Support NeoGAF

[Burny]

Mining will be implemented in 2.5 update, so in max two months.

I'll take that with a bucket of salt and see what has been shown in about two months.

That's the spirit! People think I'm joking when I say SC is a 2020 game. I've fully convinced myself that it is, so now the day to day stuff doesn't really bother me. All I want is S42, which I'm fairly certain we're getting in a year / year and a half, and that's what I'm looking forward to.

Having said that, the stuff you're talking about - mining, Hornet Ghost gameplay - doesn't seem to be that far away.

Neither did Star Marine seem to be that far away this time last year. I talk about faithfully and patiently waiting with a ton of cynism. I can't take CIG - its management, not its artists or coders - too seriously anymore, as the visible rift between their impeccable looking assets and the trainwreck (from a technical PoV) they call the "Alpha 2.0", which I tried to play last week, is simply too gaping. That 2020 estimation may be about right - that's both, "still" and "only" four years away after all. Not much time to beat something into shape with the scope of Star Citizen that's not progressed past a very unstable alpha, which has next to none of the high level features working that the game promises to offer ("high level" as in a meta game build on simply roaming around the world).

 

[Zabojnik]

It is what it is, my dear Burny.

SC isn't a conventionally developed game and what they're attempting is completely unprecedented. It should be obvious to everyone by now that building out the core foundation of the game / universe is by far the most demanding task CIG's studios (or anyone out there, really) are facing. I think they've made good progress on it over the past two years, especially with the procedural stuff coming into play way earlier than anyone expected. All the while working on dozens of ships and on Squadron 42, which can be considered a fully–fledged AAA title by itself.

From where I'm standing, it seems that they know what they're doing. It's just taking longer than what everyone expected, including 2012-2013 era CIG. I've said this before, but people should really start considering the time it takes to build a company with 300+ employees and get things running smoothly. It just doesn't happen overnight. It takes years. So maybe it's taking Star Citizen / Squadron 42 exactly the time it should be taking.

Personally, I'll start complaining when S42 is released and is a technical mess and a bad game.

 

[Dictator93]

EDIT: READING IS HARD

 

[Burny]

SC isn't a conventionally developed game and what they're attempting is completely unprecedented. It should be obvious to everyone by now that building out the core foundation of the game / universe is by far the most demanding task CIG's studios (or anyone out there, really) are facing. I think they've made good progress on it over the past two years, especially with the procedural stuff coming into play way earlier than anyone expected. All the while working on dozens of ships and on Squadron 42, which can be considered a fully–fledged AAA title by itself.

Concerning what they're attempting being unprecedented: I don't buy that anymore.

Elite and Star Citizen are very, very close in terms of their vision. If Elite approaches its vision, the combination of all the aspects in Star Citizen isn't so unique anymore for one thing. Other modern space games featuring a smaller scope are being developed as well, which may however beat both in terms of individual featues/implementations. Between Elite (general vision), No Man's Sky (single player exploration in a procedural generated universe) and Battlescape: Infinity (real time multiplayer space battles), I can't see everything else being so unique and unprecedented anymore if it should indeed take them until 2020 for the PU.

There are two stand out areas where I see Star Citizen remaining unchallenged for quiet a while: visual asset quality and cinematic campaign.

 

[Raticus79]

Concerning what they're attempting being unprecedented: I don't buy that anymore.

Elite and Star Citizen are very, very close in terms of their vision. If Elite approaches its vision, the combination of all the aspects in Star Citizen isn't so unique anymore for one thing. Other modern space games featuring a smaller scope are being developed as well, which may however beat both in terms of individual featues/implementations. Between Elite (general vision), No Man's Sky (single player exploration in a procedural generated universe) and Battlescape: Infinity (real time multiplayer space battles), I can't see everything else being so unique and unprecedented anymore if it should indeed take them until 2020 for the PU.

There are two stand out areas where I see Star Citizen remaining unchallenged for quiet a while: visual asset quality and cinematic campaign.

Yes, unprecedented ambitions do lose that quality if someone else achieves them. Can't really argue with that.

If Elite somehow beats Star Citizen to the punch, we could just play that. I think there's a fundamental difference in what David Braben considers fun though, so I don't think it would satisfy the same market even if built out to substantially the same scope. I wound up bailing out of Elite because the tedium was getting me down.

 

[staticneuron]

Yes, unprecedented ambitions do lose that quality if someone else achieves them. Can't really argue with that.

If Elite somehow beats Star Citizen to the punch, we could just play that. I think there's a fundamental difference in what David Braben considers fun though, so I don't think it would satisfy the same market even if built out to substantially the same scope. I wound up bailing out of Elite because the tedium was getting me down.

Seriously. I tried Elite. Gave it 24 hours and was done. I just didn't find it fun at all. And it just seemed very limited in terms of what you could do in comparison to SC, so I am hoping that SC doesn't more me either when most of the features are in. TBH simply having a single player storyline may just cement a longer playtime than what I experienced with Elite. But if people find ED, NMS or B:I, more their cup of tea, more power to them.

 

[Raticus79]

Nice little thread about the importance of VR in Star Citizen starting up here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/4dlrft/thoughts_on_vr_priority_from_a_rift_cv1_owner/

 

[tuxfool]

Seriously. I tried Elite. Gave it 24 hours and was done. I just didn't find it fun at all. And it just seemed very limited in terms of what you could do in comparison to SC, so I am hoping that SC doesn't more me either when most of the features are in. TBH simply having a single player storyline may just cement a longer playtime than what I experienced with Elite. But if people find ED, NMS or B:I, more their cup of tea, more power to them.

I find the story and universe setup in SC to be that much more engaging than what is found in elite. That stuff is really dry and frankly, without character.

 

[Zalusithix]

Nice little thread about the importance of VR in Star Citizen starting up here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/4dlrft/thoughts_on_vr_priority_from_a_rift_cv1_owner/

I still don't think first gen VR and SC are a great match. From the immense rendering demands to the non-cockpit movement issues, there's lots of things to address. Heck, the UI and ship interfaces aren't even finalized for monitor play. Then there's the relatively small current market share of VR.

I'm enthusiastic about the future of VR, but I don't think CIG needs to go all-in and prioritize it right now. SC is already paving new ground on many other ends and has a million things to get right. Focusing heavily on VR when the game still isn't finished for monitor play is just silly. By the time that it makes sense to start focusing heavily in VR, VR itself will be further along. Higher resolution screens with greater FoV, eye tracking, and foveated rendering.

People that have VR headsets and want everything VR now are just unrealistic.

 

[Raticus79]

I still don't think first gen VR and SC are a great match. From the immense rendering demands to the non-cockpit movement issues, there's lots of things to address. Heck, the UI and ship interfaces aren't even finalized for monitor play. Then there's the relatively small current market share of VR.

I'm enthusiastic about the future of VR, but I don't think CIG needs to go all-in and prioritize it right now. SC is already paving new ground on many other ends and has a million things to get right. Focusing heavily on VR when the game still isn't finished for monitor play is just silly. By the time that it makes sense to start focusing heavily in VR, VR itself will be further along. Higher resolution screens with greater FoV, eye tracking, and foveated rendering.

People that have VR headsets and want everything VR now are just unrealistic.

For sure - the big thing for the moment is just avoiding implementing anything that breaks future VR support.

 

[tuxfool]

Concerning what they're attempting being unprecedented: I don't buy that anymore.

Elite and Star Citizen are very, very close in terms of their vision. If Elite approaches its vision, the combination of all the aspects in Star Citizen isn't so unique anymore for one thing. Other modern space games featuring a smaller scope are being developed as well, which may however beat both in terms of individual featues/implementations. Between Elite (general vision), No Man's Sky (single player exploration in a procedural generated universe) and Battlescape: Infinity (real time multiplayer space battles), I can't see everything else being so unique and unprecedented anymore if it should indeed take them until 2020 for the PU.

There are two stand out areas where I see Star Citizen remaining unchallenged for quiet a while: visual asset quality and cinematic campaign.

Lets list some features (in a dull and checkbox way):

-First person Universe
-Gravity Volumes
-Non-instanced fast travel
-Large world playing spaces
-Atmospheric planets
-Landing Zones
-Prevalent use of NPCs
-Mixed human and Spaceship combat.
-Large and varied job system
-EVA and foot traversal system

I'm not sure that any other game has all of these features.

 

[cyress8]

Seriously. I tried Elite. Gave it 24 hours and was done. I just didn't find it fun at all. And it just seemed very limited in terms of what you could do in comparison to SC, so I am hoping that SC doesn't more me either when most of the features are in. TBH simply having a single player storyline may just cement a longer playtime than what I experienced with Elite. But if people find ED, NMS or B:I, more their cup of tea, more power to them.

I believe Elite will try to make missions more personal with one of their main patches this year. Right now the missions are pretty bland and unrewarding. Just doing the relay missions in SC is more fun than the ones in Elite. I have the ability to get out my captain seat, open my hangar, leap into space, and then EVA my way through the relay. That makes a huge difference to me and increases my immersion 10 fold.

 

[elyetis]

I still don't think first gen VR and SC are a great match. From the immense rendering demands to the non-cockpit movement issues, there's lots of things to address. Heck, the UI and ship interfaces aren't even finalized for monitor play. Then there's the relatively small current market share of VR.

I'm enthusiastic about the future of VR, but I don't think CIG needs to go all-in and prioritize it right now. SC is already paving new ground on many other ends and has a million things to get right. Focusing heavily on VR when the game still isn't finished for monitor play is just silly. By the time that it makes sense to start focusing heavily in VR, VR itself will be further along. Higher resolution screens with greater FoV, eye tracking, and foveated rendering.

It really isn't a matter of making VR the priority right now specifically for current gen headset ( I mean by the time it's released we could be at the second gen of headset ). The main argument you need to read in that reddit post, is the sooner the tackle the VR implementation ( and at the very least take it into account in the design phase ), the less work it will take.
I mean we already saw them pretty much having redo every ships from the ground up, do we really want the same kind of wasted time when it will come to the VR implementation ?

 

[Zalusithix]

It really isn't a matter of making VR the priority right now specifically for current gen headset ( I mean by the time it's released we could be at the second gen of headset ). The main argument you need to read in that reddit post, is the sooner the tackle the VR implementation ( and at the very least take it into account in the design phase ), the less work it will take.
I mean we already saw them pretty much having redo every ships from the ground up, do we really want the same kind of wasted time when it will come to the VR implementation ?

