Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
Yes yes it's utterly hilarious that a 700M dollar game would get trashed by Steam reviews.In combo they're my favourite show on the web
(Checkmate fudsters)
Yeah.
Hilarious.
Really.
700M hilarious.
They put a giant strut where you're supposed to aim the railgun in the Idris. Also, there's no hands on the in-game throttle-and-stick. Immersion ruined.
Planet Tech: Versing No.5
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_QE4qig9sw&t=1000s
Q: Is all of this still R&D with clever renders or is this technology at a stage where it could potentially be used to actually build a planet at this point?
TLDR: No. We're rebuilding it allll.
What a great big ball of Friday night bull
CIG reverse developed SC. They started with the fancy Kickstarter demo (CryEngine), then added the ever-expanding feature creep, then the assets (ships, buildings, planets), improved the graphics. After 12 years, they're still reworking fundamental engine tech which is unfit for purpose.
Last edited:
I think they've been doing everything at the same time: crowdfunding, expanding feature creep, adding assets, features, improving graphics and developing their tech and refactoring it as they need, repeat. Much longer that way to get a finished product but it's the shortest way to implement all the features together. Like Frontier had to work in fundamental tech to add Odyssey, they will need to do so to add every other tech. The base building update, the on-foot thargoids on land attacks, the atmospheric planet updates, the ship interiors, the eva aspect etc will all touch "fundamental tech" that will need rework to accommodate new gameplay.
The technical development of ED (skunk-works) started years prior to the Kickstarter. Such as the Stellar Forge, background sim, flight model. On-foot added new first-person tech which works well now. They have built on top of this solid foundation.
CIG started with the CryEngine demo then they piled unrealistic feature-creep on top and had to rework, modify the core engine. They are still struggling with that 12 years later. Now, Chris Roberts wants an Eve Online-style sandbox MMO with base building which is not what the Cry Engine / Lumberyard / Star Engine was designed for. This is like a supercar with old engine components that must be replaced after selling it to customers, because the boss keeps changing the specs. They should've spent the early years sorting out the tech requirements.
Star Citizen is built on quicksand with spaghetti code. How many years of game-breaking bugs, poor performance, slow progress will the SC community put up with? The SC project will fail in a few years.
Last edited:
Plot-Twist: Maybe Soulsinger is being built on Unreal Engine
Yup, its basically how you have to do it, you can only future proof yourself so much when developing stuff. Often you just get to the point where its either a full refactor or start over with a new product. I've seen both happen in major IT systems in heathcare and finance.
The problem here though is one of the big defenses used by the faithful is CIG were doing it all the right way from the start, building the tools, the pipelines, etc, so they would have the foundations right and wouldn't need to do it later. I've had faithful strongly argue this was the right way to do it, so it wouldn't be ED, and this is why its all taking so long.
Turns out, it was all a load of guff.
Plot-Twist: Maybe Soulsinger is being built on Unreal Engine
If they're developing SoulSinger by redirecting funds from Star Citizen backers, I'm unsure if that's permitted.
but but muh Starfield
Or a guaranteed way to never finish any of them
Which is pretty much what we're seeing with SC.
And when the scope creep pays for the perpetual dev, it all starts to get a bit sordid as a business.
Where CIG are going they don't need permits!
(Because they're lost in the grey area of partial delivery
)
That’s an interesting question, given SC’s Schrödinger nature: it’s a released game legally, but a crowd-sourced “Alpha” Early Access game whenever anyone tries to review it. Despite plenty of games in Early Access getting reviewed, including during their Alpha period.
Given that they’re paying their stockholders (AKA Chris Roberts, his family and friend, and the Calders) dividends these days, I’d say it’s safe to say that there are no backers anymore, just a ton of customers who never received what they paid for.
That'd be interesting if it only happened in Pyro, yeah.
But it may be 4.0 wide, and happen in Stanton too. Which'd just be CIG's old friend regression
. (Those old band aids do tend to peel off).All the while lying about what is just about to come, especially around Oct each year, then casually roll back on the claims. Oh well, maybe next year, haha says Chris.
"repeat".
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Given the current accounting and commercial situation of SC I am afraid it may be very much permitted. SC ceased to be just crowdfunded when it released in early access quite a while ago (2016 as per official CIG statements), as such CIG has zero obligation towards using regular sales revenues in SC. They can do whatever they want with the money.
The issue here is one of possible misrepresentation and bamboozling of clients. CIG has kept the "alpha" and "crowdfund" narrative alive for over a decade and won´t move a finger to clarify that SC has not been a fully crowdfunded game for many years now. It suits CIG well that players still believe they are "pledging" or "donating".
It can become also a problem for CIG if someone, or a group, realizes this, considers that CIG has not delivered on what has been sold and decides to sue for bait and switch or similar. Or if authorities decide to intervene for similar reasons. All the promises and representations that resulted in hype and were sold, but that are still undelivered (SQ42, 100 star systems, etc) after (early access) release should be relatively easy to list.
Last edited: