Support NeoGAF

[SnowTeeth]

I like space games.

When Squadron 42 and Star Citizen are available, I will like them too.

The haters will wear their tails between their legs, but still try to tear the game and CIG down just to save face.

"Mark my words"

 

[Chipopo]

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.

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.

 

[Sijil]

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 some of the detractors.

 

[firehawk12]

At this point I'm just assuming it's a few whales who keep buying ships in the game, because there can't be new "customers" now.

 

[TheOfficeMut]

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.

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?

 

[Gai Murakumo]

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.

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.

 

[Purple Cheeto]

I really wanted this game to succeed, I even interviewed for a job with CSI at one point. But now, now I just don't see a path to success that doesn't include a drastic reduction in scope.

All I wanted was a sweet ass Space sim. Not some bloated MMO or FPS.

 

[jtb]

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.

 

[BannedEpisode]

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.

I don't think it's fair to group all kickstarteresque games in the same bucket. There have been plenty of success stories.

Star Citizen deserves all the criticism it gets though. That's coming from a person who stupidly backed it years ago. Thankfully I just thought it seemed like a fun idea, and not a thing to hang all my hopes and dreams on.

 

[Sijil]

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.

 

[KHarvey16]

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.

This ridiculous attitude right here explains most of the hatred for this project and the desire to see it fail.

 

[jtb]

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.

 

[Hari Seldon]

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.

 

[KHarvey16]

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.

Crowdfunding is not a creditor/debtor relationship. What a bizarre analogy.

 

[LucidMomentum]

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.

Same, I think I put like $70 into it and I get to fly my ship around and test stuff. It's fun, but I'm just waiting for the single player campaign.

With that being said, it is fun from time to time. Not like dump a grand or two on a fleet fun though.

 

[jtb]

Crowdfunding is not a creditor/debtor relationship. What a bizarre analogy.

Exactly, and that's precisely the problem.

 

[KHarvey16]

Exactly, and that's precisely the problem.

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.

 

[Grief.exe]

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.

It's strange because you concede the positive side of crowd funding too.

Crowd funding is like any other tool, it cuts both ways as it can be used to achieve very positive results, or it can be misused.

It's in the consumers best interest to thoroughly educate themselves to the development process and the various risks in order to make the best decision.

 

[rottendevice]

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.

 

[Outrun]

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.

Too bad none of us are revelling in an actual game...

 

[nOoblet16]

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.

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.

The people working on this are all industry veterans from big name studios like Crytek, ILM, and Wel known celebrities. Mark Hamil is a personal friend of Chris Roberts due to their prior work in Wing Commander.. And if I recall correctly they also have proper economist working on the game's economy.

 

[Outrun]

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.

That post encapsulates my sentiments exactly.

 

[mojojoeo]

I mean we dumped all that preorder money into landmark and it all worked out in the end.

Oh. Oh no.....

 

[Burny]

And if I recall correctly they also have proper economist working on the game's economy.

And linguists to develop three different alien languages. In two years time, there'll be weddings spoken in Vanduul!

 

[jtb]

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.

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.

 

[DMTripper]

For me this is one of those games you forget about and cross fingers that at some point it's released and it's bloody brilliant!

Until then I wish the devs good luck!

 

[Jackpot]

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.

So transparent they announced an engine switch after it had taken place... to help give the illusion that no time had been wasted.

 

[KHarvey16]

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.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Last 10 pages of RubberJohnneys post history is him shitposting and dogpiling the same tired bullshit.



Star Citizen might very well be in trouble, but for the love of fuck give it a fucking rest. It's obnoxious to have you come in and drive home the exact same tired points over and over again. The project might be failing, it might not. Who knows. You've made your case. We get it.

 

[Megalo]

Everytime there's a new Star Citizen thread, I think to myself "don't go in there, you know you'll regret it".
And here I am, full of regrets

 

[Grief.exe]

Is there a graph for revenue over time for Star Citizen?

 

[~Cross~]

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.

