Chris Roberts new project... Star Citizen

[Morkonan]

There's a problem with all this "Early Access" and "In Development Participation" and "Beta Access" that's hitting pretty hard, these days.

Games with developers that do "deep interaction" with their current captive "Beta" audience are getting hammered on the game's release. Their games are being judged not by what they have in them but what they don't have in them according to players who "were there when we were in Beta" or who participated in the very long, sometimes lasting years, "Early Access" period.

They are told "your input matters" and "you will help us develop this game" and "you will be part of the team."

But, then when the game gets released... "there are no darn toilets on any of the spaceships like I wanted and there isn't any way I can take over a planet so I can light it on fire by burning the corpses of children and puppies and WTF THEY NEVER LISTENED TO US!" (Actual quotes from Disenfranchised_and_Angsty_Gamer_087)

Some development houses are shooting themselves in the foot with their "Early Access" and otherwise "Beta Test" fans. They're just not handling their communities right. They're "selling" being a member of an "exclusive club" of gamers that actually get to be "part of the development team" and are told that they will have "input into how the game is designed."

Anyone here ever hired anyone for a professional position by going outside the front-door of the office and screaming as loud as they can until someone showed up?

And, when they're in development and interacting with these gamers, they're not always explaining things to them in the right way. They've got a roadmap and a list of intended features, but they often "pad the list" and dump things in there to make the game sound like it's going to be better than sex.

And, when they say "we might do this?" You know what they're really saying? They're saying "we might stop by the ice-cream shop, later." Maybe they just feel bad or want to keep their "audience" or "customers" happy during development. Maybe they're really considering it?

BUT, woe unto the parent that tells their child that they "might stop by the ice-cream shop, later" and then doesn't do so.

How in the world can they not have learned that lesson? These aren't "Development Team Members", by and large - They're players. They are customers who've purchased a product. The product they've bought is half-game, half-make-me-feel-like-I-belong-to-something-special-and-that-I-matter.

And, on release day, the devs get exactly what they've been trying to get the entire period of "Early Access" - A bunch of extremely vocal and angry people that are outraged there aren't any toilets on the spaceships and no burning puppies roasting on the surfaces of ruined worlds...

Just a note: I have officially, and unpaid, participated in at least a dozen "Beta" programs. The ones that require feedback. The ones that have "Teams." The ones that have feedback and bug reporting "built in" and actually have meaningful participation in special forums. These days? I wouldn't set foot in any Early Access or Beta program with any expectations other than just getting to play around with a game that looked interesting. But, I'm a curmudgeonly old fart and already have my bleary-eyed Beta Tester wounds and ribbons. Ain't gonna do it in today's Internetz. No sir.

[segmentationfault]

One thing that Paradox Interactive have had for years - great engagement, and video dev diaries regularly to demonstrate new features/planned stuff. However, it always takes a time to get to the point whereby anyone can do that... as everything needs to be designed to start and have something to show for it.

Paradox is doing "Features Breakdown" and blog posts but I don't remember them doing as detailed work and as early in development as CIG is doing. Additionally, CIG is releasing lots of material weekly. Many indie projects are keeping developer diaries which very interesting and great for players.

I love PDS's games.

As for people beta/alpha testing, they can if they want. The whole reason I haven't downloaded and joined in is simply because I don't want the game to be released and go "yeah, already played this for 1000 hours so not a biggie". I want the "oh shiny new awesome" feeling. One day anyway

Yeah, I do the same expect with Star Citizen and X-series. I really like to follow how SC progress and because of their great developer <-> community interaction.

Alpha 3.5 (Flight Model) is now in Evocati testing. I expect it to go PTU in couple of weeks. Latest RtV episode started lots of discussion and some changes are already in the works, thanks to community's feedback.

[Ketraar]

Sorry to lift the dust on this but I'm curious to read anyone's take on the latest Forbes article about the financial issues of Star Citizen. Personally I must admit to some schadenfreude as this was announced as the ultimate game and some people seem to have put thousands of moneys (as Mork would say) into it to only see it all go up in smoke and CR not being the Messiah of gaming as claimed.

Its still fascinating to see the paradox (not the dev/publisher) of one hand people being cheep and wanting prices to stay or even go down and the other of people be willing to put large sums into a black hole.

