Okay, I'm not trolling, I swear. What issues do you have with SC and it's development so far. I'm not being an ass I genuinely am interested.
These are my personal feelings and in no way a statement of how things must be done or that any other choice is automatically incorrect. ___________________________________
I don't like the size of some of the pledge packages.
I don't like the grey market.
I don't like the changes to the melt thing.
I don't like the separation of the two games.
I don't like the continued creation of new ships when older ships remain unfinished. This is not in reference to the craft that required certain coding to be completed before their design.
I don't like the modular design idea overall. I believe merging the separate shops work is more trouble than they believed it could be.
@goobsnews ; Though I would like acknowledgement of my response so I know you received it.
Yeah they're all good points, just some seem more minor in the grand scheme of things. I'd like to see where they are financially. I know it won't happen but meh.
Don't have much dudgeon over this. Looks like just another monetization strategy, guess they found enough people who wanted X but not Y, or vice versa. And a good deadline gooses sales too. Probably easier to split the development, as they really need to release something concrete this year. Infinite promises will eventually cloy even the most stalwart.
Mismanagement though? Oh yeah. Just another in a long trail. Letting Roberts whizz on the 'little people' is probably a poor decision too, but that's what a bozo at the top will do. Every time you see one of those 'Roberts being something of an asshat' things leak out, you are getting a look at the real Roberts.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Some clarification from CIG - Ben Lesnick quotes from todays Dev Tracker:
"The change is only for FUTURE backers, who will have to pay more for Squadron 42 starting on the 14th."
Looks like there are three exceptions that are different:
"- We sold a very cheap ($25 or $30?) Star Citizen-only package for a brief period. - The second wave of AMD Omega packages doesn't include Squadron 42. - Some very very early packages also have the 'Behind Enemy Lines' SQ42 sequel."
The first was a special limited-time low price promo sometime before X-mas (2014 I think). The second was an AMD grafic card promo. The third contains (in addition to SC and SQ42) the first mission disc for SQ42 (called "Behind Enemy Lines"), which is free for early backers. ("The first Squadron 42 mission disk, Behind Enemy Lines, will be
available for free to all backers who pledge before $6 million upon
release.")
So if you paid $2500 for one of the limited time ships. Do you still have to pay for sq42?
No, you get the sq42 base game. It remains to be seen what happens subsequently, and this is an aspect of my position on the matter. Kinda tired of bare-bones game releases with later content which should have been understood as part of the base game, and while I understand the argument "how do you define that?", sometimes it should just be pretty apparent.
If you ask me, CIG should be so appreciative with anyone who gave them 100 or more and grandfather them to all SC related products for the next several years (maybe not including cosmetic cash store stuffs), considering the "good faith" aspects, the fact CIG has had this money to invest and on which, hopefully, are drawing more income. 100usd in 2013 "should" look like 110 to 120 today, "should" look like 140 to 150 in 2018. Well, that's about 3 entire products, or 2 with a couple dlc. People don't think about these things and they should.
Whatever. I predict a future huge argument will be SQ42 DLC cost.
So if you paid $2500 for one of the limited time ships. Do you still have to pay for sq42?
Not if you bought the package before whatever day it is. Sometime in February I think.,
Valentines Day I think
I better hurry and get mine before the offer is over and I have to spend 60$. Meanwhile cri has done an excellent job of distracting you from the fact that the modules are nothing more then instanced pvp matches you have to buy in order to enjoy them. And people said SWTOR's f2p model was bad. Oh wait SWTOR requires you to pay in order to enjoy their starship combat module.
So if you paid $2500 for one of the limited time ships. Do you still have to pay for sq42?
Not if you bought the package before whatever day it is. Sometime in February I think.,
Valentines Day I think
I better hurry and get mine before the offer is over and I have to spend 60$. Meanwhile cri has done an excellent job of distracting you from the fact that the modules are nothing more then instanced pvp matches you have to buy in order to enjoy them. And people said SWTOR's f2p model was bad. Oh wait SWTOR requires you to pay in order to enjoy their starship combat module.
ok what exactly is the point of this mess?
All I am getting is you have to pay for something to have it. If that is what you said, well yah. Otherwise could you please clarify.
This move does not help their trust factor. Their trust factor seems to go down with every move they make lol
I'm not seeing that.
Really? Been to reddit or the CIG forums lately? The amount of backer anger is higher than it's ever been.
Exhibit A: Why people aren't ready for transparent development.
It's an unfortunate reality that if nothing else has come out of SC, it's the people are incapable of dealing with transparency. I think the thought was that with the prevalence of Alphas and Betas that people understood, generally, how the process works, but SC is a great indication that they are clueless.
So if you paid $2500 for one of the limited time ships. Do you still have to pay for sq42?
