Last edited:
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Star Citizen - media blowout, Chris Robert's new game
- Thread starter LeviathanZERO
- Start date
Thought you already had an account and were a backer at one point?
I was kidding. I am a backer.
Erasmus354
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
- Messages
- 9,450
no not because they sell expensive things poe sells some expensive things but i play the hell out of it, but i have played to many games that sell in games items that give you a huge advantage over some one that doesn't have item x. with this game we are going to have people that spent a hell of a lot of $$$$ being so far ahead on day one vs joe blow that just buys the game and unlike most games where only a few % of people might have some stuff they buy with $$$ in this game a large % of the people that will probably ever play it will have at least a few ships.
i hope i am wrong but you have $90 mill in ships in this game! that is a lot of in game items and i think the econ will be messed up for a while, but if it lives and gets big enough it should recover but with some many ships having LTI no mater how much you play you will never be on equal footing vs some one what has lots of ships with LTI.
look at eve, had eve sold cap ship before the game came out so that on day one you had corps running around with large cap ships that if it gets blown up they get a new one don't you think the econ would had been f up for a while?
like i said link me a game that has major items that you can buy that is not play to win and is balanced
i still hope SC is amazing though! we need more space sims
The difference is in EVE all ships are able to, and designed to be used by a single person. So getting a large ship is an advantage to that player. In Star Citizen large ships require multiple people to run. Some jobs can be performed poorly by AI, though it is unknown if you can run the largest ships with only AI. Bottom line is getting a big expensive ship doesn't get you anywhere, because you still need to crew it. On top of that, a small group of skilled players can take you down relatively easily. It isn't like EVE where everything is more or less a real time RPG. You have to actually aim your shots, perform evasive maneuvers, etc... All the money in the world doesn't buy you the skill to not get your ass handed to you by the ace pilot in the cheap Aurora.
Fixed that for you
^ Pretty much. The last I saw they were talking about hiring NPCs to fly your ships, making private fleets possible, which is kinda ridiculous. Either multiplay with people or GTFO. Some NPC crew for medium ships is as far as I would go, but operating fleets or huge ships on your own sounds lame.
the realized the "whales" dont have any friends lol so to keep them from bailing they had to do it
They have already sold a few guns as pledges.
The Model II Arclight Sidearm ($5) and there is one on the VD store the LH-86 (10,000 REC or $10) i would only get the LH-86 with UEC and not spend $10 on a pistol.
But considering Star Marine is the Sim within a Sim environment all the weapons sold would likely be rented with REC as well so no need to buy them.
Edit-
My referral code seems to be working tho, i have 1 random prospect and 1 random new recruit this morning. So up to 2 full recruits and 2 prospects now. Not sure where they got the referral from tho i only posted it in a couple places like my facebook page, twitter, maybe i should make a random SC video and put it on my youtube to try and pimp my 151 followers lol nah... too much work.
Last edited:
Most of us are, but many are worried that, when you look at what was actually shown and not just hinted and promised, it is too little and quite late.
I actually was not expecting 2.0 to have so much so early.
I was expecting we would have Arena commander 2.0 and not the PU Alpha 2.0
So i expected to be locked into a larger map than we have now in arena commander but with multi crew ships, i was not expecting to see the baby pu in the state they showed it until mid next year, with more detail / features like trading/mining until winter 2016 with early 2017 being when have more fleshed out economy to the point to start moving into a beta phase.
So i guess its just someones perspective on when they think or where they think they should be at. Especially with the changes in scope/fidelity they are shooting for the old timelines just would not have held up.
I was expecting we would have Arena commander 2.0 and not the PU Alpha 2.0
So i expected to be locked into a larger map than we have now in arena commander but with multi crew ships, i was not expecting to see the baby pu in the state they showed it until mid next year, with more detail / features like trading/mining until winter 2016 with early 2017 being when have more fleshed out economy to the point to start moving into a beta phase.
So i guess its just someones perspective on when they think or where they think they should be at. Especially with the changes in scope/fidelity they are shooting for the old timelines just would not have held up.
all we were shown in the original Multi crew demo was the main space station and a retaliator in the middle of no where.. so what they showed at citizen con was a vast improvement in terms of content and features.
If by delivery date you mean full retail release with a boxed copy at best buy or gamestop? 2018 seems reasonable for that.
We have very different definitions of "vast improvement" then.
It seems a reasonable estimate judging by their progress so far, but do you find it acceptable?
RangerXML
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Messages
- 6,399
I'm up to 1 recruit and 2 prospects, using the free flight code to try to get some people to check out the game a bit. I want that Tier 2 Fish Tank
Yes i find it acceptable.
2011 was the idea phase
2012 consisted of kickstarter a lot of studio build up.
2013-2018 is 5 years of full scale dev time. Which is well within a reasonable time frame for a large AAA project.
