Vapourware Scam Citizen - Only people with too much money can become StarCitizens! WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE?

[Myobi]

I don't understand the obsession with the official V1 Final Ultimate Release.

A completely normal phenomenon.

He's right though. What's the obsession with the v1.0?

the “obsession” with 1.0, it’s because it’s a feature complete version, as in, the features promised when they took your fucking money, you know, the 100 solar systems, the Jesus Tech… well, if you can't see the interest of people getting the what and the when of what they paid for, I don't think I can help you.

Outrage? On your behalf? What you care? What you bought into? What the actual fuck are you talking about? Fucking hell, whatever shit ADL has, seems to be contagious.

 

[JamesDixon]

From the YouTube video that was linked by @Myobi. The person that did the video researched how long it takes and that was the answer given by Clown Immoral Gaymes non-support staff.

You think it would help if we start providing drawings with crayons?

I don't think that would help these two cum dumpsters. They seem to be immune to facts and reason. I've known Marines that are smarter than the two of them combined and that's saying a lot about Marines.

 

[AN4RCHID]

Outrage? On your behalf? What you care? What you bought into? What the actual fuck are you talking about? Fucking hell, whatever shit ADL has, seems to be contagious.

Your explanation of why you care about the v1 release is that you are concerned about people "getting what they paid for" in a "feature complete version", meaning, I assume, all the kickstarter stretch goals and design ideas from various points in the project. That's fair enough, if we're talking about hypothetical people who bought day 1 and were never on board with the increased scope. But it has nothing to do with whether the game is worth buying or playing, and it doesn't seem to be a major concern for 99% of people who are actually invested in the project.

 

[Myobi]

Outrage? On your behalf? What you care? What you bought into? What the actual fuck are you talking about? Fucking hell, whatever shit ADL has, seems to be contagious.

Your explanation of why you care about the v1 release is that you are concerned about people "getting what they paid for" in a "feature complete version", meaning, I assume, all the kickstarter stretch goals and design ideas from various points in the project. That's fair enough, if we're talking about hypothetical people who bought day 1 and were never on board with the increased scope. But it has nothing to do with whether the game is worth buying or playing, and it doesn't seem to be a major concern for 99% of people who are actually invested in the project.

There was no explanation of why I care about it.

There was an explanation why people may care about it.

You didn’t ask about my supposedly “obsession” with it, or our supposed “obsession” with it.

You just stated that you don’t understand “THE obsession” with it.

“Obsession” also sounds just like a silly hyperbole, used to attempt to take away value out of the criticism presented, and one doesn’t need be financial invested on the project or emotionally attached in any shape or form to the ones who backed it too be critical about it.

I could pretty much ask the same, what’s the “obsession” with “haters”? If the game is as enjoyable as you say it is, why waste time debating them instead of just playing it? I mean, if CiG is indeed capable to delivering everything they promised, then it should be easy for them to prove them all wrong…. eventually(?), right? Especially, when they have “unlimited” money and time, there should be no excuse not to, right?

Also, “99%” is a big mighty ass number to pull out of your ass.

 

[AN4RCHID]

“Obsession” also sounds just like a silly hyperbole, used to attempt to take away value out of the criticism presented, and one doesn’t need be financial invested on the project or emotionally attached in any shape or form to the ones who backed it too be critical about it.

There is no valid criticism there, that's the point. SC backers aren't sitting around waiting for v1.0 Official Release. You aren't waiting for a v1.0 Official Release. So it doesn't makes sense as a criticism to complain that there is no v1.0 yet.

I could pretty much ask you the same, what’s the “obsession” with “haters”? If the game is as enjoyable as you say it is, why waste time debating them instead of just playing it?

Buddy, look over the last few pages and tell me who is wasting their time here.

 

[Dhaze]

(...) and it doesn't seem to be a major concern 99% of people who are actually invested in the project.

First: that's not the impression I get by periodically perusing Spectrum or r/starcitizen.

But even if that were true, that 99% (a wild over-estimate) of people who are actually invested in the project don't care about all that, it's because at this point most of the people who remain invested in the project are those who have no problem with the way Star Citizen is being handled. The others, arguably more sensible people, have long since jumped the boat.

