That would require "hand-me-downs" + MMO exclusive stuff being no more than 10% of the listed items though - doesn't line up.
-
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 Backer Successfully Gets $2550 Refund
- Thread starter wesleyshark
- Start date
That would require "hand-me-downs" + MMO exclusive stuff being no more than 10% of the listed items though - doesn't line up.
RubberJohnny
Banned
Look at Elite in comparison, 8 months after their Kickstarter they did the first Beta, using only a fraction of it's meagre $8 million budget and with about 100 staff.
That had trade, mining, combat - more features than the PU manages with $117 million dollars, more than twice the number of staff and a development time of 4 and a half years.
At the same time, CIG are working on a AAA game that's 20 hours long, 30% FPS, 70% flying, features a cast of celebrity actors motion captured at the most expensive facility in the industry that's nearly finished and set to launch at the end of 2016.
There's not a chance in hell you can claim those two games are getting equal money or staff or manhours or MLOCs, there's not a single metric that will claw that back for you.
I'm just trying to understand how you're drawing your conclusions. How do you get to 10/90 from this?
"Please back this project. Here's what we're promising and aiming for. Oh, but if you agree to fund this vision, we can change it at anytime, develop whatever we want taking far more time than we're promising now, and you're not entitled to anything. Sign here...."
Maybe it's an expensive flight game that's not finished yet.
RubberJohnny
Banned
How do you get 50/50? You went first.
Meanwhile, a single guy made this.
I didn't get 50/50 (or any other), I was just going by this:
--
There is (and there are people trying to do that here), but they don't really get noticed.
I think the fact that they continue to create new ships that sell for hundreds of dollars all while the game is still in development alpha is a bit weird.
With all the controversy over whether or not this thing is a scam you'd think they'd go into feature lock mode and push to get the game out as it is currently envisioned, ships and all.
That's why some people think this is a scam. They continue to collect money from people for promises that they'll deliver these new playable ships in some far off undefined future when ships that were sold to people months (years) ago aren't even implemented into the game yet.
With all the controversy over whether or not this thing is a scam you'd think they'd go into feature lock mode and push to get the game out as it is currently envisioned, ships and all.
That's why some people think this is a scam. They continue to collect money from people for promises that they'll deliver these new playable ships in some far off undefined future when ships that were sold to people months (years) ago aren't even implemented into the game yet.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
They really tried hard to make clear that they had the customer by the balls. Nice way to treat your playerbase that literally funded your game.
I once paid $150 for a founder's edition of a game, where they had an immediately playable alpha and had the option for a full refund all throughout the process up til release ~2.5 years later. They weren't trying to box me in by holding my money hostage. Some people got their refunds, I stayed on.
I once paid $150 for a founder's edition of a game, where they had an immediately playable alpha and had the option for a full refund all throughout the process up til release ~2.5 years later. They weren't trying to box me in by holding my money hostage. Some people got their refunds, I stayed on.
RubberJohnny
Banned
That was a quote from CIG before the PU launched in 2015. It doesn't describe the current development because they opened new studios focused on SQ42 since then, expanded F42 Manchester, and shifted people away. We went over this earlier in the thread.
I don't think it's a scam, they're trying to make the game. It's just in development hell and likely won't come out resembling the original pitch.
Holy shit.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
It's almost like a game with asset quality nowhere near a triple A game or as ambitious in scope is a lot faster to make or something.
I can see why people would think that considering how only the fact that there is a new sale seems to get mentioned on gaming news sites, but CIG does remind people any time they're asked about it that people don't need to buy anything to have everything once the game goes live, it is only meant to help game development. They even have this at the bottom of every sale in a very visible section:
They go to pretty significant lengths to reassure everyone that there is nothing being sold on the RSI site that won't be available in the full game. Not even limited edition skins.
Oh, I thought that number had some significance since you were holding them to it... never mind then.
pretty much this. they've shown absolutely zero respect for their fans, and if anything, try to bleed more money out of anyone gullible enough to buy into their ship marketing schemes.
