Star Citizen Switching To Amazon's Lumberyard Game Engine

EODetroit · Dec 26, 2016

Er, haters: I hate to break it to you but the alpha is playable right now and pretty dang awesome. You should try it more and hate it less. They just had a 48 hour free trial that might still be going on so maybe you can go see for yourself instead of spewing misinformation.

Also, this playable alpha is already using the abovementioned Lumberyard tech. So yeah, it didn't cost them any development time to switch, other than, as Chris Roberts said, a couple devs doing two days of work. If you think this is a bad sign for Star Citizen, you're 1) An idiot, and/or 2) you're deliberately spreading lies.

EODetroit · Dec 26, 2016

Watch it and weep:

M76 · Dec 26, 2016

Kor said:
Lumberyard is effectively a forked build of Cryengine 4 so it's not really a surprise since Crytek is slowly kicking the bucket and support will be harder to come by.

Yeah it is possible that Crytek wasn't giving them the kind of support they expected for the money. So it's understandable from that regard. But taking their customers for fools and saying that an entire engine switch can be done by 2 people in a day on such a large project is what makes the skeptics even more skeptical about the project.
Of course their blindfolded fans gobble the bullshit up, but it's not them who needs convincing. They wouldn't bat an eye even if they told the truth about the engine switch.

M76 · Dec 26, 2016

EODetroit said:
Er, haters: I hate to break it to you but the alpha is playable right now and pretty dang awesome. You should try it more and hate it less. They just had a 48 hour free trial that might still be going on so maybe you can go see for yourself instead of spewing misinformation.

Also, this playable alpha is already using the abovementioned Lumberyard tech. So yeah, it didn't cost them any development time to switch, other than, as Chris Roberts said, a couple devs doing two days of work. If you think this is a bad sign for Star Citizen, you're 1) An idiot, and/or 2) you're deliberately spreading lies.

It didn't occur to you that they could've been working on the engine switch for weeks or even months in the background? How can you tell that it really only took a day? Right there is no way to tell except by what CR said. Which goes full 180 against my 15 years of experience as a developer. The only one spewing misinformation is CR, I'm giving actual information based on years of experience working with various gaming engines. But feel free to just ignore that because CR came up with this bullshit 1 day timeframe to save face. I mean seriously. It's like the car mechanic telling you that they can do a full paint job on your car with 2 guys in a day, no the paint doesn't need time to dry, and they can strip the entire car in 10 minutes.

M76 · Dec 26, 2016

EODetroit said:
Watch it and weep:

Why should I weep?

I don't care about some haphazardly slapped together pre-alpha. Because let's face it, by conventional development rhetoric alpha means feature ready. And we all know how far this is from being feature ready.
Actually with the kind of feature creep Star Citizen is experiencing it will never be feature ready ever. Yeah they're cool new features, but they're ultimately meaningless if the game never gets finished because of them.

I was promised to play SQ42 two years ago! And please don't come up with the excuse "you don't know how AAA development works if you expected them to finish in 2 years" So yeah I'm the bad guy because I believed what they said in the kickstarter pitch. But wait. Aren't you the one telling us that we should believe blindly what they are saying now?
So how does that work? You're stupid for having believed them 4 years ago, and you're also stupid for not believing them now?

mope54 · Dec 26, 2016

M76 said:
But taking their customers for fools and saying that an entire engine switch can be done by 2 people in a day on such a large project is what makes the skeptics even more skeptical about the project.

They didn't say that. In fact, they said the opposite. Lumberyard is CryEngine with the backend for AWS. CIG took that code and merged it into their fork of CryEngine. I've worked with CryEngine1 years ago and unless something has drastically changed that process would have been rudimentary. I guess you've been working with game engines for 15 years and whatnot so you claim to be an expert on the topic, but it sure sounds like the bullshit is coming from you when you call that an "entire engine switch." But I don't know, I'm not a game developer. I have friends who are and I've worked with them on side projects over the decades as a hobbyist and they told me long ago that game engines back then were modular and so we would have a game engine, a physics engine, a graphics engine, etc. so I don't know why implementing code for using Amazon servers makes you think there would be any significant impact on the rest of the development process. Maybe game engines are monolithic now and altering where the game is served from unravels the whole house of cards. Seems a bit silly but one never knows I guess, stranger things have happened.

That said, your own example was that this would take about two weeks instead of two days. Even if I just said, ok you're right, then we're looking at either this happening two weeks ago and finalizing before the announcement and CIG lied about it for no good fucking reason other than to troll people *or* they just started and it'll be done in two weeks. I certainly wouldn't put it past CIG to implement something that still had work to do and letting it fly live for us to toy around with--that has been the entire process so far, after all. Either way, big fucking deal. Your gripe is that they made a development choice that impacted them anywhere from 2 days to 2 weeks. That has to be the most ridiculous critique of a game developer's timeline I've ever heard.

M76 · Dec 26, 2016

mope54 said:
They didn't say that. In fact, they said the opposite. Lumberyard is CryEngine with the backend for AWS. CIG took that code and merged it into their fork of CryEngine. I've worked with CryEngine1 years ago and unless something has drastically changed that process would have been rudimentary. I guess you've been working with game engines for 15 years and whatnot so you claim to be an expert on the topic, but it sure sounds like the bullshit is coming from you when you call that an "entire engine switch." But I don't know, I'm not a game developer. I have friends who are and I've worked with them on side projects over the decades as a hobbyist and they told me long ago that game engines back then were modular and so we would have a game engine, a physics engine, a graphics engine, etc. so I don't know why implementing code for using Amazon servers makes you think there would be any significant impact on the rest of the development process. Maybe game engines are monolithic now and altering where the game is served from unravels the whole house of cards. Seems a bit silly but one never knows I guess, stranger things have happened.

