Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

Vetinari

V
I saw your comments lol

Were you there when he said 'Theyre obviously scamming us to some degree' ? Just before the official start of ATC when he went to get water.
 

Mole HD

Mole HD
Agony_Aunt said:
Mike is streaming, asking what is Star Citizen?

He's already noted that what CIG sells is massively overhyped, now he's onto the callers

Source: https://www.twitch.tv/saltemike
Click to expand...
I was watching with veiled interest through the first caller...then Mike opened the doors to the dreamcrafters and shills. I had to stop watching before I ground down the expensive crowns on my back teeth...truly cringeworthy Mikey, no more of this crap please :cautious:
 
Last edited:

MTBFritz

MTBFritz
Intrepid3D said:
Is someone else, an establish publisher? EA, Ubisoft.... taking over the development the solution?
Click to expand...

I remember us discussing this option in the past (honestly, what hasnt been discussed regarding CiG already?). We can be pretty certain that Roberts didnt start out with a publisher because he failed to secure interest or support either due to his personal reputation or because his sales pitch wasnt up to the task. I m sure a publisher board would ve been as impressed over the 2012 trailer as the average public joe BUT they would ve demanded proof/evidence or asked some hard questions Roberts wouldnt ve been able to wave away.

10 years later CiG has proved that public interest is there and sufficiant enough to secure millions but again....the project is in a worse state then it was due to scope creep and mismanagement,,,basically a run-away development. Even established AAA publishers wont be able to come up with solutions to the problems Star Citizen faces today so their task would once again be....providing the hard decisions, cutting things away in order to make Star Citizen get to a release version.

Wing Commander was done this way because the involved Publisher already was invested and it was his money getting burned. Microsoft was trying to save what was left and that WC turned out to be a great game is thanks to THEM....not thanks to Chris Robert. Why would anybody whos aware of how things went down back then walk up to the table and take over at this point?

Whats the pay-off? Because publishers think in money-terms.

Try to estimate how much MORE money and time have to go into this project before its ready for release. Even with slashed content and scope we are probably talking about 2 more years and maybe half the current funding on top.

...to make sure the current backers get what they "pledged" for.. This effort would primarily be made to pay off existing technical debt and as a reduced scope and a smaller game is pretty much a given you cannot really hope for masses storming the shops once you are done. You are currently dealing with people who are so engrossed in impossible scenarios and dreams that whatever you can possibly do will be a downgrade and a disappointment, very probably tarnishing your own reputation regardless if you "safe" the project or not. In regards to potential sales I dont think you can expect to see more than 10 or 15% MORE buyers then already exist. Not really a winning formula here.

Kicking Chris off the board and taking over would ve been a viable decision "maybe" able to save Star Citizen........4 years ago or so but that ship has sailed.

So I assume that neither would bringing an established publisher on board be any kind of solution at this point of time anymore nor will that ever happen because publishers dont really do high-risk projects (the main reason why we get the same old games, overworked with a new number at the end). The future will prove me right or wrong I guess.

As an ending comment I think that Star Citizens value today isnt the "great game" the sheeple at the bottom dream about nor is it the entertaining pastime some folks are able to gleen from its limited content and features. We know about all kinds of investors today who are not really known for dipping into video game projects. There is no possible way of knowing what really pays the bills right now and Chris Roberts, the guy who does wont ever tell or admit anything that would be the truth. Somehow he keeps the project alive and because its NOT the displayed progress by the project its because of the promises he makes....without some kind of miracle its only a matter of time before this bubble pops and that it hasnt been "90 days" as predicetd years ago is very probably because of the darker shade actions been taken to prevent a catastrophic collapse.

The backer at the bottom might cry "take as much time as you need" all he wants....the world doesnt care. CiG is running on fumes and borrowed time. I wish all the trusting people who hope for a great game all the best but its really looking bleak right now, call me hater of you want I m just trying to be realistic about the risks we all watch play out.
 

Agony_Aunt

Agony_Aunt
Vetinari said:
I saw your comments lol

Were you there when he said 'Theyre obviously scamming us to some degree' ? Just before the official start of ATC when he went to get water.
Click to expand...

I think i half-caught that but i was in the middle of doing some work at the time so didn't pay that much attention.
 

Agony_Aunt

Agony_Aunt
Mole HD said:
I was watching with veiled interest through the first caller...then Mike opened the doors to the dreamcrafters and shills. I had to stop watching before I ground down the expensive crowns on my back teeth...truly cringeworthy Mikey, no more of this crap please :cautious:
Click to expand...

To be fair, he doesn't censor, he lets various people talk.
 

