I think their biggest problem will be lag. All that detail going into the game in an MMO will make it very hard for any types of massive battles.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I think their biggest problem will be lag. All that detail going into the game in an MMO will make it very hard for any types of massive battles.
Which is why - for good or bad - Star Citizen has many instances.
Have fun
I'm still seeing a lot of complaints about lag...
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Gives one very in-depth overview of the hurdles, mistakes and overall history of the project with some dev input and response.
@MaxBacon I haven't got around to reading the second article. But a thorough read of the first one. I see nothing that supports an answer to my hypothetical question, but mostly supporting my initial statement, they have been smart with investors and have good lawyers. Sure the kickstarter side of things can look like a scam, especially to those that have been disappointed with the development time.
I would stand by the argument of they actually have good management and smart management. For utilizing more than one funding resource as a start. When the numbers are less than 1% from kickstart/crowdfunding that tells me that crowdfunding had absolutely nothing to do with development other than paying everyone for a few months.
Granted there have been management mistakes (Oh if only we could be fucking robots.). But very little willingness to forgive, which is understandable, if I was a disgruntled employee that got skipped on the payroll I would be upset too. But the situation was resolved regardless of the employee's opinion of the company and certainly made known to the public. I wouldn't call this "complete mismanagement" but really a fault in a single department that has little more to do with anything other than payroll.
Thanks for the reads. I'll get back after I've reviewed more.
botrytis said: Having tons of money DOES NOT mean it will succeed.
Uhhh it kinda does. See your follow up post, even if whatever mistakes imagine Star Marine rewrite cost on funds and so on, due whatever reasons, they do cost TIME, as you certainly know in development time is money. So they can afford with the continuous crowdfund what a game with a fixed budget can't; they have a margin on this aspect that does counter those type of situations that many do not have.
Gives one very in-depth overview of the hurdles, mistakes and overall history of the project with some dev input and response.
No it does not. My wife worked on an IT project where the company , with mega-deep pockets threw more than 10X what CIS has raised and guess what? The project failed. If having money for a project means success than Trump would be able to build more than he has.
More utter non-sense from the person who drank the CS Kool-Aid....
I would LIKE CS to succeed BUT seeing how they are doing things tells me it is not going to make it.
No it does not. My wife worked on an IT project where the company , with mega-deep pockets threw more than 10X what CIS has raised and guess what? The project failed. If having money for a project means success than Trump would be able to build more than he has.
More utter non-sense from the person who drank the CS Kool-Aid....
They had issues with the game production, organization and communication as themselves admitted (on the same articles I linked). As the same state towards things that were done to ensure the mistakes done do not happen again; as even if you wish to ignore and hold them to past situations, since Erin Roberts took over the global production of the company big changes happened, from the drop of outsourcing contracts and expand indoors development to changes on communication.
So end of the day, what any failures on management did cost them was money, not the failure of the project, and hey it could very well mean that if they did not had the constant income of funding.
But a thorough read of the first one. I see nothing that supports an answer to my hypothetical question, but mostly supporting my initial statement, they have been smart with investors and have good lawyers.
Well end of the day there's a lot of drama around, a lot of accusations, but as your question was evidence then yeah, you'll find a lot of words (opinions) but that for most of it, that's how far it goes. What is for most of it, external to the community of backers of this game.
The fact is Star Citizen has already laid the groundwork for a decent game and what is currently released for play shows that fact. The supporting base of Star Citizens will continue to support the development until the game is complete. If you take the time to follow all the information provided by CIG it becomes a pretty exciting process.
Dodging questions and ranting are not valid arguments/discussions. More biased "I don't like it and never will." Which is fine, everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Projects certainly fail no matter the money. And I'm even guilty of the above statement. A company pulled a project? Unheard of! /sarcasm.
So far, so good. Everquest Next suffered from a lot as well, and tanked because of it, for the very reason mentioned, investors pulled and management got fired. Without the leadership and money needed to dedicate the project forward, down the drain it went. And so has been the case for most projects that went down the drain.
