You posted while I was editing but you got the jist of what I was trying to say. I am in 100% agreement on all the SG as you said because I didn't "invest" in any of them. Again I was forced into them. That is why the best solution to this problem would have been to just make the KS version first THEN add all the SG&M to the finished product. Just think of all the fear and loathing that would have not happened if they had done so.
True but the majority of backers wanted the other items. That is just the nature of KS unfortunately because you are getting involved at such an early stage of development. I totally understood and accepted that a lot can and will change but I understand your point. I just don't think you can get into a KS project and expect the get the exact product at the time of backing. Just part and parcel of how it works like you said.
Personally I love the idea of KS projects to get the games we really want but the whole transparency thing...yeah that can go. Too many people commenting with little to zero actual understanding of how it works given a voice to spout off ignorant statements about a process that they obviously do not understand.
I wish we could go back to the day of walking into a shop with a few pounds to spend on a game and look at what is on the shelf as finished products. Hell even finished products today come with shit like day 1 DLC content that is such a blatant rip off it amazes me people just accept it and part with their money.
To me, stuff like day 1 DLC content is much more deserving of complaint then a game in development having variations on budget and development time. The former is a pure money grab rip off and the latter is just part of the development process.
I'm not sure I agree with your first sentence. "The majority of the MONEY wanted the other items" would be more apt.
The rest of your post is preaching to the choir my crabby, big hairy-footed friend!
Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.
As a backer and a glass half full/game will succeed person let me weigh in on what @Adjuvant1 and @Brenics and other BoS are trying to say:
CR took it upon himself to vastly increase the scope of SC. No one asked him to do so. Yes their was apparently a Forum post with a poll that the majority of backers did not vote in. That does not equal "asking" for anything. The amount of money received compelled him to do so. The amount of money received was to help make the original KS game. WE bought into his KS vision with lots of money. CR decided to increase the scope, not the backers. After the KS was over we had no choice but to hang on and hope for the best, unless we wanted a refund. But why refund? We wanted a great space sim. So we are forced to wait. We are married to his increased vision. We have to believe he can deliver.
I personally just wanted what I pledged for, nothing more. But now I am forced to wait for what CR wanted. I hope he can deliver.
Obviously what should have happened is the actual KS vision should have been made first, THEN all the extra stuff added to it, like most games are developed. We already have a "modular" way of making SC. It would have been so easy to add "modules" to the base KS game. But for whatever reason CR wants the whole thing put out in one big chunk., not counting SC42 witch was always meant to be a separate game leading into the PU.
Again I am not a "hater" and I am not a fan of the whole BoS crowd and the utter shite they post sometimes but I do see where this particular issue is coming from. Trust me, not all Backers are OK with the increased scope of SC. We did not ask for it, we merely are patiently waiting it out.
Now this is exactly how i feel. I wish the white knights were correct. I wish the game was going to be a fun balanced game that would cost me 15-30$ a month to enjoy. I wish it would be a full living universe with a good fun campaign to play like sq42 along with fps combat on the face of a huge ship my aliance is trying to steal. When reading the stretch goals and looking at how they are presented it makes me think this is more a ponzi scheme that has been delayed for the purpose of milking more money. They should have made the original game then added stretch goals. Just like this guy said. There was no reason not to do such a thing and yet it was done delaying a game for years and making it cost over 200% more. Of course if you throw up some items and say hey look at this cool ship do you want it in the game people will say yes. Hey do you want alien languages in the game, How about living plants, or a space station? Well each of these items will require donors to give 1 million each and will further delay the project by 6 months. Now i don't see how that is so hard to understand why that just looks really bad. Don't forget if we reach another million we will give all backers 10k credits when the game launches. Man that just doesn't sound right under any circumstance. Which brings me to the OP... I don't expect a healthy economy to come from this pay model. I think it is what it will always be. Not because I'm a hater or blinded by it. But its a logical conclusion.
Now this is exactly how i feel. I wish the white knights were correct. I wish the game was going to be a fun balanced game that would cost me 15-30$ a month to enjoy. I wish it would be a full living universe with a good fun campaign to play like sq42 along with fps combat on the face of a huge ship my aliance is trying to steal. When reading the stretch goals and looking at how they are presented it makes me think this is more a ponzi scheme that has been delayed for the purpose of milking more money.
Either you understand how KS stretch goals work or you don't. If you do then you know it is not a Ponzi scheme. If you don't then that explains why you are making such assumptions. But please don't say you understand and that you think it is a Ponzi scheme at the same time as that is more insidious then just a lack of knowledge.
They should have made the original game then added stretch goals. Just like this guy said. There was no reason not to do such a thing and yet it was done delaying a game for years and making it cost over 200% more.
There was a reason, customer demand.
Of course if you throw up some items and say hey look at this cool ship do you want it in the game people will say yes. Hey do you want alien languages in the game, How about living plants, or a space station? Well each of these items will require donors to give 1 million each and will further delay the project by 6 months. Now i don't see how that is so hard to understand why that just looks really bad. Don't forget if we reach another million we will give all backers 10k credits when the game launches.
How is that different from any other stretch goal for a KS or from normal sales for that matter? You want fries with that shake?
Man that just doesn't sound right under any circumstance.
I just don't see how you can state that other then you already have a pre-conceived and biased opinion. Anyone with even the slightest understanding of sale or development must understand it so either you are purposely being ignorant or doing it for an ulterior motive.
