CIG is making 2 at the same time. Single-Player Campaign and a MMO.
This is called "leading with the chin"...
Thank you for playing.
Wow that video is pathetic man. The best part is where he types "we have had enough of the lies spread by nerds with a vested interest in creating false depictions". Oh, the irony...
It's nothing but a bunch of forum posts, poppy cutting at it's finest right there. Not a shred of proof to back up anything said in that video, which is exactly what the guy in the OP video is accusing the haters of doing....
Having done some earlier good games does not automatically entitles to blind faith in the next one being good.
Having done some earlier good games ... and then some more good games ... and then some more good games (I am speaking about the members of the team, not only single persons) .. and then some more good games ....
does not guarantee that the next game will be a great success ...
but it raises the probability significantly that it will be.
So no bad games between anyone working at CIG ever? Wow that's amazing. The really are cherry picking only the best developers to work for CIG.
MVP can be 100 % of all features promised if one decides that it should be so. Usually its a bit less (and CIG seems to follow this practice)
As it has not been decided yet what the MVP is in the specific case of Star Citizen, there is no basis yet to say if the Star Citizen MVP is "the good, the bad or the ugly". Only time will tell.
And the MVP is usually followed up quickly by the rest of the features from the requirements specification document, as fast as the project team can amend the MVP.
You mean aside from the reasons mentioned in the video Phaser linked?
You need to watch it again buddy, there are no reasons given at all. Just a bunch of "wrongs" written in red. And then they go on to show a new graph with completely different games on it?
Both graphs are stupid because it's clear that nothing like SC has been attempted before, but make no mistake, they're BOTH stupid.
It's actually really good to question a project that's raised over 100 million dollars but has not produced a real product in 4 years and still has no definite completion date.
In almost no other industry but video games would this be remotely acceptable.
Absolutely !
However, in MMORPG's it's happened quite often. It's not even unusual anymore. Won't be the first time and definitely won't be the last time...
The difference is that they're funding the development from regular people. This is the first time a game of this budget has done this (and very well might be the last time).
I would expect them to attempt to be as efficient as possible with the money and continuously prove to investors that their hard-earned money is being put to good use.
They have 5 offices around the world. That takes a bit of money for upkeep. Is it necessary? Is it the most efficient use of money?
I'd like to see a room full of devs with dark-cricles under their eyes after putting in a 10-hour shift with a bunch of broken Styrofoam coffee cups from coffee made from the cheapest generic coffee available.
You don't want to get the impression that these guys are throwing parties with the money. Some people are getting that impression.
All that being said, it's up to the funders to hold them accountable. If they're content with speeches and promises, then that's all Roberts is obligated to provide.
I think you should have led that with 'ah I see your point 4 years is not unreasonable...however..'
I think 4 years is very unreasonable. But it's not unprecedented.
The big difference here is they are already at 4 years, and the funding is not coming from the company itself or an investment company. It is coming from hard-working people.
4 years is average
not 'unprecedented' its average
I think I found that on wikipedia not sure...but average
I do think it's unreasonable, for any game but especially for this one. It shouldn't take that long to make a game, especially when it's being funded by regular people.
"How do you know they are hard-working people lol? What does it matter anyway? "
LOL indeed. If you can't see the difference between a corporation funding a project that can just declare bankruptcy if things go wrong and thousands of people funding it, well, what can I say.
That being said, these funders do seem to care little for how their money is spent.
What should have been a project with heavy oversight and strict deadlines has become basically a farce with zero oversight, no deadlines, and no accountability. Mainly because the funders decided to spend their energy defending the game on forums rather than demanding accountability for their money.
It's not unprecedented, or unreasonable. No one can say what's reasonable for a project that's never been attempted before, no matter how it's funded.
Once again, random people pretending to have insight on what goes on in the company. "Zero oversight, no deadlines, and no accountability" Just like the video in the OP said. You really think they don't have internal oversight or deadlines at their company? Really? What is it that people expect? They miss a deadline so they just shut the whole thing down and do refunds? What a joke.
CIGs only real responsibility is to eventually deliver a product. How they do that is not the business of backers, they are not actual investors.
Having done some earlier good games does not automatically entitles to blind faith in the next one being good.
Having done some earlier good games ... and then some more good games ... and then some more good games (I am speaking about the members of the team, not only single persons) .. and then some more good games ....
does not guarantee that the next game will be a great success ...
but it raises the probability significantly that it will be.