It's the same reason why book 2, 3, 4 and so forth in a series are almost systematically rated higher than the first one: only readers who enjoyed were it is all going stayed and provided a rating. The others—no matter how great their numbers—were gradually left by the wayside.

As far as I'm concerned I certainly feel no outrage on anyone's behalf; still I thoroughly mislike everything about this game's development. As it is, the gaming industry in general has enough scumbag developers who indulge in the worst kind of behavior. And every dollar given to CIG further spurs that kind of un-truthful behavior.

Because who cares, that Chris Roberts lies? Who cares, that CIG misses deadline after deadline? Who cares, that they constantly add and remove features from the roadmap, so that you never know what you're in for? And who cares, that their most rabid fans disparage and insult those who seek refunds? Certainly not CIG themselves, since they rake the money in faster than can be believed—since they are recompensed for being, overall, a shitty company.

It just doesn't sit right with me.

SC backers aren't sitting around waiting for v1.0 Official Release.

Really? I must have imagined my couple of decades-old friends who backed the Kickstarter with 40 bucks each, and who are still waiting for v1.0 to go live.

 

[AN4RCHID]

But even if that were true, that 99% (a wild over-estimate) of people who are actually invested in the project don't care about all that, it's because at this point most of the people who remain invested in the project are those who have no problem with the way Star Citizen is being handled. The others, arguably more sensible people, have long since jumped the boat.

It's the same reason why book 2, 3, 4 and so forth in a series are almost systematically rated higher than the first one: only readers who enjoyed were it is all going stayed and provided a rating. The others—no matter how great their numbers—were gradually left by the wayside.

That's probably an accurate description of how the original fanbase has changed over time. But at this point, there are many, many times more people who have picked up the game after the kickstarter than during. The numbers are even accelerating every year. The people buying SC today are buying in for the project as it exists now, not based on the kickstarter page info. So obviously it is the case that for the vast majority of backers, they bought in for live service Star Citizen, not for E:D-like Star Citizen.

 

[JamesDixon]

But even if that were true, that 99% (a wild over-estimate) of people who are actually invested in the project don't care about all that, it's because at this point most of the people who remain invested in the project are those who have no problem with the way Star Citizen is being handled. The others, arguably more sensible people, have long since jumped the boat.

It's the same reason why book 2, 3, 4 and so forth in a series are almost systematically rated higher than the first one: only readers who enjoyed were it is all going stayed and provided a rating. The others—no matter how great their numbers—were gradually left by the wayside.

That's probably an accurate description of how the original fanbase has changed over time. But at this point, there are many, many times more people who have picked up the game after the kickstarter than during. The numbers are even accelerating every year. The people buying SC today are buying in for the project as it exists now, not based on the kickstarter page info. So obviously it is the case that for the vast majority of backers, they bought in for live service Star Citizen, not for E:D-like Star Citizen.

Do you have proof of your statement or are you pulling shit from your ass and flinging it to see if it sticks?

 

[Blaine]

I don't understand the obsession with the official V1 Final Ultimate Release. The idea is to continue developing the game... forever basically, as far as I can tell, while CIG is in business. I wouldn't expect there to be a fundamental difference between the final beta patch and a full release. That's not the way these kind of games work. Maybe there will be no wipes after "release", but these are rare enough already.

You are conflating the concept of continued development after release with an endless alpha state.

Continued development long after release is a tried and tested concept, but a critical part of that concept is a feature-complete v1.0 release to kick off the process, so that everyone can start playing game properly. Feature-complete v1.0 may be a far cry from the state of v3.4 seven years down the line (see: EVE Online, Path of Exile, etc.), but an easy litmus test here is that a person could play v1.0 in a vacuum and reasonably think, "This is a complete game."

If you can't understand this concept—which isn't final/ultimate at all, qualifiers that you for some reason have tacked on nonsensically—then you're either failing to understand it on purpose, or you're actually not very bright.

 

[Dhaze]

But even if that were true, that 99% (a wild over-estimate) of people who are actually invested in the project don't care about all that, it's because at this point most of the people who remain invested in the project are those who have no problem with the way Star Citizen is being handled. The others, arguably more sensible people, have long since jumped the boat.

