Would like to try this out. Sadly, I will have little time in the window they have provided.

-Tj-:

Liked the concept but this crap is taking for ever.

Not really.. which is the point they were trying to make on the previous page. There has been tons of games in development for longer, with goals way less lofty, developed by established studios with existing IPs and production workflows. But for some reason everyone wants to hate on this game.

Denial:

for some reason everyone wants to hate on this game.

The reason is well known. They have kept adding to the original design brief* unnecessarily. It is really the epitome of 'bad'. Hate is a strong word. I think 'strongly dislike' is perhaps better. I don't hate. *they never had a credible design brief - if they did, they could have gone to the bank and asked for a loan.

I know the deal, got interested the moment I first saw and heard about it. But the way they are doing it is just wrong and taking forever. They got so much money from backers and still it's in such a early stage it's hilarious. No wonder everyone is bitchin about it

Loobyluggs:

The reason is well known. They have kept adding to the original design brief unnecessarily. It is really the epitome of 'bad'. Hate is a strong word. I think 'strongly dislike' is perhaps better. I don't hate.

The overwhelming majority of the community supports the direction they are headed. You're never going to please everyone regardless to whether it's crowd sourced or not. I'd rather them "reach for the stars" (so cheesy) then build another generic space shooter.

-Tj-:

They got so much money from backers and still it's in such a early stage it's hilarious. No wonder everyone is bitchin about it

Honestly most of the people bitching about it didn't even back it. Like basically ever reddit thread is filled with people going "I don't know why anyone would support this game with how long it's been taking them" "I don't know why people would back this scam" etc etc I think when building something like this the hardest part is setting up the game's systems for scalability. Again I go back to the planetary tool - took them 3-4 months to set up the initial planet system, took them a year and a half to build a tool that allows them to generate the planetary systems in minutes. And now they can transition seamlessly from space to a planet, track everything attached the ship/player character and the planet rotates and when you enter the atmosphere the entire flight model changes. Those things are not easy to create and less easy to bugfix and even less easy to scale across multiple systems in a multiplayer configuration. Most of that work is done now though and I think adding playable content and gameplay loops will be relatively easy and fast. Took them 4 years to get this far and they were able to pump Hurston planet + moons + that massive city in less than a year. For all I know they'll run out of money and the entire project is mismanaged internally but I have a pretty good idea of what it takes to design a game of this scope, the engineering requirements, the difficulty in having to setup a production pipeline for the content, shifting budget, shipping modular updates to backers, etc. They aren't doing a terrible job and in the last year they've definitely done a lot better at hitting milestones and ramping up content in the game.

Loobyluggs:

The reason is well known. They have kept adding to the original design brief* unnecessarily. It is really the epitome of 'bad'. Hate is a strong word. I think 'strongly dislike' is perhaps better. I don't hate. *they never had a credible design brief - if they did, they could have gone to the bank and asked for a loan.

They didnt add to it unnecessarily. They set goals and the backers payed out to have those things added to the game. The only people hating on this game are the ones who have no idea how long it takes to develop a triple A game. People expect it to just happen over night and think a game in early alpha should be optimized and have no bugs or problems are just clueless.

Moto_Life:

They didnt add to it unnecessarily. They set goals and the backers payed out to have those things added to the game. The only people hating on this game are the ones who have no idea how long it takes to develop a triple A game. People expect it to just happen over night and think a game in early alpha should be optimized and have no bugs or problems are just clueless.

I think the bigger issue is people can't imagine the scale or just don't even consider it. This isn't like a typical indie game where you have one small office with a server and you're doing builds every 6 months or so with a dozen people. They have over 200+ people working across several different studios on different sides of the planet and every quarter they have to sync all their content over to a main branch, build it out and get it workable to ship to backers. They said recently the main branch is over 10TB+ - the network infrastructure and workflow for something like that alone can take over a year to architect and develop. Then you have to train everyone on it, fix bugs and production bottlenecks, etc. Most AAA studios have production pipelines & procedures like this that already exist and have been tested over dozens of games for decades. CIG is building it while trying to build one of the most ambitious titles simultaneously. Honestly if they even finished in the timeframe of a AAA title development it would be insane.

Denial:

The overwhelming majority of the community supports the direction they are headed. You're never going to please everyone regardless to whether it's crowd sourced or not. I'd rather them "reach for the stars" (so cheesy) then build another generic space shooter. Honestly most of the people bitching about it didn't even back it. Like basically ever reddit thread is filled with people going "I don't know why anyone would support this game with how long it's been taking them" "I don't know why people would back this scam" etc etc I think when building something like this the hardest part is setting up the game's systems for scalability. Again I go back to the planetary tool - took them 3-4 months to set up the initial planet system, took them a year and a half to build a tool that allows them to generate the planetary systems in minutes. And now they can transition seamlessly from space to a planet, track everything attached the ship/player character and the planet rotates and when you enter the atmosphere the entire flight model changes. Those things are not easy to create and less easy to bugfix and even less easy to scale across multiple systems in a multiplayer configuration. Most of that work is done now though and I think adding playable content and gameplay loops will be relatively easy and fast. Took them 4 years to get this far and they were able to pump Hurston planet + moons + that massive city in less than a year. For all I know they'll run out of money and the entire project is mismanaged internally but I have a pretty good idea of what it takes to design a game of this scope, the engineering requirements, the difficulty in having to setup a production pipeline for the content, shifting budget, shipping modular updates to backers, etc. They aren't doing a terrible job and in the last year they've definitely done a lot better at hitting milestones and ramping up content in the game.