Though this isn't the greatest example because it was a parent company scenario, Roberts Space Industries is its own thing and defunct of an entire company with only one project going (technically three) isn't likely unless the leadership just up and quits or completely runs out of money. I have a feeling that if it got that far, he seems like the type that would continue trying to get it going even if he had to do it himself for the next 20 years til release. The man is extremely dedicated.
" Which tells me that this soon to be going on a decade project", so yea, game development started in 2012 and it's 2016. @SomethingUnusual maybe you should go back and get an elementary education before making comments.
" Which tells me that this soon to be going on a decade project", so yea, game development started in 2012 and it's 2016. @SomethingUnusual maybe you should go back and get an elementary education before making comments.
I'm pretty sure the concepts were drawn out and brainstormed long before official development. Soon also being a keyword there, 6 years is definitely "soon to be." From my own perspective at least, time really does fly.
And thanks for supporting my initial statement. Very uneducated of you.
It wont be a complete scam or failure until leanard or Sheldon say so on 'The Big Bang Theory'. But the way SC is going they wont ever be able to say it because the show will be 10 years past final episode before the money stops coming in (and thus giving the fanboys their only argument as to why it will get done).
"they will continue to raise money'' doesnt insure anything other than the perpetuation of the stupidity of the guys who continue to have more money than brains.
I'll take this another direction. If there was evidence of the project is going to tank, investors would have pulled already and filed lawsuits for their money back in a civil court, this has not happened. Which tells me that this soon to be going on a decade project is very likely going to see completion.
What investors?
I think Star Citizen does not have any investors. Chris Roberts, and likely also Ortwin Freyermuth, put some of their own money into creating the Kickstarter campaign. But after that I think it's been running on crowdfunding money without ever getting any investors.
Not a johnny-come-lately to this. Worked in the games industry (but not the computer games industry).
I've been talking about the problems that SC was going to have from right about the time of the Kickstarter. My perspective was historical. Roberts has always been a poor to mediocre project manager, given to feature creep, profligate spending, poor treatment of co-workers, surrounding himself with sychophants, bad management and decisions, vainglorious and unrealistically amibitous goals, etc. On the one hand, I believe he really wants to deliver the best space game ever. On the other hand, he continually undermines it, by -- well -- being Chris Roberts.
You can take this as you will (internet and all), but I regularly talk to a bunch of folks who worked with Roberts at Origin, and they really have nothing good to say about him. Personally, only knew about him before SC, as the second most disliked guy at Origin, and the director of that terrible movie. Met him just once at a party. As the Kickstarter kicked in, I talked to ten people who'd worked with him in the day. The responses were illuminatingly awful. Now I've only briefly talked to one veteran designer who was at CIG for awhile. His succinct comment? 'Not a fun place to work'. And he's not there anymore.
All the problems that are being attributed to CIG now are the same problems that co-workers mentioned from his Origin days. And that tells me that Roberts hasn't learned a thing in all his game developing tenure. We are seeing the same failures that brought down Digital Anvil. And remember, Roberts hasn't developed a game in nearly 20 years. He's never successfully produced a game on his own, outside of the umbrella of support from Origin and EA. His mismangement of Freelancer was even greater than most know. It took Microsoft around three years and a ton of money to get that game out after they took over DA, and it was already a year and a half overdue. How did Roberts manage to blow all that money and development time??
So yeah, CIG will deliver something. Sometime. A long time from now. It won't be the game from Roberts' delusions of glory or his fervent fans' fantasies. We already know that a number of features touted early have been dropped, sidelined, or relegated to a nebulous future. Much money will have been wasted. A lot of work 're-worked'.
Buckle up for the long haul.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I'm pretty sure the concepts were drawn out and brainstormed long before official development. Soon also being a keyword there, 6 years is definitely "soon to be." From my own perspective at least, time really does fly.
Well we can put it as, what he is trying to pull off with Star Citizen, is pretty much that game he also tried to push Freelancer towards; so we can really see that the vision and "concept" of what Star Citizen is has been around for a long time.