It's the same reason why book 2, 3, 4 and so forth in a series are almost systematically rated higher than the first one: only readers who enjoyed were it is all going stayed and provided a rating. The others—no matter how great their numbers—were gradually left by the wayside.

That's probably an accurate description of how the original fanbase has changed over time. But at this point, there are many, many times more people who have picked up the game after the kickstarter than during. The numbers are even accelerating every year. The people buying SC today are buying in for the project as it exists now, not based on the kickstarter page info. So obviously it is the case that for the vast majority of backers, they bought in for live service Star Citizen, not for E:D-like Star Citizen.

So CIG shafted a good portion of the original backers, those who could be considered most important since it is their money that made it all possible. That's no way to treat those who are, essentialy, your investors.

And still many of those who joined during later stages evidently have problems with the way CIG handles the development. Personally, I would enjoy a good space-sim; so two or three times per year I check on Star Citizen's state by perusing through the subreddit and Spectrum, to gauge exactly what progress might have been achieved. And systematically I see the same complaints being raised by a lot of people.

– Lack or absence of a long-term plan beyond a year at most
– Frequent changes to what long-term plan / roadmap might have been drawn, making the very idea of it useless
– Missed deadlines, which are then missed again, then once more, and perhaps ultimately scraped entirely
– Devs have no idea how they're gonna implement any of the ideas they have; game seems trapped in a never-ending R&D cycle, with very little actual progress being made

'The project as it exists now' is an ever-eddying mist whose precise aspect cannot be ascertained.
The game might feature the beginning of something, and I think to myself "Hey I'm interested in that one thing; good that it's there!" And great news: that something is noted in the roadmap as being actively worked on... but then six months later it hasn't been improved and worse yet it has been taken out of the roadmap.
So, in a weird way, it's impossible to buy the game 'as it is now'. Nothing is finished, everything is being worked on—and everything might be finished, or might be scrapped in its entirety.

I still have in my bookmarks this Spectrum thread I had found when checking on the game in December. And this thread doesn't say to me '99% of happy customers'.

 

[Dhaze]

It's way too hot to sleep or do anything constructive, so I actually went through the aforementionned Spectrum thread to see how happy some of the current players are with the way development is being handled.

As I understand it, this Theater Of War is still nowhere to be seen.

A bit further down, this comment:

Very useful - but would it also be worth having a list of things that have been added?

to which people answered:

You mean splitting obviously single card features into as many individual categories as possible?

Go ahead and do such a list, it will be rather dissapointing

That would be even more depressing, seeing how little was gained in exchange for all that.

On some level that would be even more depressing as the additions get increasingly tinyier and more specific in order to pad out the road map.

Anything and everything VFX related. Plus some ships, to keep the money flowing.

On the topic of Star Citizen grandiose ambitions:

You don't get points for where you are aiming. You get points for where you hit.

About making another type of list:

Can you make a list of what was added and compare the two?

That would be really sad tbh.

Comment and response:

Kind of wish they skip 3.11,3.12 and just work on bugs and add ships because nothing added is worth being more unstable again.

They can't fix bugs without core tech because most of those bugs are because of tech strains. They can't finish the core tech without more talented developers to help finish it or at minimum multiple more years of development. So it's a catch 22 and we are all stuck in the rain.

On the topic of how Star Citizen cannot be compared to No Man's Sky or Elite Dangerous, for Star Citizen is its own thing:

You are right. As those games at least have content and are released it is a bit unfair to compare it to whatever development hell SC is in. At least you can see that with a lot more money and developers it still can result in way.... less.

On the topic of people making lists of scrapped/delayed features, this was said:

I often liken it to a partner who constantly brings up that thing you did wrong from years back. It's not helpful and can be quite destructive.

to which this was answered (bold emphasis mine):

Any partner that brings up things or patterns of things you have done repeatedly over years time just might be on to something. There is only so many times a partner can say "I promise I will change soon" and have a relationship stay healthy.

Comment and response:

At least it's very clear now that they've basically hit a wall trying to develop both games at once. They've basically given up trying to do that, and virtually everyone's now working on SQ42. We should expect nothing for SC in 2021, if anyone still did.