I didn't say I worked with game engines for 15 years, I said I was a developer for 15 years, and within that time I worked with game engines as well. But that's besides the point. The point is that to me switching an engine sounds impossible in a day with two guys, on a large project as this. As I said even if you use the same engine but try to switch to a newer version there will be skeletons popping out of the closet. If nothing would've changed why switch the engine in the first place? And if things are different then there ought to be problems. I can't imagine doing it with two guys in a day, that's it.

Oh and modular doesn't mean they're seamlessly interchangeable. It means you can use different graphics engine with a different physics engine, with a sound api from a third place, and it will work. But once you committed to say a physics solution replacing that with another is pure pain.

That said, your own example was that this would take about two weeks instead of two days. Even if I just said, ok you're right, then we're looking at either this happening two weeks ago and finalizing before the announcement and CIG lied about it for no good fucking reason other than to troll people *or* they just started and it'll be done in two weeks. I certainly wouldn't put it past CIG to implement something that still had work to do and letting it fly live for us to toy around with--that has been the entire process so far, after all. Either way, big fucking deal. Your gripe is that they made a development choice that impacted them anywhere from 2 days to 2 weeks. That has to be the most ridiculous critique of a game developer's timeline I've ever heard.

I already cited the reason. They know they're very far off the timetable they're at least 3-4 years off plan by a very conservative estimate, imo they're 5 years off and counting with their feature creep. So they're trying to downplay the engine switch, that's more than enough reason to lie IMO. Only they went too far with the downplay. If they've said 1 week working in conjunction with Amazon developers 24/7 I'd have believed it, and would've said good on them.

Being familiar with crytek budapest my gripe is not with the engine switch, my gripe is they lying about it's impact. I thought cryengine was an odd choice back when they first announced it but for different reasons.

Dekoth-E- · Dec 26, 2016

Xaeos said:
Until we see major evidence there is something to worry about

The reason why some of us are critics of this is because there is a laundry list of major evidence that things are not right. There just seems to be a handful of people around here who are so deep in denial about it that they can't see it. I think some of you are confused and are convinced that those of us "hating" on SC are doing so because we don't like the game or aren't interested in it. That couldn't be further from the truth. We are "hating" on it because we wanted it to be a success and fortunately never deluded ourselves so we see all the warning signs that even IF it manages to come out it is just going to be a massive pay2win disaster.

Azrak · Dec 26, 2016

M76 said:
they're at least 3-4 years off plan

What plan are you referring to?

04SVT · Dec 26, 2016

People yelling "PONZI SCHEME", don't seem to even know the basics of what a Ponzi scheme is.

Hint: no "investors" are getting money. Not a dime, never have, never planned to never will. Thus, the whole idea of SC being a Ponzi scheme is... well bullshit.

Lets not even get into "OMG nothing has changed in forever". Which again, is either an out right lie, or you just are not paying much attention.

Yep, Star Citizen is behind schedule.
Yep, Star Citizen is producing a huge game.
Yep, Star Citizen still maintains a very open development process.
Yep, people for some odd reason think a failed video game developer, that is well known to lie, cheat and outright steal, is a source of accurate information.
No, its not pay to win. People that think it is have no clue what is actually going on in the game.
The move "to" Lumberjack is already done. 2.6 is out. Which uses lumberjack. Are people saying they should have stuck with base CryTek stuff, because you know the company Crytek probably won't be around much longer?
So called "feature creep", was paid for and selected by the people putting moneys into the game. Not by the developers. Backers said "we want this and we are willing to push the timeline out to get this". Its right there on the Funding Stretch Goals.
People claiming a "haphazardly thrown together alpha" haven't a clue of what they are talking about.
People claiming that its not Alpha, apparently don't understand the Software Release Life-Cycle and don't understand that Alpha's, by definition may not contain all of the features that are planned for the final version. And feature complete typically doesn't happen until "feature freeze". But what do I know, I've only been developing software for nearly 20 years.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of folks are actively testing 2.6 right now. And they are having fun doing it.

So nope, it has almost nothing in common with DNF. Star Citizen DID NOT change engines, CIG is using Amazon as the engine partner versus using CryTek and had people been paying attention (oh and not accusing Chris Roberts of lying about it) they would have understood that.

But for some reason, some people like to hang on the words of a failed video game developer that thinks he has inside sources (one of the big ones he loves to quote has about a 20% success rate for his insider information and we will just leave it at that.), or worse, just tag along with the Goons because, well the Goons want to see everything burn...

John721 · Dec 26, 2016

EODetroit said:
Watch it and weep:

Pretty badass trailer. They should hire the person that made it.

Meeho · Dec 26, 2016

04SVT said:
Lets not even get into "OMG nothing has changed in forever". Which again, is either an out right lie, or you just are not paying much attention.

True. The JPEG list has constantly grown.

Yep, Star Citizen still maintains a very open development process.

Lots of content coming from CIG doesn't mean it's an open development process. SC development is far from open. Their presentation is mostly fluff and empty promises with little credible and truly meaningful information.

Yep, people for some odd reason think a failed video game developer, that is well known to lie, cheat and outright steal, is a source of accurate information.

Is the Smart butthurt still strong? SC fans just can't let it go.