Regardless of when you tackle it, it takes time and effort. It might take comparatively less effort now, but every extra bit devoted to it now takes away from man hours that could be dedicated elsewhere. Getting a game out takes priority over getting a VR game out. All they should be doing now is making sure they don't break things (any more than they are already) for future support.

SC will live or die by its mechanics, not VR support.

 

[tuxfool]

Some of those people in that VR post on reddit are really tiresome.

I had somebody suggest ATW to reproject SC from 60 to 90 without the slightest bit of understanding of the consequences of that. Too many people treat Async Time Warp as magic.

 

[Zalusithix]

Some of those people in that VR post on reddit are really tiresome.

I had somebody suggest ATW to reproject SC from 60 to 90 without the slightest bit of understanding of the consequences of that. Too many people treat Async Time Warp as magic.

The problem is people viewing reprojection as a solution to low framerates instead of a last ditch fallback. Relying on your fallback is bad.

 

[tuxfool]

The problem is people viewing reprojection as a solution to low framerates instead of a last ditch fallback. Relying on your fallback is bad.

PSVR is doing that... reprojecting 60 to 120. IMO it will be awful but many people seem not to care.

Worse is the fact that that they're suggesting a non integer multiple reprojection of the frame rate. Going from 60 to 90 is going to introduce judder in the reprojected foreground objects. If you're going to suffer reprojection you should at least get a rate that maps cleanly to your final frame rate.

 

[RubberJohnny]

Lets list some features (in a dull and checkbox way):

-First person Universe
-Gravity Volumes
-Non-instanced fast travel
-Large world playing spaces
-Atmospheric planets
-Landing Zones
-Prevalent use of NPCs
-Mixed human and Spaceship combat.
-Large and varied job system
-EVA and foot traversal system

I'm not sure that any other game has all of these features.

Are you comparing the version of Star Citizen that doesn't exist yet? Because what's currently there is behind in these ways:

-Mining
-Exploration
-Trade
-Territory Conquest
-Economy
-In-game Fitting
-Social Features
-More than 24 players in an instance
-VR Support
-etc

 

[tuxfool]

Are you comparing the version of Star Citizen that doesn't exist yet? Because what's currently there is behind in these ways:

-Mining
-Exploration
-Trade
-Territory Conquest wat?
-Economy
-In-game Fitting
-Social Features
-More than 24 players in an instance
-VR Support
-etc

*Shrug*

NMS sky doesn't exist yet, nor does Infinity Battlescape. The original poster is also presuming a lot of feature that aren't in Elite yet.

So yes, we can compare proposed features.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

I would be happy with proper TrackIR support.

 

[RubberJohnny]

Shrug NMS sky doesn't exist yet, nor does Infinity Battlescape. The original poster is also presuming a lot of feature that aren't in Elite yet.

So yes, we can compare proposed features.

No one at CIG is developing Star Citizen though.

Currently the entirety of development is Squadron 42, and everything new in the Persistent Universe is content developed for Squadron 42 ported. All the ships that make it in are ships that appear in Squadron 42, the new animations are animations from Squadron 42, etc. No one is working on adding mining or trade or the economy, because those are features that won't benefit Squadron 42.

When exactly is Star Citizen proper going to get developed considering Squadron 42 isn't coming out until 2017, and they're developing two more episodes after that (which will likely be 3-4 year development themselves).

 

[Dictator93]

No one at CIG is developing Star Citizen though.

Currently the entirety of development is Squadron 42, and everything new in the Persistent Universe is content developed for Squadron 42 ported. All the ships that make it in are ships that appear in Squadron 42, the new animations are animations from Squadron 42, etc. No one is working on adding mining or trade or the economy, because those are features that won't benefit Squadron 42.

When exactly is Star Citizen proper going to get developed considering Squadron 42 isn't coming out until 2017, and they're developing two more episodes after that (which will likely be 3-4 year development themselves).

I actually imagine mining will come before SQ42 as SQ42 features the animations and assets used for mining, refueling, and possibly cargo. The campiagn takes place in multiple areas where these activities will require assets and animations.

Also, you are speaking with a level of certainty that I think you could not reasonably possess. Especially regarding release dates and long-term plans.

 

[Burny]

Elite's shortcomings are out of question. Although detailed discussion of them takes probably a bit more than 24 hours investment in the game, because that's usually the time you spend wandering aimlessly in space there before you know what the hell you're doing. And it's best done in the Elite thread, where there are more frustrated people knowing the game and it's shortcomings well.

..