SomethingUnusual said: I have a feeling that if it got that far, he seems like the type that would continue trying to get it going even if he had to do it himself for the next 20 years til release. The man is extremely dedicated.
When you talk about investors we are pretty much talking about Backers that continuously fund the game, and it's where the relation between the backers and the community is as close as it is, the community that funds them and in return the ball is on their side to keep delivering updates to progress towards what people expect.
I'll take this another direction. If there was evidence of the project is going to tank, investors would have pulled already and filed lawsuits for their money back in a civil court, this has not happened. Which tells me that this soon to be going on a decade project is very likely going to see completion.
What investors?
I think Star Citizen does not have any investors. Chris Roberts, and likely also Ortwin Freyermuth, put some of their own money into creating the Kickstarter campaign. But after that I think it's been running on crowdfunding money without ever getting any investors.
There are definitely investors. The articles linked previously that my comments are geared around point these out. Kickstarter and crowdfunding only contributed 2mil out of the 122mil in the project as of earlier this year.
Who these investors are? I have no idea. But someone somewhere made some pretty big contributions to seeing this thing through. If the unknown pulls, it's gameover.
Though you may be right, it could have very well been their own money. If that's the case, I don't see the project going into the trash.
Who these investors are? I have no idea. But someone somewhere made some pretty big contributions to seeing this thing through. If the unknown pulls, it's gameover.
You are talking about the backers of this game. The crowdfund is ongoing since it started (after the Kickstarter); that is where the money comes from.
Arglebargle said: It won't be the game from Roberts' delusions of glory or his fervent fans' fantasies.
This is the typical "hater line"; that is always implying the delusional backers of Star Citizen and their expectations. I am a backer and I not expect that whole amazing promise to be fulfilled to its whole (it never is!), I do not expect that on ANY kickstarter or even pre-order. Usually, for most people I know that are also backers, they also do not expect that; yet I love this generalization that paints people like that. But I guess that's just part of the preach that you're constantly copy/pasting on pretty much every post you make.
Who these investors are? I have no idea. But someone somewhere made some pretty big contributions to seeing this thing through. If the unknown pulls, it's gameover.
You are talking about the backers of this game. The crowdfund is ongoing since it started; that is where the money comes from.
Arglebargle said: It won't be the game from Roberts' delusions of glory or his fervent fans' fantasies.
This is the typical "hater line"; that is always implying the delusional backers of Star Citizen and their expectations. I am a backer and I not expect that whole amazing promise to be fulfilled to its whole, I do not expect that on ANY kickstarter or even pre-order. Usually, for most people I know that are also backers, they also do not expect that; yet I love this generalization that paints people like that.
Backers contributed that much money? Insanity, I'm assuming this is reference to the in-game ships etc. More power to them I guess?
On that note though, should the crowd that did fund the game choose to petition they could easily take it to court and shut the project down. I'm sure there may have been attempts.
I'm optimistic about the game's release, I want to see it happen, I really do. The concept is truly a feat if they pull it off even in the current minimum state.
I haven't given them money yet, but certainly thought about it. It combines all of my ideas of what a good game could be really well. I could take it or leave it in the end, if it happens? Cool. If not? No sweat on my brow.
Yes, the funding is mainly made by selling ships during the past years.
That's why I said if anything what you mean by investor reflects itself on the community of Backers. Overall i'd say backers are fine really, while delays and things like that are obviously frustrating people are overall okay with them taking their time, what is reflected on the continued success of the crowdfunding campaign.
Who these investors are? I have no idea. But someone somewhere made some pretty big contributions to seeing this thing through. If the unknown pulls, it's gameover.
You are talking about the backers of this game. The crowdfund is ongoing since it started (after the Kickstarter); that is where the money comes from.
Arglebargle said: It won't be the game from Roberts' delusions of glory or his fervent fans' fantasies.
