that's all.

 

[Fromhell]

Now that i got some more time i'm thinking about backing it, and i was quite surprised to find out that it is more expensive to back Elite than it is to go for Star Citizen: If i interpret the descriptions properly you get access to the game with 30+ pounds, whereas SC costs $30+ USD:
£30 > $30, translates to 35€ > 22€ for me which is quite a difference.

Anybody who doesn't know Elite (including me, although i am from that era ) and compares prices will prolly go to SC because of the price difference; and SC being the more ambitious (i guess?) and already more successful project doesn't help it either.

I wonder if Elite was more expensive from the start, and why? Somehow i can't imagine how SC outpaced Elite otherwise in more than the 10:1 ratio, is it hype, or what happened? And: Shouldn't the current prices kinda be the other way around, in order to get some more funding in? .

no one cares about 8 bucks price difference, the average pledge amount over at star citizen is 82$, do the math

There are people who supported the game with thousand dollars and more. Roberts games were popular until the 2000s, Many original Elite fans from the 80ies are probably dead, married or senile by now and don't care for computer games anynore. ED needs to regain a bigger fanbase after release

Star Citizen(..) is heavily leaning towards pay to win in my opinion. CIG are selling their ships to pledgers and some of those ships range from $20 up to $250. The starting ship you get for your initial $30 starters pledge has already earned the nickname as the flying coffin (so that tells you how poor that will be!)

So unless you plan on playing solo, you may have to spend some extra cash to survive in the multiplayer :

why? why keep people spreading this uniformed ? Do you even know what pay2win means? SC is not at all pay2win.

1. EVERYTHING can be acquired in game by simple gameplay, how is that "heavily" pay2win?
2. The ship hulls are worthless, they don't have stats, only the equipment matters. I can get a fully equipped Aurora and probably blow up a sitting duck like a Freelancer if it's flying alone or badly equipped, and you still need flying skills so you can't "buy" a win, it has been adressed over and over again.
3. There is no magic superweapon, all ships work by a rock paper scissor system. Has been explained a dozen times by CR by now.


starter ship a flying coffin eh?

http://youtu.be/UvDs7RDKCag

I'll man one or two of those with NPC wingmen and will fly one myself when I get bored by the Connie, let's see who is flying home in a coffin

 

[Nagual]

You are also twisting my words, saying something is not ambitious doesn't mean it's something negative, it just isn't ambitious, that's all.

While the bulk of my response was in regards to your post, the final comment wasn't meant to be aimed at you specifically. Sorry if you felt that was personally targeted at your good self. Rather in general terms some people tend to be playing down other creators efforts or achievements. However this being the medium it is, it's often hard to discern peoples meanings, sometimes inferences can be seen where there is none implied. The overall tone of posts, can be both misrepresented and misinterpreted.

 

[Capt. Hook]

I think E D will be well worth the € stumped up. I've waited long enough for this incarnation to roll into sight and from what I've seen to date, it will be money well spent to bring the game to life.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

I see the point you're trying to make, but I disagree. Just because procedural generation is technically interesting and allows a lot of content doesn't mean that handcrafted experiences are somehow lazy, which is how I read your comment. Few game companies are going to put "Handcrafted Assets!" on their box covers, so in that sense you are right - it's not a marketing bulletpoint. Plenty of my favorite games are completely hand-crafted. Skyrim wasn't generated by an algorithm, but it's fantastic. Mass Effect wasn't generated by an algorithm, but the characters and story were epic.

My point is simply that SC and ED will excel in their respective areas and that I do not believe declaring one more 'ambitious' than the other is constructive.

Funny, but lot of terrain in Skyrim were pre-generated using PG if I am not mistaken

P.

 

[Nagual]

Funny, but lot of terrain in Skyrim were pre-generated using PG if I am not mistaken

P.

Parts of it were, certainly. The auto generation tool in the CK can be used to great effect, but has some draw backs. Each cell was painstakingly hand tweaked by a significant amount. Used to be on the skyrim forums a lot, but haven't been active for a long time now, can't find the relevant links.

