The Star Citizen Thread v 4

[MaxLexandre]

...They launched a live, playable full release commercial product with a continuous update / patching cycle and now preparing for a "season 2 major release".

Any time you try and insinuate something negative against ED, you reduce the quality of your arguments.

Maybe if you picked something still in Dev with no release date, maybe NMS (correct me if I am wrong?) you might look on less shaky ground.

As for "The Silent Majority", anyone who tries to speak for them, or decide their opinion looks silly. People are silent, that is the end of it.

I hadn't insinuated anything positive or negative towards it, i was just saying, as SC, ED also had a somewhat "playable" demo of their game on KS, those things take time to make. For ED it still counts on its development time after the KS, not before whatever time they took to create those demos before the KS. So do i count the SC development time after its KS as well.

The Silent Majority exists here because most people want more the game than they are bothered with this kind of things, not only with SC, any game that goes towards troubled development periods, specially delays.

 

[jcrg99]

The silent majority of the backers yes. They don't care about this stuff, they want the game, and are waiting for it, simple.

This is speculation of course. We don't know. I disagree that they don't care with anything that is happening. Actually, this is more like sub-conscious. They can claim that they don't care or even stay away. But there is something bothering all them and slowly changing their perception about Star Citizen, and that, is basically what will result in a bad ending for this story.

All that is happening and will happen will have weight in how they will look to the game at the end. Only won't care those that suddenly will hear about Star Citizen only at release, which will be very rare cases, considering that this game is more focused on people/public that actually are informed... and it will be temporary anyway, since CIG got used and is always ok on making a lot of bad things continuously and even been applauded for that. They can get people's money of course, but keeping the fidelity is the real challenge and what really will matter for this whole venture.

The fact that they stay away is even worst for CIG, because then the CIG indoctrination machine does not work on them. You know... They are not been "educated" as CIG and fans like to say

 

[Monk]

Comparisons of development to Frontier are not really productive. Frontier had an engine built in-house prior to the KS for ED (tons of institutional knowledge to get ED off the ground quickly). Frontier also has real investors and an established development firm. Their KS was less about raising the needed funding and way more about proving to their current and potential market investors that there is a demand and market for the game they want to make. KS was used as a POC and market test.

CIG, on the other hand, had no or almost no investors or VCs, It relies heavily on its KS and backer funding for continued development. They had no engine and had to borrow one for which, at the start, they did not have expertise in developing. There was no established development firm at the beginning and had to hire and deal with the problems that brings.

So, given those bits of info, I think comparing the two is not productive. What I can say, is that CR was probably exhibiting a bit of hubris in thinking he could bring a company up from nothing to develop a AAA game in just a few years. He could have been more honest about that, couple years in, either with himself or his backers. Instead, he allowed speculations about the plan to fester and ultimately become truth which tarnishes his word and perceived competence. He also has a history that fits this narrative well, and he should have been more prepared for that. But I degress...comparing Frontier and CIG in terms of development practice and timeline is not worthwhile as they both have wildly different initial conditions and expected outcomes.

 

[MaxLexandre]

This is speculation of course. We don't know. I disagree that they don't care with anything that is happening. Actually, this is more like sub-conscious. They can claim that they don't care or even stay away. But there is something bothering all them and slowly changing their perception about Star Citizen, and that, is basically what will result in a bad ending for this story.

I disagree that they do, look, dramas like the ones surrounding not much SC, CIG with games under development have been common. Shenmue 3 is the biggest proof of that, starting the crowdfunding, big drama surrounding it because of the stretch goals, the majority of their community was just silent while the media and a minority made a drama festival over it.

I disagree that the silent majority doesn't speak at the same time they would care about things like the ones you care a lot, after all, what makes people to actually speak about something, it will be about the negative things that just provoke the reaction, not the good things really.

 

[Stigbob]

Star Citizen is on the Top of Games of Twitch being Streamed, a lot of people having fun watching, it's kinda cool i end up watching some streamers playing SC instead of playing SC.

They have to watch because it's not yet released in a complete state. We'll see how it does when (or if) it's finished.

Now with the Live Release planned for TODAY depending on testing, everybody can get to play, if all goes well.

It'll be another buggy mess if the history is anything to go by.