This is the typical "hater line"; that is always implying the delusional backers of Star Citizen and their expectations. I am a backer and I not expect that whole amazing promise to be fulfilled to its whole (it never is!), I do not expect that on ANY kickstarter or even pre-order. Usually, for most people I know that are also backers, they also do not expect that; yet I love this generalization that paints people like that. But I guess that's just part of the preach that you're constantly copy/pasting on pretty much every post you make.
You must have missed the early years of Star Citizen discussion. There were a ton of 'holier than thou' backers who were extolling the virtues of Roberts, and swallowing the marketing tropes hook, line, and sinker. While looking for an old comment recently, I ran across a Doc Brodie post excoriating those who didn't think a promised SC thing was going to release in 2014. A Star Marine thing. That's still not released.
There are fans, and there are fervent fans. One group takes CIG pronouncements with a grain of salt, and have reasonably grounded expectations. Another group extolls the developers' every word, and continues to ignore every bit of evidence that perhaps the Emperor has no clothes.
Right now, CIG has sold ships that would, fully crewed, fill up an entire instance, with no space for friends or foes. For all I know there are ships that, fully crewed, couldn't fit in an instance. The fantasy of a giant, sandbox world has run into the reality of netcode and computer limitation.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I'm pretty sure the concepts were drawn out and brainstormed long before official development. Soon also being a keyword there, 6 years is definitely "soon to be." From my own perspective at least, time really does fly.
Well we can put it as, what he is trying to pull off with Star Citizen, is pretty much that game he also tried to push Freelancer towards; so we can really see that the vision and "concept" of what Star Citizen is has been around for a long time.
SomethingUnusual said: I have a feeling that if it got that far, he seems like the type that would continue trying to get it going even if he had to do it himself for the next 20 years til release. The man is extremely dedicated.
When you talk about investors we are pretty much talking about Backers that continuously fund the game, and it's where the relation between the backers and the community is as close as it is, the community that funds them and in return the ball is on their side to keep delivering updates to progress towards what people expect.
Crowdfunding is not really investing. Investment is where they pitch the idea to venture funds, who get something in return (share of the company, profits, part of the board, oversight of the project, etc.). With crowdfunding, those people get nothing, maybe the game IF IT COMES OUT. There are many games that have crashed and burned in the crowdfunding area, many more than actually made it out. Currently, it is a 1: 75 chance a crowdfunded game makes it out and is published.
Investors ARE NOT THE COMMUNITY. The investors take the long haul approach, not so with crowdfunders. They also look at the project under a microscope.
Sorry Crowdfunding IS NOT THE SAME AS GETTING INVESTORS.
It seems Chris and company have more 'set in stone' goals for raising money than they do actually making the game, based on info quoted on SC Wiki.
Investors ARE NOT THE COMMUNITY. The investors take the long haul approach, not so with crowdfunders. They also look at the project under a microscope.
Sorry Crowdfunding IS NOT THE SAME AS GETTING INVESTORS.
I didn't say they were, on the extent of how actual investors actually work. Yet I said if anything approaches the idea of investors on this project, that'd be the backers. There's similarities from the initial investment/backing/pre-order (cause it seems for some people Kickstarter is a Pre-Order platform) to the way things work to some extent.
As several people on CIG talked about (not by CR btw) they see to some extent when they do the demo presentations, like they are presenting their project / tech / progress to investors (the backers).
End of the day you'll find similarities on the whole process of how not only SC but other projects, especially the ones that have ongoing crowdfunds behave on this.
Comments
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Have fun
Judging by how fast this one got behind bars i would say it did a very poor job.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I see nothing that supports an answer to my hypothetical question, but mostly supporting my initial statement, they have been smart with investors and have good lawyers.
Sure the kickstarter side of things can look like a scam, especially to those that have been disappointed with the development time.
I would stand by the argument of they actually have good management and smart management. For utilizing more than one funding resource as a start. When the numbers are less than 1% from kickstart/crowdfunding that tells me that crowdfunding had absolutely nothing to do with development other than paying everyone for a few months.
