CI: we won’t release until we have done testing and it’s as bug free as possible. Fans: take as long as you want we don’t care! CI releases horribly buggy patch to say they kept to their schedule Fans: this patch is pretty buggy and worse than PTU. Critics: wow that’s a buggy patch. What happened to taking your time? Fans: negative spin! Haters!
Nope, some people just be looking for the negative spin, be with this or anything else ever about SC, what post histories are mere proof of.
Some patches break, then they get fixed, reasonable people are reasonable and won't be having a go at the devs because they have to pause to go have Christmas with their families. That's about it.
As far as release schedule goes, patches are supposed to release within the timeframe instead of push back, features can and do get pushed back, bug-fixing that 1) was not labeled as a must-fix for live release or 2) new issues surfacing after live release, can and will be followed up within hot fix patches. What exactly is the big deal with this?
CI: we won’t release until we have done testing and it’s as bug free as possible. Fans: take as long as you want we don’t care! CI releases horribly buggy patch to say they kept to their schedule Fans: this patch is pretty buggy and worse than PTU. Critics: wow that’s a buggy patch. What happened to taking your time? Fans: negative spin! Haters!
Nope, some people just be looking for the negative spin, be with this or anything else ever about SC, what post histories are mere proof of.
Some patches break, then they get fixed, reasonable people are reasonable and won't be having a go at the devs because they have to pause to go have Christmas with their families. That's about it.
As far as release schedule goes, patches are supposed to release within the timeframe instead of push back, features can and do get pushed back, bug-fixing that 1) was not labeled as a must-fix for live release or 2) new issues surfacing after live release, can and will be followed up within hot fix patches. What exactly is the big deal with this?
Point out where I said devs aren’t allowed to go spend Christmas with their families. I’ll wait.
For the rest of your post you’re the one who immediately started calling it negative spin. I’m sorry you can’t see the forest for the trees but when the head of the company waffles on about how they won’t release stuff until it’s ready and then they release stuff that clearly isn’t ready it isn’t negative spin it’s pointing out the obvious.
Or are you trying to tell me this patch doesn’t have must fix issues like if a QT point is at the edge of a planet or moon you will explode when you use it, or weapons may not fire(not a problem if you’re up against their terrible AI) or the numerous 30k crash to desktop error people are reporting?
CI: we won’t release until we have done testing and it’s as bug free as possible. Fans: take as long as you want we don’t care! CI releases horribly buggy patch to say they kept to their schedule Fans: this patch is pretty buggy and worse than PTU. Critics: wow that’s a buggy patch. What happened to taking your time? Fans: negative spin! Haters!
Nope, some people just be looking for the negative spin, be with this or anything else ever about SC, what post histories are mere proof of.
Some patches break, then they get fixed, reasonable people are reasonable and won't be having a go at the devs because they have to pause to go have Christmas with their families. That's about it.
As far as release schedule goes, patches are supposed to release within the timeframe instead of push back, features can and do get pushed back, bug-fixing that 1) was not labeled as a must-fix for live release or 2) new issues surfacing after live release, can and will be followed up within hot fix patches. What exactly is the big deal with this?
Point out where I said devs aren’t allowed to go spend Christmas with their families. I’ll wait.
For the rest of your post you’re the one who immediately started calling it negative spin. I’m sorry you can’t see the forest for the trees but when the head of the company waffles on about how they won’t release stuff until it’s ready and then they release stuff that clearly isn’t ready it isn’t negative spin it’s pointing out the obvious.
Or are you trying to tell me this patch doesn’t have must fix issues like if a QT point is at the edge of a planet or moon you will explode when you use it, or weapons may not fire(not a problem if you’re up against their terrible AI) or the numerous 30k crash to desktop error people are reporting?
You guys that been talking about "oh release when ready then buggy patch boo devs" type of argument.
The whole point of when it's ready is more on the wider picture as to features, not in-time, bugs can be hotfixed later and won't delay the patch much beyond the intended timeframe.
As well, the mere fact that the PTU build was smooth nuf then when released many issues surfaced shown the issues that surfaced surface under heavier concurrency, or just the latest build having jinxed something, QA can only do so much the only real stress testing is with real players the PTU doesn't get the concurrency of live.
The issue for example of QT jump at the edge of a planet exploding a ship was actually listed on the patch notes under "known issues", as well the one with the weapons not firing that they stated the current workaround is to re-equip another weapon and it'll work again, so yeah if they were listed under known issues they weren't labeled must-fix.