No, its not pay to win. People that think it is have no clue what is actually going on in the game.

True, it's pay to not play currently.

The move "to" Lumberjack is already done. 2.6 is out. Which uses lumberjack. Are people saying they should have stuck with base CryTek stuff, because you know the company Crytek probably won't be around much longer?

The writing was on the wall when CIG took many of their developers.

So called "feature creep", was paid for and selected by the people putting moneys into the game. Not by the developers. Backers said "we want this and we are willing to push the timeline out to get this". Its right there on the Funding Stretch Goals

True, that's one of the reasons the game is in a state it's in right now and why no sane developer does things the way CIG does. It's also the reason why CR had to be put in his place when he did the same thing with WC.

People claiming that its not Alpha, apparently don't understand the Software Release Life-Cycle and don't understand that Alpha's, by definition may not contain all of the features that are planned for the final version.

True. It usually does contain more than 0.1% of them, though.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of folks are actively testing 2.6 right now. And they are having fun doing it.

Well that settles it. I'm sold. Where do I pledge?

So nope, it has almost nothing in common with DNF.

True, DNF eventually came out.

But for some reason, some people like to hang on the words of a failed video game developer that thinks he has inside sources (one of the big ones he loves to quote has about a 20% success rate for his insider information and we will just leave it at that.), or worse, just tag along with the Goons because, well the Goons want to see everything burn...

You do know that technically CR ended up a failed video game developer himself? Then a failed movie producer. He is a successful con artist now, so, hey, silver linings.

Postalgeist · Dec 26, 2016

So, how many pre-made game engines did Chris Roberts switch to when he made Wing Commander? Or was that a flop because of lack of in-game purchases and game engines with pre-made assets, and having to code for PCS when they weren't all 100% compatible (Tandy/IBM, CGA/EGA/VGA, Ad-Lib/Roland, etc.)?

Gorankar · Dec 26, 2016

Postalgeist said:
So, how many pre-made game engines did Chris Roberts switch to when he made Wing Commander? Or was that a flop because of lack of in-game purchases and game engines with pre-made assets, and having to code for PCS when they weren't all 100% compatible (Tandy/IBM, CGA/EGA/VGA, Ad-Lib/Roland, etc.)?

There was 2 years between the PC Wing Commander release and the NES release. Are you really going to compare the complexity of porting to another engine a sub 50 Mb DOS game, to what will likely be a several Gb game? I don't believe CR. He can prove us all wrong by finishing the game and shipping it b4 it reaches DNF status. Or worse, b4 it reaches DNCare status.

M76 · Dec 26, 2016

Azrak said:
What plan are you referring to?

Their original timetable they promised when they started collecting money for the project.

I mean I assumed at that point that the project is already well under way then, but as it turned out they haven't even began development when they promised the 2014 release date for SQ42 and 2015 for the persistent universe. So they mislead right from the start. Why should I start to believe them now?

04SVT · Dec 26, 2016

Meeho said:
True. The JPEG list has constantly grown.

Seventy six of which are flyable currently. Lemme know when you every get a real item when purchasing a video game. Do you bitch and moan when you get a new ship in Elite: Dangerous? or in NMS? Because NO ONE is making anyone buy ships with cash, and if people do buy other ships with cash, they are funding the game. Every time someone says this "JPEG ship" bullshit, you sound just like Derek Smart. Which isn't a good thing.

Lots of content coming from CIG doesn't mean it's an open development process. SC development is far from open. Their presentation is mostly fluff and empty promises with little credible and truly meaningful information.

Show me one other larger game that is this open. And yeah, its open, far far more than any other game is, and if you think its just fluff and not meaningful, you are not bothering to look at all.

Is the Smart butthurt still strong? SC fans just can't let it go.

Doth sayeth the guy using a Skippy quote in his posts...

True, it's pay to not play currently.

Again, a lie, there is PLENTY to do in 2.6. Plenty of ships to fly, plenty of missions, and of course Star Marine. So if you honestly think there is nothing to play, once again, you are either a liar, or not paying attention.

The writing was on the wall when CIG took many of their developers.

The writing was on the wall when CryTek stopped paying its employees (and no, I'm not talking about the most recent one in early December).

You do know that technically CR ended up a failed video game developer himself? Then a failed movie producer. He is a successful con artist now, so, hey, silver linings.

Hrm, Times of Lore, not a failure, Wing Commander series? Not failures, Pacific Strike & Strike Commander? Not failures. Even Starlancer and Freelancer (which C.R. did stay onboard consulting for) were not failures. So not quite sure what you are getting at here with "failed video game developer".
Movies? Hit and miss list.

Con-artist? More lies.

M76 · Dec 26, 2016

04SVT said:
People yelling "PONZI SCHEME", don't seem to even know the basics of what a Ponzi scheme is.

Hint: no "investors" are getting money. Not a dime, never have, never planned to never will. Thus, the whole idea of SC being a Ponzi scheme is... well bullshit.

The real investors here are the backers, and the idiots who keep throwing money at them buying their virtual starships and add-ons. So obviously they're not getting any money back.

Lets not even get into "OMG nothing has changed in forever". Which again, is either an out right lie, or you just are not paying much attention.

Claimed by nobody ever. The actual problem is that too many things are changing all the time. Instead of settling on something and finalizing things they come up with newer and newer features and new ships to implement. That all takes time.

Yep, Star Citizen is behind schedule.

Good on you for admitting that.

Yep, Star Citizen is producing a huge game.