Let's look at those points in detail:

• First person universe - So far a point for Star Citizen. "Space legs" as they call it in Elite, meaning walking in ships, EVA, walking in stations etc. are at least part of Elite's vision however. They just don't have a fancy name for it (yet). Disregarding Elite: No Man's Sky will be released this summer and it features a "first person universe" - minus the EVA-ing in space I think? As for walking on planets, it stands to reason that Elite will eventually also let you walk on planets. DB mentioned big game hunting in relation to atmospheric worlds, so I guess both Elite nad SC aim to get there eventually? Did I mention Space Engineers?
• Gravity Volumes - Unknown buzzword to me. Does it mean the local gravity in ships and on space ports? If so, then it's a fancy word for describing that this space game has places in space where you can walk normally even though you're not in the rotating ring of a space station. Space Engineers has that. Elite - not sure before we see anything about their "space legs" implementation. But i recall them talking about there being no magic gravity in Elite. We'll see at some point.
• Non-instanced fast travel - Star Citizen is instanced - even if one instance is to run on one server. What does it mean then? You can travel from port Olisar to a satelite and stay in one instance? What if all other players in the same instance (25? 50?) are playing on another station somehwere else? Are you then not getting grouped with with other players at your satelite playing in in another instance? Seems like a tradeoff to the more instanced model adapted by Elite. In any case, there are going to be wormhole transitions, which are most likely instance transitions.
• Large world playing spaces - Another buzz word. If it's about the 64 bit coordinates enabling them to create gigantic seemless play areas - great. It's a space game, it better ought to have that. Both Elite and No Man's Sky have a "large world" by means of a whole more ore less realistically scaled galaxy ("universe" in case of No Man's Sky - grain of salt until it's released). Different tradeoffs apply to all three games.
• Atmospheric planets - Star Citizen has them as much as Elite: Not at all. Both games plan to add them eventually, though it remains to be seen which one is quicker about it. The "social module" is not a planet by any stretch. Elite does have planets though right now, although only without atmosphere. And I seriously hope that Star Citizen does generate their planet surface with horizontal displacement from the start, because the lack thereof is the largest eyesore in Elite's otherwise pretty great procedural planet generation IMO. I haven't seen anything holding a candle to Outerra, yet, when it comes to the surface generation.
• Landing Zones - I guess you mean hand crafted landing zones on planets? Point for Star Citizen. Once they're in. Although I don't know if there's any hand crafted zones in NMS. There's also planet settlements with landing pads in Elite by now. In addition to whole planets to land on. Another tradeoff? There's definitely more landing on landing zones in Elite currently - both in space and on planets.
• Prevalent use of NPCs - Are there? The ones flying space ships? Elite has them. NMS has them. On landing zones? SC won't have them before landing zones are integrated. As mission givers? Elite will add them as part of 2.1 around June (Lack of humanity - one of the glaring issues the game has finally addressed somewhat, yay!).
• Mixed human and Spaceship combat - Point for Star Citizen. Also EVA in has been associated with boarding other ships by the Elite devs, so I guess that won't be a USP at some point anymore. Same as with atmospheric planets: Intriguing to see who gets there first - Star Citizen as 1.0 release and Elite in terms of adding the feature.
• Large and varied job system - None of that is in Star Citizen, yet? And it better be eventually. We can discuss Elite's shortcomings in this regard at length in the appropriate thread (it's poor for all kinds of reasons), but it has both a freeform job and mission system. That's more than SC can claim currently.
• EVA and foot traversal system - What exactly do you mean here? Isn't this a bit redundant with the seemless first person universe? In order to claim having a First person universe, you need to be able to move around as your character on foot. And how the hell would you EVA, if you could not walk on foot? As said above, EVA is planned for Elite at some point.

To sum it up: No game has all those features (and I think to point some out as standout features is slightly contrived). Not even Star Citizen. Looking beyond the buzzwords though shows how similar Elite and Star Citizen are when both should live up to their vision eventually. They're mostly making different tradeoffs to achieve similar goals.


If anything, all the pitfalls that Elite has found itself in make me more cautuous about Star Citizen. Sure, it promises everything under the sun, but it has shown precious little of that in playable form. Taking the "Large and varied job system" as an example: I can easily spin the features currently available in Elite to look like they're exactly that. They're not - due to a far too large number of shortcomings in design, content and even features. People on the official forums have constantly made good suggestions on how to improve upon the systems available today. Yet, 1.5 years after the release patch 2.1 IMO is the first step to remedy some of the shortcomings slightly (due to NPCs, some details about misison object discovery etc.). I don't see Star Citizen adressing any of those pitfalls. In what way would Star Citizen for example be any less dull and repetitive than the grind in Elite if I wanted to work my way to the bigger ships as a new player by mining asteroids for days on end?

We don't know., because it's not in the game yet.

 

[Zalusithix]

PSVR is doing that... reprojecting 60 to 120. IMO it will be awful but many people seem not to care.

Worse is the fact that that they're suggesting a non integer multiple reprojection of the frame rate. Going from 60 to 90 is going to introduce judder in the reprojected foreground objects. If you're going to suffer reprojection you should at least get a rate that maps cleanly to your final frame rate.

At least with PSVR it's a set hardware target with a curated software garden. Sony can make sure that everything is 60fps 99% of the time before allowing it in. The PC isn't anywhere near uniform, so relying on the reprojection leads to outright failure when you inevitably fall below the threshold at which the reprojection can work.

But yeah, a 60->90 reproject is bad - with current reprojection techniques that is.

 

[KKRT00]

First person universe - So far a point for Star Citizen. "Space legs" as they call it in Elite, meaning walking in ships, EVA, walking in stations etc. are at least part of Elite's vision however. They just don't have a fancy name for it (yet). Disregarding Elite: No Man's Sky will be released this summer and it features a "first person universe" - minus the EVA-ing in space I think? As for walking on planets, it stands to reason that Elite will eventually also let you walk on planets. DB mentioned big game hunting in relation to atmospheric worlds, so I guess both Elite nad SC aim to get there eventually? Did I mention Space Engineers?

