The Star Citizen Thread v5

[hairychris]

Doubts and concerns have been part of this project ever since:

Remember back in 2014 how people doubted that CIG could create large seamless large maps in Cryengine? It got done.

We know that CIG have done their 64-bit addressing updates, but have we seen a single map that's anywhere near the size promised yet? Progress, for sure, still not demonstrated fully.

There's also the slight problem that all of these updates may have completely wrecked the CryEngine/LumberYard update path, which would mean more work for CIG to introduce new features in the future.

Or that they couldn't make multiple physics grids work and allow for people seamless walk inside moving ships in a 3D environment while operating turrets, engaging in FPS or simply change seats? They did it.

We'll forget all the problems with people clipping through walls from one grid to another, shall we? Not saying that they haven't progressed again, but it's not entirely stable is it?

There also seems to be fundamental issues with physics handling as a whole (wooo zero mass!) so we have no idea when all of that will be locked down. Much as we may rag on FDev, their basic physics model has been stable since the very beginning... well, most of the time, the spinning ships bug that was briefly in the game was pretty funny.

That they wouldn't be able to "stitch" together the different modules of FPS, EVA, Multicrew, Space Flight into one cohesive package? They did it.

Cohesive is a subjective opinion! I also don't see why you have EVA as something special, ditto multicrew as multi-player crewed vehicles is not a new thing. I've played games that have most of the items you describe here - maybe not all in the same place - so I have a real problem seeing how this is in any way revolutionary...

Or, rather, stitching the elements together isn't the problem in and of itself, rather can a convincing game be made of the component parts. And this is subjective!

That they wouldn't be able to iron out FPS servers with good FPS and PING for more than 4-6-8-10-12-16-18 players? They did it.

You are 2 or 3 orders of magnitude under what is being promised:

1 player - FPS, done that, CryEngine is a decent choice
10 player - CryEngine not really best choice. OK, CIG have updates planned but they are not at, say, the accuracy of something like CSGO (10 players, up to 120 tick/sec IIRC). SC is here, currently.
100 players - There is no current multi-player FPS that runs with this number of people in a map.
1000 players - Planetside 2 got up here, but it was essentially broken as an experience.
10000 players - Run this in real-time??
100000 players - Well, as there will never be 100000 players simultaneously active in SC I think that we can write this off. CSGO and DOTA 2 are the only games on Steam to top this figure today.

You're telling me that CIG seriously think that they can even break the 100 player mark for a twitch-based shooter? You'restarting to run into problems with the laws of physics vs basic maths at this point.

That they wouldn't be able to do seamless planetary landings (TBF Chris Roberts himself said it wouldn't have at the beginning, before magic Germans and all). They did it.

They haven't done this yet, have they? You should really not put this on the list.

The progress is in plain sight, game keeps on getting better and better and we constantly see CIG actively seeking and pushing to make the best game possible!

There are plenty of talented folks at CIG's coalface. The problem is elsewhere. Management are coming up with statements about still looking for fundamental technologies this far into development does not bode well.

And as for plain sight, where's the gameplay that was promised for CitizenCon?

EDIT:

And all of this with a "buggy tech demo", can't wait for when they actually release the 3.0 version of their "buggy tech demo" [praise]

Buggy - Well, it is buggy. Or, rather, "alpha" as some people might say.
Tech demo - Until you've got the gameplay loop in place that is all that it is: getting the various components to function in-engine. Again, to note, CIG haven't fully committed to all of the technology yet therefore it can't seriously be considered as anything else.

 

[dumbo]

Yeah it's a greatly ambitious endeavour that leaves a lot of people scratching their heads thinking "Can this be made? Can they pull this off?" Well I say they are proving yes it can be done as they are indeed doing it!

Given money to buy enough typewriters and monkey-food, you can make anything . I don't think anyone said it was impossible, what they said is that this would require a hell of a lot more money?

(snip similar bits)
That they wouldn't be able to do seamless planetary landings (TBF Chris Roberts himself said it wouldn't have at the beginning, before magic Germans and all). They did it.