We will be playing the PU well before 2018 in some form and its evolution's through out that period, As well as SQ42 likely having been released late 2016 since it lacks the majority if not all of the multi player functionality it will be easier to get that out sooner even if the instancing system for the pu and all that back end pu stuff is not done.
So if they can get a polished SQ42 with the character detail shown in the senate video, and fully fleshed out fps mechanics at the end of 2016 they should be in good shape moving forward. Tho if it needs more time than that i am totally fine with it too. I didn't pledge for them to rush the release i want them to take their time and do it right.
I'm up to 1 recruit and 2 prospects, using the free flight code to try to get some people to check out the game a bit. I want that Tier 2 Fish Tank
I want the gold models and the Free Gladius lol, doesn't seem like it would be too hard to get to 10 referrals.
Last edited:
I don't know what to say to something like that. It is backers like you the rest of us can thank for the sour state SC development is in today.
RangerXML
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Messages
- 6,399
I'm just pimping myself out on twitter, though I think I'll get blocked eventually by plenty of folks
Wow, there are already people on SC Trader "buying" recruits...
Wow, there are already people on SC Trader "buying" recruits...
drklu
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2013
- Messages
- 2,892
How long is it suppose to take to built out the game ? It's large, it's detailed, and there are lots of areas to travel to = A long time to develop
Im just being realistic with my expectations on delivery dates.
You are being supportive of scope changes, broken promises and multiple huge delays - important distinction. If CIG got more heat from its backers, things could change for the better. They could've finished the game we originally backed by know and then worked on expanding it and increasing fidelity.
Depends on which game. Originally promised one - 3-4 years. Current CR's one - progressively longer and longer with no end in sight.
I don't know if anybody else mentioned this, but rather than doing a CCU, melt the Mustang for credits, then use the credits to buy the Sabre. That's what I did with my Super Hornet, and my Sabre has LTI.
But see that sounds an awful lot like a publisher model of them trying to force the devs to release content too early.
Which is the exact opposite of what i wanted when i pledged.
I want them to have the freedom to make the game how they want to make the game and release the content they want to release, not be pressured by me or other backers or an investor group into releasing things before they want them released.
That is why i am fine giving them so much money, because they are not pressured by the normal means to churn out content that is half baked. it could end up being just another crappy game but i am fine taking that chance. I would rather give them another $300 than give EA $60 for Battlefront.
While he only said Mustang, he might have been referring to the Omega which you can't melt since its melt value is $0
drklu
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2013
- Messages
- 2,892
The game we originally backed was a Wing Commander like game that is essentially just a single player story. I would much rather have the PU we are now getting. It is a ton more work though.
FearTheCow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,678
You mean that we might get considering the amazingly slow progress being made and lack of actual content available and shown.
There really shouldnt be much question on if we are getting it, but really when we are getting it.
I mean unless you die then you would never get it.
It will come out eventually tho either fully backed by backers or if they get into trouble financially i am sure there are many investors that would love a piece of the gold mine for a fraction of the cost that it would take to push it to the end.
I mean unless you die then you would never get it.
It will come out eventually tho either fully backed by backers or if they get into trouble financially i am sure there are many investors that would love a piece of the gold mine for a fraction of the cost that it would take to push it to the end.
Lorien
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2004
- Messages
- 5,197
About 800 more to go for 1 million backers and we breezed through $92M. We are likely to hit $100M before year's end, we have the anniversary sale coming up and the release of 2.0 will inject a lot more backers.
What the whiners are quick to ignore is that when polled publicly on the official website the overwhelming majority of backers always chose the "take your time, do it right" way instead of the "wahh wahh I want it now" way. The only issue here is their short selective memory but in the end they'll just end up as the background noise they've always been.
What the whiners are quick to ignore is that when polled publicly on the official website the overwhelming majority of backers always chose the "take your time, do it right" way instead of the "wahh wahh I want it now" way. The only issue here is their short selective memory but in the end they'll just end up as the background noise they've always been.
Last edited:
Erasmus354
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
- Messages
- 9,450
The sour state? Development is doing just fine. People don't complain that other AAA games took 5-7 years to develop. Why do you feel it is appropriate to complain about this AAA game not being completed in half that time? The initial timelines targeted a much lower fidelity and much lower scope than what they are making now. The only difference between SC and a AAA game is the level of insight the public has into the development of the game. You know a whole lot more about the process with SC than you do with Skyrim or GTA or Destiny.
So yes, a 5 year development is entirely reasonable, and entirely appropriate for the game that is being made. You are the one that is wrong and responsible for the sour state of the community.
Eh, it doesn't surprise me that the "whiners" don't know what the vast majority of the backers want to see. Partly because I think most of the "whiners" aren't even backers of the game no matter what they claim. They are just here to troll and ultimately have no vested interest in the game at all. If they had backed the game they would be more informed than they are.