That would be fine and Fair, but SQ42 is 4 years behind with no end in site. "Focusing on SQ42" hasn't yielded an SQ42

Various other comments:

Don’t be so hard to them. We got a picture of a roadmap for a roadmap and many ship sales. What is progress anyway...

I could do with some actual 'scope' coming together, over all the 'ambition'

I looked at that and thought to my self... "but the depth of what is available is far different"... Is it really tho. The only difference in depth is graphics quality. Star Citizen has amazing visuals and fully modeled ships, but as far as gameplay goes both ED and NMS offer a lot more gameplay and they do so for years. I really like SC, but I would like to have more to do in it considering I am not much into fighting.

Things get delayed and moved all the time. That's just the way it is in development and life in general.
This is different though. The sheer scale of delays, constant re-prioritising and the way none of these things have made it into the game, some years after first being scheduled.

The biggest problem here is the communication from CIG. Every single time, their wording makes it sound like everything is just around the corner and the famous "temporarily removed" quote that implies that these features will be back on for the next patch.

does anything that gets taken off the map get put back on an completed ?
with stuff being put on an off, maybe back on to be only taken off. i have no confidence in the leadership to get things done in any kind of cohesive timely manner. it seems like they start on something as a group, don't finish it by patch time, drop it all together an as a group move on to something else rather than finishing what they were working on. what hap to all the stuff that didn't make the cut ? it's been around 7yrs an everything is basically at tier 0 except planet tech. i'm all for "must look good 1st" kind of rule, but it's way past overdue to be getting mechanics into game.

also i don't know what the heck cig has or has not done, finished not finished, solvable or tech limiting.

This brutal, one-two combo:

Just a reminder, in 2014, the Ingenuity Aerial Drone was proposed. It took 80 million dollars to develop and produce (the drone itself) and completed this year.

This summer it was launched to Mars, it should be there in February of 2021.

So the development of Star Citizen is taking longer than the development and planning for an a real world mission to Mars that puts an AI helicopter on an alien planet. Just sayin'

NASA is a professionally run organization.

Exactly.

And even amongst those who don't care about the precise delivery timing of this or that, not all is happiness:

And the ironic part is I don't even care about the delivery or timing of it. But the inability to have -- let alone meet -- any sort of plan, thereby unable to communicate anything effectively, is worrying,

So no, 99% of the players currently involved are not fine with the way things are. And as a potential buyer, this is one hell of a red flag that I see flapping in the wind every time I endeavor to see how goes the development.

 

[AN4RCHID]

I don't understand the obsession with the official V1 Final Ultimate Release. The idea is to continue developing the game... forever basically, as far as I can tell, while CIG is in business. I wouldn't expect there to be a fundamental difference between the final beta patch and a full release. That's not the way these kind of games work. Maybe there will be no wipes after "release", but these are rare enough already.

You are conflating the concept of continued development after release with an endless alpha state.

Continued development long after release is a tried and tested concept, but a critical part of that concept is a feature-complete v1.0 release to kick off the process, so that everyone can start playing game properly. Feature-complete v1.0 may be a far cry from the state of v3.4 seven years down the line (see: EVE Online, Path of Exile, etc.), but an easy litmus test here is that a person could play v1.0 in a vacuum and reasonably think, "This is a complete game."

If you can't understand this concept—which isn't final/ultimate at all, qualifiers that you for some reason have tacked on nonsensically—then you're either failing to understand it on purpose, or you're actually not very bright.

The idea that a game must start out as a feature complete v1.0 release falls apart as soon as you look at virtually any early access project. Tarkov has been playable for around 6 years and still isn't feature complete (admittedly further along than Star Citizen, but still). But it's a great game that has been hugely successful. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of active users peaks or has peaked before the official release.

So no, 99% of the players currently involved are not fine with the way things are. And as a potential buyer, this is one hell of a red flag that I see flapping in the wind every time I endeavor to see how goes the development.