Not if you bought the package before whatever day it is. Sometime in February I think.,
Valentines Day I think
I better hurry and get mine before the offer is over and I have to spend 60$. Meanwhile cri has done an excellent job of distracting you from the fact that the modules are nothing more then instanced pvp matches you have to buy in order to enjoy them. And people said SWTOR's f2p model was bad. Oh wait SWTOR requires you to pay in order to enjoy their starship combat module.
ok what exactly is the point of this mess?
All I am getting is you have to pay for something to have it. If that is what you said, well yah. Otherwise could you please clarify.
So, "free weekend" plus "buy now to get both" offering...
No, still not running out of cash. Everything is just fine. Yup, yup, JUST fine...
Yes because absolutly the only reason a company want's to make money is if they are running out of cash.
According to the "Funds raised" number, they received around 2.6 million bucks in January 2016.
With
around 260 employees and the "Rule-of-Thumb" 10k$ per employee per
month in the gaming industry (total cost) the burn rate and the monthly
income seems to be approximately alike, even in slower months like
January (right after the Nov/Dec X-Mas sale .. November was 5.37 M$, December around 5 M$).
According to the "Funds raised" number, they received around 2.6 million bucks in January 2016.
With
around 260 employees and the "Rule-of-Thumb" 10k$ per employee per
month in the gaming industry (total cost) the burn rate and the monthly
income seems to be approximately alike, even in slower months like
January (right after the Nov/Dec X-Mas sale).
Have fun
I am assuming that cost is determined by all costs associated broken down by the number of employees? If so and it isn't to much trouble do you recall your source. Interested in reading about it.
Exhibit A: Why people aren't ready for transparent development.
It's an unfortunate reality that if nothing else has come out of SC, it's the people are incapable of dealing with transparency. I think the thought was that with the prevalence of Alphas and Betas that people understood, generally, how the process works, but SC is a great indication that they are clueless.
I dont agree that this game is a good example of "transparent development". If it was, we would have much more info on what happened with the FPS module that illfonic made and they used as a demo for most of 2015? In all honestly, I dont see much of a difference between this games transparency and most other games.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
Exhibit A: Why people aren't ready for transparent development.
It's an unfortunate reality that if nothing else has come out of SC, it's the people are incapable of dealing with transparency. I think the thought was that with the prevalence of Alphas and Betas that people understood, generally, how the process works, but SC is a great indication that they are clueless.
I dont agree that this game is a good example of "transparent development". If it was, we would have much more info on what happened with the FPS module that illfonic made and they used as a demo for most of 2015? In all honestly, I dont see much of a difference between this games transparency and most other games.
You'd have to admit they are more open than the average developer and miles more open then say Bethesda.
According to the "Funds raised" number, they received around 2.6 million bucks in January 2016.
With
around 260 employees and the "Rule-of-Thumb" 10k$ per employee per
month in the gaming industry (total cost) the burn rate and the monthly
income seems to be approximately alike, even in slower months like
January (right after the Nov/Dec X-Mas sale).
Have fun
I am assuming that cost is determined by all costs associated broken down by the number of employees? If so and it isn't to much trouble do you recall your source. Interested in reading about it.
You'd have to admit they are more open than the average developer and miles more open then say Bethesda.
I'll give you that but there are also examples of companies that did it well like Red5. During beta they posted a lot on the forums and had weekly videos and updates. They also ran many polls of the beta testers asking for what they wanted.
While I agree there is a lot of information coming out of CIG, I could not honestly say they are doing it "better" that I have ever seen and I can not say they are a model of transparency. Star Marine is a good example. Something happened, most of us can agree, we just dont agree about what. Lots of theories like:
1. They are running out of money and need to move to pushing SQ42 to earn more 2. illfonic screwed up because they were not being supervised by CIG very well 3. The current build of the PU doesnt work with the version of the FPS and it needs reworked to make it in
Just the fact we have heard all these different theories and no real word from CIG is enough to prove we dont have real transparency.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
According to the "Funds raised" number, they received around 2.6 million bucks in January 2016.
With
around 260 employees and the "Rule-of-Thumb" 10k$ per employee per
month in the gaming industry (total cost) the burn rate and the monthly
income seems to be approximately alike, even in slower months like
January (right after the Nov/Dec X-Mas sale).
Have fun
I am assuming that cost is determined by all costs associated broken down by the number of employees? If so and it isn't to much trouble do you recall your source. Interested in reading about it.
According to the "Funds raised" number, they received around 2.6 million bucks in January 2016.
With
around 260 employees and the "Rule-of-Thumb" 10k$ per employee per
month in the gaming industry (total cost) the burn rate and the monthly
income seems to be approximately alike, even in slower months like
January (right after the Nov/Dec X-Mas sale).