Last edited:
That's not how it works. You have liability towards the $91 million dollars in backer funding first.
Again.....money isn't unlimited to where CIG can carry on development based on a "when it's done" timeline.
Allow me to remind you at $55 million CR indicated "We keep a healthy cash reserve so that if funding stopped tomorrow we would still be able to deliver Star Citizen (not quite to the current level of ambition, but well above what was planned in Oct 2012)."
So...at almost twice that, why does he keep selling ships? Why do we not have a concrete foundation to play with?
drklu
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2013
- Messages
- 2,892
How do you figure it is slow? Production started ramping up in 2013. Considering what they are trying to do that doesn't seem very long to me with the massive technical hurdles they are trying to overcome. Even more so considering they have not had 270 employees that whole time. But I do get the frustrations of them giving release dates and constantly overshooting them. It really does not sit well with people when it keeps happening. It's like they don't feel enough pressure from backers because we can't force them to do it like a publisher could.
No, it is wanting them to deliver what was promised and what they took people's money for. It has nothing to do with publisher's meddling and profit chasing. It is holding them to their own promises, pitched vision and even a resemblance of self set deadlines. That is why I didn't have any issue with initial delays by months or even a year or two, depending on the progress shown. But enough is enough. While I want a BDSSE and gave them money and time to make it, I also want it in a barely reasonable timeframe.
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but Star Citizen has always been about PU + single player.
You clearly forgot this is a 10 year project where they do not stop innovating and improving the game even after it is released, that is why they do not stop selling ship they need money to continue making the game even after it is "complete" because there will always be more to add.
The foundation you keep whining about wanting to play is the baby pu it is close.
drklu
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2013
- Messages
- 2,892
Really? It seems like that is what Roberts was saying in the CitCon livestream. I wasn't around for the initial campaign so I could have missed that.
And you clearly forgot you are full of shit and are making crap and timelines up as you go. CR himself indicated ship sales stop after PU is live: " Once fully live SC in-game items will only be purchasable with in-game credits."
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/173901/#Comment_173901
You are clearly foolish to think i don't know ship sales end once the PU is live and playable with a working economy LOL...
They are not going to stop ship sales now tho like you claim to want them to do UNTIL the PU is live how hard is that to understand?
Why would you cut off your funding before you have a working model in place to replace it? That would be moronic.
Ship sales will continue until the PU is released in Beta form where no more wipe will happen.
If you take out every developer comment, every community comment, factor in the average AAA development time, and look at what has been shown publicly over the course of development it kills all the drama. What you start seeing is a game still in early to mid life development with tons of potential. I was impressed with what they showed at their event but then again I don't keep up with the bullshit hysteria and only check in every 3-6 months.
FearTheCow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,678
I believe the term is "Sunk Cost fallacy," people on the website are already invested in the game, a good chunk very heavily, so it is easier to rationalize blown deadlines, lack of progress, and continued milking of them bease the alternative is the realization you and them have been lied to and there is extremely valid reasons to doubt anything said by CR.
You just contradicted yourself: " that is why they do not stop selling ship they need money to continue making the game even after it is "complete" because there will always be more to add."
You are absolutely delusional and emotionally caught up in this "dream".
Misrepresenting people's concerns, as always. You're one of the whales, you believe in CIG blindly, you don't accept any criticism, all the rest are whiny babies. We get it.
SC is close to 4 years in development, 3 if you don't count the initial smaller production, and almost $100 million dollars in, with too little to show for it.
And accountability, respect of budget, management...
3-4 years and >$90 mil for a two map AC module is most certainly not reasonable. I disagree about your assessment regarding the community and also care little about its state when compared to the game's one.
First of all, CIG have constantly shown they care little about what the majority of the backers want, as evident by years old giant katamari threads with unresolved concerns and multiple polls taken both by themselves and the community. Second of all, one's backer status has nothing to do with his arguments merrit. As for myself, counting the SC itself and SC specific hardware I've bought, I'm more than $500 in and a veteran backer (in a country with an average monthly salary of $750). I have every interest for it to succeed, I'm still not thinking about asking for a refund and I still believe, though with more and more doubts and concerns, that something will come out eventually with a potential of being very good.
From my perspective, your "all is well, nothing to see here" attitude is as bad as the trolls you've mentioned.
That's what worries me. They should be able to stop receiving all funding today and still be able to finish the game, something I don't believe they would be able to do at all.
I never expected them to be able to finish the game in the initially promised deadline and was fully prepared to not have it 100% finished before 2016. Mind you, that was 2 years over the promised timeline and in 2013. What I wasn't prepared for was for them to have so little to show and be so far behind at the end of 2015. while being several times overfunded.