I was thinking the same and was like, which huge engines are those?
Star Citizen Alpha 2.0 | The 'Verse Awakens
- Thread starter Raticus79
- Start date
I was thinking the same and was like, which huge engines are those?
I, for one, am shocked.
This game is never coming out lol **
**2019
I hear they are changing the flight model again. I wonder... Why are they doing this now? AC has been out for what, 2 years now? Wasn't the main point of AC to test the flight mechanics?
Dictator93
Member
Morrow is looking rather dashing these days
Morrow is looking rather dashing these days
I think we're going to be friends.
The character pipeline stuff was really cool, some really nice materials they have in the game.
I'd love to see an audit of the company to know where the finances actually are because there is no reasonable way for them know how much money is going to take to finish the game. Here are some of the reasons why it shouldn't be possible:
1) Lack of definition of what it means to be complete- They've talked about defining a "minimum viable product", but have yet to do so. Without this, no timeline can be created because you dont have any of the milestones in there. Just "start production" and "end production"
2) Shifting timelines- Constant delays means more time in production. More time in production means higher costs. Since they cant put out concrete release dates for their milestones, they shouldn't be able to predict how much it'll cost to release the game.
3) Shifting quality requirements- These are changes to the actual milestones instead of the timeline itself. Products are created internally and are considered "complete" or at least close to completion, then out of the blue the requirements for the product change and they need rework them or abandon them entirely. Last year SM was considered close to release, then it was deemed no longer necessary, now its apparently back in production and is probably the biggest stopper thats hampering 2.6s release.
The new cash only discount combined with their citcon showing threw a big wrench at the communities collective confidence. There is a hot "concern" thread in the official forums about the status of the pledge and it being split almost 50-50 just shows how polarizing the events have been. Mind you, a year or two ago you'd be lucky to have gotten 10% of the people agreeing with the topic creator.
If they were so confident on their management, the least they could to reestablish confidence to the fanbase would be to do an external audit of their finances, like they initially promised in their kickstarter. But Chris goes on about how armchair mangers and developers would just take that information to point out how bad a manger he is. Hey Chris, when most of the fanbase already knows your timelines are bullshit then they probably are better managers than you. No professional experience needed, just a firm relationship with reality.
Outrun
Member
Losing faith in the project is why I got my refund and am adopting a wait and see attitude.
I would love to be wrong and will gladly eat crow if they deliver.
If CR says they are funded, I guess will believe them until it is proven otherwise. At this point, I don't have a horse in this race.
Regarding an audit, if one was to occur, it would need to encompass all of the companies that are related to the project.
I dont understand it either.
Crowdfunding is about funding an idea and making this idea possible to realize.
Not every investment in real life is success and sometimes its not because of lack of good will or management, but sometimes even external 'forces'.
In regards to SC i dont have any doubt that CIG will finish it. They need at most like half a year to finish S42 and the studios are still expanding. You do not expand when you do not have money to do it.
iHaunter
Member
I understand that sometimes it can take longer than anticipated, but I'm not in love with the idea that they intentionally withheld information for so long.
I'm hoping for at LEAST a SQ42 mission at one of the live-streams, I think one is in a few weeks.
Character pipe-line is looking neat. For a T2 was it? Also there's a chance it's not complete yet either.
When 2.6 comes I expect 3.0 to come shortly after, seems like a lot of tech behind 3.0 needs to be done for 2.6.
I'm hoping for at LEAST a SQ42 mission at one of the live-streams, I think one is in a few weeks.
Character pipe-line is looking neat. For a T2 was it? Also there's a chance it's not complete yet either.
When 2.6 comes I expect 3.0 to come shortly after, seems like a lot of tech behind 3.0 needs to be done for 2.6.
Zalusithix
Member
They're in a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation. If they don't hold info back they have to deal with people claiming the sky is falling every time anything slips. If they hold information back they're accused about not being transparent enough.
iHaunter
Member
I disagree, at this point and time I think information is key and holding things back even if it's not good news is an issue.