Have fun
I am assuming that cost is determined by all costs associated broken down by the number of employees? If so and it isn't to much trouble do you recall your source. Interested in reading about it.
".... “$10,000 per man [per] month” is a current rule of thumb in the industry....."
Have fun
Yeah, I got a similar estimation from an MMO vet still working on an active MMO. There will always be variance, but that's a reasonable estimation.
Given where most gaming devs for AAA developers live, they have to be earning at least 70k a year to live comfortably solo. We're talking west and east coast in some of the most expensive areas around. It makes living in Chicago look affordable (city jobs can pay up to 50% more money than jobs outside of the city, yet the cost of living ends up eating most of that extra cash up.)
Comments
___________________________________
I don't like the size of some of the pledge packages.
I don't like the grey market.
I don't like the changes to the melt thing.
I don't like the separation of the two games.
I don't like the continued creation of new ships when older ships remain unfinished. This is not in reference to the craft that required certain coding to be completed before their design.
I don't like the modular design idea overall. I believe merging the separate shops work is more trouble than they believed it could be.
There.
That is off the top of my head.
Edit: @goobsnews so he sees the response
Though I would like acknowledgement of my response so I know you received it.
Don't have much dudgeon over this. Looks like just another monetization strategy, guess they found enough people who wanted X but not Y, or vice versa. And a good deadline gooses sales too. Probably easier to split the development, as they really need to release something concrete this year. Infinite promises will eventually cloy even the most stalwart.
Mismanagement though? Oh yeah. Just another in a long trail. Letting Roberts whizz on the 'little people' is probably a poor decision too, but that's what a bozo at the top will do. Every time you see one of those 'Roberts being something of an asshat' things leak out, you are getting a look at the real Roberts.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
"The change is only for FUTURE backers, who will have to pay more for Squadron 42 starting on the 14th."
Looks like there are three exceptions that are different:
"- We sold a very cheap ($25 or $30?) Star Citizen-only package for a brief period.
- The second wave of AMD Omega packages doesn't include Squadron 42.
- Some very very early packages also have the 'Behind Enemy Lines' SQ42 sequel."
The first was a special limited-time low price promo sometime before X-mas (2014 I think).
The second was an AMD grafic card promo.
The third contains (in addition to SC and SQ42) the first mission disc for SQ42 (called "Behind Enemy Lines"), which is free for early backers. ("The first Squadron 42 mission disk, Behind Enemy Lines, will be available for free to all backers who pledge before $6 million upon release.")
Have fun
If you ask me, CIG should be so appreciative with anyone who gave them 100 or more and grandfather them to all SC related products for the next several years (maybe not including cosmetic cash store stuffs), considering the "good faith" aspects, the fact CIG has had this money to invest and on which, hopefully, are drawing more income. 100usd in 2013 "should" look like 110 to 120 today, "should" look like 140 to 150 in 2018. Well, that's about 3 entire products, or 2 with a couple dlc. People don't think about these things and they should.
Whatever. I predict a future huge argument will be SQ42 DLC cost.
All I am getting is you have to pay for something to have it. If that is what you said, well yah.
Otherwise could you please clarify.
Exhibit A: Why people aren't ready for transparent development.
It's an unfortunate reality that if nothing else has come out of SC, it's the people are incapable of dealing with transparency. I think the thought was that with the prevalence of Alphas and Betas that people understood, generally, how the process works, but SC is a great indication that they are clueless.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Yah, false equivalency much.
With around 260 employees and the "Rule-of-Thumb" 10k$ per employee per month in the gaming industry (total cost) the burn rate and the monthly income seems to be approximately alike, even in slower months like January (right after the Nov/Dec X-Mas sale .. November was 5.37 M$, December around 5 M$).
Have fun
If so and it isn't to much trouble do you recall your source.
Interested in reading about it.
".... “$10,000 per man [per] month” is a current rule of thumb in the industry....."
Have fun
While I agree there is a lot of information coming out of CIG, I could not honestly say they are doing it "better" that I have ever seen and I can not say they are a model of transparency. Star Marine is a good example. Something happened, most of us can agree, we just dont agree about what. Lots of theories like:
1. They are running out of money and need to move to pushing SQ42 to earn more
2. illfonic screwed up because they were not being supervised by CIG very well
3. The current build of the PU doesnt work with the version of the FPS and it needs reworked to make it in
Just the fact we have heard all these different theories and no real word from CIG is enough to prove we dont have real transparency.
Yeah, I got a similar estimation from an MMO vet still working on an active MMO. There will always be variance, but that's a reasonable estimation.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I think if people were really being offered this amount, you'd see.. something different. Sorry, I can't agree. At all. No way.
Ok. When they've made a video game we can talk about all that.
Everyone keeps saying, "MMOs take 5+ years!". No one's saying how long it takes to make a single-player/co-op shooter.