I genuinely wonder if there is a time frame or dollar amount when even the devoted fanbase starts to have doubts. If not after 12+ years and $700m later then when?
Apparently as long as the devs keep delivering what it's backers enjoy they'll keep donating more money.
I'm still hoping they come through on SQ42 before the end of 2025.
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
I genuinely wonder if there is a time frame or dollar amount when even the devoted fanbase starts to have doubts. If not after 12+ years and $700m later then when?
Apparently as long as the devs keep delivering what it's backers enjoy they'll keep donating more money.
I'm still hoping they come through on SQ42 before the end of 2025.
No way before 2026, happy to bet some internet credibility (whatever that is) on that.
Funding and player increase year after year, Rinse & Repeat. Just like I stated to all you cynic idiots for years on end. You get it now?
PS: Only idiots have trouble drinking water in the game.
That's valid if you view success by the amount raised. Irrelevant if you measure success by a fully functional and released product. Your use of the word "idiot" just denigrates whatever else you type.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Funding and player increase year after year, Rinse & Repeat. Just like I stated to all you cynic idiots for years on end. You get it now?
PS: Only idiots have trouble drinking water in the game.
That's valid if you view success by the amount raised. Irrelevant if you measure success by a fully functional and released product. Your use of the word "idiot" just denigrates whatever else you type.
Bernie Madoff was very successful. He was a millionaire, he was heralded as a financial genius, was Chairman of the Nasdaq. He raised billions of dollars.
And he died in prison.
Raising vast sums of money without a viable product to show for it actually is a red flag, not a sign of success.
If you make a product people are willing to pay for and you use that money to keep improving it that's a success right there.
That it keeps generating money, while still in Alpha show it's actually a very viable product considering how many "finished" games fail to do just that.
I mean if it was easy to make a game with all the features of Star Citizen some other company with more money and more dev's would have make it by now and "print money", yet here we are.
Raising vast sums of money without a viable product to show for it actually is a red flag, not a sign of success.
Here's where there's a bit of difference and why Babs calling everyone idiots just works against him because people shut out anything else he has to say. There IS something to show. It's certainly not complete but it IS functional (with many bugs) in that you can login, walk around, fly in space and atmosphere, some FPS stuff (I didn't try) and run some basic missions in the starter system. I think they have kind of done what McQuaid pitched for Pantheon where he wanted to get SOMETHING built and then grow it. SC definitely has SOMETHING built, it just needs a lot more growth. But not in ships, they have more than enough of those already!
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
If you make a product people are willing to pay for and you use that money to keep improving it that's a success right there.
That it keeps generating money, while still in Alpha show it's actually a very viable product considering how many "finished" games fail to do just that.
I mean if it was easy to make a game with all the features of Star Citizen some other company with more money and more dev's would have make it by now and "print money", yet here we are.
Babs I recon you could be the CFO (chief financial officer) at CIG, "yet here we are" indeed.
If you make a product people are willing to pay for and you use that money to keep improving it that's a success right there.
That it keeps generating money, while still in Alpha show it's actually a very viable product considering how many "finished" games fail to do just that.
I mean if it was easy to make a game with all the features of Star Citizen some other company with more money and more dev's would have make it by now and "print money", yet here we are.
That's the problem you're missing. What rubs me, and some others it seems, the wrong way is not what people like to play, how much money it makes, or even how buggy it is. It's the way this is being done.
You speak of a game in alpha as a "product". Fine, then let them sell that product. They could say it will continue to be developed and patched and whatever else, but actually sell the product. Then, as you so reasonably stated, people like you who enjoy it could happily purchase it. People who don't won't. What's the problem with that?
Yet instead of selling their product, they are collecting donations. That's an odd way of doing business. Last I checked this is not some non-profit charity. If you have something to sell then sell it. If you don't, then work on getting there. Plenty of businesses succeeded by selling their minimally viable product (MVP) to early adopters while ironing out kinks and iterating towards a final, more broadly marketable version. But a for-profit enterprise raising millions of dollars as donations while stringing people along year after year without a meaningful timetable is not a development approach I can get behind, on principle.
Oh, and I don't think anyone suggested what SC is doing is easy so I don't get that comment. In fact, the concern is that scope creep on top of an already ambitious project could have resulted in something that is, frankly, too difficult to pull off effectively. That's a big part of the concern, actually. Projects can and quite regularly do turn into bottomless pits without the right forces corralling things in. In business, those forces tend to be market pressures, which don't really apply when you're a charity running on donations.
Most of us would love to see games like this succeed on the market. It's how they're doing it and how hype is used to prey on would-be donors that makes this and plenty of other crowdfunded projects problematic. I hope that cleared it up for you.
There's no problem whatsoever.
Any company is free to develop and fund their products as they see fit (legally) while users are free to enjoy and consume them or not, that you like it or not is irrelevant.
Raising vast sums of money without a viable product to show for it actually is a red flag, not a sign of success.
Here's where there's a bit of difference and why Babs calling everyone idiots just works against him because people shut out anything else he has to say. There IS something to show. It's certainly not complete but it IS functional (with many bugs) in that you can login, walk around, fly in space and atmosphere, some FPS stuff (I didn't try) and run some basic missions in the starter system. I think they have kind of done what McQuaid pitched for Pantheon where he wanted to get SOMETHING built and then grow it. SC definitely has SOMETHING built, it just needs a lot more growth. But not in ships, they have more than enough of those already!
Yes, SC has "something", but is it a viable product? Can they release what they have now and go "live"? No more wipes, what we have today is the game.
No. They don't have a viable product yet.
So I'm back to saying it isn't how much money you have raised, it is what you have to show for it. After 12 years and $700 million they have "something", but not a game really.
On the other hand, you could probably get $45 worth of entertainment out of it. $45 isn't that much anymore.
Yes, SC has "something", but is it a viable product?
Yeah, it is, even as an Alpha. Otherwise it wouldn't have players players enjoying it and spending money on it.
If you're unable to enjoy it in this state that's a You problem, and only if You make it to be.
Just like nobody is forced to back or play crowdfunded games while they develop, Game studios are not forced to rush their games without the features they want it to have just to please some impatient gamers lol
So, you'll just play whatever you enjoy however you like and Dev's will develop what they enjoy however they like independently if you like it or not. Simple.
It's as if a lot of the negative nancies have never dipped a toe into SC. My guess is they enjoy shitting on SC because it's cool and safe to do so.
Pony up the minimum price to play(or go into a free fly) and then spout crap about "viable product" or that overused word, "scam" otherwise go get yourself a big bowl of stfu.
It's as if a lot of the negative nancies have never dipped a toe into SC. My guess is they enjoy shitting on SC because it's cool and safe to do so.
Pony up the minimum price to play(or go into a free fly) and then spout crap about "viable product" or that overused word, "scam" otherwise go get yourself a big bowl of stfu.
So since I am an original Golden Ticket backer, and ALSO played in the free fly event... I have your permission to give an opinion?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
There's no problem whatsoever.
Any company is free to develop and fund their products as they see fit (legally) while users are free to enjoy and consume them or not, that you like it or not is irrelevant.
On the contrary, that I (or you or any other poster here) like it or not is the only thing relevant as far as posting on this site is concerned. This isn't some court and no one is on trial for legality to matter much. When someone posts about fast travel being added to a game, we don't debate whether that is legal or not. We discuss how we feel about it, sometimes with something amounting to reason thrown in for good measure. So, when someone posts about the amount of donations raised by a crowdfunded game a decade into development, we again discuss how we feel about it. Unless you have some inside connection, your opinion, mine, and anyone else's has the same relevance.
The state of the game right now for the players who have played it , does it look and play like a 700 million dollar game?
That's a bit of a disingenuous question IMO.
The obvious, most easy and ill informed answer would be no and I am betting that's what the design of this question was meant to bring out.
Rather consider this game started out as one thing initially in the KS BUT quickly morphed into something else due to the stretch goals which quickly got out of hand.
These goal made the focus of what was proposed and WANTED by the majority of the folks that put in so much money to change. Which sucks for folks like me that were only interested in the single player SQ42 I might add.
It went from something akin to your standard single player space game with multiplayer added in into something much grander
...a mash up of several genres which hasn't really been done in the way proposed before...it was such a grand idea that it garnered lots of drama by people such as Derick Smart who proclaimed this a scam and claim it would be technically impossible to do, to the point I do believe he tried to get the whole thing investigated...seems that all came up lacking cause here we are years later and the impossible is getting closer to being done.
We have to keep in mind they are trying to do something which was touted as impossible by many and trying to mash several genres together in a way which has never been successfully done before.
Really the game may yet fail however if it doesn't and even if they only succeeds in doing half of what they said this game will still be in a league or genre of it own.
Elite Dangerous and No Mans Sky don't even come close and I say that as a fan of them both.
Thus IMO a more fair question would be:
The state of the game right now for the players who have played it, does it look and play like a 700 million dollar game attempting to create a totally new genre that has never been done before?
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I have no idea though and am onlooker . Not really interested because of the PvP. Just curious and your answer @Asm0deus is more apologetic. I am more interested in what the game is like now for the people who play it. Not interested in what the goals are but exactly how it is now and one's opinion on the amount raised and time spent and the result. Does it match up?
I have no idea though and am onlooker . Not really interested because of the PvP. Just curious and your answer @Asm0deus is more apologetic. I am more interested in what the game is like now for the people who play it. Not interested in what the goals are but exactly how it is now and one's opinion on the amount raised and time spent and the result. Does it match up?
It's not apologetic, only trying to be accurate, and honest.
The question as you posed it is kind of unfair cause it begs the comparison to other games on the market when there is none like SC.
You say, "Not interested in what the goals are but exactly how it is now and one's
opinion on the amount raised and time spent and the result. Does it
match up?"
That question is unfair the way you frame it because it depends on the lens you are wearing when answering as I said in my previous post.
If you want to be dishonest (at least IMO) and only want a half arsed, biased approach by limiting the question like you have then sure the negative nancy's would be correct in saying no it doesn't match up.
If you want to be more accurate and objective and look at the whole darned scope of the project and what they are trying to do then yes it matches up with the time and money spent cause they are doing something not easily done and in fact hasn't been done before.
It's like pharmaceuticals, the first company to come out with a pill or medication for w/e usually put a metric fukton of time/money into developing it and the cost of it shows that. The generic brands that follow are usually much cheaper cause they are just "copying" the formula someone else researched. As such would it be fair to look at the first company that did all the work and research and compare them to a generic copy cat and ask why the discrepancy?
Ofc it wouldn't and that's what keeps happening in SC threads.
If you look at it like any other cookie cutter space game or any other cookie cutter fps game or any other cookie cutter survival game or any other cookie cutter sim game etc etc then you you have no choice really to think wtf are they doing?
WTF is it taking so long?
WTF is happening with all that money and why isn't it released yet?
However you can't look at it like that cause the "firsts of its kind" rarely happen as efficiently, or cost effectively as something else following a known formula, following cookie cutter designs.
IF someone wants a space game that they can play NOW, or SOON I suggest you dont waste your money on SC and instead try Starfield or NMS or ED even.
Most people that have forked money over to SC however are aware of the risk of forking money over to it, just as people should be aware of the risk when forking over cash to a KS project.
The recent patch made it lots better but its clearly still a game in alpha and clearly still needs lots of work.
That said unlike what some people that like to hate on it due to lack of fundamental understanding and them comparing it to say something like starfield....welp
There IS a game there, it is viable, and it has improved drastically. That doesn't mean it's anywhere near finished.
It's a game you play knowing you will run into bugs there will be issues and it's far from complete but if you can get over the fact its in alpha you will see exactly what they are trying to do and for space sim fans like me I would think you will hope they succeed.
That said I don't play it extensively just test it out now and then cause I am not a fan of dabbling in alphas that much beyond testing it out than coming back some time later when the game releases or has major updates.
My biggest gripe with it is that I want sq42 to release before I die of old age so I can actually play what I initially backed the KS for.
You have to understand we see lots of "just curious but have no idea though and am onlooker" hating on the game cause it's the popular and easy and fun thing to do.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
But for how long have you enjoyed playing Fortnite?
I mean .. isn't this ignorant and delusional and salty?
Poor you! You'll realize how shitty SC is soon enough ..
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!
Here's where there's a bit of difference and why Babs calling everyone idiots.
Not everyone, just those who for years and years called it a scam, were doomsday preaching (and wishing) the funding was gonna dry up, the company collapse etc etc. They know who they are
As for the question, If the money they've gotten is reflected in Star Citizen. Yes. And some more. Opening studios, hiring dev's, Squadron 42, Actors, motion capture, running servers, player support, making those highly detailed ships in & out, armour, world building, planets etc all come at a huge cost.
This is not like a game, say, Clash of Clans, where the big part of the generated 6.4 Billion (since 2012) will end up being reflected in an increase of scope, graphics or gameplay along the years.
Rockstar UK studio finances, which are public like cig uk ones, shows exactly how costly AAA game dev can get.
Comments
I'm still hoping they come through on SQ42 before the end of 2025.
"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
Failing to be honest about that makes me doubt the entire thing.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
And he died in prison.
Raising vast sums of money without a viable product to show for it actually is a red flag, not a sign of success.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
There's no problem whatsoever. Any company is free to develop and fund their products as they see fit (legally) while users are free to enjoy and consume them or not, that you like it or not is irrelevant.
No. They don't have a viable product yet.
So I'm back to saying it isn't how much money you have raised, it is what you have to show for it. After 12 years and $700 million they have "something", but not a game really.
On the other hand, you could probably get $45 worth of entertainment out of it. $45 isn't that much anymore.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
On the contrary, that I (or you or any other poster here) like it or not is the only thing relevant as far as posting on this site is concerned. This isn't some court and no one is on trial for legality to matter much. When someone posts about fast travel being added to a game, we don't debate whether that is legal or not. We discuss how we feel about it, sometimes with something amounting to reason thrown in for good measure. So, when someone posts about the amount of donations raised by a crowdfunded game a decade into development, we again discuss how we feel about it. Unless you have some inside connection, your opinion, mine, and anyone else's has the same relevance.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Yet .. here you are :
I mean .. isn't this ignorant and delusional and salty?
Poor you! You'll realize how shitty SC is soon enough ..
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!
As for the question, If the money they've gotten is reflected in Star Citizen. Yes. And some more.
Opening studios, hiring dev's, Squadron 42, Actors, motion capture, running servers, player support, making those highly detailed ships in & out, armour, world building, planets etc all come at a huge cost.
This is not like a game, say, Clash of Clans, where the big part of the generated 6.4 Billion (since 2012) will end up being reflected in an increase of scope, graphics or gameplay along the years.
Rockstar UK studio finances, which are public like cig uk ones, shows exactly how costly AAA game dev can get.
TLDR: Making Big games requires Big Teams for a lot of years which costs Big Bucks.