I didn't say that 99% are happy with the way things are, I said that they aren't sitting around waiting for the "release". Those people you quoted are playing the game, and they're frustrated with the state of the game. If the game was more polished, or it had more fun game mechanics, then they wouldn't be frustrated with the state of the game. But it wouldn't be because the launcher says Star Citizen Alpha 1.0 and every kickstarter stretch goal box was checked. Some of the things that the players are most impatient for weren't even part of the original pitch (the idiotic Theaters of War side project mentioned in your post being a perfect example).

 

[JamesDixon]

I don't understand the obsession with the official V1 Final Ultimate Release. The idea is to continue developing the game... forever basically, as far as I can tell, while CIG is in business. I wouldn't expect there to be a fundamental difference between the final beta patch and a full release. That's not the way these kind of games work. Maybe there will be no wipes after "release", but these are rare enough already.

You are conflating the concept of continued development after release with an endless alpha state.

Continued development long after release is a tried and tested concept, but a critical part of that concept is a feature-complete v1.0 release to kick off the process, so that everyone can start playing game properly. Feature-complete v1.0 may be a far cry from the state of v3.4 seven years down the line (see: EVE Online, Path of Exile, etc.), but an easy litmus test here is that a person could play v1.0 in a vacuum and reasonably think, "This is a complete game."

If you can't understand this concept—which isn't final/ultimate at all, qualifiers that you for some reason have tacked on nonsensically—then you're either failing to understand it on purpose, or you're actually not very bright.

The idea that a game must start out as a feature complete v1.0 release falls apart as soon as you look at virtually any early access project. Tarkov has been playable for around 6 years and still isn't feature complete (admittedly further along than Star Citizen, but still). But it's a great game that has been hugely successful. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of active users peaks or has peaked before the official release.

Tarkov is in Beta while Scam Citizen is still in pre-production. They are in no way comparable. You tried to pull this comparison before and I fucking roasted your pathetic weasel ass over it.

 

[JamesDixon]

Outrage? On your behalf? What you care? What you bought into? What the actual fuck are you talking about? Fucking hell, whatever shit ADL has, seems to be contagious.

Your explanation of why you care about the v1 release is that you are concerned about people "getting what they paid for" in a "feature complete version", meaning, I assume, all the kickstarter stretch goals and design ideas from various points in the project. That's fair enough, if we're talking about hypothetical people who bought day 1 and were never on board with the increased scope. But it has nothing to do with whether the game is worth buying or playing, and it doesn't seem to be a major concern for 99% of people who are actually invested in the project.

So no, 99% of the players currently involved are not fine with the way things are. And as a potential buyer, this is one hell of a red flag that I see flapping in the wind every time I endeavor to see how goes the development.

I didn't say that 99% are happy with the way things are, I said that they aren't sitting around waiting for the "release". Those people you quoted are playing the game, and they're frustrated with the state of the game. If the game was more polished, or it had more fun game mechanics, then they wouldn't be frustrated with the state of the game. But it wouldn't be because the launcher says Star Citizen Alpha 1.0 and every kickstarter stretch goal box was checked. Some of the things that the players are most impatient for weren't even part of the original pitch (the idiotic Theaters of War side project mentioned in your post being a perfect example).

 

[JamesDixon]

Ya know what's funny is that SCUM is almost feature complete and started production in 2016. They're a far more of an immersive sim experience than Clown Immoral Gaymes Scam Citizen is. SCUM is currently at 0.7.9 of Early Access/Beta. They have nowhere near the budget and sales that Clown Immoral Gaymes has yet have a fully metabolic and realistic fighting/survival system.

You know another early access game that has a far bigger scope than Scam Citizen, entered production later, and was fully released? Empyrion Galactic Survival which entered early access in 2015 and was released as a full game last year. In 6 years, a small team put out a complete space sim while Chrissie Roberts scams you morons after 10 years of development of a pre-production dream.

 

[Dhaze]

Those people you quoted are playing the game, and they're frustrated with the state of the game. If the game was more polished, or it had more fun game mechanics, then they wouldn't be frustrated with the state of the game.

Yes. Usually, people who are frustrated that a game is in a bad state would cease to be frustrated if the game ceased to be in a bad state. That's... evident?

But it wouldn't be because the launcher says Star Citizen Alpha 1.0 and every kickstarter stretch goal box was checked. Some of the things that the players are most impatient for weren't even part of the original pitch.

