Not sure how this got to 4 pages. The OP was obivious that he came with an agenda and not just to make us aware of something. He came with the point to attack Star Citizen and make others feel stupid for funding it. In his mind this game is just a direct deposit to Chris Roberts bank account and not a game nor will be a game worth having/playing. To argue with him is like having an argument with a deaf and blind person who doesn't know you are there. I think the mods should just lock up such troll posts. He just wants to get a rise out of those who might disagree with his mentality.
You'll have to do a little critical thinking on your own. At the beginning of the year, CIG announced they would be moving to a monthly content patch. 2.4 is supposed to the patch that adds the ability to save your state from one session to another. It is hard to think of any game that doesn't have this ability--but for Star Citizen it is ground breaking/never been done before/revolutionary for some reason. The bottom line--we sit here in June waiting for a patch that was supposed to come in April.
Well, that isn't really true. If you want to play 2.4, it is easy--just become a subscriber. And that is another contentious point. Star Citizen was supposed to be buy once to play. Early backers were supposed to be the alpha testers. Subscriptions were supposedly to support the three weekly videos provided by CIG and not have any in-game perks. Yet here we are, two and half years past when the CEO of the company told us they would release a product and stop crowdfunding. Subscribers get access to the current code, while regular backers are left watching twitch streams. Every time CIG says they are going to try and release something--that something turns out to be too difficult a task for the developers and the deadlines are forgotten. If you want a good example of this, research Star Marine. Hyped by CIG for months, backers were told they would be playing in weeks, not months or years--yet here we are a year past the anticipated release and Star Marine has been effectively canceled.
The only thing the people working at CIG are able to do on time is sell concept ships. Ships that don't exist in the game are constantly introduced and sold to backers. And this more than anything should freak out folks researching the project. There are so many ships still to be created that will be multiplayer and support some type of gameplay mechanic. The problem is--not only do the ships not exist, but the game mechanics to make mining, or salvage, or cargo hauling are not even in the game. Sure they are supposed to be in the game some day. And here is where the critical thinking comes into play. If it is taking this long to get pants on a player--how long do you think it is going to take to get things like an economy or a universe filled with NPCs to work?
Another telling sign. This game is supposed to be open development. But you won't learn much by watching the shows or reading the status reports produced by CIG. You need to read lots of other forums to figure out what is going on. This thread, for example, is a great example. The game was supposed to be released in 2014. When did we find out 2014 was not going to be the year? In Q4/2014--Q4 2014 CIG announced they would release SQ42 episodically in 2015. Q4 in 2015 rolls around and we findout, nope 2016! Do we have a new date? Nope--2016 is still the official line from CIG--the "most open game developer" of any game company ever!! But just read through this thread--not a single person thinks 2016 is realistic. When will we learn that CIG has missed their release window yet again? I suspect in Q4/2106 we will be told 2017. This time next year, a new backer will create a thread just like this and it will have the same responses--just with +1 added to year.
The final issue. There is no publisher with deep pockets from other games to support the development. Gamers are paying for this entire project. There was plenty of money in 2014 and 2015. Will CIG have the funds to continue development through 2017? Only time will tell.
Thought this was a good post worth sharing.
"The bottom line--we sit here in June waiting for a patch that was supposed to come in April." First paragraph moot. This happens with every single game ever developed.
"Star Marine has been effectively canceled." Second paragraph moot. The FPS is working and in game, Star Marine was never cancelled, it was postponed for more important tasks.
"Sure they are supposed to be in the game some day." Third paragraph moot. That is the very definition of crowdfunding and being a backer, it's a gamble.
"This game is supposed to be open development." Fourth paragraph moot. SC is open development, to backers. Nobody promised that you could follow everything through forums and videos.
The release date was push back because instead of the 12-15 million they were looking for, they got over 100 million so the scoped was expanded, majority of backers agreed.
"There is no publisher with deep pockets from other games to support the development." Final issue is moot. It's precisely because there's no investors with deep pockets that SC won't become the buggy, pushed out the door AAA game, like all the others we've seen over the last 10 years.
Thanks for sharing
You're welcome, I enjoyed it too. The problem Star Citizen has is that all the awesome stuff is just promises, the current "game" doesn't really have much game play and zero progression between sessions.