Which brings me to the OP... I don't expect a healthy economy to come from this pay model. I think it is what it will always be. Not because I'm a hater or blinded by it. But its a logical conclusion.
I have no idea if it will work or not and until release I will not worry about it because like most game economies the problem you always have is the influence of stuff outside the game world. I would prefer an enclosed system but I can't even think of a single game where that has ever been achieved.
As a backer and a glass half full/game will succeed person let me weigh in on what @Adjuvant1 and @Brenics and other BoS are trying to say:
CR took it upon himself to vastly increase the scope of SC. No one asked him to do so. Yes their was apparently a Forum post with a poll that the majority of backers did not vote in. That does not equal "asking" for anything. The amount of money received compelled him to do so. The amount of money received was to help make the original KS game. WE bought into his KS vision with lots of money. CR decided to increase the scope, not the backers. After the KS was over we had no choice but to hang on and hope for the best, unless we wanted a refund. But why refund? We wanted a great space sim. So we are forced to wait. We are married to his increased vision. We have to believe he can deliver.
I personally just wanted what I pledged for, nothing more. But now I am forced to wait for what CR wanted. I hope he can deliver.
Obviously what should have happened is the actual KS vision should have been made first, THEN all the extra stuff added to it, like most games are developed. We already have a "modular" way of making SC. It would have been so easy to add "modules" to the base KS game. But for whatever reason CR wants the whole thing put out in one big chunk., not counting SC42 witch was always meant to be a separate game leading into the PU.
Again I am not a "hater" and I am not a fan of the whole BoS crowd and the utter shite they post sometimes but I do see where this particular issue is coming from. Trust me, not all Backers are OK with the increased scope of SC. We did not ask for it, we merely are patiently waiting it out.
Now this is exactly how i feel. I wish the white knights were correct. I wish the game was going to be a fun balanced game that would cost me 15-30$ a month to enjoy. I wish it would be a full living universe with a good fun campaign to play like sq42 along with fps combat on the face of a huge ship my aliance is trying to steal. When reading the stretch goals and looking at how they are presented it makes me think this is more a ponzi scheme that has been delayed for the purpose of milking more money. They should have made the original game then added stretch goals. Just like this guy said. There was no reason not to do such a thing and yet it was done delaying a game for years and making it cost over 200% more. Of course if you throw up some items and say hey look at this cool ship do you want it in the game people will say yes. Hey do you want alien languages in the game, How about living plants, or a space station? Well each of these items will require donors to give 1 million each and will further delay the project by 6 months. Now i don't see how that is so hard to understand why that just looks really bad. Don't forget if we reach another million we will give all backers 10k credits when the game launches. Man that just doesn't sound right under any circumstance. Which brings me to the OP... I don't expect a healthy economy to come from this pay model. I think it is what it will always be. Not because I'm a hater or blinded by it. But its a logical conclusion.
Yeah that is not at all what I was saying. I will also be replying to @GrumpyHobbit response to this too.
I think the game will be fun and I don't expect to pay anything a month. I think it will be a full living universe with the obvious limitations. Obviously it is not a Ponzi scheme. Look up the definition of a Ponzi scheme to see why.
Yes they should have made the KS game first then added the SG&M after. I'm sorry but I can see no argument against that. As to @GrumpyHobbit saying customer demand called for anything different I disagree. The KS game and what the moneyed folks wanted are not mutually exclusive. The KS vision should have had priority over the SG&M. But what is done is done. I await the completion of the moneyed interests.
The rest of @filmoret post is not relevant to anything. How long it should take to complete anything, SG&M or the actual game itself, is something that is almost impossible to quantify.
Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.
I think a better answer to all of this is, "When CIG started selling multiple crew ships". That's the point the "pro-" side should be arguing, what has taken this project to such a level, the reality of the fundamentals make production a real challenge.
All of this other stuff probably was very possible, closer to "on time", even with 65 million stretch goals, had everyone been "1 pilot, 1 ship".
Anyway, that's for another topic, in the future, when we discuss, "Why is Star Citizen still in alpha, at the end of 2017/beginning of 2018, when SQ42 released a year ago". This thread's conversation topic hasn't seen much since page 5.
@bartoni33 Yea i wasn't elaborating on your statement i was just saying this is what i agree with then further explained my thoughts on the project. So basically everyone who loves CIG and the work that is going on thinks that they can deliver with their current budget all of the current stretch goals. Because that seems to be what everyone is saying.
@bartoni33 Yea i wasn't elaborating on your statement i was just saying this is what i agree with then further explained my thoughts on the project. So basically everyone who loves CIG and the work that is going on thinks that they can deliver with their current budget all of the current stretch goals. Because that seems to be what everyone is saying.
Seems to be what everyone is saying? I haven't seen a single poster claim they can deliver everything they've promised. No ambitious game in history ever delivered on all promises.
I think what MOST of us are saying is that they COULD deliver a great game with a ton of content and impressive features. They could also utterly fail to do so.
The point is that there's no reason to assume they're scamming us - and that Chris Roberts is a horrible person who doesn't know what he's doing.
It's possible? Sure - everything is possible.
But why don't we wait until we have a REAL reason to think so?
Again, look at the progress. It's still early alpha - and it's still a (very) small portion of the final game - but the progress is real and it's happening before our eyes.