Wow, you even have the details up to the month, something the official statements of the first asset prototype didn't even had! I love that way of thinking, that way i can also say ED was also in development for whatever time before the KS, after all, they shown gameplay during KS. For me it's 3 years, something that ended up scraped because the scope increase, is what we play, that millions and millions of lines of code that we today, play, are the work done from after the KS.

Of course I have the detail down to the month, I paid attention to the interview with Chris Roberts.

ED is finished and released, with the first expansion due soon(tm). SC's just about getting to grips with starting to balance the basic flight model into non-comical state (by copying ED's flight model). So the comparisons invalid, but "borrowing" idea's from ED is probably a good approach as they have a proven product (and a superior development method, SC is admittedly better at gathering backer money). Everything else remains to be seen.

The silent majority of the backers yes. They don't care about this stuff, they want the game, and are waiting for it, simple. The silent majority of this thread readers may be because of its agressivity towards people with positive feedback on the game, how dare somebody say something that isn't negative towards CIG/SC, hmmm.

Yep they want the delayed, janky, over-hyped game that's strayed so far away from the backers pitch that people are asking for refunds based simply on that fact.

 

[MaxLexandre]

It'll be another buggy mess if the history is anything to go by.

It will be one Alpha yes, things that leave the PTU do not become final releases like the silly release-ready drama we already been trough. They got known issues that will need more time to fix and already had identified such things, they have no reason to keep the the PTU on for as long the more challenging issues would take to fix.

Of course I have the detail down to the month, I paid attention to the interview with Chris Roberts.

No you haven't, if you had you would have known he estimated that, the original words on that interview must still be around.

Yep they want the delayed, janky, over-hyped game that's strayed so far away from the backers pitch that people are asking for refunds based simply on that fact.

On your opinion of course, i don't know what super powers you have to speak for such silent majority of the backers that well, being silent, they don't quite speak you know. Silent majorities mostly mean people who do not care, when something grinds those people, oh well, then you have reactions and player outcry, like the offline mode on ED, and even that was still one minority with the majority not caring about it. This is something that goes on SC when it's about things like delays, ship sales, concept sales, and etc.. etc...

 

[jcrg99]

I disagree that they do, look, dramas like the ones surrounding not much SC, CIG with games under development have been common. Shenmue 3 is the biggest proof of that, starting the crowdfunding, big drama surrounding it because of the stretch goals, the majority of their community was just silent while the media and a minority made a drama festival over it.

I disagree that the silent majority doesn't speak at the same time they would care about things like the ones you care a lot, after all, what makes people to actually speak about something, it will be about the negative things that just provoke the reaction, not the good things really.

Your "biggest proof" is not prove at all. Because it all depends of the public. If you talk about a game like Battlefront or Shenmue, whatever, that is targeted to the masses or bigger public, such "dramas" as you always love to use such word, are not really felt or have so much impact. It has, but not so big. And sometimes, a bigger impact is not felt immediately, but later. But in a case of Star Citizen, where regardless following or not, this is a more exigent public (in general) and tiny public, a 1st time project of a company without good reputation, except between a tiny group of fans, or at least, with the majority, with a reputation yet to built, the "drama" have a lot more impact. Besides, CIG PR/marketing approach make sure to send a bad message that is basically continuous, instead occasional or focused just in certain events of press drama. What is eventual in other games (for the masses) is a constant for Star Citizen (for a niche of a more exigent public). It's an incredible recipe for a disaster in the end.

And, of course, there is the competitor who actually delivers and is not always begging for $500 JPEG's. That adds more for this recipe. Perception changes everything. And I can see most of the people with less forgiving eyes when trying Star Citizen than they always have or had when playing ED, for example.

And again, more important than getting 40 bucks from people, for a game/project/mmo like SC, is keeping them in the long term, both to enlarge the network to sell more copies, as to get more money from them with micro-transactions to sustain a development that will be far from delivered into promises, when "SC 1.0" launched.

Or are you prepared to accept they selling ships after release (probably restricting them to be acquired in-game in some form, making it difficult to acquire them fast, or selling them way before them "released" into the game)? Because that is how you would keep a game like SC, with the needs/cost of development to be "finished" and these devs already shown us, by their actions and even statements (specially when complaining about the critics), that in other way, the project would be doomed.

