viveks86
Member
Looking forward to it! Delusions are always fascinating
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Star Citizen Alpha 2.0 | The 'Verse Awakens
- Thread starter Raticus79
- Start date
Looking forward to it! Delusions are always fascinating
I'd say it's a reasonable expectation considering how it had been hinted that it might be at one of the other two streams. I hadn't ruled it out myself, although I thought it was quite a long shot.
mercenar1e
Member
4K screenshots here. how they were able to play 3 rounds of Star Marine is beyond me.. it gets disconnected before the end of the first all the time.
I tried finding the caterpillar but it's not coming up for me even though I have every other ship unlocked in the hangar.
I tried finding the caterpillar but it's not coming up for me even though I have every other ship unlocked in the hangar.
That Driller tho.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0T3KLnL9uY&t=0s
If nothing else, S42's cutscenes should be space porn in its purest form.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0T3KLnL9uY&t=0s
If nothing else, S42's cutscenes should be space porn in its purest form.
staticneuron
Member
Well....
Well, what Chris states is on point. Yes, they probably could have said something before hand, instead of going after radio silence per usual. But given the flak they get on a constant basis I am not sure if I can say when the best time for that statement was or how the reaction would have been. Personally, I didn't expect a slice after they abandoned showing it at citizencon. But everyone has their own expectations and it is seeming people constantly circle back to "Scam" or it doesn't exist or will never come out discussions that permeate and pervade talk about Star Citizen. As if this company hasn't been more transparent than any other development company working on a game of this size I can think of.
It all circles back to this. If you have lost faith, I encourage people to go get a refund based off whatever expectations you hold. This talk though and the thread has been toxic and circular. If that is the aim of some of these posters, they have done their Job. It wont stop people from funding the game, playing the game or looking forward to its release, it just muddies the discussion of the game. As of such I really see only a point to respond to a few posters. If it is negative or just to push out displeasure at CIG, then that is not a point of discussion but more of a expression of emotion. I am not going to take part in this anymore.
That is one mean looking ship.
viveks86
Member
Let's be clear that these aren't expectations that everyone just made up on their own. I gave you specific evidence of Chris explicitly setting them himself. And that makes him accountable. That's the only criticism I've made here and it needs to be said regardless of all the other noise around the topic.
The rest of your post seems to be directed at others, so I'll leave it unchallenged. I agree with most of it anyway.
mercenar1e
Member
some more 4K shots.
staticneuron
Member
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Most of it is general commentary not at you in particular.
viveks86
Member
Hot damnnnn...
About 1000 of each of the two cheap Star Citizen starter packs left.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15636-Holiday-Sale-2016
(SC only - SQ42 would be $15 extra)
Are you using a custom config there? Looks better than the usual 4K I see.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15636-Holiday-Sale-2016
(SC only - SQ42 would be $15 extra)
Are you using a custom config there? Looks better than the usual 4K I see.
iHaunter
Member
It's this shit that turns new people off really:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/Combos/Armada-Discount-Pack-Holiday-2016
Of course they don't have to buy it, but they're new, the site isn't exactly easy to use. They see thousands of dollars in ship packages and turn the other way.
To call something a discount at $2,500 for a digital ship is just flat out insane imho. This game makes me so bi-polar.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/Combos/Armada-Discount-Pack-Holiday-2016
Of course they don't have to buy it, but they're new, the site isn't exactly easy to use. They see thousands of dollars in ship packages and turn the other way.
To call something a discount at $2,500 for a digital ship is just flat out insane imho. This game makes me so bi-polar.
lmao this right here is what makes people justified in calling this a scam
Pricetags like that are beyond the pale for items in a video game, doesn't even matter if it's a finished game and polished to a fine sheen. The idea that they're charging that much for any combination of items in a game 2+ years way from finishing at best and you DON'T get a producer credit, assuring you'll end up making money in the end, is totally nuts.
edit: I just looked and there's a $15,000 dollar package that is just ships. Un-fucking-real. I know people always say "people can spend what they want", but to me this reeks of taking advantage of the hardcore fanbase with massive disposable income based on a promise they will never be able to keep.
SeanNoonan
Member
mercenar1e
Member
staticneuron
Member
There is not just 1 ship in that package there are 8. And 1 of the ships is the capital class Idris. If people are bothered by the $2500 package as an option for purchase while ignoring the ones $40 and below, that is a personal issue. The mere existence of the package should have no bearing on whether you want to back at a certain price point. If this bugs you, close browser and walk away.
Good Work! Looking forward to the release.
Thank you sir, looking good!
Well done CIG.
Not bad for a *tech demo*
Man, I've never seen the backers unilaterally close their wallets during a sale like this. That Livestream could not have gone worse.
Yea they should have shown some SQ42 (even a little) or more 3.0 planet stuff.
staticneuron
Member
Man, I've never seen the backers unilaterally close their wallets during a sale like this. That Livestream could not have gone worse.