I bought in to the kickstarter. that was a long time ago. what they promised sounded amazing, but they went about it the wrong way imo.. I can't even imagine what the game would have been like, or if it would have ever came out if they simply hit their funding goal and no more, especially when you consider the game looked plenty full featured enough as it was, and was due out what, 3-4 years ago? and with 10x+ the cash they output so very little? Elite definitely did it smarter. Release what your core kickstarter project was, and use the additional money to build content packs and release them monthly or quarterly. This way the game gets released to those that bought in and want to play, plus the game simply just gets better over time to accommodate all the scope and feature creep that is likely dragging this entire thing down. because as of right now, for the money they have and the staff that they have, it's been pretty insulting as a customer imo. Even worse when their top priority seems to be getting more money from their fans. It's pretty gross to do that to people who have been super patient and excited, and makes their initial estimations seem wildly irresponsible or misleading.
blah whatever. the wait continues.
RubberJohnny
Banned
I think it's a fair and preferential way of splitting development than putting the PU into maintenance mode until 2024.
They should go back to it.
exmachina64
Banned
That was probably a vertical slice.
blastprocessor
The Amiga Brotherhood
Hopefully Citizencon will reveal squadron 42 gameplay and release date.
I expect some SQ42 stuff at Gamescom. They're recreating a whole Idris Bridge for people to try out the game on, and considering how prevalent the Idris is featured in the campaign, it seems to hint there will be some major announcements there.
Apples and pineapples.
Wuthering_Heights
Banned
It probably would've taken the Star Citizen devs $10 million and a team of 15 to make it, tho. With a 2017 release.
UserDoesNotExist
Member
Here's a stab at it: it is a poorly-managed project that will likely deliver an acceptable product, but one that won't be nearly as good as it could have been should they have stuck to their original vision and not let flights of fancy (like suddenly incorporating an entirely different genre of combat) distract them.
exmachina64
Banned
I'd like to add the creator's been working on it for almost four years.
I just started following SC a year ago, so maybe I'm less jaded than most. But what I see today in terms of the PU is that they have a relatively stable, albeit largely un-optimized, slice of a persistent universe combining a space simulator with an FPS, featuring multiple small to large ship-to-ship combat and seamless landing/disembarking into PvP, with a couple of very basic single-player missions.
I've played it alot, and while there's not much to do at the moment, I believe it's more than a solid base to build upon. I suspect from this point onward--outside of adding significant technological features such as procedural planets--it should take much less time to add substantial content to this base and make a bona-fide $60 game out of it, certainly better than what passes for games these days.
I've played it alot, and while there's not much to do at the moment, I believe it's more than a solid base to build upon. I suspect from this point onward--outside of adding significant technological features such as procedural planets--it should take much less time to add substantial content to this base and make a bona-fide $60 game out of it, certainly better than what passes for games these days.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Apples to oranges but there is something to be said how infinitely more fun this game is than SC.
Both the audio and visual aesthetics are consistent and pleasing, the game is mechanically sound and plays well, and there is a complete experience with a beginning and end. No more, no less. This is, however, regardless.
I agree all of you, and I didn't mean to present a 1 to 1 comparison, certainly on a technical level this doesn't compete at all; my point in mentioning this is that with a careful handling of the scope of your game, much can be accomplished.
There is a graveyard of space-based games that have promised to give us the universe, where instead we now have unfocused shells, if anything at all - victims all of their reach too far exceeding their grasp. Star Citizen is hardly the first, and certainly won't be the last; I have little faith anything fruitful will come. I'll consider myself lucky if we get actually get a worthwhile S42. The alpha may impress hope for the future, but after 4 years we still have little more than a partially functional tech demo, and that's the reality of it.
Ah, agreed. Lets hope they don't shy away too much at Gamescom/Citizencon.
What do you have on mind here?
And please to dont tell me its FPS combat. FPS combat was always part of original design.
----
Its scary how people are oppose to ambition, though probably the same people complain that publishers are making safe games in other threads...
