There's ambition and there's unrealistic optimism. Look, there's a narrative a lot of SC fans have formed that critics of the project don't understand game development. I disagree. I think early on many critics saw the scope of the game and everything that was being promised and many of us thought "it would take years and years for a game of this scope to get made even if it were coming from an established studio".
Then we get Roberts throwing out wildly optimistic dates for years now that any reasonable person knows they have no chance of hitting. Then when those dates pass, we get people saying "of course it's not ready yet, AAA development takes time". And the critics know that, and the defenders know that, but that doesn't stop Roberts from slapping a 2016 release date on SQ42 or telling you guys you'll have 3.0 by the end of the year despite not even having 2.6 yet with 2017 rapidly approaching. The critics aren't the ones setting unrealistic time frames, CIG and Roberts are.
Most people who call the game a scam aren't saying that there is no game, no progress is being made, and nothing is being worked on. I think most believe that Roberts and CIG vastly overstate progress, show tech demo's of things that aren't even close to working but promise them soon, and do this partly to keep funding strong. Given that AAA development does take a long time and MMO development even longer, the scope of the game that they did have to build up studios, that unexpected delays happen, and that they are more or less working on two games at once, I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect a 2018-2019 date for SQ42 and sometime in the early 2020's for SC (and even then I'd expect some features cut). If CIG were to actually put those dates out there though, it could have a negative impact on funding. The "scam" is that they paint an unrealistic picture of the progress they're making.
As a fan of Star Citizen and Chris Roberts work in general I enjoy success articles like mostly because I can revel in the salt of the some of the detractors.
Yeah I guess I am in the minority because I have never been a fanboy or fanatic in any medium. I take most games at face value. If they are bad they are bad and if they are good they are good. I try to not build expectations for things because I know in real life nothing ever reaches the expected outcome.The fact that these sentiments ("I am skeptical, but hopeful for those who want to enjoy the finished product") seem to be in the minority here is a sad statement on how fandom manifests.
If this kills crowd-funded games, I'm all for it. It's a insulting, Ponzi-scheme development cycle fit for an insulting, Ponzi-scheme of a funding mechanism.
If this kills crowd-funded games, I'm all for it. It's a insulting, Ponzi-scheme development cycle fit for an insulting, Ponzi-scheme of a funding mechanism.
If this kills crowd-funded games, I'm all for it. It's a insulting, Ponzi-scheme development cycle fit for an insulting, Ponzi-scheme of a funding mechanism.
Yeah Ponzi-schemes that gave us gems like Wasteland 2, Shadowrun, Divinity Original Sin and its sequel, Pillars of Eternity and countless others. Fact, Kickstarted video games saw more success than failures, it's only the failures that get more publicity.
Believe me, I fucking love those games. Crowdfunding may be the only thing keeping Obsidian alive at this point. That doesn't change the fact that it's capitalism at its most toxic; a creditor/debtor relationship so skewed loan sharks and payday lenders blush.
I backed it in the original kickstarter but never put any additional money into it. Yeah I was pissed when the scope of the project ballooned into ridiculous territory. I want a modern day wing commander and nothing else really.
Crowdfunding is not a creditor/debtor relationship. What a bizarre analogy.
Exactly, and that's precisely the problem.
Believe me, I fucking love those games. Crowdfunding may be the only thing keeping Obsidian alive at this point. That doesn't change the fact that it's capitalism at its most toxic; a creditor/debtor relationship so skewed loan sharks and payday lenders blush.
As a fan of Star Citizen and Chris Roberts work in general I enjoy success articles like this, mostly because I can revel in the salt of the some of the detractors.
Well that's more on you tbh, Chris Roberts is a pretty big name going back to Wing Commander which was very advanced for its time.I still don't know where all the money came from. I had never heard of the people behind this game (Chris Roberts, etc) until I heard about this game. Also, space sims aren't historically top selling video games. So when I hear how much this game has made in crowdfunding, I'm always a little baffled.
On the topic of feature creep, I think there is merit in taking some of the money from a crowdfunding campaign and using it on development costs, while pocketing the rest as preorder money. I'd rather developers do that than make a game beyond even their own ambitions.
What a thread.
I would like to repost Velorath's post from a few months ago as it encapsulates the predicament for many of us quite well.
And if I recall correctly they also have proper economist working on the game's economy.
No it isn't. Hundreds of thousands of people have given millions of dollars to projects they want to see succeed in return for trinkets, collectibles, media, meet and greets, credits, etc. They weren't tricked or taken advantage of and it's so incredibly condescending for you to run around pretending they're too stupid to spend their own money as you see fit.
What a stupid comment.
If anything, this game is the Anti-NMS where the devs have made their fans updated from the start and the ones who are invested in it know exactly where their money is going and what they are getting out of it.
I totally agree with you.I'm one of those people. But flip that argument on its head -- you're using the good intentions of backers to defend the lack of accountability that developers take on. The backers assume all of the risk. Make a no-strings-attached donation in exchange for your dream project realization? Sure, I've done that. (Pillars, Torment) But that doesn't make it a responsible - or fair - financing mechanism.
