I don't think that's all of it though, and a lesson ED should learn. The other space games launched at the same time are both more successful than ED; one is an eternal alpha, the other is a cartoony game that had such a bad launch it became a meme and the poster boy for overhype. ED despite being an actual game with a solid launch ED now sits on the 3rd step of the podium. And I think the answer why is in that post - ED is just not a good person scale game.
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
SC's development has been upside down. They started with the CryEngine which wasn't suitable for space sims. They promised too many features during the Kickstarter and stretch goals on the Roberts Space Industries website. Then they gave backers very early access of (pre) alpha versions which were in an awful state. They should've re-engineered the CryEngine first to make a solid foundation. Chris Roberts couldn't contain himself and kept adding more features without finishing the base game. They kept overhyping SC to increase overpriced ship sales. Now the foundation is rotten with spaghetti code and there's a lack of expert software engineers to fix it. For every resolved bug, 4 legacy bugs pop back up. They should be in the end-phase of the SC MMO (1.0) by now, yet they're still trying to redevelop core features.
They also made the mistake of splitting development into 2 different games. Squadron 42 has taken $100s of millions (?) which should've been invested in the SC MMO. Lastly there is an online market to resell SC ships for real money which looks like money laundering.
Last edited:
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
That is an odd comment. You don’t need to be a good person scale game to be successful, ask EVE
All space games out there have their limitations, including ED, but that doesn’t preclude them from being successful.Either way not really sure how you can consider SC above in the “podium” to be honest, not just compared to ED but to most other popular space games… unless you just mean revenue wise, which mostly affects Chris Roberts and his family.
Regarding reviews, critic scores, overall gaming industry acknowledgment & top space game rankings, player concurrency or units sold games like ED or Space Engineers or (the original) Kerbal are all much more successful than SC. NMS is probably top of the food chain here, no doubt, but it had the support of the Sony marketing machinery and related sales to thank for its resurrection, otherwise Murray would have likely never had the money to improve NMS after launch the way he did.
Last edited:
Noobie trip report of the day
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/1kk0qvw/star_citizen_from_an_elite_players_perspective/
(All sounds very stable to me)
Sounds like you spend more time doing the workarounds instead of just playing the game. If I were to dive into SC again (not happening btw), I'd have to cover the wall with Post-it notes detailing the workarounds just to keep going
NMS and ED are very different games in both style and intent. One is a space game whilst the other is a game set in space. I've happily played both for far more hours than I should have, and find them so different on so many levels that I don't find them comparable. Each scratches a very different itch.
SC/SQ404 is an unborn living dream that will never reach the minimal level of adequacy to be considered a finished title fit for sale.
To compare GTA and SC is to completely miss the point, no matter how you choose to measure 'the size' of one against the other. GTA will be released complete and working, with satisfying and functional game loops and progression. Much as KCD2 and RDR2 were. SC will never reach such a state, with 13 years of evidence to support the assertion.
Are they both more successful? I'm not sure how we measure it.
I suspect NMS has made the most profit although how much they have given to the publisher (was it sony? Cant remember) who overhyped the game and backed it's media pre-release hype, who knows. But even so NMS likely made the most profit. Frontier has made very good profit for ED, even allowing for Odyssey. SC is a scam so there's that, even if they have brought in the most money. However they've also spent the most money. No product for the highest income and highest spend? Doesn't sound successful.
In terms of other forms of success, NMS is successful - it's the go-to goat in the space-minecraft-base-building genre. Not a game for me.
ED is successful, it's the go-to goat in the space sim 1:1 galaxy sim gamer dad genre. This is a game for me.
SC successful also in some respects, the goat in the scam whale-gouging tech demo that will never release genre. This is not a
So for me, ED is the most successful, because it's aimed at me. NMS is successful, just not my thing. SC is a scam.
That's what I was thinking, it was Sony that bankrolled it
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Yeah, although not so much directly bankrolled by Sony but rather that thanks to Sony’s marketing campaign before and during launch, Hello Games benefited from record sales that Murray later used to improve the, at launch, dead game. He could have used the money elsewhere but he decided to spend it in further NMS development so props to him.That's what I was thinking, it was Sony that bankrolled it
Yep, great job by Hello Games to continue producing expansions that clearly fit with the original concept and was welcomed by the people that bought the game....
