I don't think they started out trying to squander peoples money but I do think their eyes got bigger than their bellies so to speak. It probably would have been wiser to go full on all out on Squadron 42, released it then moved on to all the stretch goals for the persistent universe part afterwards.
Except if SQ42 got panned then backers would have lost faith in the rest of the project and bye bye money. Easier to keep the hype train going
Well hopefully we will see if that approach is good or not with "Freeman: Star Edge". They are making their single player game first then going to move on to multiplayer.
Lack of publishers at the yoke is killing this industry. Turns out they're a necessary evil, like most bosses are.
And look at the great status of the gaming scenario with them around!
The "necessary evil" that publishers are, is why SC would never exist if it depended on them, taking high financial risks on a project of this scale and ambition would be a no-go from the start.
Such as Everquest Next:
Ambitious fresh take on a new MMO starting development + Falling in the hands of biggest MMO publishers = Cancelled.
LOL thats just it it DOESNT exist.
You guys just dont get it. You think some PTU that is run on some make shift servers some where equals a game, it doesnt. It cant handle the traffic it has now and that traffic is so small its not worth mentioning. Its so bad they have already made efforts to make sure people understand that whatever they do eventually release is basically going ot be a single player game online the pops in each instance will be so small. Again people can use all the semantics they want but DIRECT interaction with more than 3 or 4 people is more than likely not going to happen. And even that will be inside a ship or a hanger module somewhere.
But keep talking about it like it is a real boy Pinocchio...
Lack of publishers at the yoke is killing this industry. Turns out they're a necessary evil, like most bosses are.
And look at the great status of the gaming scenario with them around!
The "necessary evil" that publishers are, is why SC would never exist if it depended on them, taking high financial risks on a project of this scale and ambition would be a no-go from the start.
Such as Everquest Next:
Ambitious fresh take on a new MMO starting development + Falling in the hands of biggest MMO publishers = Cancelled.
EQ Next is an example of how big publishers are willing to take risks.
Lack of publishers at the yoke is killing this industry. Turns out they're a necessary evil, like most bosses are.
And look at the great status of the gaming scenario with them around!
The "necessary evil" that publishers are, is why SC would never exist if it depended on them, taking high financial risks on a project of this scale and ambition would be a no-go from the start.
Such as Everquest Next:
Ambitious fresh take on a new MMO starting development + Falling in the hands of biggest MMO publishers = Cancelled.
EQ Next is an example of how big publishers are willing to take risks.
Failure is a common result of taking a risk.
Indeed. The fact that EQN got cancelled has no relation to being managed by a big MMO Publisher, not as far as any of us know. Unless you got inside information, else its just assuming.
The other way around however will be seen when SC launches. And not only does it need to be a good gane, it needs to be profitable, have great sales etc. Because else it will still be a failure business wise. Time will tell, how much time is anyones guess.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Lack of publishers at the yoke is killing this industry. Turns out they're a necessary evil, like most bosses are.
And look at the great status of the gaming scenario with them around!
The "necessary evil" that publishers are, is why SC would never exist if it depended on them, taking high financial risks on a project of this scale and ambition would be a no-go from the start.
Such as Everquest Next:
Ambitious fresh take on a new MMO starting development + Falling in the hands of biggest MMO publishers = Cancelled.
SC doesn't exist without one either, as of yet.
Ambition and vision mean nothing if the game never gets out the door.
But, SC isn't dead either, as of yet.
It may still happen, and would be quite the achievement if it does.
Either way it will probably be an industry milestone, epic triumph or disaster. Will their choices be emulated by their competitors or avoided? Time will tell.
Lack of publishers at the yoke is killing this industry. Turns out they're a necessary evil, like most bosses are.
And look at the great status of the gaming scenario with them around!
The "necessary evil" that publishers are, is why SC would never exist if it depended on them, taking high financial risks on a project of this scale and ambition would be a no-go from the start.
Such as Everquest Next:
Ambitious fresh take on a new MMO starting development + Falling in the hands of biggest MMO publishers = Cancelled.
EQ Next is an example of how big publishers are willing to take risks.
Failure is a common result of taking a risk.
they take different risks. They take risks on exploiting players money. non-big firms take creative risks around game play and content.
There is a difference
Name one game in the last 3 years from the AAA market that you consider radically innovative in game play
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
To be fair, there is only so much innovation you can do, and lets face it innovation in video games is not driven by design, but hardware limitations.
We've had video games since the 80's (even a few back in the 60's and 70's) the innovation we see alot of the time is when a game takes different parts of other games and matches them together in a new format for a new game.
I personally don't think Star Citizen is going to break any new real ground, from what I've seen and played so far it's taking from several genre's and making it all accessible in one game.
The only really true innovation we'll see is in VR driven games, and that's an innovation of experience rather than some ground breaking gameplay.
For me the innovation I like best is when a new genre is defined, God games (Populous), Civilization type (Civilization) as examples.
“Nevertheless, the human brain, which survives by hoping from one second to another, will always endeavor to put off the moment of truth. Moist” ― Terry Pratchett, Making Money
To be fair, there is only so much innovation you can do,....
I completely disagree.
What do the vast majority of games focus on in the AAA market? Shooting something or being in some fantasy based RPG killing something with a sword.
That makes up almost all AAA titles.