Granted there have been management mistakes (Oh if only we could be fucking robots.). But very little willingness to forgive, which is understandable, if I was a disgruntled employee that got skipped on the payroll I would be upset too. But the situation was resolved regardless of the employee's opinion of the company and certainly made known to the public. I wouldn't call this "complete mismanagement" but really a fault in a single department that has little more to do with anything other than payroll.
Thanks for the reads. I'll get back after I've reviewed more.
No it does not. My wife worked on an IT project where the company , with mega-deep pockets threw more than 10X what CIS has raised and guess what? The project failed. If having money for a project means success than Trump would be able to build more than he has.
More utter non-sense from the person who drank the CS Kool-Aid....
I would LIKE CS to succeed BUT seeing how they are doing things tells me it is not going to make it.
So end of the day, what any failures on management did cost them was money, not the failure of the project, and hey it could very well mean that if they did not had the constant income of funding.
Well end of the day there's a lot of drama around, a lot of accusations, but as your question was evidence then yeah, you'll find a lot of words (opinions) but that for most of it, that's how far it goes. What is for most of it, external to the community of backers of this game.
@MaxBacon thanks for the link, very interesting and illuminating read.
Projects certainly fail no matter the money. And I'm even guilty of the above statement. A company pulled a project? Unheard of! /sarcasm.
I'll take this another direction. If there was evidence of the project is going to tank, investors would have pulled already and filed lawsuits for their money back in a civil court, this has not happened. Which tells me that this soon to be going on a decade project is very likely going to see completion. They have had lawsuits, but from disgruntled employees as I've previously mentioned.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2015/10/04/star-citizen-developer-threatens-lawsuit-against-the-escapist-demands-apology-and-retraction/#226239e31da9
So far, so good. Everquest Next suffered from a lot as well, and tanked because of it, for the very reason mentioned, investors pulled and management got fired. Without the leadership and money needed to dedicate the project forward, down the drain it went. And so has been the case for most projects that went down the drain.
Though this isn't the greatest example because it was a parent company scenario, Roberts Space Industries is its own thing and defunct of an entire company with only one project going (technically three) isn't likely unless the leadership just up and quits or completely runs out of money. I have a feeling that if it got that far, he seems like the type that would continue trying to get it going even if he had to do it himself for the next 20 years til release. The man is extremely dedicated.
Edit: Grammar and slight addition.
And thanks for supporting my initial statement. Very uneducated of you.
"they will continue to raise money'' doesnt insure anything other than the perpetuation of the stupidity of the guys who continue to have more money than brains.
I think Star Citizen does not have any investors. Chris Roberts, and likely also Ortwin Freyermuth, put some of their own money into creating the Kickstarter campaign. But after that I think it's been running on crowdfunding money without ever getting any investors.
Not a johnny-come-lately to this. Worked in the games industry (but not the computer games industry).
I've been talking about the problems that SC was going to have from right about the time of the Kickstarter. My perspective was historical. Roberts has always been a poor to mediocre project manager, given to feature creep, profligate spending, poor treatment of co-workers, surrounding himself with sychophants, bad management and decisions, vainglorious and unrealistically amibitous goals, etc. On the one hand, I believe he really wants to deliver the best space game ever. On the other hand, he continually undermines it, by -- well -- being Chris Roberts.
You can take this as you will (internet and all), but I regularly talk to a bunch of folks who worked with Roberts at Origin, and they really have nothing good to say about him. Personally, only knew about him before SC, as the second most disliked guy at Origin, and the director of that terrible movie. Met him just once at a party. As the Kickstarter kicked in, I talked to ten people who'd worked with him in the day. The responses were illuminatingly awful. Now I've only briefly talked to one veteran designer who was at CIG for awhile. His succinct comment? 'Not a fun place to work'. And he's not there anymore.