No they are producing a game that gets larger every day. We would've been fine with what they promised in the original campaign. I don't know how can't you see it that if they don't stop the feature creep the game will never be finalized.

Yep, Star Citizen still maintains a very open development process.

I don't know what do you mean by that.

Yep, people for some odd reason think a failed video game developer, that is well known to lie, cheat and outright steal, is a source of accurate information.

No, people know CR's track record that he needs someone behind him kicking him in the ass from time to time to get things done. I'm accusing him of mismanagement.

No, its not pay to win. People that think it is have no clue what is actually going on in the game.

So what do you call the fact that people can buy ships that are much larger and more powerful than anything they promised would be in the game originally? That's the very definition of pay to win.
Or the fact that people can buy insurance for their virtual ships? That's literally pay to get a bonus life.

The move "to" Lumberjack is already done. 2.6 is out. Which uses lumberjack. Are people saying they should have stuck with base CryTek stuff, because you know the company Crytek probably won't be around much longer?

Nobody questioned it being done. We question it being done in a day by two guys.

So called "feature creep", was paid for and selected by the people putting moneys into the game. Not by the developers. Backers said "we want this and we are willing to push the timeline out to get this". Its right there on the Funding Stretch Goals.

If they never would've offered up those features then people couldn't have "voted" for them with their wallet. So it's backers responsibility now to take development time into account and not back too many stretch goals? You know how ridiculously misguided that sounds?
No it's all on CI don't even try to shift the blame. It was them who started putting up new stretch goals. People were sold on the original project, there was no need for the additional shit they put up at the end of the campaign, when all the original stretch goals were already met. But they did it nonetheless in hopes of getting a few more dollars.

People claiming a "haphazardly thrown together alpha" haven't a clue of what they are talking about.

All of their alphas were haphazardly tacked together so far. They never seemed like parts of a big game, they were stand alone modules. I haven't seen 2.6 yet, because I'm not interested in one tenth of a game. They promised a full game would be out two years ago, and they produce a fraction of a game two years on. And I'm the stupid one for not liking that very much?

People claiming that its not Alpha, apparently don't understand the Software Release Life-Cycle and don't understand that Alpha's, by definition may not contain all of the features that are planned for the final version. And feature complete typically doesn't happen until "feature freeze". But what do I know, I've only been developing software for nearly 20 years.

Where I come from Alpha literally means feature ready. But the common folk started using the term "alpha" for everything that is not a final game. Have one line of code and they'd call it an alpha. It all started with the HL2 leak. That everyone called an alpha. Well actually that was much closer to alpha than Star Citizen is.
No, the correct terminology is pre-alpha until all major features are implemented.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of folks are actively testing 2.6 right now. And they are having fun doing it.

And? That doesn't change the fact that anything we could call a full game is still years out.

So nope, it has almost nothing in common with DNF. Star Citizen DID NOT change engines, CIG is using Amazon as the engine partner versus using CryTek and had people been paying attention (oh and not accusing Chris Roberts of lying about it) they would have understood that.

The news article literally says engine change, the explanation by CR also says engine change. So it's a lie? There was no change? If there is literally nothing different. Why change anything? It doesn't make a shred of sense.

But for some reason, some people like to hang on the words of a failed video game developer that thinks he has inside sources (one of the big ones he loves to quote has about a 20% success rate for his insider information and we will just leave it at that.), or worse, just tag along with the Goons because, well the Goons want to see everything burn...

Who are you referring to who has insider sources? I don't need insider information to know that a 1 day switch from one engine to another engine is unfathomable. Even if they're both offspring of the same original Cryengine build. He literally says they stopped using new builds of cryengine because they know amazon was using the same build from 2015. To me that means that they knew even back then that they wanted to go over to Lumbeyard. If he came out and said that we were prepping for the move for a year and we made it as painless as possible, and now we're finally on the lumberyard branch, then I'd have had nothing but respect. But coming up with this one day bullshit makes me sad and angry.

Azrak · Dec 26, 2016

M76 said:
Their original timetable they promised when they started collecting money for the project.
I mean I assumed at that point that the project is already well under way then, but as it turned out they haven't even began development when they promised the 2014 release date for SQ42 and 2015 for the persistent universe. So they mislead right from the start. Why should I start to believe them now?

Back when the Kickstarter campaign started, Chris had no idea how much money he would raise. Nobody did. Who wanted a space game? Nobody knew. No other established publisher was making anything space-sim-related at the time, so the idea of SC was a feeler to see what would happen. It was envisioned as a modernized "Wing Commander" type of game with an online component to it.

I think he was hoping for $2 million at most, so the original design, goals and timetables for SQ42 and PU (2014-2015 release) were made based on that. The game elements and depth were much, much simpler back then. He never expected to get the ridiculous amount of money that they got back then and have now.
The unexpected money and ongoing backer campaign on their website created a dilemma: Create the original game as laid out on KS (and what to do with the extra funds that won't stop rolling in), or add detail to the games (both SQ42 and PU) as more money was pledged. In general, most backers wanted more detail and depth added to the game, so more goals were added. Finally it just became so stupid with the goals that they stopped them at $65 million and are working on all of them now.

I know Chris is known for making lofty goals and causing delays, and this is no exception, that is for sure. But the good thing is that CIG realized this a while ago and that is why his brother Erin was put in charge of major aspects of the game's development. Erin and many members of his development team, who were behind the successful Lego series of games, moved over to CIG to work on SQ42 and the PU a while back. This helps reign in Chris and his ideas and keeps the development goals more manageable.