The usual gaslighters are at it again... trying to bring negativity to gaming.... meanwhile the game is going up and up.
Assuming that they go the ..normal route with the patch releases, game should go "fully live" when it reaches 1.0 patch ( or 10 in this case ).
Based on their previous Alpha releases, they seem to release 0.4 "points" of Alpha patches on a yearly basic. Currently they are at 3.7, which means 6.3 to go.
If math is not your forte point, release date should be around a shy above 15 years from now on, if they keep their current schedule.
Say .. they will "hurry" up a bit , and I think I predict it good, that SC will be "fully" released around 2030.
There you go boys and girls. SC release date announced.
So yea, is not about us bringing negativity to gaming, is people like you and SC dev's, which brings A LOT of negativity into gaming market, because of the pathetic way of how they handle this project and how shady their business is.
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy? Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
There you go boys and girls. SC release date announced.
So yea, is not about us bringing negativity to gaming, is people like you and SC dev's, which brings A LOT of negativity into gaming market, because of the pathetic way of how they handle this project and how shady their business is.
No, it is about it.
Nobody here is saying SC release is around the corner, we all know SC has years of development ahead, the difference here is that some people decide to be whining about it on every single SC thread.
The game will keep progressing and speaking for itself, end of the day that's all that matters, for those who want to play the game ofc, the professional naysayers will just do their thing.
CI: we won’t release until we have done testing and it’s as bug free as possible. Fans: take as long as you want we don’t care! CI releases horribly buggy patch to say they kept to their schedule Fans: this patch is pretty buggy and worse than PTU. Critics: wow that’s a buggy patch. What happened to taking your time? Fans: negative spin! Haters!
Nope, some people just be looking for the negative spin, be with this or anything else ever about SC, what post histories are mere proof of.
Some patches break, then they get fixed, reasonable people are reasonable and won't be having a go at the devs because they have to pause to go have Christmas with their families. That's about it.
As far as release schedule goes, patches are supposed to release within the timeframe instead of push back, features can and do get pushed back, bug-fixing that 1) was not labeled as a must-fix for live release or 2) new issues surfacing after live release, can and will be followed up within hot fix patches. What exactly is the big deal with this?
Point out where I said devs aren’t allowed to go spend Christmas with their families. I’ll wait.
For the rest of your post you’re the one who immediately started calling it negative spin. I’m sorry you can’t see the forest for the trees but when the head of the company waffles on about how they won’t release stuff until it’s ready and then they release stuff that clearly isn’t ready it isn’t negative spin it’s pointing out the obvious.
Or are you trying to tell me this patch doesn’t have must fix issues like if a QT point is at the edge of a planet or moon you will explode when you use it, or weapons may not fire(not a problem if you’re up against their terrible AI) or the numerous 30k crash to desktop error people are reporting?
You guys that been talking about "oh release when ready then buggy patch boo devs" type of argument.
The whole point of when it's ready is more on the wider picture as to features, not in-time, bugs can be hotfixed later and won't delay the patch much beyond the intended timeframe.
As well, the mere fact that the PTU build was smooth nuf then when released many issues surfaced shown the issues that surfaced surface under heavier concurrency, or just the latest build having jinxed something, QA can only do so much the only real stress testing is with real players the PTU doesn't get the concurrency of live.
The issue for example of QT jump at the edge of a planet exploding a ship was actually listed on the patch notes under "known issues", as well the one with the weapons not firing that they stated the current workaround is to re-equip another weapon and it'll work again, so yeah if they were listed under known issues they weren't labeled must-fix.
Keep on spinning lol.
and yes I know those examples were listed in the patch notes as known bugs because *gasp* I read the patch notes! I would think your spaceship exploding when trying to travel somewhere in a space game would be somewhat of a high priority. Or not crashing to desktop for no reason or the hundreds of other bugs that have resurfaced or have yet to be fixed that have been known for years.
There you go boys and girls. SC release date announced.
So yea, is not about us bringing negativity to gaming, is people like you and SC dev's, which brings A LOT of negativity into gaming market, because of the pathetic way of how they handle this project and how shady their business is.
No, it is about it.
Nobody here is saying SC release is around the corner, we all know SC has years of development ahead, the difference here is that some people decide to be whining about it on every single SC thread.