Let get this out of hand. Walking on planets or instanced stations is completely different to first person universe. Walking around ships designed to be walked around and functional in this way, when they are flying in multiplayer environment, is completely different to some FPP content in a game.
This is fundamental change that required whole new technology from physics, through LoD, animations, AI and structure design to actually work.

NMS will never be like that and Elite will have to re-engineer a lot to get it working in, which is harder than what SC did when they designed game from the ground up to be like that. And even though CIG did it from the start, they still needed years to get it working.

---

No one at CIG is developing Star Citizen though.

Currently the entirety of development is Squadron 42, and everything new in the Persistent Universe is content developed for Squadron 42 ported. All the ships that make it in are ships that appear in Squadron 42, the new animations are animations from Squadron 42, etc. No one is working on adding mining or trade or the economy, because those are features that won't benefit Squadron 42.

When exactly is Star Citizen proper going to get developed considering Squadron 42 isn't coming out until 2017, and they're developing two more episodes after that (which will likely be 3-4 year development themselves).

Thats not true. The whole Tony Zurovec's team is working on PU and some part of F42 is working on PU also. The whole point of 2.4 and 2.5 update will be about adding persistence and simulated economy is only few months behind those updates.
The Alpha PU we have right now is more related to PU development, than to S42 development.

 

[Anton Sugar]

Elite's shortcomings are out of question. Although detailed discussion of them takes probably a bit more than 24 hours investment in the game, because that's usually the time you spend wandering aimlessly in space there before you know what the hell you're doing. And it's best done in the Elite thread, where there are more frustrated people knowing the game and it's shortcomings well.



Let's look at those points in detail:

Great post. Gets tedious when people willfully ignore features that are as much on ED's roadmap as they are on SC's. People diss ED without even bothering to do a cursory search, even on an Elite wiki site.

I got burnt out on ED and am waiting for fleshed out features--luckily, 2.1 looks like they'll be adding them. Like Burny, ED, if anything, has made me more cautious in my hype for SC, but I'm looking forward to the "completion" of both (in 2-4 years).

 

[Akronis]

Great post. Gets tedious when people willfully ignore features that are as much on ED's roadmap as they are on SC's. People diss ED without even bothering to do a cursory search, even on an Elite wiki site.

I got burnt out on ED and am waiting for fleshed out features--luckily, 2.1 looks like they'll be adding them. Like Burny, ED, if anything, has made me more cautious in my hype for SC, but I'm looking forward to the "completion" of both (in 2-4 years).

The difference is, I'm probably going to have to put up $300 for all the expansions to get the SC experience in Elite Dangerous whereas Star Citizen will be $60 for the entire package.

Elite Dangerous in it's current state is incredibly boring and has very little depth and having to pay tons of money on expansions to flesh out the finer details is not something many people want to do.

 

[Anton Sugar]

The difference is, I'm probably going to have to put up $300 for all the expansions to get the SC experience in Elite Dangerous whereas Star Citizen will be $60 for the entire package.

Elite Dangerous in it's current state is incredibly boring and has very little depth and having to pay tons of money on expansions to flesh out the finer details is not something many people want to do.

I won't deny that a number of features being added in patches should have been in the base game. However, actual expansion content isn't included in that, IMO. The addition of Horizons/planetary landings didn't solve ED's problems--it's free changes being added in free patches that will solve its problems, like the overhaul of missions and NPCs in 2.1. The problem is, those kinds of features should have been in the game at launch.

I think it's really disingenuous to directly compare ED's business model to SC's. If SC hadn't raised millions and millions of dollars, do you really think they would be able to offer the entire game for a flat $60?

ED is following more of a traditional development game structure (i.e., iterative content additions), because it's necessary. They wouldn't make enough money to fund actual game development if they tried SC's model.

 

[Akronis]

I won't deny that a number of features being added in patches should have been in the base game. However, actual expansion content isn't included in that, IMO. The addition of Horizons/planetary landings didn't solve ED's problems--it's free changes being added in free patches that will solve its problems, like the overhaul of missions and NPCs in 2.1. The problem is, those kinds of features should have been in the game at launch.

I think it's really disingenuous to directly compare ED's business model to SC's. If SC hadn't raised millions and millions of dollars, do you really think they would be able to offer the entire game for a flat $60?

ED is following more of a traditional development game structure (i.e., iterative content additions), because it's necessary. They wouldn't make enough money to fund actual game development if they tried SC's model.

But to me the consumer, that doesn't matter. All I see is that the full Elite Dangerous experience might be $300 whereas Star Citizen's will be $60 regardless.

 

[Anton Sugar]

But to me the consumer, that doesn't matter. All I see is that the full Elite Dangerous experience might be $300 whereas Star Citizen's will be $60 regardless.

I don't necessarily disagree with your second sentence, but it's limited in scope and only looks at the "buy every season at launch" model...which isn't required, especially since anyone who knows anything about either game knows they aren't finished (although, as a full game, ED is more complete than SC, and I don't think that should be discounted).