What about ideas like Kerbal Space Program? ok how about strategy game that is not just about war? maybe its about building a mall like Another Brick in the Mall? How about building a car as well as driving it, but building it for each bolt like My Summer Car? ok how about a game in which the entire world is destructible, build anything you want, anywhere you want, can fly between planets, land on planets, build your own space ships, walk around inside the space ships while they are flying like both Space Engineers and Empyrion - Galactic Survival.
AAA titles are EXTREEMLY non-innovative and there is a TON of room for expansion. How about a stradegy game where you build out the details of a refinery for example? or a game where you build and manage an airport?
I mean AAA titles mostly dont even have fucking farming! They where about 5 years late to the radical idea of day night cycle. they are very frankly a fucking joke
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
To be fair, there is only so much innovation you can do,....
I completely disagree.
What do the vast majority of games focus on in the AAA market? Shooting something or being in some fantasy based RPG killing something with a sword.
That makes up almost all AAA titles.
What about ideas like Kerbal Space Program? ok how about strategy game that is not just about war? maybe its about building a mall like Another Brick in the Mall? How about building a car as well as driving it, but building it for each bolt like My Summer Car? ok how about a game in which the entire world is destructible, build anything you want, anywhere you want, can fly between planets, land on planets, build your own space ships, walk around inside the space ships while they are flying like both Space Engineers and Empyrion - Galactic Survival.
AAA titles are EXTREEMLY non-innovative and there is a TON of room for expansion. How about a stradegy game where you build out the details of a refinery for example? or a game where you build and manage an airport?
I mean AAA titles mostly dont even have fucking farming! They where about 5 years late to the radical idea of day night cycle. they are very frankly a fucking joke
I like my AAA games every now and then, but on the whole I agree with you. Indie is where the exciting stuff is happening.
Edit. I posted a list of great AA or smaller games in the Hidden Gems on Steam thread, in case anyone is interested. I could easily add 15+ more though...
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
My guess is CIG is going to find that getting more money up front with new concept sales will not help there Swiss banking friends or themselves as has been the case for the last 4 yrs.
" Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Those Who Would Threaten It " MAGA
To be fair, there is only so much innovation you can do,....
I completely disagree.
What do the vast majority of games focus on in the AAA market? Shooting something or being in some fantasy based RPG killing something with a sword.
That makes up almost all AAA titles.
What about ideas like Kerbal Space Program? ok how about strategy game that is not just about war? maybe its about building a mall like Another Brick in the Mall? How about building a car as well as driving it, but building it for each bolt like My Summer Car? ok how about a game in which the entire world is destructible, build anything you want, anywhere you want, can fly between planets, land on planets, build your own space ships, walk around inside the space ships while they are flying like both Space Engineers and Empyrion - Galactic Survival.
AAA titles are EXTREEMLY non-innovative and there is a TON of room for expansion. How about a stradegy game where you build out the details of a refinery for example? or a game where you build and manage an airport?
I mean AAA titles mostly dont even have fucking farming! They where about 5 years late to the radical idea of day night cycle. they are very frankly a fucking joke
You are more likely to get 'innovation' from AAA development though, just look at the indie market, how many games there are just asset flips, or plagiarism or outright knock offs of something else, the indie market is toxic, picking out a good indie developer is not easy as its full of scammers and wannabee's. Just go watch some of Jim Sterlings youtube video's, honestly the indie market has a huge amount of problems, even the 'legit' developers, just look at No Mans Sky, how many other 'indie' developers are guilty of under delivering, or just not delivering at all, its very few in fact that do create decent games, but it would be easy to label indie games as rubbish because the vast majority of them are, its just the few developers who are 'bucking the average' so to speak, and they are as rare as a completed kickstarter.
To be fair, there is only so much innovation you can do,....
I completely disagree.
What do the vast majority of games focus on in the AAA market? Shooting something or being in some fantasy based RPG killing something with a sword.
That makes up almost all AAA titles.
What about ideas like Kerbal Space Program? ok how about strategy game that is not just about war? maybe its about building a mall like Another Brick in the Mall? How about building a car as well as driving it, but building it for each bolt like My Summer Car? ok how about a game in which the entire world is destructible, build anything you want, anywhere you want, can fly between planets, land on planets, build your own space ships, walk around inside the space ships while they are flying like both Space Engineers and Empyrion - Galactic Survival.
AAA titles are EXTREEMLY non-innovative and there is a TON of room for expansion. How about a stradegy game where you build out the details of a refinery for example? or a game where you build and manage an airport?
I mean AAA titles mostly dont even have fucking farming! They where about 5 years late to the radical idea of day night cycle. they are very frankly a fucking joke
You are more likely to get 'innovation' from AAA development though,.....
completely and totally ridiculous false
like I said, AAA pretty much sticks to a very narrow definition of what a game is (usually just combat) and have been doing the same thing for decades
I can name off a lot of titles in the indie market that have done things that the AAA market has never even bothered to try.
like I said, AAA market was 5 years late on something as simple as fucking day night cycle! most of the game dont even have wandering mobs or fucking farming! that is an expected standard in most indie titles anymore. but yeah......re-read my post above and look at the specific examples I gave
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
To be fair, there is only so much innovation you can do,....
I completely disagree.
What do the vast majority of games focus on in the AAA market? Shooting something or being in some fantasy based RPG killing something with a sword.
That makes up almost all AAA titles.
What about ideas like Kerbal Space Program? ok how about strategy game that is not just about war? maybe its about building a mall like Another Brick in the Mall? How about building a car as well as driving it, but building it for each bolt like My Summer Car? ok how about a game in which the entire world is destructible, build anything you want, anywhere you want, can fly between planets, land on planets, build your own space ships, walk around inside the space ships while they are flying like both Space Engineers and Empyrion - Galactic Survival.