All the problems that are being attributed to CIG now are the same problems that co-workers mentioned from his Origin days. And that tells me that Roberts hasn't learned a thing in all his game developing tenure. We are seeing the same failures that brought down Digital Anvil. And remember, Roberts hasn't developed a game in nearly 20 years. He's never successfully produced a game on his own, outside of the umbrella of support from Origin and EA. His mismangement of Freelancer was even greater than most know. It took Microsoft around three years and a ton of money to get that game out after they took over DA, and it was already a year and a half overdue. How did Roberts manage to blow all that money and development time??
So yeah, CIG will deliver something. Sometime. A long time from now. It won't be the game from Roberts' delusions of glory or his fervent fans' fantasies. We already know that a number of features touted early have been dropped, sidelined, or relegated to a nebulous future. Much money will have been wasted. A lot of work 're-worked'.
Buckle up for the long haul.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
When you talk about investors we are pretty much talking about Backers that continuously fund the game, and it's where the relation between the backers and the community is as close as it is, the community that funds them and in return the ball is on their side to keep delivering updates to progress towards what people expect.
Who these investors are? I have no idea. But someone somewhere made some pretty big contributions to seeing this thing through. If the unknown pulls, it's gameover.
Though you may be right, it could have very well been their own money. If that's the case, I don't see the project going into the trash.
This is the typical "hater line"; that is always implying the delusional backers of Star Citizen and their expectations. I am a backer and I not expect that whole amazing promise to be fulfilled to its whole (it never is!), I do not expect that on ANY kickstarter or even pre-order. Usually, for most people I know that are also backers, they also do not expect that; yet I love this generalization that paints people like that. But I guess that's just part of the preach that you're constantly copy/pasting on pretty much every post you make.
On that note though, should the crowd that did fund the game choose to petition they could easily take it to court and shut the project down. I'm sure there may have been attempts.
I'm optimistic about the game's release, I want to see it happen, I really do. The concept is truly a feat if they pull it off even in the current minimum state.
I haven't given them money yet, but certainly thought about it. It combines all of my ideas of what a good game could be really well. I could take it or leave it in the end, if it happens? Cool. If not? No sweat on my brow.
That's why I said if anything what you mean by investor reflects itself on the community of Backers. Overall i'd say backers are fine really, while delays and things like that are obviously frustrating people are overall okay with them taking their time, what is reflected on the continued success of the crowdfunding campaign.
You must have missed the early years of Star Citizen discussion. There were a ton of 'holier than thou' backers who were extolling the virtues of Roberts, and swallowing the marketing tropes hook, line, and sinker. While looking for an old comment recently, I ran across a Doc Brodie post excoriating those who didn't think a promised SC thing was going to release in 2014. A Star Marine thing. That's still not released.
There are fans, and there are fervent fans. One group takes CIG pronouncements with a grain of salt, and have reasonably grounded expectations. Another group extolls the developers' every word, and continues to ignore every bit of evidence that perhaps the Emperor has no clothes.
Right now, CIG has sold ships that would, fully crewed, fill up an entire instance, with no space for friends or foes. For all I know there are ships that, fully crewed, couldn't fit in an instance. The fantasy of a giant, sandbox world has run into the reality of netcode and computer limitation.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Crowdfunding is not really investing. Investment is where they pitch the idea to venture funds, who get something in return (share of the company, profits, part of the board, oversight of the project, etc.). With crowdfunding, those people get nothing, maybe the game IF IT COMES OUT. There are many games that have crashed and burned in the crowdfunding area, many more than actually made it out. Currently, it is a 1: 75 chance a crowdfunded game makes it out and is published.
Investors ARE NOT THE COMMUNITY. The investors take the long haul approach, not so with crowdfunders. They also look at the project under a microscope.
Sorry Crowdfunding IS NOT THE SAME AS GETTING INVESTORS.
It seems Chris and company have more 'set in stone' goals for raising money than they do actually making the game, based on info quoted on SC Wiki.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
As several people on CIG talked about (not by CR btw) they see to some extent when they do the demo presentations, like they are presenting their project / tech / progress to investors (the backers).
End of the day you'll find similarities on the whole process of how not only SC but other projects, especially the ones that have ongoing crowdfunds behave on this.