I guess what I don't understand is how the detractors can just utterly dismiss this alpha as nothing at all. At least have the decency and sense of justice to acknowledge what they've accomplished so far.
Even if you ignore that it's alpha (meaning it WILL be a mess and have a ton of issues like all alphas have) - there's no reason to "forget" that they've implemented local-to-global physics, 64-bit precision, complex flight model, a lot of beautiful ships, FPS combat (though still clumsy), and so on - in a large playspace.
That's not a trivial accomplishment if you know anything about what it takes - and if you care about being fair.
I'm not saying it's a miracle or super amazing - but it's definitely a strange thing to deliver if you're just looking to scam people and you don't know what you're doing.
Seems to be what everyone is saying? I haven't seen a single poster claim they can deliver everything they've promised. No ambitious game in history ever delivered on all promises.
This argument really bothers me. I've touched on it before, but I want to say something about it.
CIG has already "sold" this game. You're comparing promises and hype of games in development to a product which has garnered funds on the premise of trust that these features will be in this game, this game will be like this. The issue isn't "pie in the sky" as EQNext's in-depth AI system, or even some Steam release. People gave money because it was said the game would be built for VR, people gave money because of Star Marine, people gave money because they thought early backing would give specific benefits, on and on and on the promises, and now it's like, "well, sorry, that's not how it's going to be".
It would be one thing if, every time there was an intentional misunderstanding, people had the opportunity to get their money back, but there's not. This isn't some refund policy when the game fails to deliver to expectations. Unless you want a chargeback on your record, you are stuck. That's wrong. Is it wrong because "things change sometimes"? No. It's wrong because these "professionals" should have known what was possible to deliver when they open their mouths and start making these promises, if they're going to say, "you can't have refunds" and stand by that with some modicum of dignity. CIG has, over the past years, created an atmosphere of deceit, knowing much of what they promise was not, is not, will not be likely, they allow people to believe it so long as they send money. It continues to this day.
Some people don't have much invested, and are just enjoying the ride. Some people.. I think some people just like being jerked around, I don't know what's going on there, they bend and bend, supporting the company no matter how "in your face" the gaslighting pans out to be. There are alot of people, not some people with a confused, subjective view, but alot of people who really, genuinely feel this is a problem, that so many broken promises and "changes" happen, and they have little recourse.
Let the buyer beware.
Fine, you think they're fools with their money. There is a caveat here, though. If they were fools to trust CIG, then there will be people in the future who are fools to trust CIG. If they're not going to get, for their time and money backing, what they thought they would get, other people will certainly fall into the same category. We need to let people know, publicize the fact, this company has been alot of talk with a fraction as much walk. We need to present an equal side to this, that you had better watch out what you're getting into, because there's no turning back, if the company decides to shuck your favorite feature tomorrow, because reasons. People deserve evidence presented, people deserve a clear picture.
Saying, "well, things change in this industry", begs an issue of trust, that CIG people apparently don't know what the hell they can deliver, and if your money is up front, if you can't get a refund without a fight, what you're really saying is, "don't do it". So just don't beat around the bush, just say, "It's going to change, don't give them money yet". Let the company build what they say they're going to build with 111 million, then see how all these promises work out.
Seems to be what everyone is saying? I haven't seen a single poster claim they can deliver everything they've promised. No ambitious game in history ever delivered on all promises.
This argument really bothers me. I've touched on it before, but I want to say something about it.
CIG has already "sold" this game. You're comparing promises and hype of games in development to a product which has garnered funds on the premise of trust that these features will be in this game, this game will be like this. The issue isn't "pie in the sky" as EQNext's in-depth AI system, or even some Steam release. People gave money because it was said the game would be built for VR, people gave money because of Star Marine, people gave money because they thought early backing would give specific benefits, on and on and on the promises, and now it's like, "well, sorry, that's not how it's going to be".
It would be one thing if, every time there was an intentional misunderstanding, people had the opportunity to get their money back, but there's not. This isn't some refund policy when the game fails to deliver to expectations. Unless you want a chargeback on your record, you are stuck. That's wrong. Is it wrong because "things change sometimes"? No. It's wrong because these "professionals" should have known what was possible to deliver when they open their mouths and start making these promises, if they're going to say, "you can't have refunds" and stand by that with some modicum of dignity. CIG has, over the past years, created an atmosphere of deceit, knowing much of what they promise was not, is not, will not be likely, they allow people to believe it so long as they send money. It continues to this day.
Some people don't have much invested, and are just enjoying the ride. Some people.. I think some people just like being jerked around, I don't know what's going on there, they bend and bend, supporting the company no matter how "in your face" the gaslighting pans out to be. There are alot of people, not some people with a confused, subjective view, but alot of people who really, genuinely feel this is a problem, that so many broken promises and "changes" happen, and they have little recourse.
Let the buyer beware.
Fine, you think they're fools with their money. There is a caveat here, though. If they were fools to trust CIG, then there will be people in the future who are fools to trust CIG. If they're not going to get, for their time and money backing, what they thought they would get, other people will certainly fall into the same category. We need to let people know, publicize the fact, this company has been alot of talk with a fraction as much walk. We need to present an equal side to this, that you had better watch out what you're getting into, because there's no turning back, if the company decides to shuck your favorite feature tomorrow, because reasons. People deserve evidence presented, people deserve a clear picture.