All the delays mean they need to keep raising money and at some point people are going to stop being so generous and expect actual results. When that will be is uncertain but likely to happen over time, people move on to other interests and the graphics are starting to look a little dated, this possibly explains the sharp downward trend in funding this year.
Players still fall out of ships randomly, clip through floors and walls, 2.0 has been out for about 6 months now, if they can't fix that bug then maybe they are just trying to do too much with the Cryengine and that has to be acknowledged.
A move to another engine might mean a delay of a couple of extra years but I don't think anyone realistically believes SQ42 will be out in 2016, or even the first half of 2017. For 4 years now SQ42 has constantly been 1-2 years from release, the engine not being suitable would certainly explain the woeful progress so far on the original pitch time scales.
It's fine if you want to believe everyone agreed to giving them as long as they want but the original kickstarter raised a couple of million with a 2014 estimated release date and they don't even bother updating the comments section of the kickstarter, lots of unhappy folks there. A refund offer to early backers might be a good public relations move given all the bad press that's starting to appear about this project.
You'll have to do a little critical thinking on your own. At the beginning of the year, CIG announced they would be moving to a monthly content patch. 2.4 is supposed to the patch that adds the ability to save your state from one session to another. It is hard to think of any game that doesn't have this ability--but for Star Citizen it is ground breaking/never been done before/revolutionary for some reason. The bottom line--we sit here in June waiting for a patch that was supposed to come in April.
Well, that isn't really true. If you want to play 2.4, it is easy--just become a subscriber. And that is another contentious point. Star Citizen was supposed to be buy once to play. Early backers were supposed to be the alpha testers. Subscriptions were supposedly to support the three weekly videos provided by CIG and not have any in-game perks. Yet here we are, two and half years past when the CEO of the company told us they would release a product and stop crowdfunding. Subscribers get access to the current code, while regular backers are left watching twitch streams. Every time CIG says they are going to try and release something--that something turns out to be too difficult a task for the developers and the deadlines are forgotten. If you want a good example of this, research Star Marine. Hyped by CIG for months, backers were told they would be playing in weeks, not months or years--yet here we are a year past the anticipated release and Star Marine has been effectively canceled.
The only thing the people working at CIG are able to do on time is sell concept ships. Ships that don't exist in the game are constantly introduced and sold to backers. And this more than anything should freak out folks researching the project. There are so many ships still to be created that will be multiplayer and support some type of gameplay mechanic. The problem is--not only do the ships not exist, but the game mechanics to make mining, or salvage, or cargo hauling are not even in the game. Sure they are supposed to be in the game some day. And here is where the critical thinking comes into play. If it is taking this long to get pants on a player--how long do you think it is going to take to get things like an economy or a universe filled with NPCs to work?
Another telling sign. This game is supposed to be open development. But you won't learn much by watching the shows or reading the status reports produced by CIG. You need to read lots of other forums to figure out what is going on. This thread, for example, is a great example. The game was supposed to be released in 2014. When did we find out 2014 was not going to be the year? In Q4/2014--Q4 2014 CIG announced they would release SQ42 episodically in 2015. Q4 in 2015 rolls around and we findout, nope 2016! Do we have a new date? Nope--2016 is still the official line from CIG--the "most open game developer" of any game company ever!! But just read through this thread--not a single person thinks 2016 is realistic. When will we learn that CIG has missed their release window yet again? I suspect in Q4/2106 we will be told 2017. This time next year, a new backer will create a thread just like this and it will have the same responses--just with +1 added to year.
The final issue. There is no publisher with deep pockets from other games to support the development. Gamers are paying for this entire project. There was plenty of money in 2014 and 2015. Will CIG have the funds to continue development through 2017? Only time will tell.
Thought this was a good post worth sharing.
"The bottom line--we sit here in June waiting for a patch that was supposed to come in April." First paragraph moot. This happens with every single game ever developed.
"Star Marine has been effectively canceled." Second paragraph moot. The FPS is working and in game, Star Marine was never cancelled, it was postponed for more important tasks.
"Sure they are supposed to be in the game some day." Third paragraph moot. That is the very definition of crowdfunding and being a backer, it's a gamble.