So no bad games between anyone working at CIG ever? Wow that's amazing. The really are cherry picking only the best developers to work for CIG.
He's talking about people in key positions - not every single member of CIG.
Even so, I thought this was primarily about Chris Roberts and how terrible he is - both as a person and a game developer.
Why this sudden interest in what the other CIG members have done in the past?
Are they all terrible people now who've all "stolen" success from others?
So this thread was created by SC supporters to attack someone else who has a different opinion than them......hmmm
A different opinion ? Really now ?
I presume that you're not aware about DS's crusade against SC, CIG and Chris Roberts in person with attacks reaching out to his family members utilizing the lowest form of tabloid "jurnalism".
Your Chart is completely wrong in so many ways and it has been pointed out many times before.
Here is an actually relevant and accurate chart:
I love that chart !
Always nice to see the development time of a MMO being compared to that of single-player games. It puts into perspective just how well SC is doing in actual fact !
Not only are CIG producing a single-player game, but also a complete MMO in addition to that, and all of it in slightly more time than it takes other companies to produce just a single-player game ! Wow !
It's also amusing to see the claim that the chart is "accurate", given that it includes "Starfield", a project about which no "accurate" information is available at all, other than that it has been registered as a trademark...
It's actually really good to question a project that's raised over 100 million dollars but has not produced a real product in 4 years and still has no definite completion date.
In almost no other industry but video games would this be remotely acceptable.
Absolutely !
However, in MMORPG's it's happened quite often. It's not even unusual anymore. Won't be the first time and definitely won't be the last time...
The difference is that they're funding the development from regular people. This is the first time a game of this budget has done this (and very well might be the last time).
I would expect them to attempt to be as efficient as possible with the money and continuously prove to investors that their hard-earned money is being put to good use.
They have 5 offices around the world. That takes a bit of money for upkeep. Is it necessary? Is it the most efficient use of money?
I'd like to see a room full of devs with dark-cricles under their eyes after putting in a 10-hour shift with a bunch of broken Styrofoam coffee cups from coffee made from the cheapest generic coffee available.
You don't want to get the impression that these guys are throwing parties with the money. Some people are getting that impression.
All that being said, it's up to the funders to hold them accountable. If they're content with speeches and promises, then that's all Roberts is obligated to provide.
I think you should have led that with 'ah I see your point 4 years is not unreasonable...however..'
I think 4 years is very unreasonable. But it's not unprecedented.
The big difference here is they are already at 4 years, and the funding is not coming from the company itself or an investment company. It is coming from hard-working people.
4 years is average
not 'unprecedented' its average
I think I found that on wikipedia not sure...but average
I do think it's unreasonable, for any game but especially for this one. It shouldn't take that long to make a game, especially when it's being funded by regular people.
"How do you know they are hard-working people lol? What does it matter anyway? "
LOL indeed. If you can't see the difference between a corporation funding a project that can just declare bankruptcy if things go wrong and thousands of people funding it, well, what can I say.
That being said, these funders do seem to care little for how their money is spent.
What should have been a project with heavy oversight and strict deadlines has become basically a farce with zero oversight, no deadlines, and no accountability. Mainly because the funders decided to spend their energy defending the game on forums rather than demanding accountability for their money.
It's not unprecedented, or unreasonable. No one can say what's reasonable for a project that's never been attempted before, no matter how it's funded.
Once again, random people pretending to have insight on what goes on in the company. "Zero oversight, no deadlines, and no accountability" Just like the video in the OP said. You really think they don't have internal oversight or deadlines at their company? Really? What is it that people expect? They miss a deadline so they just shut the whole thing down and do refunds? What a joke.
CIGs only real responsibility is to eventually deliver a product. How they do that is not the business of backers, they are not actual investors.
Anything short of shutting it down and refunding isn't acceptable for them. Having said that, it seems the vast majority of people lashing out at CIG now are Goons from SA. DS tried to get people behind gamergate to follow him into his 'war' against CIG. Some morons bit, but the rest didn't. So, he found his crowd in the SA forums (the goons), but most suspect they're just doing it for the entertainment factor.
Your Chart is completely wrong in so many ways and it has been pointed out many times before.
Here is an actually relevant and accurate chart:
I love that chart !
Always nice to see the development time of a MMO being compared to that of single-player games. It puts into perspective just how well SC is doing in actual fact !