Saying, "well, things change in this industry", begs an issue of trust, that CIG people apparently don't know what the hell they can deliver, and if your money is up front, if you can't get a refund without a fight, what you're really saying is, "don't do it". So just don't beat around the bush, just say, "It's going to change, don't give them money yet". Let the company build what they say they're going to build with 111 million, then see how all these promises work out.
If you live in the real world - you know that there's no way to actually know exactly what you will be able to deliver in a game that's ambitious and is subject to future unpredictable obstacles.
That's why it's key to appreciate the difference between a vision and every single little thing the developers would LIKE to be part of that vision.
To me, the important thing is the vision.
I believe it's very possible that we get Star Citizen in terms of the vision - but I'd have to be utterly naive to think it could ever have everything Chris Roberts ever wanted at launch. That can't happen.
That's been the case with every majorly hyped game for as long as I've been following development of games - which is more than 30 years.
I think the last game where I truly believed everything the developers dreamed up in interviews was actually going to be in the game at release was Daggerfall.
Talk about a wake-up call once it was released Yes, I learned my lesson hard back in 1996. I haven't forgotten it - as I was quite devastated.
But if you take a look at any very successful and highly acclaimed game released, including Witcher 3, Bioshock Infinite, Last of Us, and so on - you will find a TON of broken "promises".
As long as we live in a reality with limited time and limited resources - there's no alternative.
Well, yes, the only alternative is that no ambitious promises are ever made - and no ambitious game would ever get financed.
It would become a world of remakes and safe sequels - much like Hollywood.
So, you've just insulted thousands of people by saying, "You're not in touch with reality if you believe in Chris Roberts."?
If you believe that everything Chris Roberts WANTS in the game - will actually be in the game at launch - then you're ridiculously out of touch with reality.
If that's an insult, then you're the sort of person who gets insulted when you're looking in the mirror. That's not really my concern.
Unless you ignore half of what Chris is saying - and especially what his community team has been saying - you will understand that these "promises" aren't set in stone, and they're not necessarily planned for launch.
Chris is a very established "dreamer" - which means he gets excited and he aims for the stars.
Should he learn to curtail his dream when speaking in public? Possibly. I mean, obviously a lot of people don't understand the difference between a scam or a malicious lie and a genuine desire to create a great game by a very enthusiastic developer.
Again, this is not unique and surprisingly common for ambitious developers.
The one thing that's unique for Chris Roberts and Star Citizen - is that there's no publisher to break his dream and set him "straight" this time.
So, it's a gamble. It's a gamble that anyone should make with open eyes.
In the end, you either trust Chris and his team to deliver on the vision - with all the necessary compromises - or you don't. Erin, his brother, is a very different person - and he's clearly the "realist" of the two.
Since he was put in charge of production, I've been much less worried about feature creep and hopeless dreams.
But there's absolutely no way Star Citizen will release and be perfect or free from issues.
So, you've just insulted thousands of people by saying, "You're not in touch with reality if you believe in Chris Roberts."?
@Dklond Wow this guy just basically figured that you are circular reasoning. You completely trust that there is no reason to believe something fishy is going on yet somehow you believe Chris Roberts claims that he "will deliver". How can you excuse such ignorant claims? Chris Roberts said he will deliver this content if you give him the money. You said he won't be able to deliver yet you believe what he said. He got the money now its time for him to deliver. As for your response to my previous post you have categorized me as someone who hates this game and thinks its a fail. I never said the game was going to fail or that they won't deliver anything. They have made progress and will probably deliver the game. What i have been trying to say over this entire thread has to do with the OP and my logic on why that conclusion was attained. They are using shady cash grab tactics now and they will continue to do so in the game's actual economy.
So, you've just insulted thousands of people by saying, "You're not in touch with reality if you believe in Chris Roberts."?
@Dklond Wow this guy just basically figured that you are circular reasoning. You completely trust that there is no reason to believe something fishy is going on yet somehow you believe Chris Roberts claims that he "will deliver". How can you excuse such ignorant claims? Chris Roberts said he will deliver this content if you give him the money. You said he won't be able to deliver yet you believe what he said. He got the money now its time for him to deliver. As for your response to my previous post you have categorized me as someone who hates this game and thinks its a fail. I never said the game was going to fail or that they won't deliver anything. They have made progress and will probably deliver the game. What i have been trying to say over this entire thread has to do with the OP and my logic on why that conclusion was attained. They are using shady cash grab tactics now and they will continue to do so in the game's actual economy.
No, you might consider reading what I'm saying. Just a tip.
Let me make it easier for you:
Chris has a vision and he's promised to make that vision come true.
That is what I believe he can do - and everyone should make up their own mind if that's possible.
However, what Chris has NOT said is that every single feature he's talked about as something he wants in the game is going to be PART of the game at launch, and some of the features might not make it at all. If you actually listen to what he's saying - he's often making it clear that he HOPES to have this or that in the game - but also that it might not make it.
He's been open about that from the beginning.
A great example is the procedural generation technology. That was ONLY ever something he WANTED to do - and which he would TRY to do if the stretch goal was funded - but it was never a promise for launch at all.
Essentially, we're lucky that the tech has come online so soon - and now it means it WILL be there for launch. Also, they're going to use it much more than originally planned to make the game better than it was going to be.