Elite Dangerous cost $60 at launch.
Elite Horizons cost $60 at launch (less if you owned ED, actually)

You assume that the game will require individual expansions to be purchased at full cost, when even now both games, plus extras, can be purchased for $60 directly from FD.

In ~3 years, when 4 seasons of content have been released, do you really think that the game and all those expansions will cost $300? Or do you think that they'll consolidate and offer at a smaller price?

Yes, early adopters will end up paying more. That's the revenue model that FD is using and, frankly, is likely the only one that would work to fit their vision. You can always wait until later to buy Elite, when it has a larger featureset, just like you can wait to buy SC when it's an actual game.

EDIT: Anyway, this conversation has gone way off track. The discussion I was responding to was the idea that SC is this unicorn combo of ~10 features that no other game is going to do. Burny posited that, by 2020, a number of games may have already encroached in SC's "never been done before" territory, and some of those games (like Elite) seem to have most, if not all, of those features on their (nebulous) roadmap.

Delivery time of everything that makes SC unique is incredibly important. $60 for a game that has features never-before-realized is different from $60 for a game that has neighbors with a similar featureset.

 

[chifanpoe]

From Ben Lesneck on the main game forums - updated Idris info: 37 Crew.. heh I will enjoy helping one of the 3 Org Irdis owners with my 10 AI bots man these things. I sure hope the Polaris is less than 10 or I may skip it.

Howdy!

These are the stats currently listed in our internal Wiki. I should stress that these are by no means final, and really won't be even when the Idris is flight ready... a whole lot of balancing (and thus stat) work takes place AFTER that stage. (Similarly, these may have changed in the three days since they were last edited in the Wiki, too... much of this can be changed by a technical designer working out something with just a few keystrokes.)

Manufacturer Aegis Dynamics
Variants 2 (M/P)
Cargon Capacity 100 SCU
Cargo Storage Cargo Rooms
Landing Gear Skids
Take Off Method VTOL
Max Crew 37
Role Frigate
Length 237m
Width 134m
Height 50m
Mass 1,600,000kg
Docking Ring Yes
Radar Type 3D

Avionics
12x Name TBC (Medium - Bridge)
8x Name TBC (Medium - ATC Room)

Coolers
4x Name TBC (Capital - Hangar Floor)
8x Name TBC (Medium- Hangar Wall)

Fuel System
2x Name TBC Fuel Intake (FL,FR)
1x Name TBC Fuel Tank

Gravity Generator
1x Name TBC (Capital)

Life Support
1x Name TBC (Capital)

Jump Drive
1x Name TBC (Capital)

Power Plant
2x Name TBC (Capital - Reactor Room)
2x Name TBC (Medium - Bridge)
4x Name TBC (Medium - Hangar)

Radar
1x Name TBC (Capital)

Shield Generator
4x Name TBC (Capital - Shield Gen Room)
2x Name TBC (Medium - Bridge)

Thrusters
8x TR5 (Main)
8x TR3 (Maneuvering)

Turrets
5x Behring M3C ASA Turret (2xS4 Guns)
1x Behring M5C STS Turret (2xS6 Guns)

Weapons
1x Klaus & Werner Zestroyer Rail Gun (S10)

Missiles
1x A&R Plowshare Anti-Ship Missile Launcher (ASML)


Also some new images from the game

http://imgur.com/a/NROIe

 

[LProtag]

So I've really never looked into this game despite hearing a ton about it.

Is it basically EVE Online but with an FPS feel instead of an RTS feel?

 

[chifanpoe]

So I've really never looked into this game despite hearing a ton about it.

Is it basically EVE Online but with an FPS feel instead of an RTS feel?

What it will become (SC anyhow):
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/about-the-game/spaceflight

What it is as of now:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/feature-list

SQ42:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/squadron42

 

[tuxfool]

Great post. Gets tedious when people willfully ignore features that are as much on ED's roadmap as they are on SC's. People diss ED without even bothering to do a cursory search, even on an Elite wiki site.

I got burnt out on ED and am waiting for fleshed out features--luckily, 2.1 looks like they'll be adding them. Like Burny, ED, if anything, has made me more cautious in my hype for SC, but I'm looking forward to the "completion" of both (in 2-4 years).

The difference here is that one game isn't pitching itself as complete without all these things. The other one is.

Lets presume you want to play or test any of these features they're adding in elite during this time. You are going to have to buy each and every season.

Those games (like Elite) seem to have most, if not all, of those features on their (nebulous) roadmap.

Delivery time of everything that makes SC unique is incredibly important. $60 for a game that has features never-before-realized is different from $60 for a game that has neighbors with a similar featureset.

I think Burny is vastly underestimating the game infrastructure requirements for a lot of those features. Or even the seamlessness of it all. Correct me if I'm wrong but traversal on planets involves teleporting between two vehicles?

There is a massive amount of work involved in making that particular transition work in the same way it does with star citizen.

 

[tuxfool]

No one at CIG is developing Star Citizen though.

Right. So they have all 300 odd people plus outside contractors working on Squadron 42?

Nope.

Not even the entirety of Foundry 42 are working on Squadron 42.

 

[Raticus79]

Here's one for the Elite fans in the thread: https://youtu.be/qYfNzhLXYGc?t=195
SteamVR used Elite in their mixed reality launch video. (a few seconds at ~3:17)

Bonus points for using HOTAS.