MFG

Ketraar

[RegisterMe]

Not read it yet but here's a link:-

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/ ... y-to-play/

[Observe]

Not read it yet but here's a link:- https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/ ... y-to-play/

I read the article. It didn't change my view that for supporters, development of this game has become a game in itself. For some, owning the latest starship, even if incomplete, produces a glow of pride and satisfaction. Some are dedicated space-sim fans, who feel that they are supporting the advancement of this genre. For many, it doesn't matter if the game is never "completed".

Personally, I think Roberts has bitten off more than he can chew, but I also think he has helped explore the limits of what is possible with the technology we have. Is all that worth the money spent? Perhaps.

[Mightysword]

It's case like that kinda remind people that entities like publishers is a necessary evil. Sure, we gamers tend to pin faults at the feet of publishers with common things like: "they forced the developers doing what they wanted, they made the game release too early, they took away creativeness ...etc... ". But then this is exactly the kind of things happen when you have the guy who in charge of making the game also in charge of the budget. Publisher might not be in it to make sure the "best game is made", but to ensure "a game is made". Although not at this scale, but this isn't the first or second time something like this happen, a couple examples I can recalled top of my head:

- Duke Nukem: developers got so much money from early success that they decided to make the perfect game.
- M&B: Warlord II: how many years this has been? I think sometime when people express concern how Talesworld could survive a delay this long, their answer was basically "we have enough money from previous tittle".

Also, the main reason for pretty much any Early Access failure overall is simply "we ran out of money before running out of idea". It's not just the gaming industry, but in any field it's always a good idea to separate the people who make the plan and the people who control the budget. In fact, government is another great example of when those two being the same people is just a bad idea. As bad as it sounds, most human work better if there is someone else breathing down their neck, and the best motivation for optimization is make people work with limited resource. Honestly at this point even if SC get released to morrow, the question will be "is this really a ~$300mil game?"

And that is if we assume the mess is purely from an innocent mismanagement in the absence of moral and ethical motives.

[segmentationfault]

Sorry to lift the dust on this but I'm curious to read anyone's take on the latest Forbes article about the financial issues of Star Citizen.

As a person who follows the project pretty closely the article is more or less totally useless. The problem to me is that the writer doesn't give sources his claims are based on; how did he get number $300M, how does he know they have not a single star system finished yet, etc. Testing alpha versions and reading/watching CIG's material has been the most accurate way to get information so far.
I have not seen much Squadron 42 gameplay neither I have a clue what all kind of things they have already done in their development repos/branches. Without that knowledge I can't say much about if the money has been wasted or if the project is progressing very slowly or not.

I personally enjoy the project a lot. The way they are keeping in touch with backers is excellent (techinical discussions, live meetings, etc.) and the project/alpha versions so far has been very impressive despite the bugs.

[Axeface]

It's case like that kinda remind people that entities like publishers is a necessary evil. Sure, we gamers tend to pin faults at the feet of publishers with common things like: "they forced the developers doing what they wanted, they made the game release too early, they took away creativeness ...etc... ". But then this is exactly the kind of things happen when you have the guy who in charge of making the game also in charge of the budget. Publisher might not be in it to make sure the "best game is made", but to ensure "a game is made". Although not at this scale, but this isn't the first or second time something like this happen.

You seem to be implying that there is some kind of problem with Star Citizens development, or that there is a problem at all. Sure, you can find people that state this every day, without exception, ad nausium. Supporters are frankly tired of it, it is incessent and never ending. But it is my opinion that Star Citizens development is not in trouble at all (and I have been following the project the whole time, weekly), it isnt delayed and it isnt drawn out. The game has been in real development for about 5 years. Its perfectly reasonable for a game like this to take 10 years to make, and its on track for about that. And this game is an edge case anyway, its not going to follow development norms.

- M&B: Warlord II: how many years this has been? I think sometime when people express concern how Talesworld could survive a delay this long, their answer was basically "we have enough money from previous tittle".

What is wrong with Bannerlord II? Its another title I am very much looking forward to. M&B is one of my top 5 games of all time. So they are taking their time.... this isnt a problem, its impatient people pretending that there is a problem. The dev can take as long as they want, I for one do not care in the slightest.

And that is if we assume the mess is purely from an innocent mismanagement in the absence of moral and ethical motives.

This 'mess'? As I said before, there is no mess. There is no mismanagement. That is my honest opinion.
The bottom line is that people hate Star Citizen and Chris Roberts because it is successful and they hate people for throwing money at it. Jealousy? As a happy backer I see this hatred behaviour almost daily... it is immensely strange.