To clarify, here's the wording for the Procedural Generation stretch goal:
"This stretch goal will allocate funding for Cloud Imperium to develop procedural generation technology for future iterations of Star Citizen. Advanced procedural generation will be necessary for creating entire planets worth of exploration and development content. A special strike team of procedural generation-oriented developers will be assembled to make this technology a reality."
I've bolded the relevant part of the goal.
The problem is that a lot of people seem to think that the above is a promise about having procedurally generated planets in the game AT LAUNCH - when it's clearly about future iterations of the game.
This is true for many of the "promised" features for Star Citizen.
Personally I have no problem with Roberts letting his thoughts get away from him. However, I do wish he would clarify comments to avoid unnecessary expectations, ie he recently talked about a huge amount of stuff coming in 2.4 which sounded fantastic. The next day the comment was addressed by hobo Lando saying that what Roberts really meant was this content was the year's roadmap starting from 2.4. An astronomical difference...
Personally I have no problem with Roberts letting his thoughts get away from him. However, I do wish he would clarify comments to avoid unnecessary expectations, ie he recently talked about a huge amount of stuff coming in 2.4 which sounded fantastic. The next day the comment was addressed by hobo Lando saying that what Roberts really meant was this content was the year's roadmap starting from 2.4. An astronomical difference...
I agree and he's a bit too excited for my tastes (I'm very conservative in that way myself) - but I also realise that human beings are flawed. I'd rather have a guy trying to push boundaries who's a bit over-excited than a guy who's too timid to go above and beyond.
As for the 2.4 patch - if you paid close attention to the words used and the context, it was pretty obvious it wasn't all going to be there. Also, it wouldn't fit what they've been saying for months about progress, either.
So the 45 stretch goals each costing 1 million dollars. The purpose of the goal was if they raised the money then it would fund that particular item for the game. Ok I don't expect it all to be 100% finished on launch date but maybe some later expansions. But why are you selling goals that cannot even be attained yet?
So the 45 stretch goals each costing 1 million dollars. The purpose of the goal was if they raised the money then it would fund that particular item for the game. Ok I don't expect it all to be 100% finished on launch date but maybe some later expansions. But why are you selling goals that cannot even be attained yet?
It has often been said before:
"No ! A space plant/insert your favorite late stage stretch goal reward does NOT cost 1 million dollar as a stretch goal. "
The backers have asked for token stretch goal rewards as the numbers climbed and CIG added some token rewards (like the space plant, or another ship/system that was already planned anyway).
Sometimes CIG added functionality that the CryEngine offered anyway (like pets), where the additional effort to add some pet skins would be minimal.
The backers were aware of that. They even wanted more and more stretch goals (and the token rewards that came with those stretch goals). But it was CIG that finally put an end to the stretch goals at 65 M$ (although they knew that the majority of backers wanted even more). It was a necessary move to stop with the stretch goals and everyone with project management experience knows why. At some point you need to say stop and make a plan for resources-time-USR(user requirement specifications).
IMHO when they added the stretch goals, they believed that it will be there at launch. The reality of video game industry development MAY lead to some of the goals being added later than launch day. But personally I do not believe that this was planned by CIG at the time they added this particular goal. And i still believe they try to squezze in as many of the promised goals as possible.
I think you folks are arguing over the wrong points. The real issue is with Chris and how during the first two years he never gave any indication of the increased time needed to make the game. We are told during the kickstarter that he would make the base game that everyone could play and then add modules over time. We were told in 2013 that stretch goals would not delay the release. Even in late 2013 Chris was still promoting the 2014 launch of a playable game.
Then BAM!!! Suddenly in 2015 we are told he wont be held to "artificial timelines" and the vision of the game has increased. If there was any indication in the first two years the game would take longer I have not been able to find it and it gives justification to the early adopters to be a bit angry at Chris for going back on the things he has said.
This is just one example, Star Marine is another. Chris spent most of 2015 promoting it and showing demo after demo and then in 2016 BAM! We have it in 2.0? Not even close. Take a look at the Star Marine videos Chris used to promote the game in 2015 and then tell me we have that in 2.0?
Chris is his own worst enemy. He says thing-A and then a year later acts like everyone else is wrong for expecting that thing-A to happen.
"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
As for the 2.4 patch - if you paid close attention to the words used and the context, it was pretty obvious it wasn't all going to be there. Also, it wouldn't fit what they've been saying for months about progress, either.
Therein lies the problem. People shouldn't have to pay such close attention, this is a repeated thing for CIG and if they're constantly making similar mistakes they should steps to ensure they don't happen in the first place. Perhaps they need to divert a bit of funding away from marketing and into PR
I can only give you my personal point of view. Based on the scope of the game (as documented in the CIG homepage and the Stretch Goal list, NOT the smaller version of the Kickstarter campaign from end of 2012) I personally expected the development of the game to take at least 5 years. As in 2013/2014/2015/2016/2017. So i expect something resembling the Persistent Universe to launch around X-mas in 2017 (and Squadron 42 Part 1 to come out sooner, around end of 2016 or early 2017).
Based on my experience from other games i expected (and still expect) the full list of features to be available no sooner than around 7 years. That would be end of 2019.