I think the reason it seems that way is because CR has been a bit too "Salesman-yyyy" trying to sell promises early when he clearly knows they're nowhere near ready. I don't mind the delay, I just wish they were honest about it.
It's a bit messy given the entire Illfonic debacle I suppose.
It was mentioned in the early terms of service agreement, if I remember correctly.
I missed this the other day:
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/7230246/#Comment_7230246
Per: Disco
The Esperia Prowler will go on Concept Sale on Friday, November 18th during the Anniversary Livestream for the introductory price of $425. It will have LTI.
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/7230246/#Comment_7230246
Per: Disco
The Esperia Prowler will go on Concept Sale on Friday, November 18th during the Anniversary Livestream for the introductory price of $425. It will have LTI.
Zalusithix
Member
All concept ships have LTI, so that's a bit redundant.
That said, it looks to be continuing the trend of Esperia ships being the most expensive ships for what you get out of all the "manufacturers". Solid pass on my end without even needing to see the sale. I have little interest in a boarding ship, and certainly not a $425 one.
iHaunter
Member
All concept ships have LTI, so that's a bit redundant.
I'm really glad that I got the UEE Exploration sale.
Was LTI and came with the game package. Was a hell of a deal.
They promised that backers would get access to company-wide audits? That's crazy.
All concept ships have LTI, so that's a bit redundant.
I think this may be their slowing selling ship. I don't see many clamoring for a boarding ship, let alone a $425 one. I think they should probably hurry up and show off the redesigned, "original" boarding ship (the $100 Cutlass) first.
Zalusithix
Member
Yeah, call me crazy, but at this point I'm far more interested in the redesigns of the older existing ships than all the "new" concept ships. Cutlass, 300 series, Redeemer, etc. Still, for anybody that is interested in the Prowler, I've added it into the roster sheet's data, so that's set for the sale.
It's in the event that the game is never finished, though: http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2016/06/20/...ice-to-make-it-more-difficult-to-get-a-refund
RSI ToS said:
I don'T know how you get to this conclusion?
Seems to me CIG gives almost too much information, with all these videos, while the main game doesn't move along really fast, everything being delayed.
The only thing that surprised me as being more advanced that I expected is their PG planet tech. Everything else is behind schedule.
Still, it should change only with 3.0 and their new network system
The reason why some of the things are behind the schedule, because they were being incorporated into PG tech.
Everything is behind schedule, its not just because they decided to roll everything when 3.0 comes out. Rather, everything before that needs to be done before 3.0 can work properly.
Dat German efficiency. Move the whole operation to Frankfurt and both games will go gold in under a year.
LOL.
UpDownLeftRight
Banned
I'm actually now wondering if we'll get 2.6 by the end of the year, and right now I'm not banking on it. Have they mentioned when this stream of S42 was supposed to happen btw? At least we're getting that this year apparently.
I'm trying to be patient, but I admit I'm frustrated that we haven't had any new playable content in almost one year (since 2.0). By playable content, I mean a reason to log in and DO something. After almost a year, we still only have some satellites to repair (by pressing a button), one rudimentary mission at Covalex (read iPads), Tessa's find a beacon missions, PvP, and that's it. And right now it looks like we'll be well over a year before there is any real reason to log-in again (2.6, but really 3.0 for any real mission content).
And yet the ship sales go on. Some new mission content would have done wonders for the upcoming anniversary ship sale. As it stands, I'm not expecting it to be very successful this year.
And yet the ship sales go on. Some new mission content would have done wonders for the upcoming anniversary ship sale. As it stands, I'm not expecting it to be very successful this year.
There is an anniversary stream this week with will have 2.6 unveil or S42 demo.
And if it turns out to just have some more ships + sales and planet editor demos instead of the flight model rework of 2.6, Star Marine finally coming out of hybernation and the long touted Squadron 42 reveal, which they very, very closely missed (allegedly) at Citizencon?