MTBFritz

MTBFritz
Agony_Aunt said:
And the faithful egg him on saying "no compromises, it will be done when its done, better a delayed game that is good than a rushed game that is bad"

They don't seem to understand they have chosen the path to no released game at all.
Click to expand...
This is where the very obvious discrepancy between the "ITS A DONATION" justifications and "entitlement" comes into play.

Backers who laid down any kind of money did so because they expect a certain result and the well known "Star Citizen today is very much worth the 45 bucks entry fee" line is just another blinder pulled over peoples eyes mostly told by people who already made the step and are caught inside. This its no wonder that when you discuss Star Citizens content and features you immediately run into deceptive or false descriptions, bombarded with hype videos who never reflect reality or shouted down with fanatical claims like "I always run at 90 FPS and NEVER encounter any bugs" plus the tried and tested "I have so much fun" argument that makes it hard to distinguish between people who really mean that and the ones who use it as a propaganda line that proved to be uncounterable.

People dont accept compromises or a lesser version because they feel they "deserve" the full dream even tho they are not due to their own argumentation.

The empty mega-box representing a single system with a handful of moons and planets, the half.baked flight system, the really bad FPS shooter and the few missions in place along with the handrcrafted PoIs most certainly is NOT worth 45$ or more. if Star Citizen would release today as it is it wouldnt win any prizes. The medias and the communities interest in this game is mostly rooted into the future promises and results Chris Roberts claimed to be able to deliver.....not because of how great SC is today...because its not. Not compared to any other released game on the market (aside from the 5$ cash grabs and F2P scams maybe)

I can certainly understand that some people have made peace with their 45 dollar loss by now, trying to get whatever fun they can get out of SC as long as its up. They continue to "hope for the best" but the rock-solid conviction of a "great game that ll make all other games obsolete" is firmly reserved for the fanatics who refuse to recognize reality and run on fumes because acknowleding the facts would be a crushing blow to morality and the project. We know about a lot of people who invested a lot more tho and not everybody is going to be a Mole (HD) on this topic shrugging off multiple thousands of cash because frankly speaking not everybody is as chill about it as Mole is which makes me believe him in the first place.

When you encounter somebody whos willing and ready to become personal, to demonize you and call you all kinds of terms under the sun, not accepting a single negative aspect and roaming the internet to "pick up the fight" on behalf of Star Citizen you know you are facing somebody who is NOT okay with the project going under and all the money he spent so far being lost. These people expect something in return, WANT something in return and other folks who crap on their beloved game are perceived as a threat and need to be resisted. This isnt every single SC backer and very probably NOT the majority either but just remember as to WHY Star Citizen has become as notorious as it is today and what exact qualities made the waves. The graphics....yes but also the vocal rabid and toxic fanbase degrading the reputation of ALL the people in the project.

If I would want the project to succeed (and I simply dont because I lost all hope some time ago, not because I "want" it to fail) I wouldnt let others who are touting my own side (pro) simply by accident using all kinds of deceptive manipulation and lies speak for me. This wouldnt be a kind of ally I would ever consider to use.
 

Red Anders

Red Anders
Agony_Aunt said:
Mike is streaming, asking what is Star Citizen?

He's already noted that what CIG sells is massively overhyped, now he's onto the callers

Source: https://www.twitch.tv/saltemike
Click to expand...
This is the point where I'd post the 'I'm a Star Citizen' vid from a few years back, were it not for the fact that a forum ban lives that way :D

If anybody's not sure which one I'm referring to, searching for 'Gaming Garbage I'm a Star Citizen' on youtube might just locate it.

'I don't leave the house that often... Ever...' :LOL:
 

MTBFritz

MTBFritz
ECity said:
Of course, players in prison switch to their alt accounts, have others give them merits to get out, or log out until the next day.
Click to expand...

Which makes you question the validity of this feature to begin with. I understand that prison is an ingame form of punishment for criminal acts you commit but prison isnt offering any kind of gameplay or entertainment other then being a deterrent so its clearly designed as a penalty. Which is its primarily function yes but didnt CiG offer compelling and fun gameplay to pass the time? If people never use any of those and simply log out or over to a different account all that remains is the penalty....why did CiG ever spend time and money on this to begin with?


@AgonyAunt
are you going through the avatar-motions so we can vote on a popular keeper at an unspecified point in the future? I already have a couple I like very much, just waiting for you to settle down young grasshopper ^^

Surefoot said:
It's a byproduct of being a VR-first title, which requires a constant 80+fps. They worked a lot on their in-house engine to achieve this result. So yeah, it was maybe 2 years (cant remember the exact figures, i'm not counting the "black project" years when DB was doodling with some code) of complete blackout in terms of actual game content delivered but it was worth the investment.
Click to expand...