Yes - others expected a much sooner launch. I always wondered why. Maybe even Chris Roberts some years ago expected an earlier launch date. Lets call that enthusiatic optimism. I am a project manager. We deal more with realism than optimism. You can speed up SOME things with money, but not many. Its the "9 pregant women will not give birth to a baby in one month, no matter how many "resources" someone pumps into this project ;-) " situation.
And in the end I PERSONALLY do not care how long the project takes. I hope they follow the "Its done when its done" kind of policy. I want to see the project launch only when the product matches the vision. I do not give a rats arse about timelines. And - as i said numerous times before - i put my money where my mouth is and backed the project. And i do not suffer from the instant gratification virus of modern times and can wait until the project is finished. There are hundreds of interesting games waiting to be played in my Steam and GoG account until then.
People had THREE YEARS time to get a refund. From experience amongst my circle of friends i know it was quite easy to get a refund in the past. Now, after over three years and a significant amount of money (no, i do not know exactly how much) having been spent, i understand why they have stopped giving refunds. Again ... as a project manager you need some key pieces of information ... available resources (thats where the refunds come in), available time and fixed User requirement specifications. That triangle should not change too much (or only change for the better, as in ... more money, more people, fixed or reduced requirements) after a certain point. I think we see the hand of the "realist" Erin Roberts at work here, less the mouth of the "optimist" Chris Roberts. If people were not able to make up their minds wether to continue to support a project or not after THREE WHOLE YEARS, then yes: they should have to stay until the end of the ride. And in the future they may want to stay out of crowdfunding projects and wait for the finished product before they buy.
Then BAM!!! Suddenly in 2015 we are told he wont be held to "artificial timelines" and the vision of the game has increased.
BAM?
Seriously anyone who had a BAM moment should never be left alone with sharp objects or make financial descisions or invest in a game still in development.
Well reading all the latest responses I notice one important item you guys seem to skip over.
I will get to that point, but really look at Ben's reaction's in this video if you can't see something has changed then am just not sure how else to convince you guys something is really wrong over at CIG!
But to get to the one point that revolves around everything you are all saying on both sides. That is the most important issue of all of this is they are running out of money.
You have videos from years ago that look better than anything they have today.
So if you guys think cutting Star Marine (waste of money that company is now out of Business) because it's already in SC then you really will never look at anything with CIG with eye's wide open!
Now SC has been put on hold for them to try and get SQ42 out the door. If none of you can see that was done for only one reason and that is money!
The point isn't them getting everything CR says he wants in the game(s), it's he doesn't have the money to get even SQ42 out the door as he laid out over the years.
I really feel sorry for all that backed CR and don't believe any of you want to admit to being fooled or how a lot of us see it as scammed out of your hard earned money for something that will never happen.
But good luck maybe in two weeks you will get something called SQ42. But like @DKLond says "don't expect everything CR said would be in game."
Comments
The rest of your post is preaching to the choir my crabby, big hairy-footed friend!
Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.
I think the game will be fun and I don't expect to pay anything a month. I think it will be a full living universe with the obvious limitations. Obviously it is not a Ponzi scheme. Look up the definition of a Ponzi scheme to see why.
Yes they should have made the KS game first then added the SG&M after. I'm sorry but I can see no argument against that. As to @GrumpyHobbit saying customer demand called for anything different I disagree. The KS game and what the moneyed folks wanted are not mutually exclusive. The KS vision should have had priority over the SG&M. But what is done is done. I await the completion of the moneyed interests.
The rest of @filmoret post is not relevant to anything. How long it should take to complete anything, SG&M or the actual game itself, is something that is almost impossible to quantify.
Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.
All of this other stuff probably was very possible, closer to "on time", even with 65 million stretch goals, had everyone been "1 pilot, 1 ship".
Anyway, that's for another topic, in the future, when we discuss, "Why is Star Citizen still in alpha, at the end of 2017/beginning of 2018, when SQ42 released a year ago". This thread's conversation topic hasn't seen much since page 5.
I think what MOST of us are saying is that they COULD deliver a great game with a ton of content and impressive features. They could also utterly fail to do so.
The point is that there's no reason to assume they're scamming us - and that Chris Roberts is a horrible person who doesn't know what he's doing.
It's possible? Sure - everything is possible.
But why don't we wait until we have a REAL reason to think so?
Again, look at the progress. It's still early alpha - and it's still a (very) small portion of the final game - but the progress is real and it's happening before our eyes.
I guess what I don't understand is how the detractors can just utterly dismiss this alpha as nothing at all. At least have the decency and sense of justice to acknowledge what they've accomplished so far.
Even if you ignore that it's alpha (meaning it WILL be a mess and have a ton of issues like all alphas have) - there's no reason to "forget" that they've implemented local-to-global physics, 64-bit precision, complex flight model, a lot of beautiful ships, FPS combat (though still clumsy), and so on - in a large playspace.
That's not a trivial accomplishment if you know anything about what it takes - and if you care about being fair.
I'm not saying it's a miracle or super amazing - but it's definitely a strange thing to deliver if you're just looking to scam people and you don't know what you're doing.
CIG has already "sold" this game. You're comparing promises and hype of games in development to a product which has garnered funds on the premise of trust that these features will be in this game, this game will be like this. The issue isn't "pie in the sky" as EQNext's in-depth AI system, or even some Steam release. People gave money because it was said the game would be built for VR, people gave money because of Star Marine, people gave money because they thought early backing would give specific benefits, on and on and on the promises, and now it's like, "well, sorry, that's not how it's going to be".