But of course that has nothing to do with warbond Idris ($1300 each) and Javelin Sales ($2700) during anniversary sale at all. Or the fact that "Every" single limited ship was on sale as a stand alone. The fact there were 26 additional limited sale ships people possibly wanted then and are not on sale now.
Nope.... can't be that at all. The holiday sale has SOOO MUCH more on offer than the anniversary sale. It is only down hill from here. They might as well pack it up.
Edit: ignoring post history just want to ask you this... since here
How much less has CIG made to date, 12/17/2016, yoy? Especially given lack of S42?
mercenar1e
Member
Drake Caterpillar looks so good.. i think it should turn a bit slower though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAr4OuwQ0GA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAr4OuwQ0GA
SeanNoonan
Member
Anybody playing Star Marine today? Would be cool to get a couple of games in with fellow Gaffers. I'll generally be playing Last Stand on both maps because I'm still testing balance.
I've been getting a crazy amount of feedback so far, can't wait to get back to the office on Monday and fix some shit
I've been getting a crazy amount of feedback so far, can't wait to get back to the office on Monday and fix some shit
Cat in the Hat
Member
Jonestown
SeanNoonan
Member
Right now it is for subscribers only.
You'd like it. At least anybody that complains that the ships have no weight to them.
People that liked the faster, more twitchy feeling of the previous iteration hate it.
Graphics Horse
Member
Is the trailer dead? I can't find on the Star Citizen YouTube
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
Yeah, the trailer seems to have been taken down for some reason. I can't watch it either.
mercenar1e
Member
best part about 2.6 is Star Marine. Ill upload some footage of it in a few.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
So uh, when is TrackIR support going to be fixed.
Is there a video out there that best encapsulates what this game is currently and what it will be in the future? Do you have to buy ships or can you pay one fee and still have fun and not feel like a second class citizen?
I'm getting a 1070 in the next couple of weeks and fancy getting a game to push the card a bit. Thanks.
I'm getting a 1070 in the next couple of weeks and fancy getting a game to push the card a bit. Thanks.
Outrun
Member
You talk like there is no problem with the development of SC/SQ42.
That is equally as problematic as those calling the game a scam.
iHaunter
Member
PU still doesn't feel good to play, been out for a while.
I'm curious what the overhaul will be like though. 3.0 is a game-changer.
Outrun
Member
The problem that I am having is that we are so concerned with release dates and modules, that whether CIG can produce a decent game is almost a non-thought.
From what I have played and seen, the FPS looks second rate, and the space sim does handles like a FPS...
So you are saying that what backers can play right now is poor?
If you are so concerned about gameplay in alpha just refund it and wait for final release.
Ps. Newsflash, not everyone will be liking the mechanics of the game, its never true for any game.
And telling them to go away because they aren't completely enamored by the game isn't helping.
Who knows, maybe they might even find actual problems and form constructive criticism that helps improve the game.
Ragnar Blackmane
Member
When I saw the "Game Packages" Tab on the website my face went pale and I closed the tab just out of fear I might acidentally misclick, buy a $2,000+ package and ruin my entire lifelihood as student.
Sure, you might call it irrational, but I usually have that sort of feeling when I stand on top of a 38+ floor skyscraper without a roof net and look down.
The most insane thing is that the $15k pack doesn't even get you all the ships.
It also raises doubts how long the grind will be to even unlock a fighter or bomber in the final version of the game, especially if they plan to keep selling them concurrently on their website for cash.
There is a difference between constructive criticism and being negative with every post, you should know something about that.
You might find that being negative is not mutually exclusive with being constructive. Rather in the contrary - the already peachy things hardly need criticism to improve. Negative feedback is at least as valuable, if not more than positive, if you actually want to improve something. There's also a difference between asking what exactly somebody finds poor and telling them that everything is peachy or to go away.
The latter being a fan favourite among some of Star Citizen backers.
Aztechnology
Member
Berny it's different when every post you have is extremely negative, critical, calling things out as a scam because of missing deadlines, feature creep etc. You have nothing new to contribute, so there's really no reason for you to be here. You've said your piece every way til Sunday. I drop criticism on games fairly frequently, Destiny or The Division for instance initially. The difference is I noticed when people were done with the conversation and left it there.
I only drop in here semi frequently, but I see you in here every time posting a negative message without fail.
Then I must question whether you actually read or just skim them, because negativity, when seem to be under the impression I liken a missed deadline to a scam.
staticneuron
Member
And that is very telling of alot of posters that post here.
Constructive criticism as defined
Now how many negative comments show up in this thread, with only the sole purpose to be negative, sow fear, or just be rather disingenuous? Which cross posts from members and links to Something awful and Smart supporters, it is kinda telling when certain posters appear only to post something negative or illogical and then repeatedly beat the drum in that tone.