AAA titles are EXTREEMLY non-innovative and there is a TON of room for expansion. How about a stradegy game where you build out the details of a refinery for example? or a game where you build and manage an airport?
I mean AAA titles mostly dont even have fucking farming! They where about 5 years late to the radical idea of day night cycle. they are very frankly a fucking joke
You are more likely to get 'innovation' from AAA development though,.....
completely and totally ridiculous false
like I said, AAA pretty much sticks to a very narrow definition of what a game is (usually just combat) and have been doing the same thing for decades
I can name off a lot of titles in the indie market that have done things that the AAA market has never even bothered to try.
like I said, AAA market was 5 years late on something as simple as fucking day night cycle! most of the game dont even have wandering mobs or fucking farming! that is an expected in most indie titles anymore.
Well, they center around combat because it's popular. A refinery management sim isn't going to be very appealing to the majority of gamers.
Kerbal Space Program is an excellent game, but still only interests a relatively small niche of the market.
A focus on combat does not preclude innovation. On the other hand, there are a lot of AAA publishers who aren't much interested in innovation.
It's really not such a black and white issue. As Phry mentioned, there are tons of asset flips in the indie market, as well as titles that are either woefully incomplete or broken. Both sides of the coin have pitfalls.
To be fair, there is only so much innovation you can do,....
I completely disagree.
What do the vast majority of games focus on in the AAA market? Shooting something or being in some fantasy based RPG killing something with a sword.
That makes up almost all AAA titles.
What about ideas like Kerbal Space Program? ok how about strategy game that is not just about war? maybe its about building a mall like Another Brick in the Mall? How about building a car as well as driving it, but building it for each bolt like My Summer Car? ok how about a game in which the entire world is destructible, build anything you want, anywhere you want, can fly between planets, land on planets, build your own space ships, walk around inside the space ships while they are flying like both Space Engineers and Empyrion - Galactic Survival.
AAA titles are EXTREEMLY non-innovative and there is a TON of room for expansion. How about a stradegy game where you build out the details of a refinery for example? or a game where you build and manage an airport?
I mean AAA titles mostly dont even have fucking farming! They where about 5 years late to the radical idea of day night cycle. they are very frankly a fucking joke
You are more likely to get 'innovation' from AAA development though,.....
completely and totally ridiculous false
like I said, AAA pretty much sticks to a very narrow definition of what a game is (usually just combat) and have been doing the same thing for decades
I can name off a lot of titles in the indie market that have done things that the AAA market has never even bothered to try.
like I said, AAA market was 5 years late on something as simple as fucking day night cycle! most of the game dont even have wandering mobs or fucking farming! that is an expected in most indie titles anymore.
Well, they center around combat because it's popular.
The question is not 'why are they not being innovative' the question and conversation is 'are they innovative'. The claim from some here is that they are innovation, my claim is that they are not. Why they are not being innovative is not my concern in this point.
can someone please, not 'fail' within the first sentence of their reply, just pause and think this thru please
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I wasn't aware that Elite's devs sold ships for a thousand dollars. Could you please link your source?
Once the game has launched these so-called "thousand dollar" ships can be bought in game with in game money. Players like those mentioned in the Elite Dangerous article - those who figured out how the economy works in a game - will have billions of in game cash within a short amount of time. And can buy any ship they want. Multiple times. Including those "thousand dollar" ships.
The same has happened in other space games (e.g. EVE) in similar fashion.
And will happen again in Star Citizen.
Have fun
Just to get this straight, people will be able to be billionaires and have all the ships they want in a short time but... The business model for the game after launch is to sell ships and keep afloat on those sales?
This is what confuses me about your excuses, they always seem to contradict the next one. You have firmly stated on numerous occasions that there will be no sub model for this game after launch they will keep afloat based only on cash shop sales. Then the next excuse is that it will only take a short time for people to earn those cash shop ships in the game. How can this company keep afloat if the items it plans to sell are so easy to get in the game?
You use Eve as an example but Eve has a sub model and does not rely on cash shop purchases and on top of that, no new player will be flying his own titan in his first year so that example is silly. ED has very few things to buy once you have the ship and gear you want so it is natural for people to accumulate large sums of money in that game.
More distraction and misdirection...
"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
To be fair, there is only so much innovation you can do,....
I completely disagree.
What do the vast majority of games focus on in the AAA market? Shooting something or being in some fantasy based RPG killing something with a sword.
That makes up almost all AAA titles.
What about ideas like Kerbal Space Program? ok how about strategy game that is not just about war? maybe its about building a mall like Another Brick in the Mall? How about building a car as well as driving it, but building it for each bolt like My Summer Car? ok how about a game in which the entire world is destructible, build anything you want, anywhere you want, can fly between planets, land on planets, build your own space ships, walk around inside the space ships while they are flying like both Space Engineers and Empyrion - Galactic Survival.
AAA titles are EXTREEMLY non-innovative and there is a TON of room for expansion. How about a stradegy game where you build out the details of a refinery for example? or a game where you build and manage an airport?