 

[KHarvey16]

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.

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.

 

[Megalo]

Is there a graph for revenue over time for Star Citizen?

It's only going up, it's kind of incredible.
They are not going to run out of money anytime soon.

(I don't have the graph tho )

 

[dumbo]

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.

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".

It's only going up, it's kind of incredible.
They are not going to run out of money anytime soon.

The chart is only of income and can only go upwards. It obviously does not tell us how much funding remains.

 

[KHarvey16]

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".

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.

 

[lacinius]

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.

I believe that type of crowd source investing is already a reality, as there is a game called Crowfall that got its start with Kickstarter, and is now offering a way to invest in the game..

 

[The Dear Leader]

If Star Citizen was as much of a disaster as any NeoGAF thread about it I would have never pre-ordered.

 

[Chumley]

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.

It has not been looking better. 2.6 is a janky broken mess and just getting what's there in a polished and finished state would take half a year at least. This thing is getting feature creeped into oblivion and I feel bad for everyone pumping huge amounts of money into something that will clearly never come.

 

[bmcphail2008]

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.

I'm not sure that's totally accurate though. Aren't people including many here always claiming that Kickstarter is not a "preorder"?

The biggest frustration I have had as a backer on over 100 projects at this point is that often the campaign ends and the creator decides to balloon the scope into something far more ambitious than initially promised. They do this for a variety of reasons (ignorance, arrogance, commercial pressures) and unfortunately, that's when projects seem to get delayed or just not deliver what backers expected or in some cases, run through the funding with little to show for it.

I feel like backers should have more control over being able to pull funding just like any other financier could do if it becomes clear through regular progress reports (another thing many project creators are lousy at) that what was promised in soliciting my support is not close to what is being developed. Having said that, I know that putting such a mechanism in place is almost impossible because some people would always just want to pull out for unrelated reasons and you need stability for crowdfunding to work. I do feel like the equation is skewed far too heavily in favor of the project creator being able to simply take the money and deliver whatever they want and I guess that's why I have significantly reduced my crowdfunding support over the past year or so. I also think Kickstarter and Indiegogo do a lousy job of holding project creators accountable short of something being an obvious and blatant fraud.

 

[Eolz]

Is there a graph for revenue over time for Star Citizen?

Live stats
Some graph that someone made at some point:

Date of financial milestones on a fan wiki (useful to make graphs)

edit: oh yeah, that's only for the crowdfunding stats, sorry.

 

[Lorcain]

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.

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.

 

[~Cross~]

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.

You'll hear A LOT of people in here say otherwise. I agree with you that you are buying goods and services, and that alone should be enough to trigger most of your states consumer protection systems which should be enough. But crowdsourcing companies usually try to hide behind the "Oh if we fail we dont owe you anything" excuse, and if they really want to ride that out then they should have to show their books and audit themselves if necessary.

 

[jtb]

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 the downside to more transparency and regulation? Accountability is good for consumers and, in the end, it'll make sure we get better games.

Even consumer companies (which, I disagree is what crowdfunding is... I see it as much more akin to a futures commodity than a pre-order, since the game's future "value" is a constantly moving target and contingent on the developer's ability to deliver) are subject to regulation.

 

[~Cross~]

http://www.pcgamer.com/these-disappointed-no-mans-sky-players-are-turning-to-star-citizen/

Turn left, turn left! Nooooooooo

 

[Buggy Loop]

It's so funny now to see all they promised in crowdfunding days, which stopped @ 6.2 million $. That money would have disapeared faster than a snowball in hell. If its still in alpha now, in 2017, it'd have died at pre-pre-pre-pre alpha.

 

[gatti-man]

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?

What does smooth sailing have to do with creating an innovative game like star citizen? Things take time and it has massive feature creep.

 

[valkyre]

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!

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...

 

[KKRT00]

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...

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.

Talk about not reading before posting.

 

[LyleLanley]

Is there a graph for revenue over time for Star Citizen?