"This game is supposed to be open development." Fourth paragraph moot. SC is open development, to backers. Nobody promised that you could follow everything through forums and videos.
The release date was push back because instead of the 12-15 million they were looking for, they got over 100 million so the scoped was expanded, majority of backers agreed.
"There is no publisher with deep pockets from other games to support the development." Final issue is moot. It's precisely because there's no investors with deep pockets that SC won't become the buggy, pushed out the door AAA game, like all the others we've seen over the last 10 years.
Thanks for sharing
You're welcome, I enjoyed it too. The problem Star Citizen has is that all the awesome stuff is just promises, the current "game" doesn't really have much game play and zero progression between sessions.
All the delays mean they need to keep raising money and at some point people are going to stop being so generous and expect actual results. When that will be is uncertain but likely to happen over time, people move on to other interests and the graphics are starting to look a little dated, this possibly explains the sharp downward trend in funding this year.
Players still fall out of ships randomly, clip through floors and walls, 2.0 has been out for about 6 months now, if they can't fix that bug then maybe they are just trying to do too much with the Cryengine and that has to be acknowledged.
A move to another engine might mean a delay of a couple of extra years but I don't think anyone realistically believes SQ42 will be out in 2016, or even the first half of 2017. For 4 years now SQ42 has constantly been 1-2 years from release, the engine not being suitable would certainly explain the woeful progress so far on the original pitch time scales.
It's fine if you want to believe everyone agreed to giving them as long as they want but the original kickstarter raised a couple of million with a 2014 estimated release date and they don't even bother updating the comments section of the kickstarter, lots of unhappy folks there. A refund offer to early backers might be a good public relations move given all the bad press that's starting to appear about this project.
Pure opinion, and opposite of the hundreds of SC backers who play the game every day.
You'll have to do a little critical thinking on your own. At the beginning of the year, CIG announced they would be moving to a monthly content patch. 2.4 is supposed to the patch that adds the ability to save your state from one session to another. It is hard to think of any game that doesn't have this ability--but for Star Citizen it is ground breaking/never been done before/revolutionary for some reason. The bottom line--we sit here in June waiting for a patch that was supposed to come in April.
Well, that isn't really true. If you want to play 2.4, it is easy--just become a subscriber. And that is another contentious point. Star Citizen was supposed to be buy once to play. Early backers were supposed to be the alpha testers. Subscriptions were supposedly to support the three weekly videos provided by CIG and not have any in-game perks. Yet here we are, two and half years past when the CEO of the company told us they would release a product and stop crowdfunding. Subscribers get access to the current code, while regular backers are left watching twitch streams. Every time CIG says they are going to try and release something--that something turns out to be too difficult a task for the developers and the deadlines are forgotten. If you want a good example of this, research Star Marine. Hyped by CIG for months, backers were told they would be playing in weeks, not months or years--yet here we are a year past the anticipated release and Star Marine has been effectively canceled.
The only thing the people working at CIG are able to do on time is sell concept ships. Ships that don't exist in the game are constantly introduced and sold to backers. And this more than anything should freak out folks researching the project. There are so many ships still to be created that will be multiplayer and support some type of gameplay mechanic. The problem is--not only do the ships not exist, but the game mechanics to make mining, or salvage, or cargo hauling are not even in the game. Sure they are supposed to be in the game some day. And here is where the critical thinking comes into play. If it is taking this long to get pants on a player--how long do you think it is going to take to get things like an economy or a universe filled with NPCs to work?
Another telling sign. This game is supposed to be open development. But you won't learn much by watching the shows or reading the status reports produced by CIG. You need to read lots of other forums to figure out what is going on. This thread, for example, is a great example. The game was supposed to be released in 2014. When did we find out 2014 was not going to be the year? In Q4/2014--Q4 2014 CIG announced they would release SQ42 episodically in 2015. Q4 in 2015 rolls around and we findout, nope 2016! Do we have a new date? Nope--2016 is still the official line from CIG--the "most open game developer" of any game company ever!! But just read through this thread--not a single person thinks 2016 is realistic. When will we learn that CIG has missed their release window yet again? I suspect in Q4/2106 we will be told 2017. This time next year, a new backer will create a thread just like this and it will have the same responses--just with +1 added to year.
