Outrun
Member
The only BS is the idea that only a minor tweak was implemented to the flight system.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Star Citizen at $141 million of funding.
- Thread starter Phediuk
- Start date
The only BS is the idea that only a minor tweak was implemented to the flight system.
MasterOfPastures
Banned
I'm expecting a slowdown in funding after they missed showing the squad42 demo. I am guessing that 3.0 release and the demo for Swiss42 will now be pushed back perhaps to a few months from now. And there will be blood.
But, on the other hand, no one has made a game with this amount of fidelity, scope and technology. Wether it is fun or not, no one else will be able to surpass their achievements.
But, on the other hand, no one has made a game with this amount of fidelity, scope and technology. Wether it is fun or not, no one else will be able to surpass their achievements.
They said themselves, unless you're saying that they're lying? It isn't a minor tweak, it is a full balance pass, but the flight model is the same.
The next time a FPS puts out a balance patch, you don't whine that they're reworking all the weapons from scratch?
Outrun
Member
Surely you are not saying that the flight model has merely been tweaked, rather than overhauled?
And surely you are not comparing the tweaks to a released FPS, to that of a game that has no release date?
If you are serious, I don't think we have much to talk about. The echo chamber is at CIG's forum, not GAF.
This isn't R&D, this is Project Management. As someone who manages large, complex projects for a living the response you just gave would never fly in any of our meetings. The very core of successfully managing projects is determining who does what by when. By removing the "when", they've essentially given up any semblance of respectable PMing.
Outrun
Member
Agreed.
Any change in scope should have yielded a recalculation of all baselines.
The fact that work packages marked as done, are being reworked (flight models, certain ship models) indicates poor project management.
Explaining every criticism by saying that game development is hard is frankly tiring at the moment.
I'm not sure what you're complaining about, games adjust their gameplay while they're in development. You actually don't seem to really understand what a flight model is, do you?
A Flight model is the control mechanism/code that models the physical forces involved the the movement of the object it is modelling. It is basically a bunch of equations (notionally based on control theory) that receive input forces and put out values based possibly on a step-response. Those equations will have variables that are tweaked to produce varying results and those are the values they tweak to get a desired output. Remaking the flight model would be to throw out all that existing code and start afresh with completely different equations.
The idiocy here is that you're whining that they're iterating on a game that is in active development. I'd advise you to take note on the dangers of the Dunning Kruger syndrome, so as not to look foolish.
BarringGaffner
Member
I think calling anything 'complete' (especially something like flight model) before the game is complete is what shows bad management.
Imp the Dimp
Member
Yes, by offering an outlook for what's to come for instance? What their milestones in the future are perhaps? The game is well overdue (wasn't it scheduled to release in 2014 or '15 or something?) so it doesn't seem like too much to ask, especially since it's being developed with customer money. I'm not even sure how much gameplay there is at the moment. Youtubing for Star Citizen gameplay yields little actual substance. Some tech demo areas and that seems to be about it?
Outrun
Member
Seeing that we are in 2017 and SQ42 is no where near completion, I think the failure to lock down certain work should be discussed.
You are talking as if the project is not running late....
MikeE21286
Member
Will this ever be something I can buy for $60?
More_Badass
Member
The Kickstarter was in 2012, This game was never releasing in 2014 or 2015. Those Kickstarter dates are meaningless anyway; they mean nothing once a project's scope and funding explodes. Even beforehand, it's just an estimate made when you have no funds, no stretch goals to meet, and might only be in pre-alpha
This is essentially a AAA game. Those take years. Something on this scale? I'd expect five, six years of development at least.
STOP IT. I'm arguing that you're spreading misinformation, nothing more. They're late, that doesn't mean you get to lie with impunity.
You don't get to deflect and justify the fact that you're arguing about things of which you know jack shit. Stick to making passive-aggressive potshots over the fact that you got refunded, that is the one area where you seem to be able to speak authoritatively about.
HeisenbergWW62
Banned
All that funding for a game that will just be in alpha until the end of time
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Not to get into the middle of the argument about if this is some big ponzie scheme or something...
I think it's insane that they are still getting funding for this game. The fact it's at 141 million, and the don't even have a game to even show for it should have been raising red flags years ago.
And no, what they have been showing now is not the game, they are demos for specific sections of a game. While I know nothing about game development or managing a company, I can only imagine what the insane amount of funding has done to the development of this game in terms of outrageous scope and simple waste it has most likely produced (which has been documented via articles on the game development).
We've read the articles about how troubled this games development has been, giving them more money isn't going to get this thing out the door faster, if anything, the amount of money they have at hand is probably crippling development because of how they can do so much with it to make "the best game ever".
The amount of money raised has most likely doomed this project to complete mismanagement and development hell.
The argument shouldn't be about the games development length.
The question should be if opening four studios around the world from scratch to create this game is remotely feasible or reasonable to make a game period.
I think it's insane that they are still getting funding for this game. The fact it's at 141 million, and the don't even have a game to even show for it should have been raising red flags years ago.