Perception is a major thing, and most games of this scale a publisher would have not announced anything until "years" into development. Because this project was kickstarted and grown in scope we have people with offset expectations and despite being given information of crew size, technical information about what they are doing and relative difficulty. That tends to just make it easier for mud throwing it seems. And the persistent presence has grown in this thread.
They won't be sold after launch. At that point cash can be used to buy credits up to a certain amount each month.
Look through your recent posts and see how long you have to go before you run into a constructive suggestion they can take action on. It's honestly pretty thin. The closest I can see after going through a few pages of SC posts is one suggesting they stick to their deadlines. What would be your top 5?
If we should infer from complaints, the points I take away are that you want it to be finished quickly, in an accurately scheduled and transparent manner, without seeking further funding. I'm not sure about your positions on gameplay elements other than that they aren't finished.
I also wanted to touch on this earlier post:
I've noticed there's been a clear trend of discussion moving from here to the Discord channel lately. There are at least ten times as many chat posts as forum posts in the same period of time. People are speaking with their feet. It's not a healthy thing for the forum.
Evolution of Metal
Member
People don't like taking a long and critical look at the promised business model, so don't overthink it. It is not finalized, it is not viable. It needs more than a standard MMO in the post-launch support, yet they promised a boxed-copy approach where players aren't shafted by the fact that others are going to have massive ships from Day 1. Also a lot of people have already purchased or pledged for this game, so there is that.
Arguments go all over the place:
Paid ships are mainly for supporting the game, so plebs are going to be able to build them too.
You really don't need large ships, because these ships are for multi-crew operations so you should just join other organizations.
You will be able to top-up your in-game currency with cash injections.
Insurance...
Game progression design starts with intended goals: For average player to spend X amount of time doing simple quests/missions to earn Y amount of credits to build a Z ship. Until I see CIG telling the intended amount of time for different ships, none of progression model talks can continue.
I am not asking for the capital ship in a week, I am asking to give me an idea what kind of manhours are we talking about for ships so I can judge whether it is a fair or not model.
The only number we ever really got was 60 hours for a Constellation, and that was a casual comment during of the livestreams 3 years ago. They'll certainly have their hands full balancing grind times in a game where the Hull E exists.
Other than that, they've just said that ship costs in game aren't necessarily tied to the dollar values, so there isn't much to go on. They did just comment in the holiday stream that the prices of things in general were one area they're looking at.
I remember Chris mentioned once that they were looking at how they should limit transfers between players, which I took as a good sign that they were thinking ahead - if it was unrestricted, it would break down into a mess of bots and real-money-trade pretty quickly. (still a concern, but at least not as much)
You only see the negative of those post, but even in your examples there is constructive things to be said from it.
Like :
In itself, yeah it's can be used as a tool to say that they need would need like 400 year to get SC ready and will never be done.
On the other hand it can also simply be used as an argument that it's a topic that should be more discussed by the studio/CR, with us." This is where we're at, we expect that to grow at x pace from that point since the pipeline is ready, the initial release might only have x star system and keep growing to that number." etc.
The problem is both 'side' will more often than not only see it as black or white, and those reaction only move people more and more to the extreme.
Many complaints can be seen only as negativity, but there is often more to it, and things they could learn from it.
People complaining about no SQ42 in the last stream, can be seen as people having unreasonable expectation, and sure enough 'game dev is hard' is a decent answer to the delay.
But it doesn't mean there wasn't more to it, like the fact that clearly SQ42 delay was a decision made long before the stream ( people can agree or disagree with their reasons but that's another topic ), yet they only shared that info with us at the very last minute. SC is very much open development ( and that improved with 2.6 roadmap, because people complained ), yet mistake like this one still happen quite often, even when the solution is only a matter of communication.
RubberJohnny
Banned
The business model after launch is a real blindspot for backers - you'll have them tell you that every part of the project is completely different now, so every date estimate and thing that was said back in the day is out of the window - but the old business model never changes.
Like Ratticus up there acknowledges the time/money equation is in flux because it's an old comment, but insists they won't sell ships after launch even though that's based on an equally old comment.
The truth is we don't know, and likely CIG don't know, because they don't have a full estimate of what their per player costs are, and won't until after they have StarNetwork and test their Mesh Server experiment after January, if either of those take off it's going to be completely different hosting costs, and you can't expect that the way of funding the final game will be identical to old plans.
Like Ratticus up there acknowledges the time/money equation is in flux because it's an old comment, but insists they won't sell ships after launch even though that's based on an equally old comment.
The truth is we don't know, and likely CIG don't know, because they don't have a full estimate of what their per player costs are, and won't until after they have StarNetwork and test their Mesh Server experiment after January, if either of those take off it's going to be completely different hosting costs, and you can't expect that the way of funding the final game will be identical to old plans.
Similar threads
- Locked