Not only are CIG producing a single-player game, but also a complete MMO in addition to that, and all of it in slightly more time than it takes other companies to produce just a single-player game ! Wow !
It's also amusing to see the claim that the chart is "accurate", given that it includes "Starfield", a project about which no "accurate" information is available at all, other than that it has been registered as a trademark...
I love these forums !
That's the kind of shit that SA & DS throws out there as 'evidence' that CIG failed. It's retarded.
You mean aside from the reasons mentioned in the video Phaser linked?
You need to watch it again buddy, there are no reasons given at all. Just a bunch of "wrongs" written in red. And then they go on to show a new graph with completely different games on it?
Both graphs are stupid because it's clear that nothing like SC has been attempted before, but make no mistake, they're BOTH stupid.
Not really, the reason for changing them is because the timescales and information on the first graph is simply incorrect, and subsequently replaced with recorded data that more properly breaks down the time scale and phases of a product's development using titles that have available information and are somewhat applicable to the design or scope of the game to be compared to.
But you're free to spin content however you want to make yourself feel good.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
CIG is making 2 at the same time. Single-Player Campaign and a MMO.
This is called "leading with the chin"...
Thank you for playing.
Wow that video is pathetic man. The best part is where he types "we have had enough of the lies spread by nerds with a vested interest in creating false depictions". Oh, the irony...
It's nothing but a bunch of forum posts, poppy cutting at it's finest right there. Not a shred of proof to back up anything said in that video, which is exactly what the guy in the OP video is accusing the haters of doing....
The video obviously has satirical overtones. I'm not sure I can take someone calling his segment "top hats and champagne" seriously, either.
After clearing away the humor, what I took away from Major Tom's video that seemed of importance to me (the games were all the same, by the way: only 2 were omitted) is that there is a chart that gets thrown around a lot as though it's some type of talisman, seemingly always by some fan or other trying to justify the current state of CIG's project.
The chart lacks some important details, such as when each game was first announced to the public, when each game's parent company opened their doors to accepting payment, when open beta occurred, etc.
In short, it's a rather transparent attempt to make CIG's development of SC look commonplace, when it's anything but.
...and Star Citizen isn't a "tall poppy", no matter what.... that guy says. It isn't a MMO, either. Call of Duty allows more players on the same map.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Your Chart is completely wrong in so many ways and it has been pointed out many times before.
Here is an actually relevant and accurate chart:
I love that chart !
Not only are CIG producing a single-player game, but also a complete MMO in addition to that, and all of it in slightly more time than it takes other companies to produce just a single-player game ! Wow !
So you admit the original chart is bs too, right? Following your logic it must be.
...and Star Citizen isn't a "tall poppy", no matter what.... that guy says. ...
Yes it is.
$113M tall, in fact.
It's even in the Guinness Book of World Records. Now that's "tall" !
If only games were measured by the amount of crowdfunding they took in.
WoW has, what, 5 million subs? How much $$$ has that game collected over its lifetime?
...but, go ahead and propagate the stereotype that SC fans are obsessed with cash quantities and "tall poppies".
...and you're going to trot out the Guinness World Record? That's nice. SC has admirable company with DudePerfect.
Post edited by Phaserlight on
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
...and Star Citizen isn't a "tall poppy", no matter what.... that guy says. ...
Yes it is.
$113M tall, in fact.
It's even in the Guinness Book of World Records. Now that's "tall" !
If only games were measured by the amount of crowdfunding they took in.
A "tall poppy" is simply something that sticks out above the rest. It carries no other connotations.
Star Citizen sticks out above the rest precisely because it attracted an astronomical sum of crowdfunding money.
If Camelot Unchained or Pantheon had been the game that broke crowdfunding records, this discussion would be in a different forum, but the attacks would be just as relentless...
So this thread was created by SC supporters to attack someone else who has a different opinion than them......hmmm
...and yet the mods on this unbiased forum do nothing about it. Sound like a pretty clear case of baiting and trolling:
"Posting excessive negative comments or baiting others to respond in a negative manner is considered trolling on the MMORPG.com forums."
Now imagine a SC critic would do exactly the same. I have read these forums for 2 years and i have seen threads like that closed and people get banned.
You mean aside from the reasons mentioned in the video Phaser linked?