The game will keep progressing and speaking for itself, end of the day that's all that matters, for those who want to play the game ofc, the professional naysayers will just do their thing.
Have you told Chris Roberts and the people who make the roadmaps that SC still has years of development? They seem to like adding things and then cutting them out as they realize they bit off more then they could chew and pushing back dates that they seemingly pulled out of their butts
and yes I know those examples were listed in the patch notes as known bugs because *gasp* I read the patch notes! I would think your spaceship exploding when trying to travel somewhere in a space game would be somewhat of a high priority. Or not crashing to desktop for no reason or the hundreds of other bugs that have resurfaced or have yet to be fixed that have been known for years.
It doesn't matter much there, when it's listed as a known issue it's because the fix will need more time and players are made aware to work around those problems, not all issues get a fix quickly just because they have found it, especially after a refactor like SOCS changing the way game-servers work.
Have you told Chris Roberts and the people who make the roadmaps that SC still has years of development? They seem to like adding things and then cutting them out as they realize they bit off more then they could chew and pushing back dates that they seemingly pulled out of their butts
The roadmap does not have any release date for SC, just the an year of update schedule.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The usual gaslighters are at it again... trying to bring negativity to gaming.... meanwhile the game is going up and up.
You mean development is going on and on, right?
With continuing bad management from their strutting Miles Gloriosus Roberts, it's likely to continue on and on. They'll be saying the same thing next year.
Best bet for a finished game is for the investors (new and old) to take over, or Amazon to buy CIG out.
And just maybe they shouldn't have released a buggy patch right before Xmas. Par for the course though.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Best bet for a finished game is for the investors (new and old) to take over, or Amazon to buy CIG out.
lol Amazon.
Amazon chickened out at the first struggles with the game engine on New World, instead of taking the challenges and refactor engine to meet the scope of the game, nope, let's hugely cut the design of the game instead!
Hay for another game developer who given up ambition and put a release date as the number #1 priority. Hurray for the future of the MMO genre!
Best bet for a finished game is for the investors (new and old) to take over, or Amazon to buy CIG out.
lol Amazon.
Amazon chickened out at the first struggles with the game engine on New World, instead of taking the challenges and refactor engine to meet the scope of the game, nope, let's hugely cut the design of the game instead!
Hay for another game developer who given up ambition and put a release date as the number #1 priority. Hurray for the future of the MMO genre!
Well, thank goodness we have SC to look forward to as the true future of the MMO genre. And when I say future, I mean distant future.
Best bet for a finished game is for the investors (new and old) to take over, or Amazon to buy CIG out.
lol Amazon.
Amazon chickened out at the first struggles with the game engine on New World, instead of taking the challenges and refactor engine to meet the scope of the game, nope, let's hugely cut the design of the game instead!
Hay for another game developer who given up ambition and put a release date as the number #1 priority. Hurray for the future of the MMO genre!
For a 40 dollar entry fee it’s cheaper then SC to check out and will probably have more completed game loops, mechanics and things to do and will come out much sooner.
If you put 1.2 patch here it would be the exact same arguments from both sides. that is the point the project is no closer to being finished than it was 5 years ago. All they have done is been able to live the high life for 5 years on the wallets of dreamers.
They have SPENT over 240 million on this thing. Anyone watching the twitch feeds have to be laughing their asses off. It is pure comedy gold. Its always best when random clowns stream it. You know ACTUAL 'gamers' not guys who are paid or or have their computers bought and paid for by backers to stream it non stop. The guys that always avoid the spots they know are problems. But now you see it from the perspective of 'normal' players. It is hilarious. Not great as far as showcasing the abortion this thing continues to be but hilarious in terms of watching people comment on this thing.
For a 40 dollar entry fee it’s cheaper then SC to check out and will probably have more completed game loops, mechanics and things to do and will come out much sooner.
You like it or not, the MMO genre biggest problem is the opposite of what SC is doing, having most developers milking the same old tired formula for well over a decade now. Release dates trumping ambition to get cheaper budgets, aka what just happened with New World, continuing to haunt the titles that have been releasing.
And you guys do what? Applaud this reality? Yes of course you do because booo SC amiright?