I'm glad I decided to read this thread, just copped this joint. Even the title is great.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Again it's an apples to oranges comparison. Not a single asset in that trailer looked as complex to make as one in SC. Which is fine, but not if we're gonna act like game development is linear.
It was renamed late in development, too. It's a good name, I agree, but it ruins the original awesome poster.
Holy what. This has my full attention.
This is way closer to the truth than we want to admit.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Wait, this was Enemy Starfighter? I followed it early on but forgot about it. Still ended up buying it lol.
No multiplayer and the developer doesn't know or have experience in developing multiplayer.
When did this game go into development and how long does a AAA game usually take to develop fully?
Are consumers/backer just getting antsy because they've been apart of and following the development process since the beginning? Or has the development of the game really dragged longer then it needs to be/too ambitious?
Are consumers/backer just getting antsy because they've been apart of and following the development process since the beginning? Or has the development of the game really dragged longer then it needs to be/too ambitious?
GearDraxon
Member
As someone who backed in October of 2012... It's a combination of both. The project has changed in scope fairly drastically, since the amount of funding far surpassed what anyone could have expected. Whether it is "too ambitious" is a matter of opinion, but I think most will agree that ambition lies at the root of the project's perceived issues.
Complicating this is that the incredibly open development from launch has gotten a bit tighter, since stuff for Squadron 42 (the single-player portion) has been kept under wraps, in the interest of not "spoiling the experience." It's understandable why they want to do this, but it definitely gives the appearance of development slowing/stalling, whether or not it's true.
Complicating this further is that several groups have decided that making sure everyone knows that STAR CITIZEN IS A SCAM is their raison d'etre, brigading subreddits/forums, etc., making rational discussion fairly difficult.
At one point, I checked in on the project daily, but now I'm basically tuned-out except for large releases / stories. Whenever it comes out, I'll be happy to finally see it.
It's really a matter of expectations management. CIG has failed to hit every release date they've put out so far, and not in a measure of months but years. They have a tendency to hype features to the moon which later turn out to be scrapped entirely or significantly nerfed. And the alpha product they have out now is moving forward at a glacial pace when viewed in terms of the feature set that has been (exhaustively) promoted.
Had they offered a more accurate view of what the development process would be like during the pitch, it's possible they would have never received the massive funding they've been given. And because they are continuing to accept money, they have little incentive to offer a realistic view even now. For instance the single player portion of the game, Squadron 42, is still listed on their website as being released this year. This is despite the fact that there is next to no footage of the product working besides an on-rails introductory tour. Many backers are already convinced that it won't be released this year, yet the date still remains up on the website and CIG has refused to say anything either way. And they already have a history of not letting their backers know that a deadline will not be met until the deadline itself has already passed.
This is the deceptive expectations game CIG currently employs to rake in money, so its not at all surprising that things are starting to get serious.
Frozenprince
Banned
ITT a bunch of people argue without reading the actual article which spells out why he was entitled to his refund.
I mean when i jumped in i thought that i was going to be playing a game that was ready, all i really knew about the game was the original kickstarter campaign and figured that the game was probably ready.
Well, what you got was a Steam Early Access game (which is what it is.) It's hard when fantasy meets reality but it is what it is but I don't think it's fair to blame them because you didn't understand the stage of development it was in. The defenders understand what stage it's in, you jumped into a fantasy created by no one but you and got let down by it. ¯_(ツ_/¯
What fantasy are you talking about? I went in with zero expectations since i knew nothing about the game. And a game that's been made for this long shouldn't be in such a state, the management the have seem to be to tier garbage. And like i said in the original comment i'll happily play the game once it's finished in the year 2xxx.
Oh whoops didn't mean to edit there but yeah that was my response
True.
Honestly if you have a release date and you're still in alpha stages and still far far behind, it's a failed project.
totally buying this on early access. thanks
As for Star Citizen, I think everyone of the backers should get their money back. Even with an unlimited budget this game will never be finished.
Does every game must have multiplayer?
according to most, yes....
-_- I like single player games more. Dont have to deal with assholes.
Similar threads
- Locked