 

[MaxLexandre]

Your "biggest proof" is not prove at all. Because it all depends of the public. If you talk about a game like Battlefront or Shenmue, whatever, that is targeted to the masses or bigger public, such "dramas" as you always love to use such word, are not really felt or have so much impact. It has, but not so big. And sometimes, a bigger impact is not felt immediately, but later. But in a case of Star Citizen, where regardless following or not, this is a more exigent public (in general) and tiny public, a 1st time project of a company without good reputation, except between a tiny group of fans, or at least, with the majority, with a reputation yet to built, the "drama" have a lot more impact.

And again, more important than getting 40 bucks from people, for a game/project/mmo like SC, is keeping them in the long term, both to enlarge the network to sell more copies, as to get more money from them with micro-transactions to sustain a development that will be far from delivered into promises, when "SC 1.0" launched.

Or are you prepared to accept they selling ships after release (probably restricting them to be acquired in-game in some form, making it difficult to acquire them fast, or selling them way before them "released" into the game)? Because that is how you would keep a game like SC, with the needs/cost of development to be "finished" and these devs already shown us, by their actions and even statements (specially when complaining about the critics), that in other way, the project would be doomed.

The biggest proof is watching internet dramas, this happens so often, this is where silent majority happens to, when something really es people off, you have a player outcry, you don't have that on SC. This is people that obviously follow the game to some extent, and i have high doubts that after the huge drama on SC that did echoed on all the media would not hit the majority of backers sooner or later, it's still not causing any player outcry. The drop of ED offline mode caused one player outcry for example, and like i said, even that was a minority over a majority that was okay with it. The obvious logic you don't need any proof to, is that people will speak out if it is to complain about something, people will not care to speak out on purpose to say nice things.

I don't believe much they will sell ships after release at all, like other MMOs, where you buy in-game currency, here, UEC, you can buy the ships with UEC on the same way, so there's no point on selling them if one will get to buy it if the player wants anyway, so the monetization happens either way. The said is the starter ship packs, all of them focused on starting into one of the activities the game will offer, and that is perfectly cool.

 

[Tuub t Tute]

So, when the PTU gets through to patch Z or whenever it is considered stable enough to go "Live", does that mean it then becomes an alpha, where anyone who (backed / pledged / kickstarted / whatever) to an "alpha access level" gets to bug report? I don't use the term "play" as an alpha is not meant to be "play before the masses", it is "test stuff for us please".

 

[Voivod]

Apparently 2.0 is going live.
Also I wish I could post here some of the hilarious pics Goons come up with

 

[MaxLexandre]

So, when the PTU gets through to patch Z or whenever it is considered stable enough to go "Live", does that mean it then becomes an alpha, where anyone who (backed / pledged / kickstarted / whatever) to an "alpha access level" gets to bug report? I don't use the term "play" as an alpha is not meant to be "play before the masses", it is "test stuff for us please".

The PTU is meant to reach Live Today, they are working on a final patch, but that patch is already the switch to Live, if the QA testing fails, then it's delayed to next week.

When it's live, everybody gets to play the 2.0 Alpha, there is no more alpha access level, only backers. The PTU is only meant to the first hit of that build to first testing, this is, the most breaking issues, it would make little sense to release the patch to live crashing every 5 minutes like the PTU release was, it would be thousands of people complaining about issues. Because no matter the word "Alpha" being there, one breaking Alpha release is going to be people complaining it's crashing instead of helping it stop crashing.

 

[Backer42]

I mean... in practice, that is the irony. But, I agree that nobody wants SC to fail, for real. I (and i can see Derek been in a similar position) can differentiate Star Citizen, the project, of individuals that are working to make Star Citizen. So, yes. As cold as this sounds, I know that if CIG keeping some people there in certain roles that they are, Star Citizen will continue to a path to a certain fail. Not really mattering too much, all the effort that those developers, those that are really professionals, are doing.

Meanwhile I have a clear stance on this: I don't want a scheme exploiting socially isolated, depressed or otherwise mentally ill people and taking thousands to ten-thousands of dollars from them, while they ruin their lives for JPEGs, to succeed. And those people afraid of losing their jobs should ask themselves, if they can still sleep well knowing from what exactly they are living off, they have a share of responsibility, too. Having the moral high ground here makes that quite easy for me.