Sorry to lift the dust on this but I'm curious to read anyone's take on the latest Forbes article about the financial issues of Star Citizen. Personally I must admit to some schadenfreude as this was announced as the ultimate game and some people seem to have put thousands of moneys (as Mork would say) into it to only see it all go up in smoke and CR not being the Messiah of gaming as claimed.

Its still fascinating to see the paradox (not the dev/publisher) of one hand people being cheep and wanting prices to stay or even go down and the other of people be willing to put large sums into a black hole.

MFG

Ketraar

'Financial issues'. Most of the article is inflammatory rubbish, like the edge case they use of that guy that spent 4500 dollars and tried to get a refund. The guy has a problem... is it mcdonalds fault if some idiot eats there morning, noon and night? There are millions of backers that arnt sueing for a refund.
They state that CIG have 'spent all their money' but that is what big business does isnt it? They spend money based on predictions of what they are going to make later, isnt this common business practice?

Also, they are ignoring the value of what CIG is creating. The tech they have developed has incredible monetary value, and they actually own most of what they have made. Once it is finished there will be developers scrambling to use their tech, and I dont think the value of that can be understated. And if anyone can sell it, Chris Roberts can.

I personally have spent $45 dollars. Yes, $45 for 2 (two) AAA games that ARE being made. And I have played the game for dozens of hours already. I am perfectly aware the game is going to take at least a few more years and I simply dont care. A lot of the SC 'fans' feel this way. Just like the forbes article says, this is the "Wild West" of game development, and they are not wrong. The fact remains that this game is pushing boundries, and without Chris Roberts it would have taken decades to get something like this made.
I just cant wait for Squadron 42 to come out so the nay sayers will finally just shut up (xmas 2020 probably).



One final thing I want to add.
Its my belief that there is only one valid arguement against Star Citizen. Should Chris Roberts have stuck to the original plan, or should the feature creep have happened? (which ide like to add, stopped in 2015. No new features have been added since). And anyone that is unhappy to not have gotten the originally tauted game would have gotten the picture in 2013... It was clear right after the crowdfunding that the scope of the game was exploding.

[Mightysword]

So they are taking their time.... this isnt a problem, its impatient people pretending that there is a problem. The dev can take as long as they want, I for one do not care in the slightest.

While I admit gamers are not a patient bunch by the average, but in these case accusing them being impatient is a bit much. It's not like the dev announced an alpha and then 1-2 years later people just bang on their door demanding a release. In the case of Bannerlord the Dev did original announced a pending release within a year like ... 3-4 years ago, so it hasn't been a 3 months, 6 months, or even a year delay, we're talking about a 3 years delay (so far) from a time when the dev themselves said the game was supposed to come out. And let's not pretend Star Citizen hasn't been missing its promises time and time again. Sure, you might not have a problem, doesn't mean other don't. The point is people didn't just get impatient on their own, they were given plenty reasons to be.

And if you need a precedent, then like I said it's not like it never happened before. (Duke Nukem)

This 'mess'? As I said before, there is no mess. There is no mismanagement. That is my honest opinion.

And I also posted my honest opinion, so we're even, yes?

The bottom line is that people hate Star Citizen and Chris Roberts because it is successful and they hate people for throwing money at it. Jealousy? As a happy backer I see this hatred behaviour almost daily... it is immensely strange.

Hum, and what if, "if" I say this as my argument: as someone who are skeptical about this process I am tired of seeing this desperate attempt to defend a questionable practice from the "fanboys" both in term of professional management and ethical behavior!

^ See how unpleasant it is? We all have different view on what is a problem and what is not, just like there are some people in here believe people earning too much money is a problem, there are other who believe it is not. We're merely stating our opinion about the situation. I'm directing my skepticism at the process though, not the backers. I feel your post came across a tad aggressive, which I don't think necessary. Plus you seem to be misunderstanding something...

I just cant wait for Squadron 42 to come out so the nay sayers will finally just shut up

And why would we? It's not like we're boycotting the game or something. Even if the game end up being released and being good, there will still be the question whether is it really "300 millions" good? I had played many good games, great games even that were made with just at tiny fraction of that money, so I can tell you there is a pretty high standard to climb over. Even if the game came out good and even if I gonna enjoy it, but if it's just say ... 50mil good then it would still do nothing to dismiss my misgiving about its creators.