I think this is actually the same point that CR misunderstood (in his "can-do attitude" stuff):
- people didn't say/mean that they can't do this.
- people did say/mean that they probably SHOULDN'T do this.

Just how long has this game been delayed because they wanted planetary landings (which absolutely wasn't required for v1) or for procedurally generated planets, or X, Y or Z. Does SC really need the fancy character animation system that may have delayed the title by 2 or more years?

And, at some point, you need to consider that you should just write your own engine. In 2017, graphics APIs are very good and a surprising number of AAA companies maintain/write their own engines. (take a look at GG with horizon zero dawn - crazy stuff).

Yes people can complain about delays because they want to play the game envisioned by Chris Roberts, we want to play it and so do hundreds of thousands of other gamers too. Millions we can say. But what needs to be understood is that delays are normal part of game development, even more so when you go into uncharted terrain! Trailblazing like David Braben so well putted.

In development, a delay costs money. Every delay both increases costs, and also runs the risk that technology advances will cause you to rebuild portions of the title.

There is rarely a technical "can't do", but there is frequently a financial "shouldn't do".

 

[CMDR_Orlando]

There's the problem.

If Chris Roberts and CIG were building this game, everything would be fine. But they're not.

They are building lots of flashy spaceships and selling them. There is no game built yet. None of the important aspects such as economy, mining, trading etc. are anywhere close.

They've said a lot of stuff & made promises, but they still need our money so they can take their own sweet time playing about with mocap and inventing new awesome technologies (that do sod all) so they can brag about how awesome they are.

At some point - they are going to have to deliver. And they're not doing that.

That's why I'm not enthusiastic about Star Citizen.

Well I would say that what we have in Crusader PU, Star Marine and Arena Commander are good foundations to iron out all the main aspects of gameplay.

Flight Model, First Person Shooting, EVA, HUB/Questing/BountyHunting etc.

Yes we have no professions or economy shown but that's what 3.0 is supposed to show and implement. They need the Networking before all of that. To accommodate the amount of players that will make those mechanics meaningful (What good would it be to flesh out an economy in a 21 player capped server?) [big grin]

You can't rush programming by throwing money at it, physics grids took time, big maps took time and so on and so on.

Who pays for the dev's (the most expensive dev's are all the engineers/programmers that do the under-works in the engine) while all that work is made? The ship sales ofc, so there's some guys out there that will start with 10-20-30-40 ships if that means a game with much more content and much more quality assents in the end lol. They can only fly one at a time, they will need to pay for their upgrades, maintenance etc.

Ofc they need our money, that why they went with the crowdfunded route. Nobody is forced to give them money, a basic package gives access to everything, there's not content that you are left out so there's no reason to feel hindered by not paying the minimum. People give more money because they like what they see and want to support it. I think its very simple.

 

[hairychris]

In development, a delay costs money. Every delay both increases costs, and also runs the risk that technology advances will cause you to rebuild portions of the title.

There is rarely a technical "can't do", but there is frequently a financial "shouldn't do".

It's the same with everything technological, in pretty much every area of business.

I've had a good number of these conversations over the years as a techie, and I (pet gripe) still have to explain to some of the business people that I've worked with for years. "Can we just...." is the worst thing to hear, hehe, but as you said once costs are factored in project requests tend to get streamlined significantly as no-one wants to pay for it. Line in the sand and all that.

There's been no-one at CIG to take the reigns and force this to happen, they've simply gone to the community for more money.

It'll end in tears.

 

[Dr Wookie]

Also when a company starts working on other stuff in parallel to the "main game" it shows maybe a loss of focus or faith in their game and that they are seeking for another route.

.

*cough* Spectrum *cough*

 

[Tippis]

*cough* Spectrum *cough*

Endless mocap reshoots.

 

[Dr Wookie]

Also, wasnt an extra $60 million or so raised since the demise was forecast in 2015? It is an incredible achievement to raise such a sum, but getting an injection equal to about 75% of the existing amount raised at that point is hardly a rejection of the premise. What will happen when the funding dries up, as it looks like it might be now?