I mean AAA titles mostly dont even have fucking farming! They where about 5 years late to the radical idea of day night cycle. they are very frankly a fucking joke
You are more likely to get 'innovation' from AAA development though,.....
completely and totally ridiculous false
like I said, AAA pretty much sticks to a very narrow definition of what a game is (usually just combat) and have been doing the same thing for decades
I can name off a lot of titles in the indie market that have done things that the AAA market has never even bothered to try.
like I said, AAA market was 5 years late on something as simple as fucking day night cycle! most of the game dont even have wandering mobs or fucking farming! that is an expected standard in most indie titles anymore. but yeah......re-read my post above and look at the specific examples I gave
Farming, which is something you can do in a number of games, i remember doing a fair amount of that back when i used to play LOTRO, i was doing a pretty good job at 'market manipulation' too, it was probably the most fun i had in the game, even BDO allows you to farm if you buy a bunch of 'fences' to create your own little farms, and as for day night cycles, these days its the exception to not have them. Sure Kerbal Space Program is a good game, i bought it early on and have never regretted doing so, but innovative? not sure i would call it that honestly, but its a fun game for what it is, i haven't played My Summer Car but it sounds like Car Mechanic which allows you to take a car engine etc. apart, i think it has a rpg element where you have to repair a bunch of cars too as a 'job'. As for the destructible worlds bit, minecraft was the game that brought about that particular bit of innovation, but good to see others have learned from it. But that doesn't really change anything or even really give any legitimacy to the claim about AAA games being less innovative. Was BDO not innovative? was LOTRO not innovative either for that matter, how about Dragon Age:Origins or Mass Effect, although if you judge the series by ME:Andromeda then yes, zero innovation, personally i am hoping that Dragon Age 4 doesn't turn out to be just another game full of 'pretty boys' and 'ugly women' as DA:I and ME:A was, that is one 'innovation' that i think we could all agree we could do without. There are also games like Overwatch, Skyrim, GTA even, though i wish they would drop all this shark card nonesense as its just a blatant cash grab. Innovation really is doing something truly new or revolutionary, but while i believe there has been some small degree of innovation over the years, i don't think that its not something that isn't present in some AAA games.
To be fair, there is only so much innovation you can do,....
I completely disagree.
What do the vast majority of games focus on in the AAA market? Shooting something or being in some fantasy based RPG killing something with a sword.
That makes up almost all AAA titles.
What about ideas like Kerbal Space Program? ok how about strategy game that is not just about war? maybe its about building a mall like Another Brick in the Mall? How about building a car as well as driving it, but building it for each bolt like My Summer Car? ok how about a game in which the entire world is destructible, build anything you want, anywhere you want, can fly between planets, land on planets, build your own space ships, walk around inside the space ships while they are flying like both Space Engineers and Empyrion - Galactic Survival.
AAA titles are EXTREEMLY non-innovative and there is a TON of room for expansion. How about a stradegy game where you build out the details of a refinery for example? or a game where you build and manage an airport?
I mean AAA titles mostly dont even have fucking farming! They where about 5 years late to the radical idea of day night cycle. they are very frankly a fucking joke
You are more likely to get 'innovation' from AAA development though,.....
completely and totally ridiculous false
like I said, AAA pretty much sticks to a very narrow definition of what a game is (usually just combat) and have been doing the same thing for decades
I can name off a lot of titles in the indie market that have done things that the AAA market has never even bothered to try.
like I said, AAA market was 5 years late on something as simple as fucking day night cycle! most of the game dont even have wandering mobs or fucking farming! that is an expected standard in most indie titles anymore. but yeah......re-read my post above and look at the specific examples I gave
Farming, which is something you can do in a number of games, i remember doing a fair amount of that back when i used to play LOTRO, i was doing a pretty good job at 'market manipulation' too, it was probably the most fun i had in the game, even BDO allows you to farm if you buy a bunch of 'fences' to create your own little farms, and as for day night cycles, these days its the exception to not have them. Sure Kerbal Space Program is a good game, i bought it early on and have never regretted doing so, but innovative? not sure i would call it that honestly, but its a fun game for what it is, i haven't played My Summer Car but it sounds like Car Mechanic which allows you to take a car engine etc. apart, i think it has a rpg element where you have to repair a bunch of cars too as a 'job'. As for the destructible worlds bit, minecraft was the game that brought about that particular bit of innovation, but good to see others have learned from it. But that doesn't really change anything or even really give any legitimacy to the claim about AAA games being less innovative. Was BDO not innovative? was LOTRO not innovative either for that matter, how about Dragon Age:Origins or Mass Effect, although if you judge the series by ME:Andromeda then yes, zero innovation, personally i am hoping that Dragon Age 4 doesn't turn out to be just another game full of 'pretty boys' and 'ugly women' as DA:I and ME:A was, that is one 'innovation' that i think we could all agree we could do without. There are also games like Overwatch, Skyrim, GTA even, though i wish they would drop all this shark card nonesense as its just a blatant cash grab. Innovation really is doing something truly new or revolutionary, but while i believe there has been some small degree of innovation over the years, i don't think that its not something that isn't present in some AAA games.
no BDO was NOT innovative! Its a fantasy based RPG game in which combat is the main focus! That has been going on for decades!
I am talking about games in which you build and manage a mall! which is RADICALLY different then a fucking fantasy based combat focused RPG. So many gamers are so deep inside 'the box' that they cant even see anything beyond combat focused minor alteration changes in a game.
I am talking about games like My Summer Car for christ sake
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
To be fair, there is only so much innovation you can do,....
I completely disagree.
What do the vast majority of games focus on in the AAA market? Shooting something or being in some fantasy based RPG killing something with a sword.
That makes up almost all AAA titles.