As I said in another thread, the gamble that Chris is taking is that he believes the extra time taken to develop the complex systems and components into the game now, rather than later, will result in a better game later. There will be (and are) delays in getting stuff out, but as the major components are completed (like 64bit positioning, localized physics grid, procedural planets, etc.) the ability to grow the game into what Chris envisions should be easier to do.
A good example of that is the procedurally generated planets. It will make creating new planets and systems much easier/faster than doing it by hand manually yet better than just letting an algorithm design the whole thing (a la NMS).
Will this gamble pay off? I don't know. It makes sense to me as a developer, but I understand what other people are complaining about too. It's tough to know what the right decision is. Build it simpler now, then modify and enhance (which potentially wastes backer money each time a design is re-visited/re-written), or build it complex now, but delay everything.

I'm OK with how things are progressing at this point because I can see what the goals are, but I understand why others do not agree.

tetris42 · Dec 26, 2016

M76 said:
It didn't occur to you that they could've been working on the engine switch for weeks or even months in the background? How can you tell that it really only took a day? Right there is no way to tell except by what CR said. Which goes full 180 against my 15 years of experience as a developer. The only one spewing misinformation is CR, I'm giving actual information based on years of experience working with various gaming engines. But feel free to just ignore that because CR came up with this bullshit 1 day timeframe to save face. I mean seriously. It's like the car mechanic telling you that they can do a full paint job on your car with 2 guys in a day, no the paint doesn't need time to dry, and they can strip the entire car in 10 minutes.

I don't really have a stake in this, other than that I'm thinking it could be a fun space game once it's done. I think there was a study not long ago that should basically EVERY successful Kickstarted game came out late. For some people, things didn't go according to plan regarding the timeline, therefore it's a scam, failure, etc. I think that's kind of shortsighted and it's obvious many developers can't make the deadlines they would like to. From my perspective, it's all about the finish line. Right now SC is late, but it's also still being worked on by dedicated people with a playable alpha and semi-regular media updates. So it's still ongoing, thus I think the verdict is still out. While it no doubt has feature creep, this isn't Duke Nukem Forever. Duke Nukem Forever was an awesome 2001 trailer, then 10 years of silence.

Semantics · Dec 26, 2016

Palladium@SG said:
It also propelled collective denialism to never seen before heights.

Well it's their application of advanced vaporware that gets me, really bringing it to a whole nuther level with those 500+ dollar ships to boot.

Taldren · Dec 26, 2016

dewbak75 said:
On the other hand, those guys don't have much credibility with a lot of people given the history of this project.

I don't understand this statement.

People said you couldn't make CryEngine 64-bit, they did it.
People said they couldn't make persistent planets, they did it.
People said they couldn't make multiple physics grids, they did it.

It sounds like people just want it to fail for LOLz.

They are on Year 4 of a AAA game development which is not unheard of at all in the industry and the game has greatly advanced year to year. The only thing different is that you get to play what they have at the time where every other game keeps it secret until the beta stage and by then the community has little to no input at all in the game direction.

M76 · Dec 26, 2016

Azrak said:
Back when the Kickstarter campaign started, Chris had no idea how much money he would raise. Nobody did. Who wanted a space game? Nobody knew. No other established publisher was making anything space-sim-related at the time, so the idea of SC was a feeler to see what would happen. It was envisioned as a modernized "Wing Commander" type of game with an online component to it.

I think he was hoping for $2 million at most, so the original design, goals and timetables for SQ42 and PU (2014-2015 release) were made based on that. The game elements and depth were much, much simpler back then. He never expected to get the ridiculous amount of money that they got back then and have now.

So we are to blame for giving him too much money? As I mentioned in my above post it wasn't the backers who came up with new stretch goals after each previous goal was met. Why couldn't they say, that OK we're not putting out more stretch goals because we'll never get the game ready? That would've been the responsible thing to do. But no they smelled green, and the greed kicked in. They tried to milk every last penny and created ridiculous amounts of hype and promised features that quadrupled the development time.

That's why many think it's a scheme instead of an actual development. I'm not one of those, but I can see why someone could think that. As long as enough money flows in from virtual add-on sales, they have no incentive to finish the game, because they can go on producing new models of ships and selling those for real money until people get tired of it. And judging by the number of shills and fanboys that time may never arrive.

The unexpected money and ongoing backer campaign on their website created a dilemma: Create the original game as laid out on KS (and what to do with the extra funds that won't stop rolling in), or add detail to the games (both SQ42 and PU) as more money was pledged. In general, most backers wanted more detail and depth added to the game, so more goals were added. Finally it just became so stupid with the goals that they stopped them at $65 million and are working on all of them now.

You said it not me. And who came up with the stupid goals? Right it was them, not the backers.

I know Chris is known for making lofty goals and causing delays, and this is no exception, that is for sure. But the good thing is that CIG realized this a while ago and that is why his brother Erin was put in charge of major aspects of the game's development. Erin and many members of his development team, who were behind the successful Lego series of games, moved over to CIG to work on SQ42 and the PU a while back. This helps reign in Chris and his ideas and keeps the development goals more manageable.

And we're yet to see even a shred of evidence that development of SQ42 is even progressing. That's why I signed up for the project to get a good single player campaign like the wing commander series. And I'm loosing hope every day that I'll ever get that game, because they seem to focus on Star Citizen almost exclusively. So yes after 2 years past the deadline I'm getting frustrated.