 

[Anton Sugar]

Here's one for the Elite fans in the thread: https://youtu.be/qYfNzhLXYGc?t=195
SteamVR used Elite in their mixed reality launch video. (a few seconds at ~3:17)

Bonus points for using HOTAS.

Well, fuck. That might be all the argument I need for a VR headset.

The difference here is that one game isn't pitching itself as complete without all these things. The other one is.

Lets presume you want to play or test any of these features they're adding in elite during this time. You are going to have to buy each and every season.

Y'all can harp on this year-by-year cost argument all you want, but in 2018/19, when both games will be more "complete", they'll both cost around $60. That's more relevant to the point than arguing the value of both games in 2016. By the time 2020 rolls around, Star Citizen will likely share a playing field with games that have same or similar features.

I wonder how many people in this thread have spent more than $60 on SC already. Even more important: I don't care and neither should you. If you want to fund SC development by paying for a $145 ship, do it! If you want to fund ED development by paying $60 for a new season's worth of content, do it!

Like, you realize the argument you're making is remarkably similar to the "SC is a scam!" arguments, right? "Why are you giving money to an incomplete game?"

I think Burny is vastly underestimating the game infrastructure requirements for a lot of those features. Or even the seamlessness of it all. Correct me if I'm wrong but traversal on planets involves teleporting between two vehicles?

There is a massive amount of work involved in making that particular transition work in the same way it does with star citizen.

This gives a weird implication that Frontier is not aware of the infrastructure requirements. Many of the shared "awesome features available in the future" bullet points for both SC and ED, have been a part of Frontier's long-term plan since their Kickstarter.

 

[tuxfool]

Well, fuck. That might be all the argument I need for a VR headset.



Y'all can harp on this year-by-year cost argument all you want, but in 2018/19, when both games will be more "complete", they'll both cost around $60. That's more relevant to the point than arguing the value of both games in 2016. By the time 2020 rolls around, Star Citizen will likely share a playing field with games that have same or similar features.

I wonder how many people in this thread have spent more than $60 on SC already. Even more important: I don't care and neither should you. If you want to fund SC development by paying for a $145 ship, do it! If you want to fund ED development by paying $60 for a new season's worth of content, do it!

Like, you realize the argument you're making is remarkably similar to the "SC is a scam!" arguments, right? "Why are you giving money to an incomplete game?"



This gives a weird implication that Frontier is not aware of the infrastructure requirements. Many of the shared "awesome features available in the future" bullet points for both SC and ED, have been a part of Frontier's long-term plan since their Kickstarter.

I honestly don't care what their monetization formula is, I'm not going to burn them at the stake for something that they found workable. If that is the route that they are using fine, it is up to the user base to validate or reject it. It doesn't change the fact that it released very barebones as a "finished" product (albeit very polished).

It is very easy to list features that are going in (and this goes for all games). They may even some idea on how to implement it, but one find that previous assumptions will often turn out to be insufficient or erroneous. In the case of SC this can be seen in the physics volumes and zone system which game them quite a lot of trouble during development, likewise I don't think it is going to be easy to inject human level traversal in that game. SC benefits *massively* from infrastructure in Cryengine for everything related to that, and then they added all sorts of systems on top. I don't see Elite ever approaching the seamlessness found there, nor do I see it happening in NMS which is highly modal (and doesn't have the network transparency issues). It should be noted that I don't consider them lesser for that but to claim that those games will merge into the exact same feature sets and feel is utter nonsense.

 

[chifanpoe]

Modular weapon system design from Behring:

 

[Burny]

It should be noted that I don't consider them lesser for that but to claim that those games will merge into the exact same feature sets and feel is utter nonsense.

I'm not talking about feel. They better be distinct. Feature set though? Yes, it won't be the exact same thing if they slightly differ, but if both E and SC (NMS to a lesser extend, being a SP game) have EVA, walking on ships, walking in stations and landing zones, walking on planets by the time the PU reaches "1.0", then both absolutely will have roughly the same feature set in this regard. Just like Mario, Banjo Kazooie and Sonic have jumping and running, but implement it differently. We can start the flame wars by the time both get there and can then compare the actual details of each implementation. I don't doubt for instance that SC will have the more seemless implementation, but in the same vein, you could harp on about Elite's halfway realistically scaled galaxy. Different tradeoffs, still the same rough feature set. Eventually. Maybe.


As for technical pitfalls in adding certain features at a later stage: Frontier is building a theme park management game (Planet Coaster) on the same in house engine they're using for Elite - and they're doing a bloody hell of a job at it. Large crowds of halfway realistically animated people, terraforming and free form building tools included. I'd give them the benefit of doubt when it comes to getting things done with their engine. We'll see which tradeoffs apply in the end. Same goes for all things promised by CIG.


I don't like to discuss final pricing before both games have an official final and public release. Both projects have a number of devs working on them for years. In Star Citizen the backers do the financial heavy lifting to see the project is made reality. In Elite, it's a combination of self financing, backers and early adopters. But you can determine when and at which price (E has been available at bargain bin price during Steam's winter sales) you get in, so in the end you can almost as freely determine what you pay, just like in Star Citizen's crowd funding phase. The most fair metric imo will be comparing the public release price of SC's PU vs. the full price E package at that point in time (!) including previous seasons. Because that's what E seems to be currently going for. The full game up to any point will seemingly always be at full retail price notwithstanding sales. It will just provide more content the later you buy in.