What about ideas like Kerbal Space Program? ok how about strategy game that is not just about war? maybe its about building a mall like Another Brick in the Mall? How about building a car as well as driving it, but building it for each bolt like My Summer Car? ok how about a game in which the entire world is destructible, build anything you want, anywhere you want, can fly between planets, land on planets, build your own space ships, walk around inside the space ships while they are flying like both Space Engineers and Empyrion - Galactic Survival.
AAA titles are EXTREEMLY non-innovative and there is a TON of room for expansion. How about a stradegy game where you build out the details of a refinery for example? or a game where you build and manage an airport?
I mean AAA titles mostly dont even have fucking farming! They where about 5 years late to the radical idea of day night cycle. they are very frankly a fucking joke
You are more likely to get 'innovation' from AAA development though,.....
completely and totally ridiculous false
like I said, AAA pretty much sticks to a very narrow definition of what a game is (usually just combat) and have been doing the same thing for decades
I can name off a lot of titles in the indie market that have done things that the AAA market has never even bothered to try.
like I said, AAA market was 5 years late on something as simple as fucking day night cycle! most of the game dont even have wandering mobs or fucking farming! that is an expected standard in most indie titles anymore. but yeah......re-read my post above and look at the specific examples I gave
Farming, which is something you can do in a number of games, i remember doing a fair amount of that back when i used to play LOTRO, i was doing a pretty good job at 'market manipulation' too, it was probably the most fun i had in the game, even BDO allows you to farm if you buy a bunch of 'fences' to create your own little farms, and as for day night cycles, these days its the exception to not have them. Sure Kerbal Space Program is a good game, i bought it early on and have never regretted doing so, but innovative? not sure i would call it that honestly, but its a fun game for what it is, i haven't played My Summer Car but it sounds like Car Mechanic which allows you to take a car engine etc. apart, i think it has a rpg element where you have to repair a bunch of cars too as a 'job'. As for the destructible worlds bit, minecraft was the game that brought about that particular bit of innovation, but good to see others have learned from it. But that doesn't really change anything or even really give any legitimacy to the claim about AAA games being less innovative. Was BDO not innovative? was LOTRO not innovative either for that matter, how about Dragon Age:Origins or Mass Effect, although if you judge the series by ME:Andromeda then yes, zero innovation, personally i am hoping that Dragon Age 4 doesn't turn out to be just another game full of 'pretty boys' and 'ugly women' as DA:I and ME:A was, that is one 'innovation' that i think we could all agree we could do without. There are also games like Overwatch, Skyrim, GTA even, though i wish they would drop all this shark card nonesense as its just a blatant cash grab. Innovation really is doing something truly new or revolutionary, but while i believe there has been some small degree of innovation over the years, i don't think that its not something that isn't present in some AAA games.
no BDO was NOT innovative! Its a fantasy based RPG game in which combat is the main focus! That has been going on for decades!
I am talking about games in which you build and manage a mall! which is RADICALLY different then a fucking fantasy based combat focused RPG. So many gamers are so deep inside 'the box' that they cant even see anything beyond combat focused minor alteration changes in a game.
I am talking about games like My Summer Car for christ sake
BDO wasn't innovative you say? believe it or not combat is just one of the things you can do in the game, it has horse training, it has trading, where you buy/sell goods and transport them from village to town to city even chasing after profits, there is fishing, you can even build a fishing boat, go out on the ocean and barring being eaten by a sea monster, you can catch fish there, it has farming, you can even use the fish you catch as trade goods, or as crafting recipes in cooking, there is also alchemy, and in farming there are not just crops but livestock too, exactly what does it take to be classed as being innovative to you?
Farming, which is something you can do in a number of games, i remember doing a fair amount of that back when i used to play LOTRO, i was doing a pretty good job at 'market manipulation' too, it was probably the most fun i had in the game, even BDO allows you to farm if you buy a bunch of 'fences' to create your own little farms, and as for day night cycles, these days its the exception to not have them. Sure Kerbal Space Program is a good game, i bought it early on and have never regretted doing so, but innovative? not sure i would call it that honestly, but its a fun game for what it is, i haven't played My Summer Car but it sounds like Car Mechanic which allows you to take a car engine etc. apart, i think it has a rpg element where you have to repair a bunch of cars too as a 'job'. As for the destructible worlds bit, minecraft was the game that brought about that particular bit of innovation, but good to see others have learned from it. But that doesn't really change anything or even really give any legitimacy to the claim about AAA games being less innovative. Was BDO not innovative? was LOTRO not innovative either for that matter, how about Dragon Age:Origins or Mass Effect, although if you judge the series by ME:Andromeda then yes, zero innovation, personally i am hoping that Dragon Age 4 doesn't turn out to be just another game full of 'pretty boys' and 'ugly women' as DA:I and ME:A was, that is one 'innovation' that i think we could all agree we could do without. There are also games like Overwatch, Skyrim, GTA even, though i wish they would drop all this shark card nonesense as its just a blatant cash grab. Innovation really is doing something truly new or revolutionary, but while i believe there has been some small degree of innovation over the years, i don't think that its not something that isn't present in some AAA games.
no BDO was NOT innovative! Its a fantasy based RPG game in which combat is the main focus! That has been going on for decades!
I am talking about games in which you build and manage a mall! which is RADICALLY different then a fucking fantasy based combat focused RPG. So many gamers are so deep inside 'the box' that they cant even see anything beyond combat focused minor alteration changes in a game.