It would be one thing if, every time there was an intentional misunderstanding, people had the opportunity to get their money back, but there's not. This isn't some refund policy when the game fails to deliver to expectations. Unless you want a chargeback on your record, you are stuck. That's wrong. Is it wrong because "things change sometimes"? No. It's wrong because these "professionals" should have known what was possible to deliver when they open their mouths and start making these promises, if they're going to say, "you can't have refunds" and stand by that with some modicum of dignity. CIG has, over the past years, created an atmosphere of deceit, knowing much of what they promise was not, is not, will not be likely, they allow people to believe it so long as they send money. It continues to this day.
Some people don't have much invested, and are just enjoying the ride. Some people.. I think some people just like being jerked around, I don't know what's going on there, they bend and bend, supporting the company no matter how "in your face" the gaslighting pans out to be. There are alot of people, not some people with a confused, subjective view, but alot of people who really, genuinely feel this is a problem, that so many broken promises and "changes" happen, and they have little recourse.
Let the buyer beware.
Fine, you think they're fools with their money. There is a caveat here, though. If they were fools to trust CIG, then there will be people in the future who are fools to trust CIG. If they're not going to get, for their time and money backing, what they thought they would get, other people will certainly fall into the same category. We need to let people know, publicize the fact, this company has been alot of talk with a fraction as much walk. We need to present an equal side to this, that you had better watch out what you're getting into, because there's no turning back, if the company decides to shuck your favorite feature tomorrow, because reasons. People deserve evidence presented, people deserve a clear picture.
Saying, "well, things change in this industry", begs an issue of trust, that CIG people apparently don't know what the hell they can deliver, and if your money is up front, if you can't get a refund without a fight, what you're really saying is, "don't do it". So just don't beat around the bush, just say, "It's going to change, don't give them money yet". Let the company build what they say they're going to build with 111 million, then see how all these promises work out.
That's why it's key to appreciate the difference between a vision and every single little thing the developers would LIKE to be part of that vision.
To me, the important thing is the vision.
I believe it's very possible that we get Star Citizen in terms of the vision - but I'd have to be utterly naive to think it could ever have everything Chris Roberts ever wanted at launch. That can't happen.
That's been the case with every majorly hyped game for as long as I've been following development of games - which is more than 30 years.
I think the last game where I truly believed everything the developers dreamed up in interviews was actually going to be in the game at release was Daggerfall.
Talk about a wake-up call once it was released
But if you take a look at any very successful and highly acclaimed game released, including Witcher 3, Bioshock Infinite, Last of Us, and so on - you will find a TON of broken "promises".
As long as we live in a reality with limited time and limited resources - there's no alternative.
Well, yes, the only alternative is that no ambitious promises are ever made - and no ambitious game would ever get financed.
It would become a world of remakes and safe sequels - much like Hollywood.
Is that really what you prefer?
If that's an insult, then you're the sort of person who gets insulted when you're looking in the mirror. That's not really my concern.
Unless you ignore half of what Chris is saying - and especially what his community team has been saying - you will understand that these "promises" aren't set in stone, and they're not necessarily planned for launch.
Chris is a very established "dreamer" - which means he gets excited and he aims for the stars.
Should he learn to curtail his dream when speaking in public? Possibly. I mean, obviously a lot of people don't understand the difference between a scam or a malicious lie and a genuine desire to create a great game by a very enthusiastic developer.
Again, this is not unique and surprisingly common for ambitious developers.
The one thing that's unique for Chris Roberts and Star Citizen - is that there's no publisher to break his dream and set him "straight" this time.
So, it's a gamble. It's a gamble that anyone should make with open eyes.
In the end, you either trust Chris and his team to deliver on the vision - with all the necessary compromises - or you don't. Erin, his brother, is a very different person - and he's clearly the "realist" of the two.
Since he was put in charge of production, I've been much less worried about feature creep and hopeless dreams.
But there's absolutely no way Star Citizen will release and be perfect or free from issues.
Let me make it easier for you:
Chris has a vision and he's promised to make that vision come true.
That is what I believe he can do - and everyone should make up their own mind if that's possible.
However, what Chris has NOT said is that every single feature he's talked about as something he wants in the game is going to be PART of the game at launch, and some of the features might not make it at all. If you actually listen to what he's saying - he's often making it clear that he HOPES to have this or that in the game - but also that it might not make it.
He's been open about that from the beginning.
A great example is the procedural generation technology. That was ONLY ever something he WANTED to do - and which he would TRY to do if the stretch goal was funded - but it was never a promise for launch at all.
Essentially, we're lucky that the tech has come online so soon - and now it means it WILL be there for launch. Also, they're going to use it much more than originally planned to make the game better than it was going to be.
"This stretch goal will allocate funding for Cloud Imperium to develop procedural generation technology for future iterations of Star Citizen. Advanced procedural generation will be necessary for creating entire planets worth of exploration and development content. A special strike team of procedural generation-oriented developers will be assembled to make this technology a reality."
I've bolded the relevant part of the goal.
The problem is that a lot of people seem to think that the above is a promise about having procedurally generated planets in the game AT LAUNCH - when it's clearly about future iterations of the game.
This is true for many of the "promised" features for Star Citizen.