If you put 1.2 patch here it would be the exact same arguments from both sides. <snip>
I suspect this is probably the case - mostly anyway. I seem to recall with release 3.0 (I think) that they seemed to be trying to squash every bug prior to release. Since some teams kept finishing new stuff whist other teams were working on bugs - resulting in new bugs! - it all got very messy. They went back to the quarterly release schedule afterwards and have been pushing updates out - nominally quarterly since. With bugs - it is an alpha after all. And the bugs have been fixed.
So if 3.8 has bugs .... its an alpha! Nothing new. And - based on their track record - bugs will be fixed.
And - based on their track record - the next patch will bring new bugs.
So if 3.8 has bugs .... its an alpha! Nothing new. And - based on their track record - bugs will be fixed.
And - based on their track record - the next patch will bring new bugs.
This year each quarterly patch made the game more smooth and stable than the previous one.
3.8 faces a drop and understandably so because of SOCS implementation, the same happened with OCS last year, got fixed and the result was massive performance gains to the game.
So nothing to see here, just professional naysayers doing their job.
Is it an alpha? I mean, sometimes they call it an alpha, other times it;s like an early access and then other times it's compared to a released game without all of thier additional patches, updates and expansions.
In 2017 he said
...with 3.0 the game is moving into a phase akin to Early Access. It'll
build and grow from there, and then you could say 'well, it's not really
Early Access anymore'. The price will probably go up a little bit and
it will have much more of the features and content going on.
and
Where do you draw a line in the sand between alpha, beta, Early Access? Are they just labels?
Chris Roberts: I feel like they're just labels [snip] Even with those [traditional boxed] games
now, they get patched, they add things, make things better over time.
The way I look at it is, if you've supported Star Citizen you can
download and play 2.63 which is a mini, early-stage version of this
universe and play around. There's a game experience there - [snip] you can go and see
how ships feel, find out what you think.
It's like saying 'hey, we're going to
have this really fancy hotel, but if you want to stay in this wing which
is finished but maybe all the bits aren't quite working - there's no
hot water yet - you can'.
I think even if we said, this is now past beta, the
paradigm for online stuff just doesn't work that way now. You see it all
the time. League of Legends continues to add new heroes, even more
traditional stuff like World of Warcraft has revisions every year. Even
if we said, 'we're released', we're never going to stop adding content.
That's how online games die. If you look at EVE Online now, it looks
nothing like the game which launched.
Did what they add this year make it 'better' Or more importantly ~50 million dollars better?
They have 500+ people working on this, they have Amazon 'fixing' their engine for them. Why in the hell cant they utilize the money people are still willing to throw at this mess better?
it ALL comes down to the ORIGINAL point all the naysayers had...Chris Roberts, and his complete and utter inability to manage money or finish a project he is in charge of.
So no matter what the white knights and paid operatives want to claim THAT simple point is and has been proven 100% accurate with out a single defense. No matter how much spin or deflection you want to make you have a 3.8 'release' that has had over 225 million put into it. If anyone can claim with a straight face that a monkey in a basement couldnt come up with a better result for the same amount of money then theyre not being objective whatsoever.
Comments
Some patches break, then they get fixed, reasonable people are reasonable and won't be having a go at the devs because they have to pause to go have Christmas with their families. That's about it.
As far as release schedule goes, patches are supposed to release within the timeframe instead of push back, features can and do get pushed back, bug-fixing that 1) was not labeled as a must-fix for live release or 2) new issues surfacing after live release, can and will be followed up within hot fix patches. What exactly is the big deal with this?
For the rest of your post you’re the one who immediately started calling it negative spin. I’m sorry you can’t see the forest for the trees but when the head of the company waffles on about how they won’t release stuff until it’s ready and then they release stuff that clearly isn’t ready it isn’t negative spin it’s pointing out the obvious.
Or are you trying to tell me this patch doesn’t have must fix issues like if a QT point is at the edge of a planet or moon you will explode when you use it, or weapons may not fire(not a problem if you’re up against their terrible AI) or the numerous 30k crash to desktop error people are reporting?
The whole point of when it's ready is more on the wider picture as to features, not in-time, bugs can be hotfixed later and won't delay the patch much beyond the intended timeframe.
As well, the mere fact that the PTU build was smooth nuf then when released many issues surfaced shown the issues that surfaced surface under heavier concurrency, or just the latest build having jinxed something, QA can only do so much the only real stress testing is with real players the PTU doesn't get the concurrency of live.