This devolves into arguing semantics.

The people I quoted are complaining that features are planned, then scrapped. Here you have someone literaly complaining that, to their eyes, Star Citizen is not actually released (which equates directly to waiting for v1.0):

You are right. As those games at least have content and are released it is a bit unfair to compare it to whatever development hell SC is in.

All in all, they're complaining the game as few features, little content, and little gameplay. Now what would happen, should Star Citizen reach v1.0? It would have features, content, and gameplay.

Because that's usually what v1.0 is: synonymous with a certain amount of content, gameplay, overall feature-completeness, polish, and stability.

So in all but name, they're waiting for that release. They're not waiting impatiently for alpha v0.8.362.244147f, the pre-release update that might bring that one feature that's been promised for seven years but has been delayed and possibly forgotten by the devs; they're waiting impatiently for the game to have what it is supposed to have, and v1.0 is a guarantee of just that—well, should be a guarantee.

 

[Dhaze]

(apologies for the double post, but I can't edit the previous one anymore, too much time has elapsed)

I'm quickly browsing through Spectrum, learning a few things here and there, and reading a few miscontent posts.

Could this one be any clearer:

As a player and your supporter, the updates that come every 3 months are not so important for me, my expectation from the game is stable fps, smooth optimization, more content, pyro and other systems are not clear when it will come

This guy also seems fatigued with the alpha updates:

We dont need new roadmaps or theories about how the game might be played or unfinished loops barely written on paper 10 years into development, we need results.

Obviously this guy here is a liar, and doesn't want a full release of the game:

I,and many others, have almost waited 10 years for this game to be released.
If its not possible to give an estimation on when this game will be ready perhaps we can get the LATEST date at least?
Will this game be ready before 2030?

Here is a man who seems to want Star Citizen v1.0:

The cynic in me worries that the 'development' is the whole business model and that releasing a finished game is not in their plans as their income dries up. They just keep the game in perpetual development and keep selling more and more ships and things for as many years as they can.

Further down in the same thread, another one:

(...) I think I will share why I'm so angry about this game. 2 of my closest buddies who I had the honor of serving with in the Navy have both passed on. All we talked about was getting out and playing this game. Well we got out and cancer took them before the game ever got released (...) Sorry but I need a completed game

Still in the same thread, still a bit further down:

We're currently playing a shell of a game with a lot of promise and potential.

Every dollar everyone here has given to CIG has been an investment, and the return everyone is hoping for is a feature complete and fleshed out game. So to answer that question, yes lol.

Simply not the case lol and boy are you folks going to be pissed when the game actually releases, cause even cig has said it won't be a fully finished release.

On the contrary, I'd honestly be elated to see development speed up and start seeing actual playable content be released.

This older guy doesn't seem content merely getting alpha versions:

I suppose those of us older games who've invested heavily in this game might feel abandoned in some sense. I was 55 when I backed. 6k worth of investments later, I find myself 60 now. At this pace, the game will be feature complete when I'm 65 at a minimum, but let's not kid ourselves: I will never live long enough to see the 100 systems promised. Not even close. I may see 10. I will also be far too old to engage in anything but hauling and (if it ever gets into the game) exploration. This project is witnessing (and overseeing to some extent) my best days slip behind me. If I had known 5 years ago that I would be investing for my son and not for myself, I may have employed different strategies. He's a gamer, but not a huge space-genre fan.

We live 80-100 years. That's all humanity gets. Is a game that takes 20 years to create really worth it? It takes so long that by the time it gets done, technology and culture will have changed so much it will immediately need revisioning.

This one also:

THE ONLY reason...IMHO...is they still can't figure out all the needed tech. It's the only thing that makes sense at this point. If Jared is telling me (his video was very from the heart) that sooo many people working at CIG are soo passionate about this project, then why after half a billion dollars is it still not released. HALF A BILLION.....because the tech does not exist and they can't get it to work out.

Here is an unequivocal statement if ever there was one:

Given a choice, I would rather have Star Citizen already

Sure, it's really easy to find people who are fine with the way this game's development is being handled—as expected, given the increasingly massive monetary influx. But it's equally easy to find people who are very much not fine with it, and who are waiting for that 1.0 release.