If the game come out and good enough to justify whatever asking price, I'll get it, and I will be thanking you backers for make it happens. But if it doesn't ... well, not like I lost anything. Whether it gonna be a greatest scam or the greatest game in history, I'm sure glad I am NOT part of its process.

One final thing I want to add.
Its my belief that there is only one valid arguement against Star Citizen. Should Chris Roberts have stuck to the original plan, or should the feature creep have happened? (which ide like to add, stopped in 2015. No new features have been added since). And anyone that is unhappy to not have gotten the originally tauted game would have gotten the picture in 2013... It was clear right after the crowdfunding that the scope of the game was exploding.

And thus at the end of your post we reached the full circle started from the beginning of my previous post: that 'explosion' is exactly what a typical Publisher would have prevented. I think you agree with me more than you realized.

[pjknibbs]

Its my belief that there is only one valid arguement against Star Citizen. Should Chris Roberts have stuck to the original plan, or should the feature creep have happened? (which ide like to add, stopped in 2015. No new features have been added since).

And it doesn't worry you in the slightest that FOUR YEARS after they stopped adding features they haven't released a game yet? I would count that as a strike against the game, not an argument for it.

[segmentationfault]

One final thing I want to add.
Its my belief that there is only one valid arguement against Star Citizen. Should Chris Roberts have stuck to the original plan, or should the feature creep have happened? (which ide like to add, stopped in 2015. No new features have been added since). And anyone that is unhappy to not have gotten the originally tauted game would have gotten the picture in 2013... It was clear right after the crowdfunding that the scope of the game was exploding.

What is your opinion about this "explosion"? Would you have liked Chris make a small scope space game as he originally planned?

I'm personally very happy that they are working on a game which would be impossible to do with a publisher. We don't get this kind of changes to have games like Star Citizen often and I'm glad we do have it now. How they keep touch with supporters and the way they are doing releases makes waiting comfortable. Or "waiting" since we are able to test development versions and progress.

[segmentationfault]

And it doesn't worry you in the slightest that FOUR YEARS after they stopped adding features they haven't released a game yet? I would count that as a strike against the game, not an argument for it.

It would if the scope would have been as the originally planned. It is so huge and complex project that I don't see reasons why we should be worried about development time.

[Axeface]

One final thing I want to add.
Its my belief that there is only one valid arguement against Star Citizen. Should Chris Roberts have stuck to the original plan, or should the feature creep have happened? (which ide like to add, stopped in 2015. No new features have been added since). And anyone that is unhappy to not have gotten the originally tauted game would have gotten the picture in 2013... It was clear right after the crowdfunding that the scope of the game was exploding.

What is your opinion about this "explosion"? Would you have liked Chris make a small scope space game as he originally planned?

I'm personally very happy that they are working on a game which would be impossible to do with a publisher. We don't get this kind of changes to have games like Star Citizen often and I'm glad we do have it now. How they keep touch with supporters and the way they are doing releases makes waiting comfortable. Or "waiting" since we are able to test development versions and progress.

Im very happy with the feature creep, and I think they stopped it at an achievable moment. I would have much less interest in the project if it was just another Wing Commander as originally planned (which, SQ 42 is going to be anyway).
To clarify, I said that as being a valid arguement in the sense that its a valid arguement for a backer to make. Its perfectly fine for someone to complain that the game they backed (back in 2012/2013) has become something much bigger, many people wanted just another Wing Commander, and quickly. Its was fine for them to be angry and request a refund, but like I said it was clear many many years ago what was happening - and those people were a minority.

And yeh Im with you. This game could not happen with a publisher, and they are putting AAA studios to shame. Its going to make the gaming world better, quicker.

Its my belief that there is only one valid arguement against Star Citizen. Should Chris Roberts have stuck to the original plan, or should the feature creep have happened? (which ide like to add, stopped in 2015. No new features have been added since).

And it doesn't worry you in the slightest that FOUR YEARS after they stopped adding features they haven't released a game yet? I would count that as a strike against the game, not an argument for it.

No not at all. And to clarify, they stopped adding PLANNED features, they are building the planned features now (there is an indepth roadmap for all of this stuff). I follow development very closely and im very informed about what they are doing. The pace of the project is perfectly acceptable. Its hard to get it across because this belief comes from years of seeing the game develop, actually playing it, hundreds of hours of dev update videos etc.