The final issue. There is no publisher with deep pockets from other games to support the development. Gamers are paying for this entire project. There was plenty of money in 2014 and 2015. Will CIG have the funds to continue development through 2017? Only time will tell.
Thought this was a good post worth sharing.
"The bottom line--we sit here in June waiting for a patch that was supposed to come in April." First paragraph moot. This happens with every single game ever developed.
"Star Marine has been effectively canceled." Second paragraph moot. The FPS is working and in game, Star Marine was never cancelled, it was postponed for more important tasks.
"Sure they are supposed to be in the game some day." Third paragraph moot. That is the very definition of crowdfunding and being a backer, it's a gamble.
"This game is supposed to be open development." Fourth paragraph moot. SC is open development, to backers. Nobody promised that you could follow everything through forums and videos.
The release date was push back because instead of the 12-15 million they were looking for, they got over 100 million so the scoped was expanded, majority of backers agreed.
"There is no publisher with deep pockets from other games to support the development." Final issue is moot. It's precisely because there's no investors with deep pockets that SC won't become the buggy, pushed out the door AAA game, like all the others we've seen over the last 10 years.
Thanks for sharing
You're welcome, I enjoyed it too. The problem Star Citizen has is that all the awesome stuff is just promises, the current "game" doesn't really have much game play and zero progression between sessions.
All the delays mean they need to keep raising money and at some point people are going to stop being so generous and expect actual results. When that will be is uncertain but likely to happen over time, people move on to other interests and the graphics are starting to look a little dated, this possibly explains the sharp downward trend in funding this year.
Players still fall out of ships randomly, clip through floors and walls, 2.0 has been out for about 6 months now, if they can't fix that bug then maybe they are just trying to do too much with the Cryengine and that has to be acknowledged.
A move to another engine might mean a delay of a couple of extra years but I don't think anyone realistically believes SQ42 will be out in 2016, or even the first half of 2017. For 4 years now SQ42 has constantly been 1-2 years from release, the engine not being suitable would certainly explain the woeful progress so far on the original pitch time scales.
It's fine if you want to believe everyone agreed to giving them as long as they want but the original kickstarter raised a couple of million with a 2014 estimated release date and they don't even bother updating the comments section of the kickstarter, lots of unhappy folks there. A refund offer to early backers might be a good public relations move given all the bad press that's starting to appear about this project.
Pure opinion, and opposite of the hundreds of SC backers who play the game every day.
The bugs he mentioned are opinion?
Are you saying falling out of your ship and clipping through floors and walls is considered, by millions, to be legitimate and enjoyable features instead if bugs? Or was your response just a categorical dismissal of his?
Fallout out of moving geometry, clipping through floors and walls is absolutely normal in an alpha, you only polish stuff late in beta and try to clean those bugs the best you can..
For context, award winning games (sequels) made by multi-million dollar companies, and bugs:
Uncharted 4: GTA5: Witcher 3: Division: Fifa 2016:
And we could go on and on and on....
Some basic understanding of game development would be nice before judging the work of professionals, thanks.
Wait, so none of the ships that are on sale now will be in the game when it releases?
Some of the concept sale ships in recent months may not be in the game at launch e.g. the "Endeavor" and its many required additional game mechanics (like farming, astrophysics research, high energy collider research to tune engines etc.).
Any non-concept ships to be found on the website will - according to current planning - be in the game at launch.
Any ship that is used in Squadron 42 (concept ship or not) will most likely be ready for game launch, as they will need it for the solo game anyway.
Wait, so none of the ships that are on sale now will be in the game when it releases?
Some of the concept sale ships in recent months may not be in the game at launch e.g. the "Endeavor" and its many required additional game mechanics (like farming, astrophysics research, high energy collider research to tune engines etc.).
Any non-concept ships to be found on the website will - according to current planning - be in the game at launch.
Any ship that is used in Squadron 42 (concept ship or not) will most likely be ready for game launch, as they will need it for the solo game anyway.
Have fun
Ahh, i read it again, all ship after endavour will not be in game.