I am talking about games like My Summer Car for christ sake
BDO wasn't innovative you say? believe it or not combat is just one ....
no it was not, I have been horse training in an MMO since 2004 so not really impressed. (correction I havent but its been in game since then)
would you PLEASE follow me
BDO: Fantasy based MMO SubNautica: A survial game based under water with crafting and building.
no BDO is not innovative, horse training, what the fuck?????????
come please look at the larger picture here,
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
As for innovation, two camps. -- AAA Camp - Hey, look how successful game "A" is, we should also build game "A" but lets add 1-2 new features to attract people to our game. (Very very generalizing, but common thread) what is our ROI, if we build something from scratch it may bomb heavily and now all that $$ is out the window. Innovation tends to take a back seat to many of these camps, as they are concerned with releasing to capitalize on the window of opportunity. The exception to this is those AAA deves who own an IP already popular, Diablo, GTA, etc.
--Indi camp - Little money, massive ideas, tend to disrupt the norm. Risk is that funding greatly under performs to the ideas of the devs. So compromises must be made to get something out. There are of course exceptions to this as well. Warframe is indi, but has been in business for 4+ years at this time. They have evolved to add new features through sales of micro-transactions.
-SC- Is SC truly innovating? I guess it comes down to your definition. There are some subtle things that could be truly considered innovation. Subsumption, unique physic grids for ships (multi-crew ships, with ability to move around, not just be in a seat).
But in reality, what SC is truly doing is merging many independent game concepts under a single umbrella.
FPS, is not innovative, true enough. The level of realism could be argued for/against compare with Arma, etc. Not innovative in itself, but if you combine that with the Space Simulation, the subsumption, the scale of the universe etc, while remaining the graphical fidelity. That is innovative, and very risky. The risk comes into play as there is no canned engine that can support all of that, thus the challenges to develop to support all of those features under a seamless environment.
Funding for/against $850 ships. I personally put a cap of about $300+/- on myself per ship. $850 is far to rich for my blood. However, if you do not feel that is out of your reach, then by all means donate away. You are donating for a vision, and your belief that it will be available.
As for the argument, "milk the cow, don't release" do you honestly believe that if they released (to CR's quality) that they would not see a massive uptick in sales? That they just want to farm ships? When 2.6 released, there was a massive uptick in sales, I expect nothing less when 3.0 hits PTU/GA release.
I for one believe in the vision, I watch the weekly ATV, and believe that is evolution of the product projected. Its not just smoke and mirrors. Call me gullible, this is what I choose to believe. I have faith that once we get 3.0, and the ability to push minor patches out, we will see a massive uptick in bugs/features as you don't have to push 20+gigs every patch. There are a few more fundamental plumbing challenges to be addressed, the finalizing of the netcode optimizations being the most pressing one. I fully expect a larger uptick in feature and expansion velocity once these items are addressed via the new patcher. --Izz
The business model for the game after launch is to sell ships and keep afloat on those sales?
Only partially correct:
Confirmed: * Selling starter packages (including starter ships) * Story expansions for solo game (e.g. "Behind Enemy Lines" for Squadron 42) * non-military story expansions for solo game * real-world-cash to in -game-cash UEC conversion (but limited amount per day, not enough to buy ships) (in my opinion this becomes obsolete quickly as IMHO players will gain in game money quickly) * cosmetic upgrades (ship skins etc.) * cosmetic items (for hangar)
Discussed / likely to happen IMHO: * temporary booster packs (e.g. + 5 % speed/maneuverability) (reference 1) * reduce time to get a new (larger) ship from insurance company (larger ships are not instantly replaced) * on-site delivered standard ship modules (no high grade modules)
Unconfirmed but possible IMHO: * continuation of voluntary subscriber model (for those that like the "Jump Point" magazine and like to get special cosmetic hangar items) - no in game performance bonus from voluntary subscription
Have fun
PS: >> but Eve has a sub model >>>
A relic from the past.
Many accounts are paid via PLEX, with money earned in game. Those players rarely pay real world cash anymore.
And the number of subscription accounts will go down even more -->
Not people that played for years and accumulated wealth with nothing to spend it on (like back in Star Wars Galaxies days).
Reference 1:
Temporary booster packs are in discussion ever since the 17 M$ stretch goal, when Chris Roberts announced the engine modifier pack as a backer reward:
"The $17 million mark unlocks a special ship upgrade pack for every
pledger who has donated prior to this point. An engine modifier will be
added to your account shortly and in the near future you should be able
to see it in your hangar!"
The backer reward will have a permanent bonus. Temporary booster packs with limited duration are in discussion since then (like the Lord of The Rings booster packs for quicker travel speed which you can buy in the LOTRO shop for LOTRO shop points, which you can earn from questing or buy via real world money)
The business model for the game after launch is to sell ships and keep afloat on those sales?
Only partially correct:
* Selling starter packages (including starter ships) * Story expansions for solo game (e.g. "Behind Enemy Lines" for Squadron 42) * non-military story expansions for solo game * real-world-cash to in -game-cash UEC conversion (but limited amount per day, not enough to buy ships) (in my opinion this becomes obsolete quickly as IMHO players will gain in game money quickly) * cosmetic upgrades (ship skins etc.) * temporary booster packs (e.g. + 5 % speed/maneuverability) * reduce time to get a new (larger) ship from insurance company (larger ships are not instantly replaced) * cosmetic items (for hangar) * on-site delivered standard ship modules (no high grade modules)
Unconfirmed but possible: * continuation of voluntary subscriber model (for those that like the "Jump Point" magazine and like to get special cosmetic hangar items) - no in game performance bonus from voluntary subscription
Have fun
I find it funny that the people backing the game are also going to allow CR to nickle and dime their play experience.