As I said in another thread, the gamble that Chris is taking is that he believes the extra time taken to develop the complex systems and components into the game now, rather than later, will result in a better game later. There will be (and are) delays in getting stuff out, but as the major components are completed (like 64bit positioning, localized physics grid, procedural planets, etc.) the ability to grow the game into what Chris envisions should be easier to do.
A good example of that is the procedurally generated planets. It will make creating new planets and systems much easier/faster than doing it by hand manually yet better than just letting an algorithm design the whole thing (a la NMS).
Will this gamble pay off? I don't know. It makes sense to me as a developer, but I understand what other people are complaining about too. It's tough to know what the right decision is. Build it simpler now, then modify and enhance (which potentially wastes backer money each time a design is re-visited/re-written), or build it complex now, but delay everything.

I'm OK with how things are progressing at this point because I can see what the goals are, but I understand why others do not agree.

Well I've arrived at the end of my patience. And the progress they made is far from what I'd call satisfactory. Yes there is progress. But at the current pace I can't see it being ready in another 2 years at least.
So when they say shit like one day engine change it hurts, because I smell bullshit. And the only reason they'd be bullshitting is if they're even more behind schedule than it seems.
It seems to me that they're trying to finish the MMO before the campaign. Which makes no sense, since you don't need procedurally generated assets, and you don't need a ton of other features to get the campaign finished. All you need is the dogfighting, and add some cutscenes and you have wing commander. That's all I'm asking for. If they'd have focused their efforts to get SQ42 out the door as quickly as possible. Perhaps even just a first chapter of it. Then everyone would be more lenient to give them more time to finish the persistent universe, because there would be something final on the table. Instead we get these alpha releases hanging in thin air.

noko · Dec 26, 2016

lol, just let me know when ready then I will look. For me, who cares about this news, if it works out and makes a better full game that I and you can play - the better. For those who invested - you took a risk for good or bad, wasting time complaining about it really just hurts you.

mope54 · Dec 26, 2016

M76 said:
All you need is the dogfighting, and add some cutscenes and you have wing commander. That's all I'm asking for.

If all you want is some dogfighting and cutscenes with some missions then download 2.6 and give it a shot. You already said you haven't for a long time because it was just a hodgepodge of things slapped together. A lot has changed, many ships are flyable, dogfighting ensues, FPS fighting ensues, missions are given, gear can be bought, etc. The point is you're grinding an axe on an old sharpening stone of info.

It doesn't make sense unless you're determined to be miserable, which is some people's version of "fun"

incidentally, CIG and Amazon have been in collaboration on this for over a year. You wouldn't know that, of course, because it's clear from your responses that you are no longer actively following development of the game.

noko said:
lol, just let me know when ready then I will look.

It's at a relatively fun to play state right now. I hop on every few months. I don't stop playing because it sucks I stop playing because I don't want to burn myself out on it.

noko · Dec 26, 2016

mope54 said:
It's at a relatively fun to play state right now. I hop on every few months. I don't stop playing because it sucks I stop playing because I don't want to burn myself out on it.

Ditto, except once done I would then want to play if it looks good. Not going to wait around and around to finish a story line, move on etc. For me too much a waste of time. Then to get involved with the negative unending posts to find out what is the status is not worth it to me. So about as much I want to spend on this.

mope54 · Dec 26, 2016

noko said:
Ditto, except once done I would then want to play if it looks good. Not going to wait around and around to finish a story line, move on etc. For me too much a waste of time. Then to get involved with the negative unending posts to find out what is the status is not worth it to me. So about as much I want to spend on this.

There isn't really a storyline yet that I've seen. It's just FPS and ships with missions that grant in-game currency where you can then go and obtain gear. The best way I've experienced it was to hop in with some friends, blow some shit up for a few hours, and then go play something else. Yeah, there are bugs and some were pretty frustrating but I didn't care enough to try and trouble shoot them I just went and played something else.

But I'm also only in it for about $30 bucks because I got two of those AMD packages and then upgraded one of them and use that one ship to change it around. I probably messed up on that because one of the AMD ships would probably go for some pretty good money now but I want to keep it

I didn't realize I was going to want to keep it in the beginning, I was just going to use it as a cheap way to upgrade to ships I thought I would like.

How much it pisses you off or it gives you enjoyment is going to largely depend on your expectations. Well, I pre-ordered Crysis1 and tolerated Crytek through Warhead so my expectations when it comes to developers working with CryEngine is basement or even dungeon depth low!

noko · Dec 26, 2016

mope54 said:
There isn't really a storyline yet that I've seen. It's just FPS and ships with missions that grant in-game currency where you can then go and obtain gear. The best way I've experienced it was to hop in with some friends, blow some shit up for a few hours, and then go play something else. Yeah, there are bugs and some were pretty frustrating but I didn't care enough to try and trouble shoot them I just went and played something else.

But I'm also only in it for about $30 bucks because I got two of those AMD packages and then upgraded one of them and use that one ship to change it around. I probably messed up on that because one of the AMD ships would probably go for some pretty good money now but I want to keep it I didn't realize I was going to want to keep it in the beginning, I was just going to use it as a cheap way to upgrade to ships I thought I would like.

How much it pisses you off or it gives you enjoyment is going to largely depend on your expectations. Well, I pre-ordered Crysis1 and tolerated Crytek through Warhead so my expectations when it comes to developers working with CryEngine is basement or even dungeon depth low!