It's completely fair when projects send people what they paid for. Holding projects accountable for fraud or an inability to deliver is up to the platforms like Kickstarter. There are a handful of examples people like to hold up to showcase how terrible crowdfunding is, but the vast majority of funded projects proceed just fine and it's silly to act as if fraud or under-delivering are problems unique to crowdfunding.
The potential for downsides are far outweighed by the demonstrable good crowdfunding does.
I can almost guarantee you that if CIG fails with star citizen that there will be a movement to regulate continued crowdfunding. At the very least make it so that they companies that take up x amount of their total revenue from crowdfunding act like publicly traded companies and have to report just like all the other ones.
It would almost guarantee that something like SC never happens again.
Is there a graph for revenue over time for Star Citizen?
That kind of regulation doesn't make any sense when you consider what companies that crowdsource are actually doing. They are selling things, like any company, and not soliciting investments. When you give Star Citizen $100 you're buying goods, not acting as a venture capitalist and expecting a return.
It's only going up, it's kind of incredible.
They are not going to run out of money anytime soon.
You pay $100 to help a company develop a product. If the company subsequently decides to take your money and build a different/bigger product, then you can't do anything about it.
That's clearly nuts.
- if a consumer pays $100 then the kickstarter should be bound to at least TRY to deliver that product in a timely manner.
- kickstarter projects should give a schedule/publish accounts so that it is apparent to a consumer what their $100 will achieve. Whether it is "funding their developer to make the final push to release", "paying for last drinks at no-hope saloon" or just "topping up Scrooge McDuck's vault of gold".
There are plans to allow that kind of crowd source investing and it will be heavily regulated, but Kickstarter is not like it at all.
The anti-CIG circle jerk is so strong here, it's insane. It's like you guys refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that they're actually making a game or that their timelines aren't that unusual for a big AAA title.
After they just put out their biggest content release to date with 2.6, have 3.0 upcoming and show no signs of stopping or slowing down. If anything development has been looking better and better since Erin Roberts took over.
That $100 is given in exchange for whatever is offered at the $100 tier. This could be a ship or a poster or whatever. The individual giving the money is capable of determining if what is being offered is worth that money. If they change their mind they can cancel their pledge, or if it's after funding the project might still refund them (as it appears this project does).
All projects I've seen give an overview and at least a rough schedule of when they expect things to happen. These are as good as any schedule created pre-development for any large project.
Is there a graph for revenue over time for Star Citizen?
I don't think it's really a success article, is it? They're spotlighting that Star Citizen has one of the highest production costs/budgets in gaming history. If anything, it increases the scrutiny of the game development. The further Star Citizen moves up the production cost list, the more scrutiny it will receive.As a fan of Star Citizen and Chris Roberts work in general I enjoy success articles like this, mostly because I can revel in the salt of the some of the detractors.
That kind of regulation doesn't make any sense when you consider what companies that crowdsource are actually doing. They are selling things, like any company, and not soliciting investments. When you give Star Citizen $100 you're buying goods, not acting as a venture capitalist and expecting a return.
There are plans to allow that kind of crowd source investing and it will be heavily regulated, but Kickstarter is not like it at all.
That $100 is given in exchange for whatever is offered at the $100 tier. This could be a ship or a poster or whatever. The individual giving the money is capable of determining if what is being offered is worth that money. If they change their mind they can cancel their pledge, or if it's after funding the project might still refund them (as it appears this project does).
All projects I've seen give an overview and at least a rough schedule of when they expect things to happen. These are as good as any schedule created pre-development for any large project.
What is wrong with you? Can you people not admit when things are not smooth sailing or does that take away too much from your idol?
I might as well post the not-even-complete list of stuff still to do in every SC thread to warn people off:
Oh, and they're actually building two games, and this is only one of them, and they're doing this with a dev team half the size of the one building Destiny 2, a much smaller less ambitious game.
Also they thought the other game, SQ42, the one with all the celebrity actors, could be built for only $6 million dollars at a time when AAA games were costing $60 million, and in fact thought $6 million was such a huge amount they could build a whole MMO more ambitious than any MMO ever as a stretch goal without expanding the budget at all!
Wow, not only your arguments are bad and uninformed you also picked the person who shits on Star Citizen constantly as a point of reference of SC fans.Please for the love of whatever you hold dear, tell me you see the problem with that bulletpoint list.
Because if you really dont, then I believe you are going to be extremely, uterly disappointed.
Even if all of those things do in a magical way, make it in game, it will work against the product itself... because it will be full of half assed junk that serve no purpose other to excite some eager folks to keep forking down their dollars.
95% of what you listed there is not what a good game is about.
100 solar systems! "OMFG so awesome!!" "Full sized planets!, So cool!!"
No... no its not cool. Its a whole lot of junk in there. And it wont make the game the epic awesomeness you think it will. NMS has billions of full sized planets, nobody cares. You think they are going to meticulously design cities for 100 solar systems in SC? That they will include specially designed missions in every planet? That each planet will have a fleshed out level design?
Are you really that gullible?
I will be surprised if it manages to release even at 10% of the game you fans are expecting it to be.
But hey, keep investing there... I am sure someone needs that money...