[Chips]

And it doesn't worry you in the slightest that FOUR YEARS after they stopped adding features they haven't released a game yet? I would count that as a strike against the game, not an argument for it.

It would if the scope would have been as the originally planned. It is so huge and complex project that I don't see reasons why we should be worried about development time.

The only reason you should worry about development time is:

1) Development costs money.
2) Someone has to pay for it.

If (2) stops, (1) will stop and no game. If there's sufficient money being made each year to pay the development, then there are no worries.

[Tamina]

And in the case of Star Citizen (2) happens because of (1) (development in general). It's a self propelled money machine that is going to reach a limit eventually, linear and not exponential like in the usual pyramid schemes but still hopefully after the development cycle ends.

[segmentationfault]

The only reason you should worry about development time is:

1) Development costs money.
2) Someone has to pay for it.

If (2) stops, (1) will stop and no game. If there's sufficient money being made each year to pay the development, then there are no worries.

Well, this is something one can be worried about in case of pretty much any software project. I'm not personally worried about Star Citizen funding neither on other crowdfunded project I have supported. I'm glad Ubisoft has been supporting BG&E2 this long time and CDPR doesn't hurry too much with Cyberpunk 2077 either. It is great there are still developers who are able/and willing to give their project development time.

Techincal issues are much more interesting in my opinion; server side OCS, persistence, server meshing, etc.

[Chips]

Sorry, development time means to develop the game. Not necessarily developers per se, but the entire infrastructure and everything related. So all technical issues they may encounter included - and by the sounds of it, they've plenty of those too.

If you're not worried, you're not worried. I've no idea what criteria means "not worried". Personally, something that's 7 years at not alpha? But i've asked enough questions as to the man in charges actual competence. His more recent history (1999 onwards) being evidence to mean I am not holding my breath.

Whatever comes out of it, it'll be judged upon the quality and complexity of the release. If it's the game to end all games, then success regardless and I'll enjoy playing it. If it gets an absolute hammering, or is awful then...

Well, personally feel bad for anyone who sunk huge amounts of money in it - but personally, i'll be playing X.. whatever version it'll be by then I'm not *that* vested it in anymore.

[segmentationfault]

Sorry, development time means to develop the game. Not necessarily developers per se, but the entire infrastructure and everything related. So all technical issues they may encounter included - and by the sounds of it, they've plenty of those too.

They started from very little and it sure took some time for them build up where they are at the moment. They went trough those big technical milestones in their CitizenCon 2948 - Road to Release presentation. There are some big technical hurdles to solve.

If you're not worried, you're not worried. I've no idea what criteria means "not worried". Personally, something that's 7 years at not alpha? But i've asked enough questions as to the man in charges actual competence. His more recent history (1999 onwards) being evidence to mean I am not holding my breath.

As long as they are able to make alpha releases and progress as shown in their roadmaps I consider myself "not worried". Things has went well so far.

Whatever comes out of it, it'll be judged upon the quality and complexity of the release. If it's the game to end all games, then success regardless and I'll enjoy playing it. If it gets an absolute hammering, or is awful then...

Well, personally feel bad for anyone who sunk huge amounts of money in it - but personally, i'll be playing X.. whatever version it'll be by then I'm not *that* vested it in anymore.

Yeah, it will be interesting to see how things goes. Quite a few website has already called them as scam (PC Gamer, etc.) so it is hard to say how objective and honest their review will be in the end. Same with the many people.

I'm enjoying multiple of space games at the moment X4 being one of them. Still, Star Citizen is something different which doesn't have alternative available at the moment so I very much would like it to be success. I'm not worried over my $45 pledge.

[Golden_Gonads]

And in the case of Star Citizen (2) happens because of (1) (development in general). It's a self propelled money machine that is going to reach a limit eventually, linear and not exponential like in the usual pyramid schemes but still hopefully after the development cycle ends.

As he sold off 10% of the company at the beginning of the year, I'd say he's feeling the financial pinch already.

[Chips]

Yeah, it will be interesting to see how things goes. Quite a few website has already called them as scam (PC Gamer, etc.) so it is hard to say how objective and honest their review will be in the end. Same with the many people.

They're sceptical because of the length of time without release and without a mooted release date. But above all, it generates clicks and content. I doubt they actually care beyond getting said clicks - and if it goes belly up they'll brush down their creds as having reported on it.

I think most of those articles are pretty much rehashes of each other.