Actually following development through different stages can be fun if you are directly involved - I was for like 3 years with TrueSpace. Outside though with an hour glass, no thanks. I think this title has great potential but for me I will wait but do see others can get a lot out of it from seeing how a major title is developed with all the pluses and negatives. You might enjoy that part more then the game itself once done.

mope54 · Dec 26, 2016

Yeah, I agree with you. I just meant that if you want to hop in a spaceship and blow others up it's ready for that. Not much more, but it's ready for that. And in terms of bugs or lack of storyline it's not much worse than Crysis1

Meeho · Dec 26, 2016

04SVT said:
Hrm, Times of Lore, not a failure, Wing Commander series? Not failures, Pacific Strike & Strike Commander? Not failures. Even Starlancer and Freelancer (which C.R. did stay onboard consulting for) were not failures. So not quite sure what you are getting at here with "failed video game developer".
Movies? Hit and miss list.

Books were written on WC development and all of CR's failings started to show but outside influence made the release posible. Freelancer was a failure and practically a mirror image of SC development, only they were able to fire him then and finish the game. No such luck now. As for Hollywood, his films and lawsuits are proof enough. He didn't return to gaming because od his successful movie career.

I've been following SC from the beginning and had been actively participating in the community. I've read all the same excuses year after year. The blind fanboys that are still sticking around are but a source of amusement at this point.

M76 · Dec 26, 2016

mope54 said:
It's at a relatively fun to play state right now. I hop on every few months. I don't stop playing because it sucks I stop playing because I don't want to burn myself out on it.

That's exactly why I don't want to play until it's finished.

To me dogfighting for the sake of dogfighting is meaningless. I need that story to give it meaning.

PersonalJ · Dec 26, 2016

Azrak said:
I think he was hoping for $2 million at most, so the original design, goals and timetables for SQ42 and PU (2014-2015 release) were made based on that. The game elements and depth were much, much simpler back then. He never expected to get the ridiculous amount of money that they got back then and have now.
The unexpected money and ongoing backer campaign on their website created a dilemma: Create the original game as laid out on KS (and what to do with the extra funds that won't stop rolling in), or add detail to the games (both SQ42 and PU) as more money was pledged. In general, most backers wanted more detail and depth added to the game, so more goals were added. Finally it just became so stupid with the goals that they stopped them at $65 million and are working on all of them now.

IIRC he wanted $20 million, the $2 million via crowd funding was so he could approach publishers and demonstrate that there was a real interest in the product.

ragnarz · Dec 26, 2016

mope54 said:
I don't remember DNF being playable before release yet people can and do regularly play on SC servers. Do the detractors in this thread know there are major playable sections of this game or do you guys think it's all just screenshots and models still?

Major . . .no. Minor . . . yes. Worth noting even the playable stuff is missing most of the significant underlying mechanics.

Mchart · Dec 26, 2016

Even though I never expect this game to actually release at this point; This move makes sense. Crytek is basically done as a company and my guess is that they needed to make this switch since they couldn't count on future tech support for Cryengine since the company is done and Amazon basically bought the technology up.

ragnarz · Dec 26, 2016

04SVT said:
..snip
Yep, Star Citizen still maintains a very open development process.

..snip
So called "feature creep", was paid for and selected by the people putting moneys into the game. Not by the developers. Backers said "we want this and we are willing to push the timeline out to get this". Its right there on the Funding Stretch Goals.

The term "open development" is no pun intended . . open to interpretation. Sure CIG puts out an enormous amount of information but 90% of the time it is of no significant content. To me an open process would be iterative. DEVs would be working on the flight model or the controls, patch the game, get feedback . . you get the idea. Nothing like that has ever happened.

As for feature creep. I think you are partially correct. Stretch goals account for a segment of the creep BUT IMHO most of the creep comes from CR and is driven by the nonsensical level of funding.

Shmee · Dec 26, 2016

I really want this game to succeed because it sounds like my sequel to Freelancer, but they aren't getting any of my money until it is complete, and despite what all the supporters are saying, switching engines is never a good sign. Even if CryEngine to Lumberjack is a pretty sideways move, and it makes sense given CryTek's current situation.

Derangel · Dec 26, 2016

04SVT said:
So called "feature creep", was paid for and selected by the people putting moneys into the game. Not by the developers. Backers said "we want this and we are willing to push the timeline out to get this". Its right there on the Funding Stretch Goals.

Let's be blunt here: That was an incredibly retarded idea. Most people have absolutely no idea what they want or have the smallest understanding of what doing something entails. Developers need to understand that and need to know when to reign in the feature creep. It's not the fault of end users for the feature creep happening, it is entirely the fault of the developers for allowing it in the first place. They should have stopped adding stuff long before they did. Some stuff they were talking about could have been added after the base game released and others probably should have been left for a big expansion or a sequel. The game has suffered from massive feature creep, like almost every single crowd funded games does. Developers are too interested in adding stretch goals to entice people to give more money and don't think about what it will do to their timetable or to the complexity of developing the game itself. They also don't even attempt to properly communicate that adding features will cause incredibly long delays.

Azrak · Dec 26, 2016

M76 said:
So we are to blame for giving him too much money? As I mentioned in my above post it wasn't the backers who came up with new stretch goals after each previous goal was met. Why couldn't they say, that OK we're not putting out more stretch goals because we'll never get the game ready? That would've been the responsible thing to do. But no they smelled green, and the greed kicked in. They tried to milk every last penny and created ridiculous amounts of hype and promised features that quadrupled the development time.