Furthermore, Call of Duty Infinite Warfare was apparently a huge disappointment to the publisher sales wise, so much so that they are not considering future/space settings for a while. Mind you, it was still the best selling game of the year! The November sales of IW were around 50% lower than for Black Ops III. This suggests to me that SQ42 will have to be AMAZING to make any money at all (all backer funding is going towards development, and cannot be considered profit).

 

[dsmart]

I don't know why you are bothering to ask him that Viajero.... You're not going to get a response.

I don't even know why anyone even bothers to respond to him, knowing that nothing good or meaningful can from it. That's why I block all of them, excluding Rogan and some others who can actually engage is meaningful discourse.

- - - Updated - - -

They have no seamless large maps — only a whole bunch of rather constrained ones. They've shown tech demos of indeterminate origin that show off large(ish) areas, but nothing to really show off any seamlessness or even to really demonstrate that they're all that large to begin with. The same goes for the planetary landings. They haven't actually done those yet, only demoed something that may or may not even be in-engine.

They haven't stitched together any of their modules, and what they have is not a cohesive package. On the one hand, they still have a bunch of separate modules without any connection between them. On the other hand, they have a do-a-bit-of-everyting module that doesn't use any of the mechanics in the separate modules, and what they've cobbled together is not cohesive because none of the mechanics to create any cohesion exist yet — they do not combine up into any kind of game dynamic. Even CIG abandoned the “it's already in the game” rhetoric when they resurrected SM, so it's kind of curious that you try to reinstate it here.

I'm personally waiting for the planetary "levels" (where it's just access via a menu as it is now with all the other modules) so I get into round 4 with Parry

 

[dsmart]

Furthermore, Call of Duty Infinite Warfare was apparently a huge disappointment to the publisher sales wise, so much so that they are not considering future/space settings for a while. Mind you, it was still the best selling game of the year! The November sales of IW were around 50% lower than for Black Ops III. This suggests to me that SQ42 will have to be AMAZING to make any money at all (all backer funding is going towards development, and cannot be considered profit).

Yup. It's even worse when you consider that COD:IW i) cost less to make ii) has the same cinematic experience promised in both SC and SQ42

Here's the thing, none of that matters. Even if they somehow manage to release a prelude of SQ42, it will utterly die right there. They get one shot at it. Whether it's the rumored prelude or the full blown EP1; whatever they release had better be mind-blowing. Aside from the fact that most backers are already entitled to it; which pretty much stifles any further financial growth spurts.

It would be patently hilarious if they started selling ships to use in SQ42. Man, I would take the week off for that fallout.

Star Citizen, as we knew it, is a bust. What they're doing now is the race toward the MVP in order to somehow keep going and avert legal action. It will be unavoidable.

 

[Red Anders]

Exactly - is it really waiting while we get the honour of watching the alleged George Lucas of gaming in action! This is games development at it's bloody best from board game economic experts to orbital mechanics calculated using Lenslock and some carefully thrown muffins there's nothing that can beat it's fidelity and openness. It's an honour and every new million adds to the glory.

That's George Lucas who returned to what he was most famous for around fifteen years later and created something that was a pale imitation of it, right? I've wondered more than once if Oldman was trolling.

 

[darkoff]

cutting huge parts of the core game-mechanics to and releasing an early(rushed) version of what was once promised for the sake of quick re-flux of cash.

2.0
star marine
or various other standalone modules that no longer serve a purpose
(hangar module and arc corp)

When a company stops communicating with it's fan-base, when it starts to distance itself from it. Also when a company starts working on other stuff in parallel to the "main game" it shows maybe a loss of focus or faith in their game and that they are seeking for another route.

spectrum and the serious lack of communication about 3.0 that was scheduled to come out at end of 2016

 

[McGlashan]

I'm looking forward to seeing how that recent TheAgent rumour about 3.0 - that planets will arrive this year as a separate module which is basically a Mako level from Mass Effect - pans out. With only 6 months to Gamescom I'm sure they're busy rooting through the bins looking for the next big funding season moneymaker to waste the rest of the year showcasing and failing to deliver. Never mind that it's the same thing they showcased and failed to deliver last year.