The business model for the game after launch is to sell ships and keep afloat on those sales?
Only partially correct:
* Selling starter packages (including starter ships) * Story expansions for solo game (e.g. "Behind Enemy Lines" for Squadron 42) * non-military story expansions for solo game * real-world-cash to in -game-cash UEC conversion (but limited amount per day, not enough to buy ships) (in my opinion this becomes obsolete quickly as IMHO players will gain in game money quickly) * cosmetic upgrades (ship skins etc.) * temporary booster packs (e.g. + 5 % speed/maneuverability) * reduce time to get a new (larger) ship from insurance company (larger ships are not instantly replaced) * cosmetic items (for hangar) * on-site delivered standard ship modules (no high grade modules)
Unconfirmed but possible: * continuation of voluntary subscriber model (for those that like the "Jump Point" magazine and like to get special cosmetic hangar items) - no in game performance bonus from voluntary subscription
Have fun
I find it funny that the people backing the game are also going to allow CR to nickle and dime their play experience.
I find it funny that the people not backing this game are wondering how Cloud Imperium Games is suppose to make money to keep the game operating and produce content when there is no subscription model.
Every time Goonsquad/SA/DS post salt on Star Citizen, I spend more money on it. Every time a mentally disturbed former backer or Elite CMDR toxic emo comments, I spend more money on it. Every time they refuse to answer why they spend so much time arguing about a game they don't even like, I spend more money on it. Want to watch the world burn because you can't have your way? You got whats coming to you.
Completely disagree with @Erillion there, there's no confirmation at all of anything side of starter packs (expansion of the current Mustang/Aurora ones), currency microtransaction and the SQ42 eps.
Also, it's illogical, a good implementation of the currency microtransaction is capable of immense profitability and I'm sure they will greatly bet on that (including changing limits) once such starts being implemented.
I don't find the model unfair given the option to earn or buy, under a reality of no game sub or an ideology of paid expansions.
Comments
You guys just dont get it. You think some PTU that is run on some make shift servers some where equals a game, it doesnt. It cant handle the traffic it has now and that traffic is so small its not worth mentioning. Its so bad they have already made efforts to make sure people understand that whatever they do eventually release is basically going ot be a single player game online the pops in each instance will be so small. Again people can use all the semantics they want but DIRECT interaction with more than 3 or 4 people is more than likely not going to happen. And even that will be inside a ship or a hanger module somewhere.
But keep talking about it like it is a real boy Pinocchio...
Failure is a common result of taking a risk.
The other way around however will be seen when SC launches. And not only does it need to be a good gane, it needs to be profitable, have great sales etc. Because else it will still be a failure business wise. Time will tell, how much time is anyones guess.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Ambition and vision mean nothing if the game never gets out the door.
But, SC isn't dead either, as of yet.
It may still happen, and would be quite the achievement if it does.
Either way it will probably be an industry milestone, epic triumph or disaster. Will their choices be emulated by their competitors or avoided? Time will tell.
Name one game in the last 3 years from the AAA market that you consider radically innovative in game play
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
We've had video games since the 80's (even a few back in the 60's and 70's) the innovation we see alot of the time is when a game takes different parts of other games and matches them together in a new format for a new game.
I personally don't think Star Citizen is going to break any new real ground, from what I've seen and played so far it's taking from several genre's and making it all accessible in one game.
The only really true innovation we'll see is in VR driven games, and that's an innovation of experience rather than some ground breaking gameplay.
For me the innovation I like best is when a new genre is defined, God games (Populous), Civilization type (Civilization) as examples.
― Terry Pratchett, Making Money
What do the vast majority of games focus on in the AAA market? Shooting something or being in some fantasy based RPG killing something with a sword.
That makes up almost all AAA titles.
What about ideas like Kerbal Space Program? ok how about strategy game that is not just about war? maybe its about building a mall like Another Brick in the Mall? How about building a car as well as driving it, but building it for each bolt like My Summer Car? ok how about a game in which the entire world is destructible, build anything you want, anywhere you want, can fly between planets, land on planets, build your own space ships, walk around inside the space ships while they are flying like both Space Engineers and Empyrion - Galactic Survival.
AAA titles are EXTREEMLY non-innovative and there is a TON of room for expansion.
How about a stradegy game where you build out the details of a refinery for example? or a game where you build and manage an airport?
I mean AAA titles mostly dont even have fucking farming! They where about 5 years late to the radical idea of day night cycle. they are very frankly a fucking joke
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Edit. I posted a list of great AA or smaller games in the Hidden Gems on Steam thread, in case anyone is interested. I could easily add 15+ more though...
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
MAGA
like I said, AAA pretty much sticks to a very narrow definition of what a game is (usually just combat) and have been doing the same thing for decades
I can name off a lot of titles in the indie market that have done things that the AAA market has never even bothered to try.
like I said, AAA market was 5 years late on something as simple as fucking day night cycle!
most of the game dont even have wandering mobs or fucking farming! that is an expected standard in most indie titles anymore.
but yeah......re-read my post above and look at the specific examples I gave
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Kerbal Space Program is an excellent game, but still only interests a relatively small niche of the market.
A focus on combat does not preclude innovation. On the other hand, there are a lot of AAA publishers who aren't much interested in innovation.
