Why theorize when Chris the man himself already announced they will release with maybe 5 fleshed out systems and add more over time?
Star Citizen Discussion Thread v11
- Thread starter Sir.Tj
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
- Status
Why theorize when Chris the man himself already announced they will release with maybe 5 fleshed out systems and add more over time?
Absolved already.
No way. That promise was maybe doable for launch when it was just the old scale but it is impossible to do for launch with the new scale. At the very minimum it takes two to three quarters to create a detailed planet, the moons and the city with content they entail in 3.7 now. Yes not all solar systems in the SC universe are as detailed (most have one interesting planet) as Stanton and that's why they started with it first to get the most complex variety out of the way and then scale from there. That makes a lot of sense imo.
The issue here is the art sets and the planet types. Once you have a gas giant complete with the procedural tools CI has you can make 20 of them by just changing the attributes. The cities on the other hand have another challenge that is similar but different. The architectural attributes are different. That is why you also need to build different sets of buildings.
You can see visdev examples here:
My expectation is a 3-5 solar system PU launch and everything else slowly being added post launch. But the most optimistic expectation of production is two solar systems a year once Stanton is complete. So I highly doubt the game will ever reach the 100 systems even if it has a life span like EVE of 15 years post launch.
My opinion on macro scale has always been that due to the first person scale the amount of solar systems don't really matter but the content density inside these systems matters. Without a fully dynamic economy, persistence, meshing and the other base profession's complete it doesn't matter if SC gets 50 barren systems tomorrow. Currently, the game is a space GTA and it needs to evolve into the MMORPG it promised to be. For that the last remaining tech hurdles need to be tackled. SOCS, Meshing and Persistence.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
That is a shame. I am afraid the stretch goals are still very clear and have not been updated with that reduction you suggest as far as I know:
Prospective backers reading this will be misled to believe that there will be 100 systems at launch and CIG will be receiving money based on false information.
Last edited:
That is a shame. I am afraid the stretch goals are still very clear and have not been updated with that reduction you suggest as far as I know:
Prospective backers reading this will be misled to believe that there will be 100 systems at launch and CIG will be receiving money based on false information.
But they can't simply go back and edit it can they? That would be naughty!
The usual meme applies when it comes to CIG
It is a shame but that is the whole thing about scope creep people warned CI and CR about. If you change scope then you change delivery dates, promises miss the dates, other issues happen. It is a double-edged sword with CIG because they put themselves in this position when they didn't stop taking crowdfunding money in. They set themselves up to; Oh more money! Promise more! Let us increase production scope! Now Hire more! Damn now it takes longer! and on it goes.
I think that pledges page won't be revised and CIG has moved on from it. They also abandoned most of the earlier backers who didn't get the game they pledged for but got this different game as an Alpha.
At least now funding is somewhat stable and they will average around 600 devs. Overall their promises have decreased except for unreasonable ship concepts like mine-layer but hey if the whales are going to fund the game I enjoy then let them. All that stuff won't make it's way to the game until after the soft-launch anyway. Who cares? Personally I haven't bought a ship since 2015 except for cheap starter packages to be gifted to my friends who wanted to check it out.
I think that pledges page won't be revised and CIG has moved on from it. They also abandoned most of the earlier backers who didn't get the game they pledged for but got this different game as an Alpha.
At least now funding is somewhat stable and they will average around 600 devs. Overall their promises have decreased except for unreasonable ship concepts like mine-layer but hey if the whales are going to fund the game I enjoy then let them. All that stuff won't make it's way to the game until after the soft-launch anyway. Who cares? Personally I haven't bought a ship since 2015 except for cheap starter packages to be gifted to my friends who wanted to check it out.
Which is ackbasswards to how games should be designed. These “tech hurdles” should’ve been in place in 2011 (as Chris “working prototype” Roberts claimed during the Kickstarter), as opposed to barely being started as 2019 draws to a close. Every bit of work done without the core functionality being in place is work that will have to be redone at a later date.
Of course, that kind of thing isn’t nearly as sexy as pretty graphics, and graphics is what sells jpegs. You can’t use Hollywood Accounting to enrich family and friends, and direct A-List actors, if no money is coming in.
Reminder: The backers never voted on doing fully landable proc gen planets before release.
When CIG said they would increase scope they said it wouldn't delay delivery of features. Which was obviously cow excrement, but its what CR said.
The decision to do fullly landable procgen planets was unilateraly made by CIG.
Indeed, and its something CR should have been fully aware of and not need warning about considering what happened with Strike Commander and Freelancer.
But apparently he's not capable of understanding this.
So why some people hold CR up as some sort of game development genius is beyond me.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Would you accept the money that someone paid you in good faith for something, if you knew that was false?
I think you mean linerarly. If it had grown exponentially they would now have tens of thousands of developers and the game would be finished and they would already be working on Star Citizen 2.... hey, wait a minute!
15 years POST launch ???IF that ever happens that's like 30 to 40 more years at best I highly doubt that anyone in here is going to be even alive by then........
Last edited:
I really doubt CR knew SC would blow up like it did. Especially not in 2012/2013. I think after 2014 he realized that it will consolidate. But no one thought the thing would raise so much money and more every year between 2012-2015. Fact is that is why the classic games industry projects have much more accurate projection due to investor money being settled on early. For example the studio knows they will have 60 million to produce a game and they plan everything up to the release according to that money.
This fact was completely upside down with SC.
I think between 2012-2015 it did. Then it turned to more linear growth.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
We all know the scope has changed but I think the question is quite simple:
Would you accept the money that someone paid you in good faith for something you actively advertise and sell, if you knew it was false?
dayrth
Volunteer Moderator
You say this as if it was something that happened to Chris. It doesn't matter how much unexpected money came in. That didn't force him to abandon the plan* and let scope creep run away with the project. He's the guy in charge. It's him that made it happen.
*That's if there was any plan to start with.
Obviously not. I am one of the few people in the games industry who still advocate for free demos so gamers make an informed decision on their purchase.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Thanks. And yet that is precisely what CIG is probably still doing as we speak: Accepting money from backers (including newcomers) knowing full well that many key features of what is advertised are patently false.
How would you call that?
Last edited:
"Hello, I am Mr. Nowak and I have no idea what exponential means."
It has been linear 2012 - 2015 as well: https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/21/c...s-on-46m-in-funding-at-nearly-500m-valuation/
At best I would admit polynomial (and that'd be only for 2012 - 2014, which at three points is a terrible sample), but no way that's exponential
They are taking the money to work on the features though. What would you rather have, them not take money and close? It's not like they are taking the money and disappearing like many people claimed. Nearly 600 people are working constantly every day to deliver on the promises that was made.
Please refrain from this type of an attitude. Says much more about you than me.
I used the adjective. 3. rising or expanding at a steady and usually rapid rate: Source: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/exponential
- Status