So, 99% who don't wait for the full release? Nah. Not even close, I'd wager.

And a funny thing I noticed while looking through the forums: more and more people saying that from a graphical point of view the game has already fallen way behind anything recent, saying that CIG doesn't seem to realise their standard for high graphical fidelity came and went. I hadn't even thought about that.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Tech slipping behind in projects that fall into development hell is pretty common. This can also impact things like humour or writing if they've referenced part of pop culture, etc.

Actually, this sort of issue seen in Sui Generis/Exanima, other Kickstarters, many Early Access titles, where games either never actually materialize, or are delayed beyond and reasonable expectation is a big reason why I'm generally not supporting any of that stuff anymore. It's ridiculous, developers can and should figure out their own capital situation and bring their game to market. Failing that, they should be offering some form of secured investment deal rather than this: "hey, send me some money and maybe you get a game someday!" crap.

 

[Ryzer]

 

[Dhaze]

This can also impact things like humour or writing if they've referenced part of pop culture, etc.

*Jaw-clenching, cringe-induced flashbacks to Borderlands 3*

Actually, this sort of issue seen in Sui Generis/Exanima, other Kickstarters, many Early Access titles, where games either never actually materialize, or are delayed beyond and reasonable expectation is a big reason why I'm generally not supporting any of that stuff anymore. It's ridiculous, developers can and should figure out their own capital situation and bring their game to market. Failing that, they should be offering some form of secured investment deal rather than this: "hey, send me some money and maybe you get a game someday!" crap.

"Aight mister big-time dev, imma give you 10$ for your little-ass game... but I want points on the package."

But yes, the financial model at the very basis of Early Access always had me dumbfounded. I get trying to encourage the development of a particular game you think you'll like, but with so many projects faltering into nothingness, that's one hell of risk to take. For every Secrets Of Grindea, you have twenty Sui Generis. And Mechajammer was crowdfunded through Kickstarter, so that's reason enough for me to abhor the whole system.

Reminds me of EITR. No Kickstarter; no Early Access. Development started circa 2013, with interesting footage surfacing in 2014 that made it look a bit like Diablo 1 meets Dark Souls 1. Then Devolver got hold of it, and 2015 saw a nice trailer being uploaded along the game being freshly listed on Steam.

Then a delay was announced. Followed by nothing; a whole long while of silent nothing. Finally news came and a summer 2019 release was planned—huzzah! And then it was delisted from Steam (though the direct link still works) and disappeared from GoG, completely out of the blue. Around the same time, the devs lost their funding, and I don't know it was a cause or consequence.

Since then, the devs resurface once in a blue moon in some places, posting a .gif here or there, sometimes a badly-recorded video, but never much more. So it lives, and one day it might be released provided the two developers don't die beforehand. I frequently wonder what would have happened, had it been crowdfunded.

 

[OndrejSc]

Just switch engines to Quake 2 - it supports multiplayer.

 

[Myobi]

There is no valid criticism there, that's the point. SC backers aren't sitting around waiting for v1.0 Official Release. You aren't waiting for a v1.0 Official Release. So it doesn't makes sense as a criticism to complain that there is no v1.0 yet.

No criticism towards CiG is valid criticism to people like you. V1.0 was promised by the lead-developer to be released years ago, years gone by and it’s till not even close to that feature complete version and “a lot more” that Chris was telling people about.

Therefore, yes, it feels pretty fucking valid to me.

Buddy, look over the last few pages and tell me who is wasting their time here.

We went through that already, and as I stated before, I find it very entertaining to watch people like you and ADL going through extreme mental gymnastics to defend a video game company that doesn’t give a flying fuck about you people. Think of it as watching a bad Netflix comedy show…

On other hand, there you are, just moaning at people poking fun at the damn thing, dare I say, completely “obsessed” with them even, to the point of digging trough their profiles, taking screen shots and uploading them here as poor attempt of misrepresentation of their posting habits while completely ignoring your own.

