To those who havent lost hope - when do you think this will release ?

Adamantine

Personally I'm all for the good old Bioware philosophy (before they turned into EA) "its done when its done".

This philosophy is what created Baldurs Gate 2, to this day my favorite offline game.

However - Bioware set archievable goals. Just for example, BG2 is just 2D.

Unfortunately it seems that now you've buried these people of Star Citizen under a heap of funding (Wikipedia says $400 mio crowdfunding, PLUS $60 mio regular funding), they're apparently now out to make "the perfect game".

That ... well ... could take "a while".

According to Wikipedia this was supposed to release in 2014. So they're only 8 years overdue. Granted, 2014 was for a minimal game.

So when do you think this will release ?

WalkinGlenn

Never..

Mensur

Something will have to be release- but what it will be is a different story 

Scot

If you want me to put a bet on it I would say 2026, by which time staff at CIG may have spent the majority of their career there or even have retired.

TheDalaiBomba

Scot said:

If you want me to put a bet on it I would say 2026, by which time staff at CIG may have spent the majority of their career there or even have retired.

Now I won't be happy unless Chris Roberts retires pre-launch with a completely oblivious farewell address.

"I cannot say enough how wondrous this entire experience has been for me.  Fighting off the naysayers all these years while simultaneously adding and delaying every feature under the sun has been a true dream come true for such a visionary as I.  Exclusively a visionary.  Literally *just* the dreams, baby...  Trust me when I say I leave your dream, OUR dream, in capable hands here at CIG.  Peace!" *speeds out of the harbor in his sailboat*

Theocritus

WalkinGlenn said:

Never..

I just think it is more profitable for them not to release.....They have made hundreds of millions and have not had to answer to anyone.....They can do as they please and the backers just give them more money....IF they were to release, then there are expectations...and they will fail miserably, most likely, to meet those expectations....With the amount of devs they have, they should have had something by now.....Heck games with one dev make alot more progress than this one with 500+....It's ridiculous really.

Kyleran

Scot said:

If you want me to put a bet on it I would say 2026, by which time staff at CIG may have spent the majority of their career there or even have retired.

Always nice to see this site still has optimists in its ranks.

Iselin

After the pre-release income dries up... if ever.

Adamantine

Many of your will probably call me naive but I always give people the benefit of the doubt unless they've proven they really dont deserve it.

So I think/hope that they indeed just set out to create "the perfect game" and as a programmer, I know very well such a beast is always impossible.

You have to limit yourself to a reasonable goal and then once you reach it you might improve from there further, but no program and thus also no game will ever be perfect.

In the past months I had to accept that Pantheon will probably never release, because they ran out of funding. So Star Citizen by comparison is still in a great shape, since its funding wont run out for a long time.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

WhiteLantern

Why?! Why would they even bother to launch unless it is so all of the employees can stop working on it and retire? The point of launching a game is to earn the money for all your hard work.
I see the cart, but the horse is so far back it is barely a memory.

olepi

According to some, it has already launched, kind of a "soft" launch I guess.

In terms of a real production launch, I'm not sure it will ever do that.

Sandmanjw

Seriously?

Does anyone really think that if they wanted to throw out a game that they could not have done it hundred's of times by now?

Even if we drop the "front" of this charade,  Chris Roberts, his brother, Erin Roberts, has driven a few decent games to completion.  So they have the skill and knowledge to have shipped the original Squadron game several times over if they really wanted to.

They stumbled upon a never ending gold mine of game dev funding, so why would they stop riding that until it finally stops?

Expect the game to be "released" when the funding every year drops below what it takes to support their dream, which is not games being released, but never ending funding to DESIGN said games.

When it is no longer "profitable" to ride the train is the correct answer....

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

olepi

Wargfoot said:

olepi said:

According to some, it has already launched, kind of a "soft" launch I guess.

In terms of a real production launch, I'm not sure it will ever do that.

Yeah, that changes based upon what the kool-aid swilling fanboi is trying to prove.

If you're criticizing an incomplete feature, the drone claims the game is in alpha.
If you're criticizing the lack of launch, the drone claims it is fully featured and playable.

I think a better definition of launch is "no more wipes", and my understanding is we ain't there yet.