 

[Jenner]

You are twisting my words, I said it's not something to write home about, as in it's the norm, it's how game art is traditionally made, like most of my favorite games as is the game I'm working on.

I apologize if I read sneer into your statement where none existed. I've been a fan of SC for awhile now and I think it's very ambitious, so my first inclination is to defend it when I perceive (rightly or wrongly) a slight. :smilie:

 

[Oss133]

Indeed. + rep to you.

Oh. So you're repping him now? I thought we had something special.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

I see the point you're trying to make, but I disagree. Just because procedural generation is technically interesting and allows a lot of content doesn't mean that handcrafted experiences are somehow lazy, which is how I read your comment. Few game companies are going to put "Handcrafted Assets!" on their box covers, so in that sense you are right - it's not a marketing bulletpoint. Plenty of my favorite games are completely hand-crafted. Skyrim wasn't generated by an algorithm, but it's fantastic. Mass Effect wasn't generated by an algorithm, but the characters and story were epic.

My point is simply that SC and ED will excel in their respective areas and that I do not believe declaring one more 'ambitious' than the other is constructive.

I have no problem with SC, really, I don't, I had tons of fun with Wing Commander - although not because of space, but of space opera and well written campaign stories (Golden peak for me was WC 3 and IV, last one has noteworthy acting and gripping script). I am not sure I will have to time try it out, but I will check out previews and videos of full game to make decision to give it a try.

While I don't have strong objective argument for or against in this particular discussion, I think what Associator said was that while handcrafted assets is no small deal, it has quite samey "been there done that" feeling. I would extend his point to this - there are quite a lot of people which knows how to deliver handcrafted stuff, especially for FPS engine. There are few who know how to deliver same or better experience using artist input and PG in their own written graphics engine. As many have pointed out in these forums, ED in many terms is *huge* practical experiment for PG case in mainstream gaming. Another one planned to release relatively soon is EverQuest Next. This *for me* is reason why ED is more ambitious than SC.

Of course it reminds to be seen how far FD will be able to go with their vision, because without publisher (or without selling in-game assets) it is very risky move financial wise. Still, they have tools, money and that will to deliver this time.

 

[Jenner]

Oh. So you're repping him now? I thought we had something special.

Oh, oss133.... you know you're the only one for me. :smooch:

 

[Jenner]

I have no problem with SC, really, I don't, I had tons of fun with Wing Commander - although not because of space, but of space opera and well written campaign stories (Golden peak for me was WC 3 and IV, last one has noteworthy acting and gripping script). I am not sure I will have to time try it out, but I will check out previews and videos of full game to make decision to give it a try.

While I don't have strong objective argument for or against in this particular discussion, I think what Associator said was that while handcrafted assets is no small deal, it has quite samey "been there done that" feeling. I would extend his point to this - there are quite a lot of people which knows how to deliver handcrafted stuff, especially for FPS engine. There are few who know how to deliver same or better experience using artist input and PG in their own written graphics engine. As many have pointed out in these forums, ED in many terms is *huge* practical experiment for PG case in mainstream gaming. Another one planned to release relatively soon is EverQuest Next. This *for me* is reason why ED is more ambitious than SC.

Of course it reminds to be seen how far FD will be able to go with their vision, because without publisher (or without selling in-game assets) it is very risky move financial wise. Still, they have tools, money and that will to deliver this time.

Good points. I certainly believe that ED is *incredibly* ambitious, don't get me wrong! I can't wait to see what they can accomplish with the PG system they've outlined.

Interesting point about FD's funding model. Obviously SC has done incredibly well for itself thus far. I really hope that FD can find their groove and monetize ED after release. It deserves recognition and sales for sure.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Interesting point about FD's funding model. Obviously SC has done incredibly well for itself thus far. I really hope that FD can find their groove and monetize ED after release. It deserves recognition and sales for sure.