Yes. This only supports the underlying problem. They had a plan and didn't stick to it, and have extended the delivery date of the software as a consequence. This, consequently, has meant they have had to deal with problems when you do not stick to the plan. The problems you have listed would not have had to have been dealt with if they delivered the software they originally said they would. Not attacking you, but that is flawed logic.

Moto_Life:

They didn't add to it unnecessarily. They set goals and the backers payed out to have those things added to the game. The only people hating on this game are the ones who have no idea how long it takes to develop a triple A game. People expect it to just happen over night and think a game in early alpha should be optimized and have no bugs or problems are just clueless.

Yes, they did. They had a plan and didn't stick to it using rationalisation not justification for altering the plan. By your own rationale, if the backers keep giving them money to develop game content for the game for the rest of time - they will never deliver the game. Please. I beg you. Explain to me how that in any world makes sense. What you do in software development is build and deliver software. You always have ideas as to what the purchasers of the software will want, but you do not build until you get feedback upon delivery of the software. So - all of this 'stuff' with planets, stations, walking around, all of that...is unnecessary. As I have said many times before: They are asking for money to pay people to create virtual goods...and sell them. It is not a game, but a staging area for your virtual items. It is pluralistical ignorance, and anyone caught up in it has my eternal pity. The Emperor is not wearing any clothes.

Loobyluggs:

The Emperor is not wearing any clothes.

They stated from the start that Starcitizen was never intended to be "finished" - it's a constantly evolving universe. SQ42 will have a set release and will be eventually be a "finished" product - they aren't selling that piecemeal so the argument that they are stringing it along doesn't work with that portion of the game. But Starcitizen never will be, was never intended to be and honestly I don't want it to be. They've added more 'interesting' content in the last two patches than most games have period. A game being complete doesn't make it anymore fun to me - in fact some of the best experiences I've had in games were unfinished ones. As long as they are significantly progressing, I don't care if it will never be "finished" - it doesn't need to be. The planets and stations and stuff that you're saying is pointless is what makes the game interesting to me. I want to walk around and explore - then I want to get into my ship and blow people up. I can do both of those now and have and despite hiccups and poor performance (both of which have been significantly improved in the latest patch) it's fun. They just need to add solid gameplay loops now and more persistence - all the hard engineering parts are done for the most part.

Denial:

They stated from the start that Starcitizen was never intended to be "finished" - it's a constantly evolving universe. SQ42 will have a set release and will be eventually be a "finished" product - they aren't selling that piecemeal so the argument that they are stringing it along doesn't work with that portion of the game. But Starcitizen never will be, was never intended to be and honestly I don't want it to be. They've added more 'interesting' content in the last two patches than most games have period. A game being complete doesn't make it anymore fun to me - in fact some of the best experiences I've had in games were unfinished ones. As long as they are significantly progressing, I don't care if it will never be "finished" - it doesn't need to be.

With the greatest of respect to you and other members of Guru3D: Wake up.

Star Citizen was setup to be pay-2-win long before it became "free" to play. I was thinking of buying the game in time for the holidays (against my better judgement) but now I want nothing to do with it. This is obviously how they plan to get new players into the game and hoping that they will spend hundreds of dollars on ships and whatnot. I hate games that doesn't require skill (and where you can buy yourself to the top) with a passion. Also from what I've seen from their latest videos is that the performance is absolutely atrocious and runs very poor.

Loobyluggs:

With the greatest of respect to you and other members of Guru3D: Wake up.

Wake up what? I paid $40 for this game - its like a nothing amount of money. Like yeah, people spending $27K on the ship packages are insane but I'm not.. in fact I'd argue I already got my $40 of fun out of the game. I have like $500 worth of steam games I never even played at all. I've sunk at least 40 hours just exploring stuff.. $1 per hour for entertainment. If the game ceased to exist now I'd be content with what I've gotten out of it.

RzrTrek:

I hate games that doesn't require skill (and where you can buy yourself to the top) with a passion. Also from what I've seen from their latest videos is that the performance is absolutely atrocious and runs very poor.

You can definitely "pay to win" to some degree but the cost is asinine which prevents most people from doing it and most of the more expensive ships are multicrew anyway. Also the game 100% requires skill. A good pilot is going to take down your $500 ship with a $50 one and then (when the economy is fully implemented) you're going to have to farm a ton for insurance costs to replace it. Performance in the latest patch isn't terrible - I get 60+ fps except for major stations where it averages about ~30-40. They haven't really done an optimization pass on the game which makes sense given how early it is. They're still changing major graphics systems in latest patches.