Beside from this, those practices also do harm crowdfunding, harm video games in general (especially space games) and can have a disastrous effect on the industry's future.

 

[xyphic]

Frontier had an engine built in-house prior to the KS for ED (tons of institutional knowledge to get ED off the ground quickly).

They had an engine, of course. They also have detailed knowledge of it, of course. But everything we see in ED today was implemented *after* the Kickstarter. CIG bought an engine and bought in the institutional knowledge of it. They aren't that much different really other than CIG chose "fidelity" over functionality and have paid for it many times over.

Frontier also has real investors and an established development firm. Their KS was less about raising the needed funding and way more about proving to their current and potential market investors that there is a demand and market for the game they want to make. KS was used as a POC and market test.

Sort of, but not quite. Frontier used the KS funds, cash that the business already held, and *some* external funding. ED was still a big risk for Frontier to take -- it could have taken down the whole business had it failed.

CIG, on the other hand, had no or almost no investors or VCs, It relies heavily on its KS and backer funding for continued development.

As far as we know. They aren't obliged to make their accounts public (other than in the UK, and they're late on releasing those) so we rely on what we're being told by CIG themselves. I personally have no reason to distrust what they're saying, but I can see why others might be less willing to trust them.

They had no engine and had to borrow one for which, at the start, they did not have expertise in developing. There was no established development firm at the beginning and had to hire and deal with the problems that brings.

Indeed, and I would argue that they made the wrong choice (or at least they made the right choice but for the wrong reasons). CR was always primarily focused on creating the best looking game, so he went for the best looking engine regardless of the fact that it wasn't anywhere near capable of what they wanted it to do. As a result they've had to buy in top Crytek developers, most likely paying way above the market rate for them. IMO it would have been more prudent to find (or develop!) an engine that perhaps didn't have quite the fidelity of CryEngine, get a true Alpha out that's functionally complete but fugly and then concentrate on sorting out the pretties.

So, given those bits of info, I think comparing the two is not productive. What I can say, is that CR was probably exhibiting a bit of hubris in thinking he could bring a company up from nothing to develop a AAA game in just a few years. He could have been more honest about that, couple years in, either with himself or his backers. Instead, he allowed speculations about the plan to fester and ultimately become truth which tarnishes his word and perceived competence. He also has a history that fits this narrative well, and he should have been more prepared for that. But I degress...comparing Frontier and CIG in terms of development practice and timeline is not worthwhile as they both have wildly different initial conditions and expected outcomes.

I disagree that it's unproductive to compare the two. We can at least compare the development ethos (big bang vs incremental) and the risks and rewards of each. Neither approach is perfect, Frontier have made mistakes as have CIG. What I *would* like to say is that I think the way Frontier chose to go about it derisked their project significantly, whereas CIG still have the massive potential risk that they'll run out of money before completion of the project, and they're still relying on the depth of their backers' pockets to some extent. The backlash we're starting to see was somewhat inevitable, as those who thought they'd get a game delivered in the timescales originally stated are becoming impatient. CIG have hurt themselves by letting it get this far into development before releasing real gameplay for test.

 

[Monk]

Apparently 2.0 is going live.
Also I wish I could post here some of the hilarious pics Goons come up with

Source? Folks have been saying it would be today...others have said next week

I'd like to get in there and see things for myself....

Gonna need to clear some space on the SSD...can't drop Fallout yet...yikes...maybe ED: Horizons beta as I'm not really picking that up again until go live.

 

[MaxLexandre]

WHAT? 2.1 before the end of the year??!?!?!?!?!?!

CHRIS ROBERTS STOPP PREDICTING RELEAAAAAAAAASES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay now i'm really wondering how far is the Shopping really done, and what is to be shown on the 16th LiveStream. :|

Source? Folks have been saying it would be today...others have said next week

I'd like to get in there and see things for myself....

Gonna need to clear some space on the SSD...can't drop Fallout yet...yikes...maybe ED: Horizons beta as I'm not really picking that up again until go live.

"Hey @everyone quick update and plan for today:
We're going to push one more build to PTU today to test an extra fix for the AI spawns at a comms array that slow down and occasionally crash the game server. Our internal testing shows that the fix resolves the crash, though there can be slowdowns of 30 seconds or so, at which point the servers clear up.