The next day the comment was addressed by hobo Lando saying that what Roberts really meant was this content was the year's roadmap starting from 2.4.
An astronomical difference...
As for the 2.4 patch - if you paid close attention to the words used and the context, it was pretty obvious it wasn't all going to be there. Also, it wouldn't fit what they've been saying for months about progress, either.
"No ! A space plant/insert your favorite late stage stretch goal reward does NOT cost 1 million dollar as a stretch goal. "
The backers have asked for token stretch goal rewards as the numbers climbed and CIG added some token rewards (like the space plant, or another ship/system that was already planned anyway).
Sometimes CIG added functionality that the CryEngine offered anyway (like pets), where the additional effort to add some pet skins would be minimal.
The backers were aware of that. They even wanted more and more stretch goals (and the token rewards that came with those stretch goals). But it was CIG that finally put an end to the stretch goals at 65 M$ (although they knew that the majority of backers wanted even more). It was a necessary move to stop with the stretch goals and everyone with project management experience knows why. At some point you need to say stop and make a plan for resources-time-USR(user requirement specifications).
IMHO when they added the stretch goals, they believed that it will be there at launch. The reality of video game industry development MAY lead to some of the goals being added later than launch day. But personally I do not believe that this was planned by CIG at the time they added this particular goal. And i still believe they try to squezze in as many of the promised goals as possible.
Have fun
Then BAM!!! Suddenly in 2015 we are told he wont be held to "artificial timelines" and the vision of the game has increased. If there was any indication in the first two years the game would take longer I have not been able to find it and it gives justification to the early adopters to be a bit angry at Chris for going back on the things he has said.
This is just one example, Star Marine is another. Chris spent most of 2015 promoting it and showing demo after demo and then in 2016 BAM! We have it in 2.0? Not even close. Take a look at the Star Marine videos Chris used to promote the game in 2015 and then tell me we have that in 2.0?
Chris is his own worst enemy. He says thing-A and then a year later acts like everyone else is wrong for expecting that thing-A to happen.
Therein lies the problem. People shouldn't have to pay such close attention, this is a repeated thing for CIG and if they're constantly making similar mistakes they should steps to ensure they don't happen in the first place. Perhaps they need to divert a bit of funding away from marketing and into PR
I can only give you my personal point of view. Based on the scope of the game (as documented in the CIG homepage and the Stretch Goal list, NOT the smaller version of the Kickstarter campaign from end of 2012) I personally expected the development of the game to take at least 5 years. As in 2013/2014/2015/2016/2017. So i expect something resembling the Persistent Universe to launch around X-mas in 2017 (and Squadron 42 Part 1 to come out sooner, around end of 2016 or early 2017).
Based on my experience from other games i expected (and still expect) the full list of features to be available no sooner than around 7 years. That would be end of 2019.
Yes - others expected a much sooner launch. I always wondered why. Maybe even Chris Roberts some years ago expected an earlier launch date. Lets call that enthusiatic optimism. I am a project manager. We deal more with realism than optimism. You can speed up SOME things with money, but not many. Its the "9 pregant women will not give birth to a baby in one month, no matter how many "resources" someone pumps into this project ;-) " situation.
And in the end I PERSONALLY do not care how long the project takes. I hope they follow the "Its done when its done" kind of policy. I want to see the project launch only when the product matches the vision. I do not give a rats arse about timelines. And - as i said numerous times before - i put my money where my mouth is and backed the project. And i do not suffer from the instant gratification virus of modern times and can wait until the project is finished. There are hundreds of interesting games waiting to be played in my Steam and GoG account until then.
People had THREE YEARS time to get a refund. From experience amongst my circle of friends i know it was quite easy to get a refund in the past. Now, after over three years and a significant amount of money (no, i do not know exactly how much) having been spent, i understand why they have stopped giving refunds. Again ... as a project manager you need some key pieces of information ... available resources (thats where the refunds come in), available time and fixed User requirement specifications. That triangle should not change too much (or only change for the better, as in ... more money, more people, fixed or reduced requirements) after a certain point. I think we see the hand of the "realist" Erin Roberts at work here, less the mouth of the "optimist" Chris Roberts. If people were not able to make up their minds wether to continue to support a project or not after THREE WHOLE YEARS, then yes: they should have to stay until the end of the ride. And in the future they may want to stay out of crowdfunding projects and wait for the finished product before they buy.
Have fun
Seriously anyone who had a BAM moment should never be left alone with sharp objects or make financial descisions or invest in a game still in development.
I will get to that point, but really look at Ben's reaction's in this video
But to get to the one point that revolves around everything you are all saying on both sides. That is the most important issue of all of this is they are running out of money.
You have videos from years ago that look better than anything they have today.
So if you guys think cutting Star Marine (waste of money that company is now out of Business) because it's already in SC then you really will never look at anything with CIG with eye's wide open!
Now SC has been put on hold for them to try and get SQ42 out the door. If none of you can see that was done for only one reason and that is money!
The point isn't them getting everything CR says he wants in the game(s), it's he doesn't have the money to get even SQ42 out the door as he laid out over the years.
I really feel sorry for all that backed CR and don't believe any of you want to admit to being fooled or how a lot of us see it as scammed out of your hard earned money for something that will never happen.
But good luck maybe in two weeks you will get something called SQ42. But like @DKLond says "don't expect everything CR said would be in game."
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!