The issue for example of QT jump at the edge of a planet exploding a ship was actually listed on the patch notes under "known issues", as well the one with the weapons not firing that they stated the current workaround is to re-equip another weapon and it'll work again, so yeah if they were listed under known issues they weren't labeled must-fix.
Based on their previous Alpha releases, they seem to release 0.4 "points" of Alpha patches on a yearly basic. Currently they are at 3.7, which means 6.3 to go.
If math is not your forte point, release date should be around a shy above 15 years from now on, if they keep their current schedule.
Say .. they will "hurry" up a bit , and I think I predict it good, that SC will be "fully" released around 2030.
There you go boys and girls. SC release date announced.
So yea, is not about us bringing negativity to gaming, is people like you and SC dev's, which brings A LOT of negativity into gaming market, because of the pathetic way of how they handle this project and how shady their business is.
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
Nobody here is saying SC release is around the corner, we all know SC has years of development ahead, the difference here is that some people decide to be whining about it on every single SC thread.
The game will keep progressing and speaking for itself, end of the day that's all that matters, for those who want to play the game ofc, the professional naysayers will just do their thing.
what are you running?
EDIT: Here are my specs: https://pastebin.com/kgGWBKpe
and yes I know those examples were listed in the patch notes as known bugs because *gasp* I read the patch notes! I would think your spaceship exploding when trying to travel somewhere in a space game would be somewhat of a high priority. Or not crashing to desktop for no reason or the hundreds of other bugs that have resurfaced or have yet to be fixed that have been known for years.
The roadmap does not have any release date for SC, just the an year of update schedule.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Best bet for a finished game is for the investors (new and old) to take over, or Amazon to buy CIG out.
And just maybe they shouldn't have released a buggy patch right before Xmas. Par for the course though.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Amazon chickened out at the first struggles with the game engine on New World, instead of taking the challenges and refactor engine to meet the scope of the game, nope, let's hugely cut the design of the game instead!
Hay for another game developer who given up ambition and put a release date as the number #1 priority. Hurray for the future of the MMO genre!
They have SPENT over 240 million on this thing. Anyone watching the twitch feeds have to be laughing their asses off. It is pure comedy gold. Its always best when random clowns stream it. You know ACTUAL 'gamers' not guys who are paid or or have their computers bought and paid for by backers to stream it non stop. The guys that always avoid the spots they know are problems. But now you see it from the perspective of 'normal' players. It is hilarious. Not great as far as showcasing the abortion this thing continues to be but hilarious in terms of watching people comment on this thing.
And you guys do what? Applaud this reality? Yes of course you do because booo SC amiright?
So if 3.8 has bugs .... its an alpha! Nothing new. And - based on their track record - bugs will be fixed.
And - based on their track record - the next patch will bring new bugs.
3.8 faces a drop and understandably so because of SOCS implementation, the same happened with OCS last year, got fixed and the result was massive performance gains to the game.
So nothing to see here, just professional naysayers doing their job.
Chris Roberts: I feel like they're just labels [snip] Even with those [traditional boxed] games now, they get patched, they add things, make things better over time.
The way I look at it is, if you've supported Star Citizen you can download and play 2.63 which is a mini, early-stage version of this universe and play around. There's a game experience there - [snip] you can go and see how ships feel, find out what you think.
It's like saying 'hey, we're going to have this really fancy hotel, but if you want to stay in this wing which is finished but maybe all the bits aren't quite working - there's no hot water yet - you can'.
I think even if we said, this is now past beta, the paradigm for online stuff just doesn't work that way now. You see it all the time. League of Legends continues to add new heroes, even more traditional stuff like World of Warcraft has revisions every year. Even if we said, 'we're released', we're never going to stop adding content. That's how online games die. If you look at EVE Online now, it looks nothing like the game which launched.
They have 500+ people working on this, they have Amazon 'fixing' their engine for them. Why in the hell cant they utilize the money people are still willing to throw at this mess better?
it ALL comes down to the ORIGINAL point all the naysayers had...Chris Roberts, and his complete and utter inability to manage money or finish a project he is in charge of.
So no matter what the white knights and paid operatives want to claim THAT simple point is and has been proven 100% accurate with out a single defense. No matter how much spin or deflection you want to make you have a 3.8 'release' that has had over 225 million put into it. If anyone can claim with a straight face that a monkey in a basement couldnt come up with a better result for the same amount of money then theyre not being objective whatsoever.