Well both charts are right, the one linked in the video still states the same thing as the other when it comes to overall development time, which has been the topic of discussion this entire time. The constant question by people has been "when is the game going to be released?" Yes people can guess from the length of the pre-alpha, but there's still 4 years to go, unless you can predict the future, no one know what could happen in that time.
So the first graph isn't a lie as the main purpose of it is to compare overall dev time. Am i wrong in saying that?
To talk about the video as a whole, it insults people through out calling them nerds and idiots, the title says more truths, but just links forums posts, laughing at posts that don't fit their point of view and praising those that do. Where are the truths, facts or criticism be it negative or positive? This video is made to do nothing more than fling mud (tall poppy syndrome), it constantly at the start talks about "We, the normal people have had enough", who are these "normal" people? It seems if you don't share the video makers views you're a nerd or idiot, but if you do, you're normal.
The video adds nothing to the discussion than prove the OPs point
...and Star Citizen isn't a "tall poppy", no matter what.... that guy says. ...
Yes it is.
$113M tall, in fact.
It's even in the Guinness Book of World Records. Now that's "tall" !
If only games were measured by the amount of crowdfunding they took in.
A "tall poppy" is simply something that sticks out above the rest. It carries no other connotations.
Star Citizen sticks out above the rest precisely because it attracted an astronomical sum of crowdfunding money.
If Camelot Unchained or Pantheon had been the game that broke crowdfunding records, this discussion would be in a different forum, but the attacks would be just as relentless...
What attacks?
Let's review: this thread was started by someone with a clear agenda of discrediting anyone that dares raise a voice against his precious project. Burden of proof is on the person making the argument.
This is also a massive red herring, and non-sequitur. Forget that no, we wouldn't be having this conversation about a different game because a host of parameters would be entirely different, this is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are talking about Star Citizen, and the OP's claim.
I assert that no, Star Citizen is not a "tall poppy"; it still hasn't proven the capability to do anything aside from bring a dozen or so players together on a test map with gorgeous graphics and real-to-life Newtonian physics. This doesn't make it a MMO, and even if we were just looking at it from a cash perspective it doesn't "stick[] out above the rest" because no one in the video game industry has raised money in this way before.
The OP and you are inventing goalposts for a sport that doesn't exist.
Crowdfunding, if you recall, almost always involves a set window of time; a beginning and an end between which funds are accepted from the public.
Since we are zeroing in on number of crowd funded dollars as a measure of success, where are Star Citizen's competitors that it "sticks out" above with crowd funding on a private, non-Kickstarter site and indeterminate delivery date?
Is that really a contest you'd be proud of winning?
Nothing Star Citizen has shown so far makes it a "tall poppy"; in essence, it's a tech demo.
Let me temper this by saying I look forward to seeing what Star Citizen will become. However, it's a little early to go around patting each other on the back for 'having pwned the skeptics' and laying all doubt to rest. There are plenty of valid reasons to be skeptical of Star Citizen right now, and not because it's a "tall poppy".
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Comments
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
It's nothing but a bunch of forum posts, poppy cutting at it's finest right there. Not a shred of proof to back up anything said in that video, which is exactly what the guy in the OP video is accusing the haters of doing....
Wow that's amazing. The really are cherry picking only the best developers to work for CIG.
..Cake..
MVP can be 100 % of all features promised if one decides that it should be so. Usually its a bit less (and CIG seems to follow this practice)
As it has not been decided yet what the MVP is in the specific case of Star Citizen, there is no basis yet to say if the Star Citizen MVP is "the good, the bad or the ugly". Only time will tell.
And the MVP is usually followed up quickly by the rest of the features from the requirements specification document, as fast as the project team can amend the MVP.
Have fun
Both graphs are stupid because it's clear that nothing like SC has been attempted before, but make no mistake, they're BOTH stupid.
--> http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/451704/star-citizen-video-game-to-feature-in-game-designs-by-de-montfort-university-student#latest
Have fun
Once again, random people pretending to have insight on what goes on in the company. "Zero oversight, no deadlines, and no accountability" Just like the video in the OP said. You really think they don't have internal oversight or deadlines at their company? Really? What is it that people expect? They miss a deadline so they just shut the whole thing down and do refunds? What a joke.
CIGs only real responsibility is to eventually deliver a product. How they do that is not the business of backers, they are not actual investors.
Even so, I thought this was primarily about Chris Roberts and how terrible he is - both as a person and a game developer.
Why this sudden interest in what the other CIG members have done in the past?