And no, what they have been showing now is not the game, they are demos for specific sections of a game. While I know nothing about game development or managing a company, I can only imagine what the insane amount of funding has done to the development of this game in terms of outrageous scope and simple waste it has most likely produced (which has been documented via articles on the game development).
We've read the articles about how troubled this games development has been, giving them more money isn't going to get this thing out the door faster, if anything, the amount of money they have at hand is probably crippling development because of how they can do so much with it to make "the best game ever".
The amount of money raised has most likely doomed this project to complete mismanagement and development hell.
The argument shouldn't be about the games development length.
The question should be if opening four studios around the world from scratch to create this game is remotely feasible or reasonable to make a game period.
Outrun
Member
People are moaning because CIG keeps on missing the dates that they themselves set..
Outrun
Member
Sorry mate.
I told you, if you think that the flight model has merely been tweaked, rather than been comprehensively revamped, then we have nothing to talk about.
Occam's Razor should tell you that cost likely includes marketing. Not that anybody should be taking that list at 100% face value.
Starbuck2907
Member
The big difference between this and NMS is that I can hop online and play what they have so far, and it kicks ass. NMS never had a public alpha nearly this good.
There's two games, one has a story and the other is about hanging around after that story. There's only a rough alpha of the second game available to backers though.
Killroyskbg
Member
"Hey Tom you feel like working on this game for a few more years?"
"Sure Dave but how are we going to do that? Are we going to do DLC later and improve the game after releasing what we originaly planned and our initial backers paid for?"
"No no no just add some new features that might make it in the game on a list if we reach x amount of money you know the ten page long one."
"But..."
"Dont worry and while you are at it can you also put up this missile so people can pay more for it than the game itself cost. That sucker will pay for free donuts for the rest of the year
"
"Ok Dave"
"Sure Dave but how are we going to do that? Are we going to do DLC later and improve the game after releasing what we originaly planned and our initial backers paid for?"
"No no no just add some new features that might make it in the game on a list if we reach x amount of money you know the ten page long one."
"But..."
"Dont worry and while you are at it can you also put up this missile so people can pay more for it than the game itself cost. That sucker will pay for free donuts for the rest of the year
""Ok Dave"
Kingpin Rogers
Member
I'm looking forward to the day it releases and isn't as good as it should be. The reactions will be very funny.
Eolz
Member
Chev already replied, but here's some trailers to give you a better idea:
Single player: Squadron 42 cast announcement, a live "demo" in 2015 and the Vanduul capital ships video
MMO (Star Citizen): 2.6 trailer
edit: while I'm at it, my favorite trailer with the human capital ships . 2 of those will be playable in the mmo part.
More_Badass
Member
Shouldn't we always hope for all games to be as good as possible? Why would you want a game to be not good? You might want to play it one day
And yet the development is moving ahead. Star Marine is now here, 3.0 is coming soon. But somehow it seems to stagnate for some people? We all know laying the first bricks is the most difficult part.Then the develoment will be exponential, this is how it works.
The game is looking pretty average from what I have read. Certainly not worth its budget.
Outrun
Member
I respect your optimism.
3.0 was due end of 2016.
I have said this repeatedly, if SQ42 comes out and is stellar, I will gladly eat crow and purchase it. I will also extol the virtues of the game, I will also openly declare how wrong I was to doubt CIG.
"Hey Tom you feel like working in this game for a few more years?"
"Sure Dave but how are we going to do that? Are we going to do DLC later and improve the game after releasing what we originaly planned and our initial backers paid for?"
"No no no just add some new features that might make it in the game on a list if we reach x amount of money you know the ten page long one."
"But..."
"Dont worry and while you are at it can you also put up this missile so people can pay more for it than the game itself cost. That sucker will pay for free donuts for the rest of the year
"Ok Dave"
You know that they passed the last feature milestones 10s of millions of dollars ago, right? They haven't been adding new milestones.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
This game is the next No Man's Sky.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Good for them.
Now let's get those flight mechanics a little better pls.
Now let's get those flight mechanics a little better pls.
Killroyskbg
Member
Maybe Dave and Tom realised they have enough money to have free donuts for life. At least they should have but who knows maybe they also like free espresso and that is why the charge 70$ for a missile when they really should be fine paying for that aswell.
I see a lot of hype around this game, but almost nothing substantial enough to chew on. Do you need to dig real hard to find the goods, or are people just getting way caught up in the hype?
Both of those should have came out man...
killatopak
Member
DEVELOPMENT HELL.
Nice hyperbole, really great way to make a point.
Outrun
Member
That would be ironic considering all the drama between Roberts and Smart.
30yearsofhurt
Member
I heard GTA V cost $260m.
MacGurcules
Member
Can we really say that crowd funding is the same as a development budget when it's a blend of development funds and revenue? Are they obligated to use all funds for development? Are they obligated to cut off early access orders once they reach their projected budget?
What we're really talking about is pre-sales here. In that context, it's big but not ridiculous.
What we're really talking about is pre-sales here. In that context, it's big but not ridiculous.
Similar threads
- Locked