I start to find ridicules all this CIG videos showing us their offices and how they going to decorate them for the future,I am almost certain that is more videos about all that nonsense instead of the game burning issues like FM or Controller balance...isn't that ironic?
The Star Citizen Thread v 3.0
- Thread starter Jenner
- Start date
- Status
Yes it is ironic, that they have to show their offices on the media to react to the mega-super-hyper drama stories of them closing offices and shutting down due lack of money in "90 days".
Is mega-super-hyper drama a new stretch goal. If it is I'm in, it sounds awesome !.
Well that's their own fault...but my point about all this around the office videos is that now I exactly know where is going to be Sandi's and Ben's office's or desk of the Disco Lando but I don't have a clue how they going to solve the controller balance problem or in what direction is going to go actual Flight Mechanics?So yes srry but I finding that Ironic...
Last edited:
It is ironic indeed, if people focused more on the game CIG is making and not on CIG itself, maybe it would be easier to get those things shorted already, and they are, certainly slowly, but they are. It falls as always, on the time they are taking to get there and react to the feedback, as this discussion already happened countless times here.
Did you honestly just give that excuse...
At this stage, it's mostly about CIG, the rest is about Star Citizen.
But while some act like things like AC and the Controller Balance as as bad as always, are also not being truthful, things did improve on play-ability once the patches up until now, you can already see people who couldn't play before, now having much less issues on 1.3 on AC for example. The biggest changes to this, hopefully for best, are on 2.0 however.
I agree that there has been costant improvement. Hopped back on AC the other day with a buddy. Feeling way more solid than before.
People are calling it 2.0 when in reality this barely qualifies as a beta (some could argue alpha) build. 1.0 is the version typically given to a released and fully operational game. Nothing I've seen to date deserves even a 1.0 label.
The truth over SC will come out in the next 6 months or so. 3+ years of development is what a AAA studio would take, but CIG is not an AAA company. If it does implode, the future of crowd sourcing will be placed under a massive shadow.
Everyone including CR says if funding stops they can still make the game. Well, that's good enough for me to not invest anything until I see a viable product and not a line of shiny graphics & videos.
If the worse comes to pass, Frontier can hopefully buy the ship designs (that do exist) at the bankruptcy asset auction and port them into E: D. At least then people could fly those ships.
If that is their reason for showing the video of the new office then someone needs to be fired. If someone is making wild accusations about your company that are just easily proven as false then you don't give them the time of day...you don't dedicate a video trying discredit some baseless claim, if that's what it is. To any other professional, you just come off looking defensive, desperate and goaded into doing things you wouldn't normally do. You take the high road and let your work speak for itself.
What progress? A new studio for Sandi to play Hollywood in? They haven't delivered anything solid in 4 years but promises and commercials. They work crunch hours to put on big shows at conventions then clam up when they get home, never releasing those builds to backers who paid for "open development."
Tony Zurovec has been awful quiet lately. I wonder what he's thinking as Austin shrinks around him and priorities change. Most of the old Origin crowd is gone.
Tony Zurovec has been awful quiet lately. I wonder what he's thinking as Austin shrinks around him and priorities change. Most of the old Origin crowd is gone.
Last edited:
If the worst comes to the worst and SC implodes it won't kill crowdfunding.
It will change it though, it will become more regulated. Legal protection for backers, an upper limit for individual backers and oversight of spending and such. Arguably a good thing, but I doubt anyone will sell in game promises for thousands again.
I genuinely hope the game gets released and is great, and I'll back it or buy it as soon as I play an impressive demo (as I did with ED). But not before a playtest because right now it is an "if".
It will change it though, it will become more regulated. Legal protection for backers, an upper limit for individual backers and oversight of spending and such. Arguably a good thing, but I doubt anyone will sell in game promises for thousands again.
I genuinely hope the game gets released and is great, and I'll back it or buy it as soon as I play an impressive demo (as I did with ED). But not before a playtest because right now it is an "if".
Exactly this.
Though of course you need something to show and given that the "sneak peek" was a cobbled together rehash of something from a year ago it seems likely that there isn't much work available right now that can speak for itself.
The quickest way to silence all the noise is simply to impress people with stuff you've done that works.
Last edited:
I really don't think it would come to that...there is been a wealth of success in this space, regardless of Chris's evangelical claims of bringing PC gaming back. I also think it all benefits from being unregulated as I feel regulation on such a small part of the entire gaming industry would cause a retreat back to the old publisher model that these indie devs are trying to circumvent. It should be recognized as a true buyer/backer beware environment and anyone's entitlement is completely contingent on the project's success.
Now, what oughta happen, if SC were to implode, which I'm not convinced it will, yet, is that CR would have his reputation thoroughly burned. I don't think he wants that because I think he realizes that the value in the project is almost entirely backed by faith in him and his reputation, FWIW.
The number used is irrelevant, this is not any beta, SC is far from feature complete for be called one alpha. Different games choose different ways to label their releases, some specially on EA do Alpha 1/2/3/4..., if the alpha release is not big enough, they usually call it 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, all under alpha. It has nothing to do with how advanced the stage of development is, until they call something a PU Beta.
They always shown their studios to the backers, i said that because with the drama going on, it's noticeable they do this kind of "side" actions to show the backers that the "sky is falling" is just not happening. Because it's not anymore about Star Citizen, it's about CIG, at least this thread is.
The game will speak by itself, but that is not something they can deliver instantly, the loud voices against SC would keep going forever, even the game at the end releases and is successful, they will always bash the 2014 and the delays against them, that's what some people love to do, so they really shouldn't be caring much side of the fear mongering. And that's why they show the studios, because the idea that they would be shutting down studios, start firing everyone would be a panic reason inside the backer community, that alone could collapse the project, truth or not.
Last edited:
Nothing says exclusive concierge $1000 VIP high roller like a card that doesn't have your name on it.
It isn't your money, is it? I will never understand why some people get so.... angry, at the money others spend on games.
There's one PCGamer Interview posted today with a 30K Backer of Star Citizen: http://www.pcgamer.com/meet-a-fan-who-has-spent-30000-on-star-citizen-ships/
- Status