I wondered the exact same thing back when the stretch goals were being created. Why not just stop accepting new money? I'm not sure it was greed, but rather Chris's drive to make a game beyond anything else anyone had ever dreamed combined with his own stretch goals that he already envisioned in his head but never thought would see the light of day due to limited funding. I think his passion and perfectionism is his own undoing. My hope is that he has enough people with the resolve to keep the game's goals realistic and say "it's done" to Chris rather than "yes, can we tweak this part again."

M76 said:
And we're yet to see even a shred of evidence that development of SQ42 is even progressing. That's why I signed up for the project to get a good single player campaign like the wing commander series. And I'm loosing hope every day that I'll ever get that game, because they seem to focus on Star Citizen almost exclusively. So yes after 2 years past the deadline I'm getting frustrated.

Yes, I agree with you here. I understand they don't want to spoil things, but to have shown nothing at all from SQ42 these last two months of 2016 was not a good decision. At least show us something.

M76 said:
It seems to me that they're trying to finish the MMO before the campaign. Which makes no sense, since you don't need procedurally generated assets, and you don't need a ton of other features to get the campaign finished. All you need is the dogfighting, and add some cutscenes and you have wing commander. That's all I'm asking for. If they'd have focused their efforts to get SQ42 out the door as quickly as possible. Perhaps even just a first chapter of it. Then everyone would be more lenient to give them more time to finish the persistent universe, because there would be something final on the table. Instead we get these alpha releases hanging in thin air.

I'm fairly sure SQ42 is supposed to have both ship and FPS combat missions, but not sure if FPS combat is happening in chapter 1 or later chapters. I was wondering if the FPS missions could be slowing down SQ42 development, but they are still playing with the PU flight models in 2.6 - so this makes me think they haven't finalized ship combat in SQ42 yet, either. I would assume they would want both games to "feel" the same in terms of ship and FPS combat. I also assume they are taking the tweaks from the PU and applying them to SQ42. I think the tech that drives the PU determines the "feel" of the game, and to have both games not feel the same would be a bad experience for players that want to experience both games. Maybe that's why SQ42 progress isn't where it should be? 2017 will be interesting to watch.

JayteeBates · Dec 26, 2016

Amazon has a game engine?

CCLMD · Dec 26, 2016

Joke's on everyone -- This IS Star Citizen. The entire process. The forums, the slow production, the delays, the pre-alpha releases, the forum fan wars over game status and quality... you've been playing the game from the second you donated money.

ChadD · Dec 26, 2016

04SVT said:
Hint: no "investors" are getting money. Not a dime, never have, never planned to never will. Thus, the whole idea of SC being a Ponzi scheme is... well bullshit.

Your right its far worse then a ponzi scheme. lol

Chris Roberts has gifted himself ownership of a major gaming Studio with ZERO funds of his own.... with Zero loans... and ZERO funds from Investors (which he would have to repay at some point).

He has founded a studio with no real investment of his own. Could you imagine this working for any other industry. Just start a company and ask for donations... keeping all profits for yourself. Its beyond stupid that people are supporting this model. He has zero incentive to complete any product and turn off his revenue stream. The moment he starts selling a product he has to legally met expectations and provide product/service ect. For now all he has to do is collect money and keep things moving just fast enough to convince people to continue donating him money... if he ever gets to a point where the game starts really looking done, its pay day. (meaning he sells the entire thing to some poor sucker publishing company)

The only person making bank in his scheme will be him.

Anyone that didn't pay attention to this guys history before throwing cash at him frankly are stupid. No nicer way to say it... if you gave Roberts free $ your stupid. He did the same thing with his previous game company only he took investors money until they started asking to many questions and expecting some sort of return at some point.

That was the cash out point and he sold it off to Microsoft. (which as it happened was a perfect sucker at the time, as they where throwing tons of $ around trying to get into consoles) They got bamboozled, MS thought they where getting a studio that had a major AAA pre hyped game 90% ready to go. They soon realized they would have to spend a fortune and another two years getting Freelancer which was more like 40% done out the door.

This time perhaps he doesn't sell off... and that boils down to 2 reasons. One the people giving him money are stupid enough to keep doing it... so why not drag this scam out. Two after screwing MS over the last time, I think he may have a hard time selling to any major publisher this time. Still my money is on EA announcing their purchase of Cloud Imp in early 2018. By that time perhaps the movie industry will have forgotten Ascendant Pictures and Roberts can go back to making pictures that go 100% over budget yet still make good tax shelters for questionable Eastern European billionaires.

I know I'm a hater, and his past has nothing to do with his present and future. Sure, sure I'm sure he has changed his spots.

Star Citizen Switching To Amazon's Lumberyard Game Engine

[H]ard|Gawd

[H]ard|Gawd

[H]F Junkie

[H]F Junkie

[H]F Junkie

Supreme [H]ardness

[H]F Junkie

Supreme [H]ardness

[H]ard|Gawd

2[H]4U

[H]ard|Gawd

Supreme [H]ardness

Gawd

[H]F Junkie

[H]F Junkie

2[H]4U

[H]F Junkie

[H]ard|Gawd

Supreme [H]ardness

2[H]4U

Gawd

[H]F Junkie

Supreme [H]ardness

Supreme [H]ardness

Supreme [H]ardness

Supreme [H]ardness

Supreme [H]ardness

Supreme [H]ardness

Supreme [H]ardness

[H]F Junkie

[H]ard|Gawd

Weaksauce

Supreme [H]ardness

Weaksauce

[H]ard|Gawd

Fully [H]

[H]ard|Gawd

[H]ard|Poof

CCLMD

Guest

Supreme [H]ardness