It's really not such a black and white issue. As Phry mentioned, there are tons of asset flips in the indie market, as well as titles that are either woefully incomplete or broken. Both sides of the coin have pitfalls.
can someone please, not 'fail' within the first sentence of their reply, just pause and think this thru please
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
This is what confuses me about your excuses, they always seem to contradict the next one. You have firmly stated on numerous occasions that there will be no sub model for this game after launch they will keep afloat based only on cash shop sales. Then the next excuse is that it will only take a short time for people to earn those cash shop ships in the game. How can this company keep afloat if the items it plans to sell are so easy to get in the game?
You use Eve as an example but Eve has a sub model and does not rely on cash shop purchases and on top of that, no new player will be flying his own titan in his first year so that example is silly. ED has very few things to buy once you have the ship and gear you want so it is natural for people to accumulate large sums of money in that game.
More distraction and misdirection...
Its a fantasy based RPG game in which combat is the main focus! That has been going on for decades!
I am talking about games in which you build and manage a mall! which is RADICALLY different then a fucking fantasy based combat focused RPG. So many gamers are so deep inside 'the box' that they cant even see anything beyond combat focused minor alteration changes in a game.
I am talking about games like My Summer Car for christ sake
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
would you PLEASE follow me
BDO: Fantasy based MMO
SubNautica: A survial game based under water with crafting and building.
no BDO is not innovative, horse training, what the fuck?????????
come please look at the larger picture here,
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
-- AAA Camp - Hey, look how successful game "A" is, we should also build game "A" but lets add 1-2 new features to attract people to our game. (Very very generalizing, but common thread) what is our ROI, if we build something from scratch it may bomb heavily and now all that $$ is out the window. Innovation tends to take a back seat to many of these camps, as they are concerned with releasing to capitalize on the window of opportunity. The exception to this is those AAA deves who own an IP already popular, Diablo, GTA, etc.
--Indi camp - Little money, massive ideas, tend to disrupt the norm. Risk is that funding greatly under performs to the ideas of the devs. So compromises must be made to get something out. There are of course exceptions to this as well. Warframe is indi, but has been in business for 4+ years at this time. They have evolved to add new features through sales of micro-transactions.
-SC-
Is SC truly innovating? I guess it comes down to your definition. There are some subtle things that could be truly considered innovation. Subsumption, unique physic grids for ships (multi-crew ships, with ability to move around, not just be in a seat).
But in reality, what SC is truly doing is merging many independent game concepts under a single umbrella.
FPS, is not innovative, true enough. The level of realism could be argued for/against compare with Arma, etc. Not innovative in itself, but if you combine that with the Space Simulation, the subsumption, the scale of the universe etc, while remaining the graphical fidelity. That is innovative, and very risky. The risk comes into play as there is no canned engine that can support all of that, thus the challenges to develop to support all of those features under a seamless environment.
Funding for/against $850 ships. I personally put a cap of about $300+/- on myself per ship. $850 is far to rich for my blood. However, if you do not feel that is out of your reach, then by all means donate away. You are donating for a vision, and your belief that it will be available.
As for the argument, "milk the cow, don't release" do you honestly believe that if they released (to CR's quality) that they would not see a massive uptick in sales? That they just want to farm ships? When 2.6 released, there was a massive uptick in sales, I expect nothing less when 3.0 hits PTU/GA release.
I for one believe in the vision, I watch the weekly ATV, and believe that is evolution of the product projected. Its not just smoke and mirrors. Call me gullible, this is what I choose to believe. I have faith that once we get 3.0, and the ability to push minor patches out, we will see a massive uptick in bugs/features as you don't have to push 20+gigs every patch. There are a few more fundamental plumbing challenges to be addressed, the finalizing of the netcode optimizations being the most pressing one. I fully expect a larger uptick in feature and expansion velocity once these items are addressed via the new patcher.
--Izz
Confirmed:
* Selling starter packages (including starter ships)
* Story expansions for solo game (e.g. "Behind Enemy Lines" for Squadron 42)
* non-military story expansions for solo game
* real-world-cash to in -game-cash UEC conversion (but limited amount per day, not enough to buy ships) (in my opinion this becomes obsolete quickly as IMHO players will gain in game money quickly)
* cosmetic upgrades (ship skins etc.)
* cosmetic items (for hangar)
Discussed / likely to happen IMHO:
* temporary booster packs (e.g. + 5 % speed/maneuverability) (reference 1)
* reduce time to get a new (larger) ship from insurance company (larger ships are not instantly replaced)
* on-site delivered standard ship modules (no high grade modules)
Unconfirmed but possible IMHO:
* continuation of voluntary subscriber model (for those that like the "Jump Point" magazine and like to get special cosmetic hangar items) - no in game performance bonus from voluntary subscription
Have fun
PS:
>> but Eve has a sub model >>>
A relic from the past.
Many accounts are paid via PLEX, with money earned in game. Those players rarely pay real world cash anymore.
And the number of subscription accounts will go down even more -->
https://kotaku.com/eve-online-free-players-are-about-to-get-a-lot-more-stu-1819295206
PPS:
>>>
>>>
"The $17 million mark unlocks a special ship upgrade pack for every pledger who has donated prior to this point. An engine modifier will be added to your account shortly and in the near future you should be able to see it in your hangar!"
Also, it's illogical, a good implementation of the currency microtransaction is capable of immense profitability and I'm sure they will greatly bet on that (including changing limits) once such starts being implemented.
I don't find the model unfair given the option to earn or buy, under a reality of no game sub or an ideology of paid expansions.