In real software development, alpha is the point that all the code is written, the pieces have  been tested in unit tests, and the whole thing is put together for the first time. Obviously, SC isn't in a real alpha stage.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Babuinix

Wargfoot said:

coretex666 said:

I think in 2030, Babu will still be posting here "759 million  ".

I am not even joking.

Nobody here thinks you're joking.

2035 - 1.5 billion
2040 - 5 billion
2075 - 1.85 trillion

The numbers are irrelevant at this point.

Back in the 2015-2019's many here were claiming DOOM and the collapse of the company while I kept laughing at them and stating that money would keep rolling and even increase in speeds. Now most of them are silent (some got banned others just gave up after eating enough crow lol)

I stand by that statement, and reiterate it now even further. Which is a easy one to do when you're aware of what this project is about and how much is playable now and the huge untapped marked of gamers still without a clue of how good and amazing this game already is and how much better it will become in the next years. 

Star Citizen Online Universe has been available to play for years now, and what's available right now (and even years before) is way, WAY better than anything on the market for those looking for a sci-fi online sanbox with AAAA fidelity.

SQ42 will release when it's ready. Which is exactly how it should be.

Waiting is easy. Just live and enjoy your life while games are being developed.

Shouldn't be that hard right?

Right? 

TheDalaiBomba

Babuinix said:

what's available is better than anything on the market for those looking for a sci-fi online sanbox with AAAA fidelity.

I feel like AAAA fidelity would entail having a game with a little bit better performance than this one.

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/telemetry


Unless I'm reading that wrong, over 80% of players average less than 50 FPS while playing what's better than anything on the market, per CIG's own data.  Load times also averaged a little over 3 minutes.  It certainly *sounds* like a AAAA experience.

Quizzical

Wargfoot said:

coretex666 said:

I think in 2030, Babu will still be posting here "759 million  ".

I am not even joking.

Nobody here thinks you're joking.

2035 - 1.5 billion
2040 - 5 billion
2075 - 1.85 trillion

The numbers are irrelevant at this point.

The numbers that far out depend more on what inflation does in the meantime than on the game itself.

Babuinix

TheDalaiBomba said:

Babuinix said:

what's available is better than anything on the market for those looking for a sci-fi online sanbox with AAAA fidelity.

I feel like AAAA fidelity would entail having a game with a little bit better performance than this one.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/telemetry
Unless I'm reading that wrong, over 80% of players average less than 50 FPS while playing what's better than anything on the market, per CIG's own data.  Load times also averaged a little over 3 minutes.  It certainly *sounds* like a AAAA experience.

Fidelity is about visual quality. Performance is another topic.

Talking game development stages, Fidelity comes first and performance comes later.

Both are important (performance even more) as the bombing of Cyberpunk and ED:Odyssey showcased.

But Star Citizen has been making huge strides in optimization and performance with the implementation of Vulkan and new streaming tech.

Back when the Online Universe was first released (2016) the FPS we're <20 anywhere without any planets or cities to land on, even in outer space.

That was because it was brand new tech and not optimized / iterated. A huge online open world 1 million kilometres by 1 million kilometres by 2 million kilometres high without loading screens.

Latest patch (3.17) there's reports of 200+ FPS in outer space.

What we've been playtesting all these years is a game for future hardware. It's only natural that with optimization and the advance of tech that performance will allow for better experience.

Same happened with games like Wing Commander and Crysis.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Babuinix

Wargfoot said:

Babuinix said:

Star Citizen Online Universe as been available to play for years now, and what's available is better than anything on the market for those looking for a sci-fi online sanbox with AAAA fidelity.

I should think one of the hallmarks of AAAA fidelity is no more wipes.

AAAA fidelity conveys to Visual Quality. What does it have to do with wipes?

Star Citizen Universe, despite being available to play since 2016 (due to it's crowdfunding nature) it's sold as an alpha stage development early access game, as in still core features being implemented.

MMORPG's beta's that are done closer to  before release have wipes too for a reason. 

Quizzical

Babuinix said:

TheDalaiBomba said:

Babuinix said:

what's available is better than anything on the market for those looking for a sci-fi online sanbox with AAAA fidelity.