I’ll ask you again, if Star Citizen is as fun as you claim, and will become everything that Chris Roberts says it will be, why do you care what a bunch of nobody’s around the Internet say about it? Instead of digging trough people’s profiles or pulling random “facts” out of your ass, just go play the damn thing my dude, have fun

 

[Blaine]

The idea that a game must start out as a feature complete v1.0 release falls apart as soon as you look at virtually any early access project.

You're squirming as hard as you can, but I've got you pinned, because you've grasped at the wrong straw.

I neither stated nor implied that the game must "start" as a feature-complete v1.0 release. A game begins as a concept and a pitch. It then proceeds through the pre-alpha, alpha, and beta stages, and finally into v1.0 release. After that comes continued development. However, v1.0 is a very important milestone. Continued development is best done post-release or in beta, not stretched on for years during what is still an alpha.

If we indeed look at virtually any early access product—setting aside the countless early access games that were abandoned or "released" clearly incomplete (DoubleFine's Space Base 9) in an alpha or beta state, that is—we'll see that most consumers prefer to enter early access during a beta state, not an alpha state. "Feels like it's still an alpha" is one of the most common complaints seen in Steam early access reviews. If a game enters early access but is still in an alpha state, then the developers must make that abundantly clear.

Furthermore, there is a strong expectation that the early access game will very soon become a feature-complete product. This might take months, or it might take a year or two, but to still be in an alpha state after years of "early access" with no clear end discernible by virtually anyone will universally result in consumers turning against the game, labeling it abandoned at worst, in development hell at best, etc.

In addition, If we look at early access titles on Steam, we'll see that all of them have a roadmap as a standard feature of their product page. When that roadmap gets scrapped, changed around, when features appear and disappear—when not only the game-in-progress but even the public summary of its blueprint are in a state of chaos, in other words—consumers quickly lose confidence in the game.

To sum up, if Star Citizen were an early access title on Steam, it would be checking virtually all of the boxes for doing everything wrong.

 

[OndrejSc]

Chris Roberts is too much of an alpha man for his game to be anywhere but in permanent alpha stage.

 

[AN4RCHID]

I neither stated nor implied that the game must "start" as a feature-complete v1.0 release. A game begins as a concept and a pitch. It then proceeds through the pre-alpha, alpha, and beta stages, and finally into v1.0 release. After that comes continued development. However, v1.0 is a very important milestone. Continued development is best done post-release or in beta, not stretched on for years during what is still an alpha.

Okay, then I misunderstood what you meant by "a critical part of that concept is a feature-complete v1.0 release to kick off the process, so that everyone can start playing game properly." Usually kicking a process off comes at the "start" of a process.

If we indeed look at virtually any early access product—setting aside the countless early access games that were abandoned or "released" clearly incomplete (DoubleFine's Space Base 9) in an alpha or beta state, that is—we'll see that most consumers prefer to enter early access during a beta state, not an alpha state. "Feels like it's still an alpha" is one of the most common complaints seen in Steam early access reviews. If a game enters early access but is still in an alpha state, then the developers must make that abundantly clear.

Furthermore, there is a strong expectation that the early access game will very soon become a feature-complete product. This might take months, or it might take a year or two, but to still be in an alpha state after years of "early access" with no clear end discernible by virtually anyone will universally result in consumers turning against the game, labeling it abandoned at worst, in development hell at best, etc.

In addition, If we look at early access titles on Steam, we'll see that all of them have a roadmap as a standard feature of their product page. When that roadmap gets scrapped, changed around, when features appear and disappear—when not only the game-in-progress but even the public summary of its blueprint are in a state of chaos, in other words—consumers quickly lose confidence in the game.

To sum up, if Star Citizen were an early access title on Steam, it would be checking virtually all of the boxes for doing everything wrong.

These are all fine arguments for why a project like Star Citizen should be failing commercially. But there's a rather obvious counter-example to all these points, isn't there? In the case of SC, consumers have not universally turned against the game. Consumers have not quickly lost confidence. It's somehow more popular now than ever.

SC is not the only example of a game in perpetual pre-release state either; Tarkov, Dwarf Fortress, and Project Zomboid come to mind. There have also been lots of games that spent many years in early access and went on to release in a decent state. So I don't think any of the points you bring up are iron-clad laws of game development.