Why do they sell ships when they won't be in game, is a little strange like selling car with no wheels.
Wait, so none of the ships that are on sale now will be in the game when it releases?
Some of the concept sale ships in recent months may not be in the game at launch e.g. the "Endeavor" and its many required additional game mechanics (like farming, astrophysics research, high energy collider research to tune engines etc.).
Any non-concept ships to be found on the website will - according to current planning - be in the game at launch.
Any ship that is used in Squadron 42 (concept ship or not) will most likely be ready for game launch, as they will need it for the solo game anyway.
Have fun
Ahh, i read it again, all ship after endavour will not be in game.
Why do they sell ships when they won't be in game, is a little strange like selling car with no wheels.
You have to wonder at the people buying them. I can kind of understand people buying stuff if they're getting it for day one but by the time these ships are released they will have been playing the game for X number of months, saved up a load of in game cash which they could use to buy the ships anyway.
You have to wonder at the people buying them. I can kind of understand people buying stuff if they're getting it for day one but by the time these ships are released they will have been playing the game for X number of months, saved up a load of in game cash which they could use to buy the ships anyway.
Because they are not buying it to get the ship. They KNOW they can get it in game for in game cash.
They spend money to support a project. Because they like the idea.
You have to wonder at the people buying them. I can kind of understand people buying stuff if they're getting it for day one but by the time these ships are released they will have been playing the game for X number of months, saved up a load of in game cash which they could use to buy the ships anyway.
Because they are not buying it to get the ship. They KNOW they can get it in game for in game cash.
They spend money to support a project. Because they like the idea.
Have fun
Much like buying the cute ladies drinks at the bar only to end up going home alone.
KIDDING!!
And crap. Is everyone going to start ending their posts with a tag line?
Hmmm let's see
Uh ..Uh ..
Carry on camping!! ... meh, I suck at this.
I believe tag lines are the way to go.
It's raining meme, Hallelujah! I'm going to go out and get myself absolutely soaking wet.
Because they are not buying it to get the ship. They KNOW they can get it in game for in game cash. They spend money to support a project. Because they like the idea. Have fun
Yeah I'm sure that's some of it but I'm not convinced that's the whole reason. Most people would feel that giving $50 - $60 is showing good support for a game, buying $140 ships everytime they pop up is rather excessive in comparison...
There's definitely a bit of a "gotta get them all" culture that runs unchecked on star citizen's forums and the subreddit. They seem to get very excited about the "oooh new shiny", then undergo a period of remorse during which they melt their "ooh new shiny" ship only to repeat the cycle a month later. I'm sure some psychologist would have a term for that.
Because they are not buying it to get the ship. They KNOW they can get it in game for in game cash. They spend money to support a project. Because they like the idea. Have fun
Yeah I'm sure that's some of it but I'm not convinced that's the whole reason. Most people would feel that giving $50 - $60 is showing good support for a game, buying $140 ships everytime they pop up is rather excessive in comparison...
There's definitely a bit of a "gotta get them all" culture that runs unchecked on star citizen's forums and the subreddit. They seem to get very excited about the "oooh new shiny", then undergo a period of remorse during which they melt their "ooh new shiny" ship only to repeat the cycle a month later. I'm sure some psychologist would have a term for that.
You don;t need to be psychologist to recognise addictive behaviour. Neither do you need to be a particularly smart business person to take advantage of it.
Did they disclose how long after release will these ships be given to the people that procured them?
When they are ready.
Until then they have their loaner ships (typically a Hornet for the single seat fighters and the Constellation for the multi crew ships).
Have fun
But Ben Lesnick said in interview with travestido lady that there are no more shiploan, i think i trus Ben communiy man more than someone on forum, sorry friend.
Do some playtesting, post bug reports to the Issue Council and you get PTU access TOTALLY free of charge. Submit GOOD DETAILED bug reports and get invited to the "Evocati" tester group, that sees the new builds even before the PTU testers.
Or simply wait a few days until the most recent build is transferred from PTU to live server.
But Ben Lesnick said in interview with travestido lady that there are no more shiploan, i think i trus Ben communiy man more than someone on forum, sorry friend.
Then listen in to that interview if you trust Ben that much ;-)
The content of this interview has been misrepresented by a poster here in this forum (for whatever reasons).