I feel like AAAA fidelity would entail having a game with a little bit better performance than this one.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/telemetry
Unless I'm reading that wrong, over 80% of players average less than 50 FPS while playing what's better than anything on the market, per CIG's own data.  Load times also averaged a little over 3 minutes.  It certainly *sounds* like a AAAA experience.

Fidelity is about visual quality. Performance is another topic.

Talking game development stages, Fidelity comes first and performance comes later.

Both are important (performance even more) as the bombing of Cyberpunk and ED:Odyssey showcased.

But Star Citizen has been making huge strides in optimization and performance with the implementation of Vulkan and new streaming tech.

Back when the Online Universe was first released (2016) the FPS we're <20 anywhere without any planets or cities to land on, even in outer space.

That was because it was brand new tech and not optimized / iterated. A huge online open world 1 million kilometres by 1 million kilometres by 2 million kilometres high without loading screens.

Latest patch (3.17) there's reports of 200+ FPS in outer space.

What we've been playtesting all these years is a game for future hardware. It's only natural that with optimization and the advance of tech that performance will allow for better experience.

Same happened with games like Wing Commander and Crysis.

So basically, you're saying that more delays are desirable because the game shouldn't launch until the hardware needed to run it well exists?

EverQuest II was also a game built for future hardware.  Then hardware went in a different direction from the 10 GHz CPUs that Intel was promising and the future hardware that the game needed to run well at max settings never arrived.

Babuinix

Quizzical said:

So basically, you're saying that more delays are desirable because the game shouldn't launch until the hardware needed to run it well exists?

EverQuest II was also a game built for future hardware.  Then hardware went in a different direction from the 10 GHz CPUs that Intel was promising and the future hardware that the game needed to run well at max settings never arrived.

No.... what I'm saying is that when companies are planning their games to be cutting edge they plan ahead of the known tech curve by listening to industry professionals (NVIDIA/INTEL/AMD).

Nowadays computer hardware direction is less volatile as they where back in the 80'90's wild west when hardware would go obsolete in a year due to constant breakthroughs.

I'm still playing Star Citizen with a PC bought in 2013 (meanwhile upgraded from HDD to SSD, plus RAM & GPU) but still same mobo & CPU.

Quizzical

Babuinix said:

Quizzical said:

So basically, you're saying that more delays are desirable because the game shouldn't launch until the hardware needed to run it well exists?

EverQuest II was also a game built for future hardware.  Then hardware went in a different direction from the 10 GHz CPUs that Intel was promising and the future hardware that the game needed to run well at max settings never arrived.

No.... what I'm saying is that when companies are planning their games to be cutting edge they plan ahead of the known tech curve by listening to industry professionals (NVIDIA/INTEL/AMD).

Nowadays computer hardware direction is less volatile as they where back in the 80'90's wild west when hardware would go obsolete in a year due to constant breakthroughs.

I'm still playing Star Citizen with a PC bought in 2013 (meanwhile upgraded from HDD to SSD, plus RAM & GPU) but still same mobo & CPU.

Star Citizen started development in 2010.  A lot of things that are reality today weren't even on roadmaps in 2010.  You can go back and redo things several years into development to take advantage of newer tech.  But if you constantly do that, you'll never make it to launch.  Speaking of which...

eoloe

Quizzical said:

Babuinix said:

Quizzical said:

So basically, you're saying that more delays are desirable because the game shouldn't launch until the hardware needed to run it well exists?

EverQuest II was also a game built for future hardware.  Then hardware went in a different direction from the 10 GHz CPUs that Intel was promising and the future hardware that the game needed to run well at max settings never arrived.

No.... what I'm saying is that when companies are planning their games to be cutting edge they plan ahead of the known tech curve by listening to industry professionals (NVIDIA/INTEL/AMD).

Nowadays computer hardware direction is less volatile as they where back in the 80'90's wild west when hardware would go obsolete in a year due to constant breakthroughs.

I'm still playing Star Citizen with a PC bought in 2013 (meanwhile upgraded from HDD to SSD, plus RAM & GPU) but still same mobo & CPU.

Star Citizen started development in 2010.  A lot of things that are reality today weren't even on roadmaps in 2010.  You can go back and redo things several years into development to take advantage of newer tech.  But if you constantly do that, you'll never make it to launch.  Speaking of which...

I agree. Star Citizen, in order to deliver the best player experience, should plan for the tech of 2050.