You have even heavy backers (alleged 6000$) asking the tough questions on CIGs own forums now and they're not being simply shouted down by deflecting believers anymore:
Deloria said:
Yet, despite that OPs pretty optimistic stance and hopeful asking Roberts to recommit to his pledge, CIG's response has been a resounding silence. The Poll the OP created is split about half between people believing the pledge has been broken and those who think it hasn't. That makes some 500+ people on CIGs own forums who think Roberts broke his pledge, which are so far not worth the effort of a response.
Ironically, the events leading to the "Emperor's new cloths" moments are for some people not the absence of Star Marine, the abysmal Citizencon showing rather asking backers to shell out for a 700$ Idris .jpg (that was the name, wasn't it?) rather than showing anything at all of Squadron 42, but the recent temporary sale of the Hornets. So really, after having collected alleged 130$ Mio. with part .jpeg fantasy starship sales without delivering even a stable base game four years after the initial kickstarter, what demasks this for some is a temporary sale now?
What's there not to get? They made a kickstarter, promised to make a Space Opera game on top of a quasi MMO within two years, collected uncopious amounts of money by selling fantasy spaceships, sailed through those two years and another two on top, collected even more uncopious amounts of money, and still failed to have the Space Opera game ready even for demonstration, throwing video scraps at backers as excuse, who are simultaniously milked for all they're worth with sales that negate a good handfull of the things they've promised in the meantime. And they still haven't shown the bloody game. It's not shown because it's not ready. That is pretty much fatal after begging for 130$ Mio. of goodwill money throughout four years though.
Call me again if they have full demo-able reveal game footage to show instead of floor mopping mocap. But maybe that's to come during the anniversary stream, right? From there on the Squadron 42 release will be right around the corner. It'll only take another two years or so and some 30-60$ Mio. more milked out of backers.
There's only so much goodwill, even from absolutely faithful believers that you can bank on and it's currently running out. Pretty much the only means of redemption for CIG is to actually show up with a game. Not talking heads, telling us that everything is peachy (they have been doing that for years already). A game. Not a talkshow. Guess we'll see how much game there is during the anniversary stream.
Alternatively, if they could stop selling pledges, come out with a timeline and deliver the game within that time. That would actually really create faith that they're on top of things, have a solid plan and don't need to beg for more money after all this time and 130$ Mio.. It would also show Chris Roberts & Co. haven't just blown that alleged 130$ Mio. into the wind for not delivering even an alpha product whatsoever (what they're calling "Alpha 2.0" is more commonly called a tech demo). But I guess that's not what's going to happen, is it?
You obviously have no idea how game development works. When Kickstarter started there was almost nothing - just CR and maybe few people with him, general idea for star citizen and that's it. They had to build company from ground up, develop technology from ground up and then and only then actually start developing. Whole project grew to enormous size and with it actual scope of game. Just look at the milestones that ran up to 65 million or something. After that they stopped doing them because of huge scope. 4 years is pretty normal development time for usual AAA game with lot of crunch time (which is pretty fucked up but leave that for another debate). SC is not that. They will show it when it's ready. If you're impatient just play something else.
You already missed it by around a year with launch of 2.0 and subsequent launches up to 2.5 which we have now. They showed game on multiple occasions, most recently on citizencon. With situation around S42 watch ATV from around month ago where they clearly detailed why it was not showed at citizencon. They tried to completely finish one mission for citizencon and deadlines happened. There were bugs which were blocking them from showing it.
That's the most idiotic thing they could do. Their main point of going to Kickstarter and crowdfunding was to get away from publishers, deadlines etc. Just take a look on current situation with games - no man's sky, dishonored 2, Batman Arkham Knight, just cause 3 and I could continue endlessly. Most of them launch broken, unfinished or with cut content for full price. That's fucking disgusting and absolutely unacceptable yet people still buy those games. Nowadays it's even normal and it's rare that game will launch in great state. it looks to me like around every third AAA title we get suffers from said issues. Then look at Nintendo - you have no idea what they are working on but when they release game, they release it polished, complete and in working state. Same with star citizen. There's no point in deadlines, everyone wants finished game, not broken piece of shit.