If all goes well with testing, we will push this build to Live later today.

Please know this is fully dependent on a successful, stable test, and is therefore a fluid situation where plans can change last minute. If there are any problems with the new build on PTU, we will assess, make some changes, and push to Live next week.

Thanks everyone!
- WL"

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/3wf2w6/cr_on_rtv_20_live_later_today/

 

[jcrg99]

The biggest proof is watching internet dramas, this happens so often, this is where silent majority happens to, when something really es people off, you have a player outcry, you don't have that on SC. This is people that obviously follow the game to some extent, and i have high doubts that after the huge drama on SC that did echoed on all the media would not hit the majority of backers sooner or later, it's still not causing any player outcry. The drop of ED offline mode caused one player outcry for example, and like i said, even that was a minority over a majority that was okay with it. The obvious logic you don't need any proof to, is that people will speak out if it is to complain about something, people will not care to speak out on purpose to say nice things.

Another bad example. The player outcry that caused ED Offline was not so big as those who already happened with Star Citizen. You know why? The problem, my friend, is that what makes people not satisfied with Star Citizen and that affects their perception is not an event, a drama due a feature, or a bug, or a ship changed differently from advertise, or even a flight model that does not satisfy the public or disappoint, again, because it was advertised in a different way. It's the sum of the things, of people not liking, with the CIG's whole marketing/pr approach that is not occasional... its a constant.

You can be sure, that if ED claimed to be the BDSSE, that they are not like publishers who deliver a game unfinished, that they are not evil greedy, and that they sold U$2500 JPEGs of ships, the outcry about the offline would be a lot bigger and you would see a lot more outcries... because people would be already been constantly irritated by the company's attitude, so, the trend is they crying more for more things and if the devs really missed to deliver into their promises, or even if people didn't like, or their machines did not support the game, it won't matter... if the guilty is from the devs, is from you, from Derek Smart... that will cause harm for the game and for the company in the end, because the way that CIG advertised and sell their project to the public.

So, there is big cost in the long term, which is bigger, considering that CIG is not capable to deliver into their promises and is not capable to satisfy people, of been fast, and no doubt, it's easy to see they behind the competitors all the time and always trying to live from what is coming next, instead what really is there.

I don't believe much they will sell ships after release at all, like other MMOs, where you buy in-game currency, here, UEC, you can buy the ships with UEC on the same way, so there's no point on selling them if one will get to buy it if the player wants anyway, so the monetization happens either way. The said is the starter ship packs, all of them focused on starting into one of the activities the game will offer, and that is perfectly cool.

THE UEC sale will be limited and according with devs you wouldn't be able to buy a ship with the limit that you would have monthly. Probably, playing for some time, then using the additional credits bought by money would allow to buy a ship, a cheap one. At least, that is what they told in how they would balance to avoid pay-to-win. So, if they change this idea, they would be creating a scenario that would make them criticized in the same form as selling ships directly.

Besides, your perception clearly is stuck in the current time. You have to look to all this, not ignoring the fact that today, the things in the store are simply unavailable to be acquired by playing the game, and definitely, there is not really a lot of people supporting this madness of buying JPEG's, and what ends making the difference, in money achieved from a sale, are their ridiculous higher prices. I doubt that they will have people enough to sustain the future of this game, just buying $5, $10, $30 dollars monthly, possibly less people that they have today buying ships, because the things will be there, acquirable by gameplay. Won't pay the necessary monthly cost that this game "expanded" now requires and will continue to require after day 1, when the ship sales are supposed to be shutdown.

Meaning that this game would have a ridiculous bigger fidelity that they have today, to sustain the approach that was promised for after release. And all that they are doing, their marketing/pr approach, is making sure that the contrary happens... That they just get people's money and irritate them enough so they leave or do not feel good staying. The competitors obviously appreciates, because in general, people ends moving to them, specially in the Frontier case, which made the better design decisions, more in the same page with the reality of hte market and that prevented all problems that CIG will face, making them faster than CIG, and even with less resources, a lot less, not just hard to be beaten but hard to catch up, giving all the impression for the "silent" people, that does not follow the news so regularly, liking you or not, fairly or not, that are much more competent and less greedy than Mr. Roberts and they will prefer put their effort/fidelity on this, instead in the other.