Ben was speaking about the much smaller PTU server (that the loaner matrix THERE is not enabled because anyone can get any available ship from the Port Olisar "ship dispenser" for free anyway).
It is INCORRECT that owners of new concept ships do not get loaner ships.
The loaner matrix IS active and working in the live server.
Comments
All the delays mean they need to keep raising money and at some point people are going to stop being so generous and expect actual results. When that will be is uncertain but likely to happen over time, people move on to other interests and the graphics are starting to look a little dated, this possibly explains the sharp downward trend in funding this year.
Players still fall out of ships randomly, clip through floors and walls, 2.0 has been out for about 6 months now, if they can't fix that bug then maybe they are just trying to do too much with the Cryengine and that has to be acknowledged.
A move to another engine might mean a delay of a couple of extra years but I don't think anyone realistically believes SQ42 will be out in 2016, or even the first half of 2017. For 4 years now SQ42 has constantly been 1-2 years from release, the engine not being suitable would certainly explain the woeful progress so far on the original pitch time scales.
It's fine if you want to believe everyone agreed to giving them as long as they want but the original kickstarter raised a couple of million with a 2014 estimated release date and they don't even bother updating the comments section of the kickstarter, lots of unhappy folks there. A refund offer to early backers might be a good public relations move given all the bad press that's starting to appear about this project.
Every year is the crucial one that is gona make or break Star Citizen...
Yet here we are.
Proud as a peacock,
This Poppy raised the bar.
Hundred million high
One million strong
Such a beautiful fealing
Proving them wrong.
Pure opinion, and opposite of the hundreds of SC backers who play the game every day.
Are you saying falling out of your ship and clipping through floors and walls is considered, by millions, to be legitimate and enjoyable features instead if bugs? Or was your response just a categorical dismissal of his?
For context, award winning games (sequels) made by multi-million dollar companies, and bugs:
Uncharted 4:
GTA5:
Witcher 3:
Division:
Fifa 2016:
And we could go on and on and on....
Some basic understanding of game development would be nice before judging the work of professionals, thanks.
Cya in the Verse Comandos.
Any non-concept ships to be found on the website will - according to current planning - be in the game at launch.
Any ship that is used in Squadron 42 (concept ship or not) will most likely be ready for game launch, as they will need it for the solo game anyway.
Have fun
Why do they sell ships when they won't be in game, is a little strange like selling car with no wheels.
You have to wonder at the people buying them. I can kind of understand people buying stuff if they're getting it for day one but by the time these ships are released they will have been playing the game for X number of months, saved up a load of in game cash which they could use to buy the ships anyway.
They spend money to support a project. Because they like the idea.
Have fun
It's raining meme, Hallelujah! I'm going to go out and get myself absolutely soaking wet.
Yeah I'm sure that's some of it but I'm not convinced that's the whole reason. Most people would feel that giving $50 - $60 is showing good support for a game, buying $140 ships everytime they pop up is rather excessive in comparison...
There's definitely a bit of a "gotta get them all" culture that runs unchecked on star citizen's forums and the subreddit. They seem to get very excited about the "oooh new shiny", then undergo a period of remorse during which they melt their "ooh new shiny" ship only to repeat the cycle a month later.
I'm sure some psychologist would have a term for that.
Until then they have their loaner ships (typically a Hornet for the single seat fighters and the Constellation for the multi crew ships).
Have fun
I will wait before i buy.
Do some playtesting, post bug reports to the Issue Council and you get PTU access TOTALLY free of charge. Submit GOOD DETAILED bug reports and get invited to the "Evocati" tester group, that sees the new builds even before the PTU testers.
Or simply wait a few days until the most recent build is transferred from PTU to live server.
Access to live server does NOT cost 12 $ a month.
Have fun
The content of this interview has been misrepresented by a poster here in this forum (for whatever reasons).
Ben was speaking about the much smaller PTU server (that the loaner matrix THERE is not enabled because anyone can get any available ship from the Port Olisar "ship dispenser" for free anyway).
It is INCORRECT that owners of new concept ships do not get loaner ships.
The loaner matrix IS active and working in the live server.
Have fun