Miyamoto once said: A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad. This and fucking 100x this because I'm honestly really tired of more and more broken releases with 9/10, 10/10 reviews.
I'm probably feeding a troll but I at least got it written down.
RubberJohnny
Banned
We're four years in with not even a vertical slice of gameplay, isn't that a bit odd?
Over the last year all we've gotten is clothes shopping, some new ships and a new space station that took three months to build - at that meagre rate of progress the PU wouldn't be complete for another one hundred years!
What makes you think Star Citizen will be like this though? The engine feels held together with tape at the moment with the poor character movement, aiming, animations, collision detection, physics areas, netcode, etc. They haven't shown a single piece of content we could point to as the polished quality level we could expect from the finished game.
Oh, I do look at Nintendo, being a bit of a fan there. That Myamoto quote is great. The bolded part is absolutely wrong however. Nintendo does have deadlines. They also tend to announce them. They move their deadlines if the game is not done. But they don't beg fans for another 30$ or 40$ Mio. dollar to be able to polish their game to perfection, while giving no deadline or estimate whatsoever.
If Nintendo operated like Chris Roberts, I suspect they might not exist anymore. Take as much money as you can get, give no deadline whatsoever after having sailed through the first couple and happily do whatever Roberts does for as long as he thinks it needs to be done. Throw in the most ridiculous feature kreep gaming has seen in recent years, that logically has to move any deadline that ever existed back by years. For example: Despite not showing much at Citizencon this year, we know implicitely have the promise of larger than life monster boss battles on what CIG tries to sell us as procgen planets. What is it they want to do first? Finish Squadron 42 or design some two dozen boss battles (giant Dune worms got to get old, so they surely will have more different bosses, no?) on any of the 100 solar systems they promised in their kickstarter and haven't even managed to finished 1% of?
And yet, if I compare any of those games to what CIG has delivered in terms of game (not talkshow), they are actually pretty serviceable. CIG however keeps selling the dream of the perfect game (hint: that's a measure by which they can only fail) for 700$ .jpgs. Milking the gullible, that is. Unless someone's prepared to make a case for the current Alpha 2.x tech demo to be a better game than any of those you mention as negative example? Exception of No Man's Sky, which is a small indie dev unabashedly overpromising and overhyping their game for years. And yet, compared to what Roberts promises (Still waiting for cocktail mixing minigames...) and milks out of backers, No Man's Sky may look like a good deal in the end, measured by they kind of cash backers have thrown after Roberts.
Even in satire I would hesitate to write a reply that starts like this just because its become so common among the defenders that its become a joke. Every single milestone keeps getting pushed back, the userbase has a better understanding on deadlines than the actual managers (seriously ask anyone in here that believes that 3.0 is going to be out this year, none will affirm it, Chris is still going on with it), the userbase is slowly starting to turn. That particular OP Burny quoted has over 50% of the people agreeing with it. Thats a pretty important threshold in bursting the groupthink bubbles that permeates a system.
You aren't going to see a miracle patch that suddenly fixes everything and I doubt you are going to see patch that pushes a huge amount of content quickly through the pipeline. Quite the contrary, the most recent closed tests have all been pretty small in scope. We haven't gotten a fraction of whats supposed to be in 2.6 tested and they have about a month for that to be actually pushed into all the layers of tests for it to finally get to live. CIG would have to work at uncommonly quick pace to get it out this year. A time of year thats usually full of people taking leave for the holidays.
And after all these missed milestones, some people will still have faith in the project. Instead, create your own milestones stating the event and your reaction if they fail to meet it. Will you continue to drop money on the project if they fail to reveal the SQ42 presentation thats already over a month overdue? What happens if 3.0 isnt out this year? 2.6? What if they do come out or are missing parts?