 

[Monk]

If all goes well with testing, we will push this build to Live later today.

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/3wf2w6/cr_on_rtv_20_live_later_today/

Thank you. I'm pretty excited to try this out now.

Hornets, watch out....I've got an Aurora LN coming in hot and ready to rumble! LOL

 

[MaxLexandre]

Another bad example. The player outcry that caused ED Offline was not so big as those who already happened with Star Citizen. You know why? The problem, my friend, is that what makes people not satisfied with Star Citizen and that affects their perception is not an event, a drama due a feature, or a bug, or a ship changed differently from advertise, or even a flight model that does not satisfy the public or disappoint, again, because it was advertised in a different way. It's the sum of the things, of people not liking, with the CIG's whole marketing/pr approach that is not occasional... its a constant.

You can be sure, that if ED claimed to be the BDSSE, that they are not like publishers who deliver a game unfinished, that they are not evil greedy, and that they sold U$2500 JPEGs of ships, the outcry about the offline would be a lot bigger and you would see a lot more outcries... because people would be already been constantly irritated by the company's attitude, so, the trend is they crying more for more things and if the devs really missed to deliver into their promises, or even if people didn't like, or their machines did not support the game, it won't matter... if the guilty is from the devs, is from you, from Derek Smart... that will cause harm for the game and for the company in the end, because the way that CIG advertised and sell their project to the public.

So, there is big cost in the long term, which is bigger, considering that CIG is not capable to deliver into their promises and is not capable to satisfy people, of been fast, and no doubt, it's easy to see they behind the competitors all the time and always trying to live from what is coming next, instead what really is there.



THE UEC sale will be limited and according with devs you wouldn't be able to buy a ship with the limit that you would have monthly. Probably, playing for some time, then using the additional credits bought by money would allow to buy a ship, a cheap one. At least, that is what they told in how they would balance to avoid pay-to-win. So, if they change this idea, they would be creating a scenario that would make them criticized in the same form as selling ships directly.

Besides, your perception clearly is stuck in the current time. You have to look to all this, not ignoring the fact that today, the things in the store are simply unavailable to be acquired by playing the game, and definitely, there is not really a lot of people supporting this madness of buying JPEG's, and what ends making the difference, in money achieved from a sale, are their ridiculous higher prices. I doubt that they will have people enough to sustain the future of this game, just buying $5, $10, $30 dollars monthly, possibly less people that they have today buying ships, because the things will be there, acquirable by gameplay. Won't pay the necessary monthly cost that this game "expanded" now requires and will continue to require after day 1, when the ship sales are supposed to be shutdown.

What were exactly the player outcries that happened with Star Citizen?
I'm yet to see one, there have been some situations around but nothing i would really consider one outcry. Even the LTI / Exclusive Ship Sales / Flight Model discussion ever scaled to such levels.

The UEC has limitations, the limit is also daily, this from the actual UEC credits on the store, meaning that, if you can not buy the ship at once, you will buy enough credits in a few days for do so, the system doesn't block it, and the Credit Limit one player has, will have to fit the prices of the most expensive ships as well. That is to monetize the game, not only the ships, everything that you buy with currency, i would really sense lacking to keep a ship store as we have after release when they have a system in place that would work for the same result. The real balance of p2w is not the limitations, is the worth of the currency on real cash VS how easy it would be to earn in-game.

 

[jcrg99]

What were exactly the player outcries that happened with Star Citizen?
I'm yet to see one

If you don't consider what happened and happens constantly with Star Citizen and the constant controversy in several occasions, some of them are raised in basically ALL news about Star Citizen, in all discussions, in all forums, or even those news that work like a SC propaganda ends stating one or two things about the constant controversies (even before the DS times), or even those big events that involved just backers (as the LTI case and others), I don't know how possibly you would disregard that and at the same time, would consider the case of ED Offline mode or even use it as an example, because the Frontier case was a lot smaller than many of the SC controversies.

 

[Monk]

<snip...things I generally agree with...snip>

You make good points. The comparisons I really want to avoid are the ones like... "FD had this much money and CIG had this much money but FD got their game done in this amount time...what the hell, CIG?"

The comparisons need to be done in context and I feel should focus a lot more on process than progress when making the comparisons.