Are they all terrible people now who've all "stolen" success from others?
I'm confused
Although it's sometimes a bit scary to see just how weird some people are...
I hope the actual game will be as much fun as the forums, lol
Have fun
I presume that you're not aware about DS's crusade against SC, CIG and Chris Roberts in person with attacks reaching out to his family members utilizing the lowest form of tabloid "jurnalism".
Always nice to see the development time of a MMO being compared to that of single-player games. It puts into perspective just how well SC is doing in actual fact !
Not only are CIG producing a single-player game, but also a complete MMO in addition to that, and all of it in slightly more time than it takes other companies to produce just a single-player game ! Wow !
It's also amusing to see the claim that the chart is "accurate", given that it includes "Starfield", a project about which no "accurate" information is available at all, other than that it has been registered as a trademark...
I love these forums !
But you're free to spin content however you want to make yourself feel good.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
After clearing away the humor, what I took away from Major Tom's video that seemed of importance to me (the games were all the same, by the way: only 2 were omitted) is that there is a chart that gets thrown around a lot as though it's some type of talisman, seemingly always by some fan or other trying to justify the current state of CIG's project.
The chart lacks some important details, such as when each game was first announced to the public, when each game's parent company opened their doors to accepting payment, when open beta occurred, etc.
In short, it's a rather transparent attempt to make CIG's development of SC look commonplace, when it's anything but.
...and Star Citizen isn't a "tall poppy", no matter what.... that guy says. It isn't a MMO, either. Call of Duty allows more players on the same map.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Carry on Commandos!
$113M tall, in fact.
It's even in the Guinness Book of World Records. Now that's "tall" !
WoW has, what, 5 million subs? How much $$$ has that game collected over its lifetime?
...but, go ahead and propagate the stereotype that SC fans are obsessed with cash quantities and "tall poppies".
...and you're going to trot out the Guinness World Record? That's nice. SC has admirable company with DudePerfect.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Star Citizen sticks out above the rest precisely because it attracted an astronomical sum of crowdfunding money.
If Camelot Unchained or Pantheon had been the game that broke crowdfunding records, this discussion would be in a different forum, but the attacks would be just as relentless...
Now imagine a SC critic would do exactly the same. I have read these forums for 2 years and i have seen threads like that closed and people get banned.
Carry on Commandos!
So the first graph isn't a lie as the main purpose of it is to compare overall dev time. Am i wrong in saying that?
To talk about the video as a whole, it insults people through out calling them nerds and idiots, the title says more truths, but just links forums posts, laughing at posts that don't fit their point of view and praising those that do. Where are the truths, facts or criticism be it negative or positive? This video is made to do nothing more than fling mud (tall poppy syndrome), it constantly at the start talks about "We, the normal people have had enough", who are these "normal" people? It seems if you don't share the video makers views you're a nerd or idiot, but if you do, you're normal.
The video adds nothing to the discussion than prove the OPs point
Let's review: this thread was started by someone with a clear agenda of discrediting anyone that dares raise a voice against his precious project. Burden of proof is on the person making the argument.
This is also a massive red herring, and non-sequitur. Forget that no, we wouldn't be having this conversation about a different game because a host of parameters would be entirely different, this is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are talking about Star Citizen, and the OP's claim.
I assert that no, Star Citizen is not a "tall poppy"; it still hasn't proven the capability to do anything aside from bring a dozen or so players together on a test map with gorgeous graphics and real-to-life Newtonian physics. This doesn't make it a MMO, and even if we were just looking at it from a cash perspective it doesn't "stick[] out above the rest" because no one in the video game industry has raised money in this way before.
The OP and you are inventing goalposts for a sport that doesn't exist.
Crowdfunding, if you recall, almost always involves a set window of time; a beginning and an end between which funds are accepted from the public.
Since we are zeroing in on number of crowd funded dollars as a measure of success, where are Star Citizen's competitors that it "sticks out" above with crowd funding on a private, non-Kickstarter site and indeterminate delivery date?
Is that really a contest you'd be proud of winning?
Nothing Star Citizen has shown so far makes it a "tall poppy"; in essence, it's a tech demo.
Let me temper this by saying I look forward to seeing what Star Citizen will become. However, it's a little early to go around patting each other on the back for 'having pwned the skeptics' and laying all doubt to rest. There are plenty of valid reasons to be skeptical of Star Citizen right now, and not because it's a "tall poppy".
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance