dancrane212
Member
LIke I said, I don't feel too good about it but I accept it's a necessary evil for me to get what I want. The amount of money some folk have spent on just a couple ships is mind boggling to me; I can't physically comprehend it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Star Citizen - Fans have dropped $77m on this guys buggy, half-built game [WIRED]
- Thread starter mocoworm
- Start date
LIke I said, I don't feel too good about it but I accept it's a necessary evil for me to get what I want. The amount of money some folk have spent on just a couple ships is mind boggling to me; I can't physically comprehend it.
Miles Quaritch
Member
I'm concerned.
Dictator93
Member
Start buying ferraris. Chris admits to buying ferraris in the article. I know because I read it and am commenting in this thread like a lot of other posters.
I dunno, as a backer(On the original KS) I'm pretty disappointed at what the campaign turned into. Charging for ships free to play style before the game is even out really rubbed me the wrong way.
Isn't this the way Elite: Dangerous is doing it?
Felix Lighter
Member
I'm waiting for now because the Arena Commander and FPS modules don't interest me but it's already full on multiplayer dogfighting game for both coop wave based combat and pure PVP with ship outfitting and now in game currency for accessing ships outside of backer rewards. Those saying they haven't shown much have apparently not been paying much attention.
I've noticed this as well.
It is, and that's why the game can become very boring because you just end up doing the same thing again and again, at least until the expansions come out.
Denton
Member
250+ people of top notch talent are working on this game. Salaries are not cheap.
I thought they did that a very long time ago. But things had already kinda gotten out of hand, and it didn't stop people from giving them money.
While I'm sure some supported it because they wanted a return to form for space sims, nobody can deny that they've also targeted the pay to win whales. Which is even more insane because the game is still very far off and people keep buying shit. I personally know a guy who dropped over $350 on the game...in 2013! I bet he'd have reconsidered if he thought he'd likely be waiting until 2016 to use that ship.
DoktorEvil
Banned
So... what's going on with the development?
This article is the very first I've heard about the game.
I don't know about all that stuff, the hangar module videos people show of some good looking models that have some buggy insides. The trailers of first-person modes, and space flight make it out to be a pretty ambitious game. They obviously put out what they can like in early access and show of what they got, which from what i have seen seemed pretty impressive. A lot more polish will have to be put on certain parts of the game put the people putting money into this seem patient enough for them to put things together.
DrROBschiz
Member
Sorry but Im not into this Crowdfunding/Living Game that gets developed forever idea
It worked for Minecraft for very different reasons and even that was a flash in the fan that has only been followed up by a few games of similar nature but NOT similar success
Im not even sure what to call this at the moment but Its already setting red flags off in my mind..
It worked for Minecraft for very different reasons and even that was a flash in the fan that has only been followed up by a few games of similar nature but NOT similar success
Im not even sure what to call this at the moment but Its already setting red flags off in my mind..
Chris Roberts while a visionary doesn't have a publisher to reign in his tendency to allow feature creep to take over.
I'd love to see them pull this off but while I applaud his grandiose vision, I'm a tad bit concerned that they've bitten off more than they can deliver in any sort of timely fashion.
I'd love to see them pull this off but while I applaud his grandiose vision, I'm a tad bit concerned that they've bitten off more than they can deliver in any sort of timely fashion.
My only concern about the crowd funding for this game is how people who have put $1000's in will feel when the game comes out and people find ways to earn their ships in game, probably without any major time investment.
People have a lot to say about the .1% who fund free to play games but those games are live and people putting money in have some idea of the value they are getting, in this case there's nothing other than Chris Roberts word to say how much of your own time you're saving by handing over $125 for a ship.
I feel like they might have a whole bunch of angry angry whales on their hands when they finally go live.
People have a lot to say about the .1% who fund free to play games but those games are live and people putting money in have some idea of the value they are getting, in this case there's nothing other than Chris Roberts word to say how much of your own time you're saving by handing over $125 for a ship.
I feel like they might have a whole bunch of angry angry whales on their hands when they finally go live.
Felix Lighter
Member
If they spent thousands of dollars to get a shortcut to ships and not to back the game, then hopefully they are disappointed because the game will be better for it.
DrROBschiz
Member
I would have preferred he made another solid wing commander reboot to build funding and get his feet wet again in this new age and development environment
Tackling something of this scale is already becoming a huge problem for already established AAA companies and many people have been calling out the decline of trying to manage properties of this scale for the past generation
I get that people believe in this guy but its just REALLY hard not to be skeptical with all the recent events
Planetary interactions, FPS combat, Multi-crew combat, Space combat.
Denton
Member
CyberPunked
Member
Could you elaborate on the causes of the red flags?
Dude, people are literally playing the game. Backers can already download and play parts of it. And the playable version is constantly updated. And they provide insight into exactly what they are working on and where money is going every single week in update emails/videos.
To say people "litterally havent gotten anything yet" is a blatant lie.
Damerman
Member
Like... i get it... the same way i understand some one might want to rob a bank to feed their family... but surely this crosses some kind clear cut ethical line...
Whats the point of the title other than to draw misinformed skepticism... skepticism is always healthy... but lets not bullshit people for the sake of sensationalism.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
So how many AAA games let us get playable anything 2 years before release?
This seems like a pretty ridiculous double standard. Unless you were at a major gaming conference within the 6-12 months before release, you weren't playing even the buggy version of Watch Dogs.
This seems like a pretty ridiculous double standard. Unless you were at a major gaming conference within the 6-12 months before release, you weren't playing even the buggy version of Watch Dogs.
Hundreds of hours of content is waiting for You to explore here:
https://www.youtube.com/user/RobertsSpaceInd/videos
Well I hope the Ts&Cs hold up against legal complaints then because disappointed customers + multimillion dollar project + America = Law suits.
DrROBschiz
Member
Mostly the Scope, Size and complexity of the operation
Who knows though. If money continues to flow in and there isn't any malpractice or burnout
Maybe the overflow will drown out the typical pitfalls of this kind of development
That's also part of my problem in believing this is going to launch in any sort of decent playable state.
Companies of the magnitude of Ubisoft have trouble getting games out the door that aren't buggy messes with more resources than Roberts has. Honestly they should've followed the model of Elite Dangerous and iterated on the game after you got something out the door that's playable.
As it stands now unless they hit a homerun they'll be hammered for what isn't working or isn't there by virtue of the amount of money they've collected.
I have a feeling that once those guys got a look at how much money was coming in the door it became more about marketing the vision rather than building a solid space sim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop
77m doesn't seem a lot compared to other projects.
77m doesn't seem a lot compared to other projects.
Dictator93
Member
Ever since the project began we have known rough estimates concerning the amount of in game time to get baseline ships.
If people are upset that they spent money on ships, they were rather uninformed. Every single ship buy page sale has big dislaimer text that the ship is available for free through in game progression.
Also, reading their actual forums shows how people supporting this game KNOW everything I have just typed.
Lalalandia
Member
That's a great point the design that is in Robert's head right now might make 'Relly Big Cruiser' worth $125 but will that be the case when the game is supported by an ongoing player base. Look at the outrage that greets every MMO patch when they make mounts available at earlier levels or trivialise the grind to reach that level.
Hell I play Destiny and I was super pissed at how they handled the adding of higher power weapons and armour in the first expansion. Imagine 4 months into SC launch 'Economy 2.0' comes in because the design as is wasn't retaining players will the players with the rare ships be as happy with their spend if folks who didn't pledge are now tooling around in 'their ' ships all over the place?
SC is going to be so fascinating to see evolve over time, I suspect only EVE will rival the drama.
Yeah, it's like the author knows they have to use this kind of headline to cash in (edit: due to management/editors) but they want to write a good article anyway.
Title: Fans have dropped $77m on this guy's buggy, half-built game
Content: Here's why fans have dropped $77m and continue to contribute to this guy's buggy, half-built game
Yeah, I don't have any concern about that. Their butts seem to be covered well there. The short-term value is that people have these things day 1 - presumably for an advantage in establishing an early foothold in the persistent universe. The long-term value is LTI, as insignificant as that hull insurance cost might turn out to be.
Damerman
Member
LumpOfCole
Member
League of Legends was another game that got overwhelmingly successful / swamped with cash in the very very beginning, and it took Riot years to utilize the cash coming in properly but they eventually did it.
Exept you have backers in this very thread explaining that's not true and the article itself describes in detail that it's not true.
GTA V took years to make, i don't see people questioning the dev. time.
DrROBschiz
Member
Lalalandia
Member
Hey let's not throw the author under the bus here, headlines and article titles are usually the responsibility of the sub-editor or the commissioning editor. Their priority isn't accurately reflecting the article contents but rather getting 'dem clicks.
Adam Scott Aukerman
Member
I've paid very little attention to this project since it was announced (mostly because it interests me and I'd rather just play it 'when it's done' instead of salivating over it repeatedly or playing it in an unfinished state), but even so I can't help but shake the feeling that they've set the bar far too high for this.
For 77m, they could probably just about fund three, highly produced (but perhaps moderately scoped) games. Get that first one out there within a couple of years, rake in loads more cash and build from there would surely be a more sensible alternative strategy?
But then what the fuck do I know? Although I could make a safe guess that working with this level of expectation must be ball-crushingly worrisome.
For 77m, they could probably just about fund three, highly produced (but perhaps moderately scoped) games. Get that first one out there within a couple of years, rake in loads more cash and build from there would surely be a more sensible alternative strategy?
But then what the fuck do I know? Although I could make a safe guess that working with this level of expectation must be ball-crushingly worrisome.
Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant - like "I know management wants this headline but I'm going to write something good despite it". Edited for clarity.
Dictator93
Member
League was made by people who were making their first venture into large game making. Star Citizen's team and maangement is mad eup of industry veterans... including a lot of people from blizzard and crytek among other companies.
You know... people who worked on WoW... another game with a large scope and player base.
chrominance
Member
The article points to some of the unknowns inherent in Star Citizen's funding and development--lots of people buying virtual goods for a game that's still half-promise is an unprecedented phenomenon, and for both Cloud Imperium and the people who bought into Star Citizen there is arguably a lot of risk here. If Star Citizen fails, it's possibly it will be in an entirely banal, trivial way. It comes out, it's not quite what people wanted out of the game, most people accept they hyped it up too much, we all move on with our lives. But the more people that pour thousands of dollars of their own money into the game, the less likely that scenario seems. Either it'll be amazing or it'll lead to a virtual riot.
That said: the headline on that story is garbage. A year and a half ago, you could've just as easily said "Activision and Bungie spend $XX million dollars on buggy, half-built game." A few years back you could've said "Rockstar spends $XX million dollars on buggy, half-built game." The only reason "buggy and half-built" is even remotely valid as a criticism is because technically, the Kickstarter stated a delivery date of November 2014, but nearly everyone understands the release date has been pushed back. In the meantime, there's a tentative development/release roadmap and actual functioning modules you can play that showcase fundamental pieces of the gameplay.
That said: the headline on that story is garbage. A year and a half ago, you could've just as easily said "Activision and Bungie spend $XX million dollars on buggy, half-built game." A few years back you could've said "Rockstar spends $XX million dollars on buggy, half-built game." The only reason "buggy and half-built" is even remotely valid as a criticism is because technically, the Kickstarter stated a delivery date of November 2014, but nearly everyone understands the release date has been pushed back. In the meantime, there's a tentative development/release roadmap and actual functioning modules you can play that showcase fundamental pieces of the gameplay.
dancrane212
Member
It is a bit concerning watching the "Letters to the Chairman" segment they release every week. I understand that the Star Citizen component will be this big evolving world where features will be added overtime but it feels (at least from the videos I've watched) the scope gets bigger every week I tune in.
Not saying Chris Roberts should be dismissing folks suggestions or anything but maybe he could be a bit more reigned in when talking about things that are really far off.
Damerman
Member
Aside from the dozens of articles and videos posted to the main site, CIG posts very detailed monthly summaries for each studio working on the game. Here's the latest one: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14563-Monthly-Report-February
The next report is due within the next week.
When Star Citizen first took off there was issues brought on about Chris Roberts with scope, design, and overall structure of his games as the industry moved forward. People laughed at that and pretty much full on trusted in the capability of him forward in a weird Tim Schafer way.
It's not shocking that scope, design, and the structure of the game are still the knock on the game 2 years later. It's also disheartening that you pull this up with star struck hope filled fans of the game and you immediately get thrown the line about "showed more gameplay than most AAA titles!!!!!!" or that it's being updated daily or all that and if there ever was a red "Missed the Point" stamp.
It's nice what they've accomplished. It's hilariously inept to look at the install file size and immediately cry out "This is next gen look at all those resources" without questioning why. It's silly to just believe everything without ever questioning what was being told. Star Citizen looks nice, it plays nice, but it's not worth the investment and unless something serious comes into play in the next year or two it's going to fall off my radar completely.
It's not shocking that scope, design, and the structure of the game are still the knock on the game 2 years later. It's also disheartening that you pull this up with star struck hope filled fans of the game and you immediately get thrown the line about "showed more gameplay than most AAA titles!!!!!!" or that it's being updated daily or all that and if there ever was a red "Missed the Point" stamp.
It's nice what they've accomplished. It's hilariously inept to look at the install file size and immediately cry out "This is next gen look at all those resources" without questioning why. It's silly to just believe everything without ever questioning what was being told. Star Citizen looks nice, it plays nice, but it's not worth the investment and unless something serious comes into play in the next year or two it's going to fall off my radar completely.
It's called games as service and it's currently one of the most sucessful buisness models on PC and is followed by basically all big MP games and quite a few SP games.
Felix Lighter
Member
It's definitely a lot but there are certainly bigger.