I can only guess, but I think it will be classic sales campaign with multiple marketing lines. So far all what's coming from FD has given me impression, that there's invisible team for us working on marketing and retail sales part which will be launched sometime in the future, probably around beta. As company already in game making business they know this stuff very well. Only interesting question is - how they will market it and will it have any impact in the end. I guess i twill have several layers, one aimed to gamers already knowing what Elite or Frontier is, another will be for younger ones.

How well ED will do in sales - it is hard to tell. Although there is one positive side to this - it is age of Youtube, so lot of people not only read reviews, but watch walk troughs, and "let's play" videos. If game will be good, gamers will come.

 

[izzy]

Good points. I certainly believe that ED is *incredibly* ambitious, don't get me wrong! I can't wait to see what they can accomplish with the PG system they've outlined.

Interesting point about FD's funding model. Obviously SC has done incredibly well for itself thus far. I really hope that FD can find their groove and monetize ED after release. It deserves recognition and sales for sure.

KS success is already a recognition. For the sales, FD has already us backers I hope alpha/beta tests will bring a lot new backers

 

[Jenner]

KS success is already a recognition. For the sales, FD has already us backers I hope alpha/beta tests will bring a lot new backers

I'm sure the increased media coverage, youtube videos, and the like during alpha and beta will definitely bring a lot of new backers.

 

[Riandor]

Well, i don't know on this one... The marketing aspect i mean. Zoo Tycoon almost completely went by without me realising until someone on these forums mentioned it (i hadn't even looked at the other forum sections).

And the IGN 10minute demo is not David Braben's best work commentary wise.

When you compare that to Star Citizen who are making a lot of noise (even if i personally find it all a bit much - the design a ship for us vid the latest rather sickly cringefest), then i do question Frontier's ability to market their products effectively and thats a shame when most things ive seen are really good.

For example the ability to help real animals into the wild with zoo tycoon if enough people in game do the same virtually is massive! Its a huge selling point in itself and yet it was seemingly 1 rushed comment in at the very end of the ign demo.

 

[Tiwaz]

I do think there is plenty of room for both games. With the launch of the Kickstarters of SC, ED and even LT - specially SC amazing crowdsourcing initiative - the interest for the genre has piqued. Something that enlarges the market and expands upon it - many players new to the genre have been attracted to it, specially on the American market.

Personally I disagree. Spacegames have not really ever been very mainstream stuff. While interest will increase undoubtedly, much of it will be gone quite as readily. The core hobbyists who stick around are limited resource along with their wallets.

While both games have a online component, their post MMO design makes them less dependent on big player numbers to create a game world experience. I also believe that the cost structure is far lighter than traditional MMOs in terms of servers and support needs.

Yes, cost structure is lighter but is there. Not to mention need to keep producing content to keep the money coming in. In the end, it is not just one another they have to compete with but plethora of other games, as people who play niche games are often active in other venues as well.

I'm barely able to sit with anticipation of getting to try both of these games to see which is more interesting, but there are also lots of other games demanding my time.

The MMO in the room - Eve - is the one that has the most to lose. But it has proved time and time again to be quite durable and have a strong following.

Which is in no small reason due to it being the ONLY game in the room. Introduce SC and FD and the pond becomes really small to swim in.

Now, on the SC / ED relationship.. Like many, I've happily backed both games - ED far more - and I believe that both will be great games on their own. Quite different approaches, and both enrich each other. I see it more as coopetition than competition.
Using a movie image I like both 2001 and Star Wars. The world is better with both than it would be with only either of one (although this image is slightly flawed because those too movies have far less in common than ED and SC will).
Even Limit Theory can bring good things to the genre.

Of course. But in the end, money makes the world go round and round. And it is in the end limited resource. Are we backers who paid for both games going to keep buying DLC and other goodies from both games or shall we gravitate more to one game at expense of other? I predict the latter. If we look at CoD & BF field, we see surprisingly little cross pollination. You either play CoD or BF series, because getting somewhere in one requires too much time to make it viable to give both equal treatment. That is the curse of online multiplayer. Dropping to do something else makes you feel you are being left behind, which in turn is something lots of us dislike.