 

[VidarSnipes]

I find it hilarious that Orlando's digs at certain other game developer apply so perfectly to CIG. Not a single part of SC available now turned out as advertised. Arena Commander (called a World of Tanks analogue) turned out to be devoid of any depth, initially with no working multiplayer, Star Marine, with supposedly tactical combat and not at all similiar to CoD turned out to be a CoD clone, 2.0 missing one of the main features of Gamescom video (Vanguard recovery), 3.0 that was supposed to be released two months ago... That's weapon-grade irony.

 

[Red Anders]

And mammaries on space ships.

Honestly though, googling nipple-jets on commandos could hardly give whatever info you MEAN so please do clarify. (and im NOT judging sexual practices among military forces, merely curious)

Enjoy.

https://youtu.be/z8zvNOe5n04?t=190

(Not embedded because it won't play from the correct point if I do)

 

[dsmart]

I find it hilarious that Orlando's digs at certain other game developer apply so perfectly to CIG. Not a single part of SC available now turned out as advertised. Arena Commander (called a World of Tanks analogue) turned out to be devoid of any depth, initially with no working multiplayer, Star Marine, with supposedly tactical combat and not at all similiar to CoD turned out to be a CoD clone, 2.0 missing one of the main features of Gamescom video (Vanguard recovery), 3.0 that was supposed to be released two months ago... That's weapon-grade irony.

Yup. But wait, it's about to get a whole lot worse. Just wait until they release the 2.6.2 schedule this Friday; then backers start salivating for 3.0.....only to see a 2.7 in the schedule. I swear this train wreck is so fascinating, it reminds me of all the reasons why I wrote that first blog back in July 2015 and said (paraphrasing): "nope, it's all rubbish; they can't build this - at all"

 

[Red Anders]

Hi Orlando,

What do you think it would it take for you to consider the possibility that the game development is in some kind of serious trouble?

Switching to a lower strength brand of turps.

 

[dsmart]

Enjoy.

https://youtu.be/z8zvNOe5n04?t=190

(Not embedded because it won't play from the correct point if I do)

I found a way to do it that used to work I think.

EDIT: Nope, doesn't work anymore.

 

[LeoBartlet]

Enjoy.

https://youtu.be/z8zvNOe5n04?t=190

(Not embedded because it won't play from the correct point if I do)

Don't worry the jesus patch 3.0 will fix all the bugs.

All the bugs!!!!!

 

[Barking_Mad]

From the PC Gamer interview:

'Well the tech is always moving along, which is why it's difficult to create the PU. We create it in one form of tech then this amazing new form of tech comes along.'

I don't know what to say....

Year six and they haven't yet decided on a platform to build the PU in?

Did he just that? LOL Utterly bonkers.

- - - Updated - - -

GTA V is by now one of the *only* games that has a comparable budgetary spend to Star Citizen, along with Star Wars: The Old Republic. However one must remember that those costs also include those used for advertising and promotion too, which made up almost half of the near $272 million total spent on the game.
So far, all Star Citizen's money is devoted to developing that game and Squadron 42. By that measure, SC is now the second most expensive game developed in history.... and for all that money, it is barely a tech demo in quality after 6 years....

Interestingly there were no budgetary constraints for GTAV. And when you see how much it made you see why.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Ofc they need our money, that why they went with the crowdfunded route. Nobody is forced to give them money, a basic package gives access to everything, there's not content that you are left out so there's no reason to feel hindered by not paying the minimum. People give more money because they like what they see and want to support it. I think its very simple.

Our money? Nope, they are not getting a penny off me until i see a finished product. And even then, i'm not sure, as it will depend on what they actually produce.

They almost had me back in erm... 2014? Until i saw the demo with the helmet flip. How the audience went wild over that. And i thought, oh dear gods, they are making a game that impresses morons. So i decided to wait and see. Glad i did.

One thing i am wondering about is how many extra players CIG think they will get post release. At the end of the day, no matter how many bells and whistles they add, its still going to be a game in a niche market. My suspicion is they already have sold the game to 90% of those who are interested in playing it. How many copies globally might they sell in total? Very hard to guess. If they make something like GTA5 in space, they might just pull it off and get a few million buying into it... but so far, i don't see that happening.