 

[RubberJohnny]

Right. So they have all 300 odd people plus outside contractors working on Squadron 42?

Nope.

Not even the entirety of Foundry 42 are working on Squadron 42.

There's only a few dozen people working on Star Citizen across all their studios, which wasn't enough to build an MMO a decade ago, let alone Croberts uber-ambitious and art-intensive version.

They laid out their entire roadmap for the PU for the rest of this year on AtV and it was S42 animations, in-game store with buyable clothes, ships and gold and a few more S42 ships and guns. At that pace of development they're getting nowhere; it's clear Chris' real priority is S42, that was the original pitch.

 

[SnowTeeth]

Here's one for the Elite fans in the thread: https://youtu.be/qYfNzhLXYGc?t=195
SteamVR used Elite in their mixed reality launch video. (a few seconds at ~3:17)

Bonus points for using HOTAS.

This is fucking awesome.

 

[KKRT00]

They laid out their entire roadmap for the PU for the rest of this year on AtV and it was S42 animations, in-game store with buyable clothes, ships and gold and a few more S42 ships and guns. At that pace of development they're getting nowhere; it's clear Chris' real priority is S42, that was the original pitch.

So You are ignoring procedural tech, persistence, AI collision algorithm from last AtV, animations that mostly transfers to PU and are tested in MP environment, item system 2.0, economy, non-combat roles and ships etc?

 

[Dictator93]

Modular weapon system design from Behring:

I am reminded of how Lance Henriksen spoke out behring inthe Freelancer commerical. Mhm...

Those weapons look great actually. It would be awesome to see those weapons being assempbled and disassembled in real time first person (ala Homefront). Putting in new barrells, extending the stock, etc.

 

[Burny]

This is fucking awesome.

It's also overselling the capabilities of current VR headsets a bit. Iirc both Oculus and Vive have a 110° FoV, so that person would only have a part of a humans ~180° FoV covered by the VR headset. Nevertheless, the 1:1 transition of head movement to in-game head movement and depth perception probably make for a ridiculous degree of immersion. ^^

I really must strengthen my resolve to not buy into VR until at least the second generation of headsets... >.<

 

[tuxfool]

There's only a few dozen people working on Star Citizen across all their studios, which wasn't enough to build an MMO a decade ago, let alone Croberts uber-ambitious and art-intensive version.

They laid out their entire roadmap for the PU for the rest of this year on AtV and it was S42 animations, in-game store with buyable clothes, ships and gold and a few more S42 ships and guns. At that pace of development they're getting nowhere; it's clear Chris' real priority is S42, that was the original pitch.

The part where I said not even the entirety of the 170 odd people on F42 UK are working on SQ42 flew right over your head?

Never mind that there is so much shared technology and assets between the two games.

 

[~Cross~]

Whats worse? That there is an insignificant group of people working on SC proper right now or that a none insignificant group are working on it and SC is still in a sorry state. Either way it looks bad because there is very little to show for in the alpha, its better to assume that the vast majority of the staff are working on SQ42 because that at least gives an excuse for its state.

Also about the scope argument and how more and more games are gonna come out that eat at SCs shares, I cant believe no ones mentioned CoD. Apparently the next one, which is in a new 3 year dev cycle instead of a 2 year one, is going to be in the far off future. If they keep delaying the titles even SQ42 wont have a unique draw anymore.

 

[Dictator93]

Also about the scope argument and how more and more games are gonna come out that eat at SCs shares, I cant believe no ones mentioned CoD. Apparently the next one, which is in a new 3 year dev cycle instead of a 2 year one, is going to be in the far off future. If they keep delaying the titles even SQ42 wont have a unique draw anymore.

How would COD being set in the future, with the inevitable crutches of COD's gameplay and genre, have any sort of affect on the perception of SQ42 which is mixed space sim mix ground combat in an Far Cry like open world?

I am not seeing the connection as to how COD being set in the future makes SQ42 less unique.

 

[Zalusithix]

Whats worse? That there is an insignificant group of people working on SC proper right now or that a none insignificant group are working on it and SC is still in a sorry state. Either way it looks bad because there is very little to show for in the alpha, its better to assume that the vast majority of the staff are working on SQ42 because that at least gives an excuse for its state.

Also about the scope argument and how more and more games are gonna come out that eat at SCs shares, I cant believe no ones mentioned CoD. Apparently the next one, which is in a new 3 year dev cycle instead of a 2 year one, is going to be in the far off future. If they keep delaying the titles even SQ42 wont have a unique draw anymore.

You really think a CoD set in the far future is going to target the same crowd that SC has? Seriously? Even within the (minor) subset of people that play both, they wont fill the same niche.

 

[SmartBase]

I've all but forgotten about SC, just give me SQ42.

NMS will never be like that and Elite will have to re-engineer a lot to get it working in, which is harder than what SC did when they designed game from the ground up to be like that. And even though CIG did it from the start, they still needed years to get it working.

You write this every time SC is compared to Elite, that it needs to be "re-engineered" for some new feature or other, do you have inside information or what? What exactly needs re-engineering?