We are the consumers here, and not only that, we are pseudo publishers as well. It would be irresponsible as both of these to simply continue to have blind faith or desperate hope for this project to come out. If the project does end up falling short or outright failing, it would have immeasurable impact on the industry. It would devastate crowd funding and strengthen the argument that large projects shouldn't be crowd sourced. And no, throwing more money at a tire fire is not the right thing to do. If at this point they need more money to finish the game, then the project is already doomed.
You still dont get how development works.
It was not 'oh sorry we missed presentation, we'll show it you next week', its 'oh we have still have issues and we need to work on them more'.
Development is not fully predictable, if you have issues that you dont know how are propagated or you have issues in some core components, even fixing this issue can introduce different issues that were hidden behind the 'first' issue.
They said, few times actually, that they will show S42 on one of the two streams this year - November one or December one depending when they will be fully ready.
Still dont know why i even bother replying to you.
RubberJohnny
Banned
B-I-N-G-O, that's a BINGO!
You don't seem to know how industry demos work - no one works on them in the last few days beforehand, you work on them months in advance and sit on them until the conference where they'd have the most impact comes around. Instead despite knowing when their own conference was scheduled they decided that a development team that had never hit a single deadline could easily hit this one, and fucked it up royal.
The same with Star Marine - they're the only one who knows the status of it, so why not sit on it until it's 99% percent complete, then announce it and show it off? Underpromise and overdeliver.
Instead they announced it was coming back with no details, a month later they'd made a three-second game trailer, and then the next month they started making the maps and immediately ran into development problems, now it's ETA is probably next year and everyone is disappointed.
Outrun
Member
Can this thought be used to counter any and all criticism of the game?
I am hoping that CIG has everything needed to make this game now within an acceptable timeframe.
Zalusithix
Member
It must be incredibly emotionally draining to be as concerned over the the state of the game as some of you are. I'm actually taking solace in the fact that I'm not as pessimistic and cynical as I thought I was. You guys got me beat by miles. =P
Outrun
Member
Sure there is an element that are simply concern trolling.
Just as there is a subset that feel that all criticism of CIG to be a function of individuals not understanding game development.
Ha, I don't think that was an accusation of concern trolling, it was just meant to be taken literally. It does look like it takes a lot of energy. I'm just minimally following things and killing time.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Frankly the reality is there is no reason to take Roberts' words at face value. All of his bluster regarding timeframes are wrong. How many more times will we take them as gospel?
I'm not pro-sc or anti-sc and I actually agree with your points. It's just I hate when people read headlines of articles and talk nonsense.
I pledged and got few ships (got them last year with 2.0 release) because of 2 things:
1. I liked the idea of SC and was burned with elite dangerous
2. Because they showed big progress with 2.0. That was the moment when I thought to myself that even with how huge SC is, they could actually pull it off
I'm sad that we still don't have 2.6, no footage of S42 (I actually think that 2017 release won't happen because we saw nothing so far, 2018 is more realistic) etc. I'm still worried about netcode, performance (really skeptical about these two), gameplay and basically whole game. If it won't work out life will continue and it won't be my first time I wasted money on a game. I had fun with friends on each new release but I eventually moved on to another game.
I regreted buying Street fighter V which was early access for early access games and only recently got into early access stage. Played it for 2 hours, uninstalled it and never touched it again, end of story.
But if they manage to finish it, it will be huge achievement on multiple levels - crowdfunding, technical etc. - and I'm looking forward to SC even if they release it few years from now.
Outrun
Member
Yeah, this is my stance also.
Zalusithix
Member
Yeah, I meant that comment in the purely literal sense. Keeping up with everything while constantly worrying about the future. Making lengthy posts venting frustration about x, y and z. Then making even more posts defending the position. It's like back when I was following every drop of SC news from an effort perspective, but combined with tons of angst and negativity.
Much easier (and likely healthier) to go with the flow and view the whole situation as a journey. I'm under no delusion that the project can't fail. That was always a risk going in, and no amount of audits etc are going to change that risk. If the project implodes tomorrow, well then that sucks, but it's something I was prepared for from the beginning.