Denial:

Wake up what?

From believing that The Emperor's new Clothes are amazing. Now, I know that you do not believe it (consciously), but I know that everyone else who has paid money into the project will say the same thing. In other words, you only think you believe it because of the thought process that you must be correct as so many other people are saying the same thing as you. It is the very definition of pluralistical ignorance. They will weave and weave their threads with lots of 'wow - look how amazing this looks' closely followed by creating 'milestones' (which they created) and survey results (which are not fact-checked) on what they as a company should be doing. It's very easy to do this. "Don't look behind the curtain", also springs to mind. Yah...wake up and call it for what it is: A virtual staging area/arena for virtual goods that can be developed for the rest of time for those who are caught up in the belief system of other people. When you wake up - we'll be waiting for you.

Denial:

You can definitely "pay to win" to some degree but the cost is asinine which prevents most people from doing it and most of the more expensive ships are multicrew anyway. Also the game 100% requires skill. A good pilot is going to take down your $500 ship with a $50 one and then (when the economy is fully implemented) you're going to have to farm a ton for insurance costs to replace it.

Wait, is it like eveonline?

sverek:

Wait, is it like eveonline?

Oh, LOL. CCP Games are nice guys. I did some work for them a few years ago. Nice office. Shame they drove that game into the ground.

Well, SC missed window of opportunity for me. I picked my next PvP MMO(RPG) last weekend. I'll rather gave 50 Euro to Crowfall which looks like puke, moves like epilepsy, but has good ideas and implements them. But maybe Crowfall releases in 2 years, dies in another 2 and SC will be released around that time, making it my next MMO-something.

Denial:

Honestly most of the people bitching about it didn't even back it. Like basically ever reddit thread is filled with people going "I don't know why anyone would support this game with how long it's been taking them" "I don't know why people would back this scam" etc etc I think when building something like this the hardest part is setting up the game's systems for scalability. Again I go back to the planetary tool - took them 3-4 months to set up the initial planet system, took them a year and a half to build a tool that allows them to generate the planetary systems in minutes. And now they can transition seamlessly from space to a planet, track everything attached the ship/player character and the planet rotates and when you enter the atmosphere the entire flight model changes. Those things are not easy to create and less easy to bugfix and even less easy to scale across multiple systems in a multiplayer configuration. Most of that work is done now though and I think adding playable content and gameplay loops will be relatively easy and fast. Took them 4 years to get this far and they were able to pump Hurston planet + moons + that massive city in less than a year. For all I know they'll run out of money and the entire project is mismanaged internally but I have a pretty good idea of what it takes to design a game of this scope, the engineering requirements, the difficulty in having to setup a production pipeline for the content, shifting budget, shipping modular updates to backers, etc. They aren't doing a terrible job and in the last year they've definitely done a lot better at hitting milestones and ramping up content in the game.

Ok that sounds great, Tnx for info

Denial:

But for some reason everyone wants to hate on this game.

I think the problem was the hype they created in order to get people to back the game. When you promise the moon and don´t deliver it people tend to get mad... And i think they have already missed some deadlines making the situation even worse...

butterwaach:

wow, gta5, rdr2 (and the list could go on for decades) all took longer with established studios, a publisher and an engine... but let me guess, you're here to rant...

Do you even understand how ridiculous this statement is, either you are incredibly ignorant or willfully blind. None of the games you mentioned were funded by hundreds of millions of dollars of public money and none of them charged egregious amounts of money for 'content' long before they were even released. Please, if you are going to make comparisons, stick with apples to apples, not apples to velvet covered lawnmowers sold only in Kinshasa. Thx 🙂

H83:

I think the problem was the hype they created in order to get people to back the game. When you promise the moon and don´t deliver it people tend to get mad... And i think they have already missed some deadlines making the situation even worse...

obviously they did, and they also received the backlash from their backing community which they deserved. but then again its not like a lot of studios tried to achieve what they are doing. its not like the AAA games we see today are pushing the boundaries, and if they do then they only push the boundaries of consoles and if we are lucky then we don't receive a piss poor PC port. the thing is: no one is forced to back the game. as one user mentioned you can get into the game for 40$. lets be honest: most people here at guru3d spend more on cables, fans, mouses and so on. yes you can also buy game packages for 27k$ but that's not something, you have to do. even if you did and lets say you are flying a hammerhead now: you will be still owned by every fighter, because such ships are pretty much useless when flying solo (you cant fire any guns as it has only manned turrets). to be hones (as a software developer, but not related to gaming), for me the most interesting part of this whole project is the open development. never did i have the chance to view behind the curtain of such a massive development with it's pitfalls. and there were a lot of those and some of them could have been avoided some of them not. but this is the part which interests me most. to see how problems on such a big scale are handled and solved - and they did a lot of solving by now.