Its almost as if a clear design plan is a prerequisite and Star Citizen doesnt have one? I need to wash my mouth with soap now else I m going to turn hater or something :D

You should suggest that on reddit...Ci¬G will change the name immediately :D
Click to expand...

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: bogeyman patrol ^^
 

Darkfyre99

Darkfyre99
MTBFritz said:
I remember us discussing this option in the past (honestly, what hasnt been discussed regarding CiG already?). We can be pretty certain that Roberts didnt start out with a publisher because he failed to secure interest or support either due to his personal reputation or because his sales pitch wasnt up to the task. I m sure a publisher board would ve been as impressed over the 2012 trailer as the average public joe BUT they would ve demanded proof/evidence or asked some hard questions Roberts wouldnt ve been able to wave away.
Click to expand...
After watching a GDC presentation from about a publisher (found here), about common flaws in game pitches, I reviewed the original Kickstarter pitch, and realized that quite those issues were falsely addressed in CR's sales pitch. That's why I now have the impression that CR did shop around his pitch, was asked the same questions repeatedly, and then when it came to reedit his Cryteck machinima video and write his Kickstarter pitch, he implied positive answers to the questions he was unable provide to the publishers. YMMV
 
Last edited:

MTBFritz

MTBFritz
Darkfyre99 said:
After watching a GDC presentation from about a publisher (found here), about common flaws in game pitches, I reviewed the original Kickstarter pitch, and realized that quite those issues were falsely addressed in CR's sales pitch. That's why I now have the impression that CR did shop around his pitch, was asked the same questions repeatedly, and then when it came to reedit his Cryteck machinima video and write his Kickstarter pitch, he implied positive answers to the questions he was unable provide to the publishers. YMMV
Click to expand...

thats exactly what I was talking about.....I was watching Star Citizen with rose tinted googles myself but the harsh reality set it eventually and the project only looks worse and worse in hindsight the more we learn about past and current events. The points I think are revelevant to Star Citizen....

1. I don't give a crap about your back story.
2. I don't give a crap about your inventory system either.
3. I'm not going to design your game for you.
5. You never explained what the player does.
6. Don't use realism to excuse bad design.
8. Is it really a game, or just a knockoff?
9. You never mentioned your glaringly obvious tech risk.
10. Your proof of concept does not prove your concept.
11. Having lots of awesome art doesn't make them awesome.
12. I can't tell what's placeholder and what's not.
13. You polished too early.
14. Your sample dialog sucks.
15. You're pandering to the latest tech craze.
19. I know more about your monetization than your mechanics.
20. You have no idea how much money/people/time you need to make this thing.
21. You don't have a team.
22. Your business plan is based on outliers.
23. You seem like you'd be a huge pain in the buttocks to work with.
24. You expect me to know who you are.
25. You're annoyed that I'm asking questions.
29. Don't trash other games/companies/developers

2 more points relating to presentation and while the 2012 trailer looked gorgous we know from experience that CiG is a little....clueless when it comes to setting up things and reliable performance. So if you are unable to plug in a controller, restart your clip or have your trailer crash a couple of times its game over baby.
 
Last edited:

McGlashan

McGlashan
Agony_Aunt said:
dreams.txt and dismissing current concerns because of what CIG want to do (in their heads)

robertsspaceindustries.com

Why Multi Crew is going to work.... - Star Citizen Spectrum

I felt like writing this, because over the months and years looking at the boards here, I always see these "multi crew won't work" threads, and reasons why... 9/10 times, they only look at how...
robertsspaceindustries.com robertsspaceindustries.com
Click to expand...
9/10 times, they only look at how the game is CURRENTLY.. which basically makes their entire post pointless and wrong
Click to expand...
Yep, that violates the first rule of being an SC simp.
 

VR Mr Teatime

VR Mr Teatime
MTBFritz said:
I remember us discussing this option in the past (honestly, what hasnt been discussed regarding CiG already?). We can be pretty certain that Roberts didnt start out with a publisher because he failed to secure interest or support either due to his personal reputation or because his sales pitch wasnt up to the task. I m sure a publisher board would ve been as impressed over the 2012 trailer as the average public joe BUT they would ve demanded proof/evidence or asked some hard questions Roberts wouldnt ve been able to wave away.
Click to expand...
I'd say that scenario would have been spot on, as any publisher would have asked (if it wasn't on the credits/splash screen) "what engine are you developing this with?", which given the state of Crytek at the time would have raised the mental risk calculation.

Additionally and in answer to what I assume was the opening rhetorical question, but I don't think I've seen an answer to yet, is "do we know why (and on what basis) Ortwin was engaged with Crytek and what he was doing for them, when CR just happened to drop in with an idea for a new sapce game?".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom