I just realized how boring the title of this thread is. Who else didn't bother to even read the accompaning article?
I read it and thought... "there is definitely something strange about the coverage of Star Citizen." Why is there no sponsored tag? And if it's not sponsored, why is this dude reporting on it non-stop and in this way?
Because this type of minutia being presented as news is actually embarrassing to be honest.
That's what happens when you rely on just company press releases for your "news" and do very little curating of the site's news section.
As to minutia being presented that's just how the crowdfunded game development rolls: any old shit passed off as news just to keep your name current.
This stuff is regurgitated almost everywhere, not just here, by sites that want to give the appearance that they're on top of things while actually not being even remotely on top of anything.
I guess that's just kind of sad.
Yeah. I come here for the forums but If I'm actually interested in articles and news Massively kicks this site's ass and it's not even close.
For example, their article about the vampire skill line rework in ESO anticipates that some readers that might not have been interested in being a vampire before might be interested now. So it doesn't just quote the ZOS press release, it has a paragraph about how to go about becoming one even going so far as telling you not to waste 1500 crowns by buying it in the cash shop because it's trivial to get it in game from another player or going to one of 3 zones to be bitten by special NPC vampires.
You get the impression there that the writers' level of knowledge about the things they write about is at least equal to their audience if not well above it. Can't say the same about this place.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Why did Duke Nukem Forever and Anthem have problems? Take forever? Bad (unfocused) management. Same with Star Citizen. Tons of game loops not working. No persistence. 'Wait til next year' excuses. Marketing is not the game.
Every game that aims for something new or groundbreaking will have problems. Having troubles is not necessarily a sign of being unprofessional or unfocused management but the consequence of doing something new. All the major success stories from every studio went through troubles in their development. It's part of the process.
Are they all unfocused and unprofessional? No! It's just the nature of the beast.
Most gamers just aren't used to seeing a game being made, hence the "drama" for seeing things broken while being built. That's also the main reason why dev's prefer to develop in secrecy and only show the things when they are ready for prime time.
The crowdfunding nature of games and the need to keep backers engaged and generating funding to make the game leads to companies showcasing work in progress and hopefully gamers get more used to the process and don't freak out every time something "doesn't feel right".
You want to know a more relevant date? When they started development on Rocket Heavy... 2011... have fun
Well, since it's proven possible to launch men into space, or drop a rover safely on Mars in less time than SC will likely release, clearly developing video games isn't "rocket science," amirite?
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Why did Duke Nukem Forever and Anthem have problems? Take forever? Bad (unfocused) management. Same with Star Citizen. Tons of game loops not working. No persistence. 'Wait til next year' excuses. Marketing is not the game.
Every game that aims for something new or groundbreaking will have problems. Having troubles is not necessarily a sign of being unprofessional or unfocused management but the consequence of doing something new. All the major success stories from every studio went through troubles in their development. It's part of the process.
Are they all unfocused and unprofessional? No! It's just the nature of the beast.
Most gamers just aren't used to seeing a game being made, hence the "drama" for seeing things broken while being built. That's also the main reason why dev's prefer to develop in secrecy and only show the things when they are ready for prime time.
The crowdfunding nature of games and the need to keep backers engaged and generating funding to make the game leads to companies showcasing work in progress and hopefully gamers get more used to the process and don't freak out every time something "doesn't feel right".
They have raised more money than any other game out there and what we get is a basic tech demo with ships to buy? It is getting ridiculous and the CS apologists really need to be asking themselves was this worth it?
They have raised more money than any other game out there and what we get is a basic tech demo with ships to buy? It is getting ridiculous and the CS apologists really need to be asking themselves was this worth it?
Maybe it's you the one that needs to ask yourself if it was worth it? You're the one spending time posting about a game you don't like lol
They are developing a game and people are paying in advance to help them out and getting to play it early since 2013. I'd say the projects growth shows there's plenty of people that think it's worth it.
If there was another game out there allowing for the same experience people would be giving them money instead. But since there isn't, Star Citizen will continue to keep being developed while growing in player numbers and funding. Just like it has been doing for the past years. Rinse & Repeat.
Haters & Cynics will keep doubting because fundamentally they can't wrap their heads around what's going on and feel that uneasy hitch of "missing out" that they can't help but keep posting in Star Citizen threads (when they know nothing about it, have never played it) with whatever twisted narrative that makes sense to them (doesn't matter if clashes with reality) to feel part of it somehow.
That's actually a great sign that people are still very interested in this game.
You want to know a more relevant date? When they started development on Rocket Heavy... 2011... have fun
Thank you, I do.
Its also quite interesting to talk to Musk. Mind you, I maybe do not want to work for him ... 12 hour working days being normal... but he gets things moving in many areas. Space and automotive especially.
And as 12 hour working days are often the case in computer game development, we are back on topic here ;-)
You want to know a more relevant date? When they started development on Rocket Heavy... 2011... have fun
Well, since it's proven possible to launch men into space, or drop a rover safely on Mars in less time than SC will likely release, clearly developing video games isn't "rocket science," amirite?
Unless you play Kerbal Space Program.
Then it is.
KBS is teaming up with the big space agencies now ;-)
And Space-X published its ISS docking simulator.
The borders between games and rocket science begin to blur.
Why did Duke Nukem Forever and Anthem have problems? Take forever? Bad (unfocused) management. Same with Star Citizen. Tons of game loops not working. No persistence. 'Wait til next year' excuses. Marketing is not the game.
Every game that aims for something new or groundbreaking will have problems. Having troubles is not necessarily a sign of being unprofessional or unfocused management but the consequence of doing something new. All the major success stories from every studio went through troubles in their development. It's part of the process.
Are they all unfocused and unprofessional? No! It's just the nature of the beast.
Most gamers just aren't used to seeing a game being made, hence the "drama" for seeing things broken while being built. That's also the main reason why dev's prefer to develop in secrecy and only show the things when they are ready for prime time.
The crowdfunding nature of games and the need to keep backers engaged and generating funding to make the game leads to companies showcasing work in progress and hopefully gamers get more used to the process and don't freak out every time something "doesn't feel right".
They have raised more money than any other game out there and what we get is a basic tech demo with ships to buy? It is getting ridiculous and the CS apologists really need to be asking themselves was this worth it?
killed by feature creep, games are released because investors require a return on their capital. Theres literally no reason for them to finish this game as long as people keep spending thousands on pixels and buying an idea. I doubt this game will ever be commercial ready, theres just no impetus, their tech will age then they will update it and start the cycle again, games need a project manager who will control the whims of developers and maintain progress towards the goal (release), its already years overdue.
killed by feature creep, games are released because investors require a return on their capital. Theres literally no reason for them to finish this game as long as people keep spending thousands on pixels and buying an idea. I doubt this game will ever be commercial ready, theres just no impetus, their tech will age then they will update it and start the cycle again, games need a project manager who will control the whims of developers and maintain progress towards the goal (release), its already years overdue.
Two points:
1. The game took on a commercial investor towards the end of 2017 and, as you say, they will want a commercial return. So - as you say - a reason for release.
And there is absolutely no way that games sales (a copy of the game comes with a ship so game sales is more accurate) are providing a return on the investment. Maybe its coincidental but the investment was made around the time of the "90 days tops " stories - which was accurate but for leaving out the "if no further money is raised".
As I have said previously and others have said above if you believe that the "acquisition of profit" is the motivation for this game then it will release. If, for example, SQ42 sells a fraction of the copies that Destiny sold (which was multi-platform but it sold tens of millions) then release will generate hundreds of millions in revenue. It has to release first though so - by your own logic - you can feel confident.
2. Feature creep.
SC doesn't suffer from feature creep. Between end 2012 and end 2014 there was full on feature blossom at breakneck speed with extra funding milestone after funding milestone being reached. Since then though pretty stable. As a result though the game being developed today is not the same as that promoted when the ks was launched towards the end of 2012.
Now is your statement that the extra feature "killed" the game accurate. Well notwithstanding the fact that its not dead its a serious question. Obviously what is done is done so there can be no definitive answer but there is a comparable case: Camelot Unchanged.
CU had its ks a scant 5 months after SC. It made a point of avoiding feature creep (by and large did so). Had some private investors as well - very little ks money. So release assured then by your logic? Sadly no. In case you haven't followed CU its struggled - lack of money.
And now to come back to SC's full on feature bloom: the extra features came with funding. By the end of 2014 when they drew the line they had raised $65M.
So extra features or extra money?
Comparing SC to CU it suggests that SC made the right call and that far from dooming the game the extra features that were taken on are what have gotten SC to what it is today albeit somewhat later than originally pitched.
And we can feel confident in saying that the investment group is happy with progress being made. Reason: we now know that the original deal included an option to purchase an additional 5% of the company at the same price per share. And earlier this year they exercised the option!
As I have said previously and others have said above if you believe that the "acquisition of profit" is the motivation for this game then it will release. If, for example, SQ42 sells a fraction of the copies that Destiny sold (which was multi-platform but it sold tens of millions) then release will generate hundreds of millions in revenue. It has to release first though so - by your own logic - you can feel confident.
Witcher 3 base game generated about $250 million in revenue during first 3 years after its release, despite releasing on 3 different platforms.
It's not impossible that Squadron 42 could generate hundreds of millions in addition to the revenue it's already generated, but that's a best case scenario.
EDIT: Fixed Witcher 3 revenue numbers. It was in wrong currency
I'd be more interested if they weren't already half a decade into development and the game is still nothing but a glorified tech demo that runs like garbage.
The free fly weekends are a joke to show the gaming community just how smart they were for not backing this project.
You'd think it might work this way, but they raise millions more every time they do a free fly event.
But that is pretty much the problem...They have a game that is hugely profitable by not being a game. They are setting a trend and it's not a good one. To me, selling virtual ships for hundreds of RL dollars is just ridiculous, especially in a game that may never even launch. Chris Roberts could walk away today as a millionaire and the donators would have nothing to show for it.
Revenues are not equal to profit. They don't make profit, they develop two ambitious triple-A.
The cash machine is coming AFTER release for those with the biggest % of company shares not during development. This is for backers the best incentive of all!
By the way CR was already millionaire before starting this project... Also "nothing to show"... how it can be as we are alpha SC 3.9.1 and SQ42 (half of the projkect to be injected in SC at release) is at few quarters of beta.
People buying stuff from RSI is profit to its owners because RSI can be sold.
.
This is just proving you know nothing about the word you use. Sold is not equal to profit otherwise no companies will never bankrupt ever... Internet is so lovely with all those expert about finance and game development
I'd be more interested if they weren't already half a decade into development and the game is still nothing but a glorified tech demo that runs like garbage.
The free fly weekends are a joke to show the gaming community just how smart they were for not backing this project.
You'd think it might work this way, but they raise millions more every time they do a free fly event.
But that is pretty much the problem...They have a game that is hugely profitable by not being a game. They are setting a trend and it's not a good one. To me, selling virtual ships for hundreds of RL dollars is just ridiculous, especially in a game that may never even launch. Chris Roberts could walk away today as a millionaire and the donators would have nothing to show for it.
Revenues are not equal to profit. They don't make profit, they develop two ambitious triple-A.
The cash machine is coming AFTER release for those with the biggest % of company shares not during development. This is for backers the best incentive of all!
By the way CR was already millionaire before starting this project... Also "nothing to show"... how it can be as we are alpha SC 3.9.1 and SQ42 (half of the projkect to be injected in SC at release) is at few quarters of beta.
Millionaire, eh? So, you've seen the books on Roberts finances before the windfall of Star Citizen?.... ....
Hey another genius! So... you've seen the books on Roberts finances before the windfall of Star Citizen?
I just realized how boring the title of this thread is. Who else didn't bother to even read the accompaning article?
I read it and thought... "there is definitely something strange about the coverage of Star Citizen." Why is there no sponsored tag? And if it's not sponsored, why is this dude reporting on it non-stop and in this way?
Because this type of minutia being presented as news is actually embarrassing to be honest.
That's what happens when you rely on just company press releases for your "news" and do very little curating of the site's news section.
As to minutia being presented that's just how the crowdfunded game development rolls: any old shit passed off as news just to keep your name current.
This stuff is regurgitated almost everywhere, not just here, by sites that want to give the appearance that they're on top of things while actually not being even remotely on top of anything.
... so why are your even here, reading stuff on a site bringing no news?
I just realized how boring the title of this thread is. Who else didn't bother to even read the accompaning article?
I read it and thought... "there is definitely something strange about the coverage of Star Citizen." Why is there no sponsored tag? And if it's not sponsored, why is this dude reporting on it non-stop and in this way?
Because this type of minutia being presented as news is actually embarrassing to be honest.
That's what happens when you rely on just company press releases for your "news" and do very little curating of the site's news section.
As to minutia being presented that's just how the crowdfunded game development rolls: any old shit passed off as news just to keep your name current.
This stuff is regurgitated almost everywhere, not just here, by sites that want to give the appearance that they're on top of things while actually not being even remotely on top of anything.
... so why are your even here, reading stuff on a site bringing no news?
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I just realized how boring the title of this thread is. Who else didn't bother to even read the accompaning article?
I read it and thought... "there is definitely something strange about the coverage of Star Citizen." Why is there no sponsored tag? And if it's not sponsored, why is this dude reporting on it non-stop and in this way?
Because this type of minutia being presented as news is actually embarrassing to be honest.
That's what happens when you rely on just company press releases for your "news" and do very little curating of the site's news section.
As to minutia being presented that's just how the crowdfunded game development rolls: any old shit passed off as news just to keep your name current.
This stuff is regurgitated almost everywhere, not just here, by sites that want to give the appearance that they're on top of things while actually not being even remotely on top of anything.
... so why are your even here, reading stuff on a site bringing no news?
Various reasons. Sometimes to just shoot the shit with others about various games, not just one, and sometimes just to watch the moronic fanboys make asses of themselves.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I'd be more interested if they weren't already half a decade into development and the game is still nothing but a glorified tech demo that runs like garbage.
The free fly weekends are a joke to show the gaming community just how smart they were for not backing this project.
You'd think it might work this way, but they raise millions more every time they do a free fly event.
But that is pretty much the problem...They have a game that is hugely profitable by not being a game. They are setting a trend and it's not a good one. To me, selling virtual ships for hundreds of RL dollars is just ridiculous, especially in a game that may never even launch. Chris Roberts could walk away today as a millionaire and the donators would have nothing to show for it.
Revenues are not equal to profit. They don't make profit, they develop two ambitious triple-A.
The cash machine is coming AFTER release for those with the biggest % of company shares not during development. This is for backers the best incentive of all!
By the way CR was already millionaire before starting this project... Also "nothing to show"... how it can be as we are alpha SC 3.9.1 and SQ42 (half of the projkect to be injected in SC at release) is at few quarters of beta.
People buying stuff from RSI is profit to its owners because RSI can be sold.
.
This is just proving you know nothing about the word you use. Sold is not equal to profit otherwise no companies will never bankrupt ever... Internet is so lovely with all those expert about finance and game development
No, you just don't know what you're talking about.
Sales don't always equal to profit. But in this case RSI is valued so highly not because the profits it's been making (it hasn't made that much), but because of how well it's sold stuff.
People buying stuff from RSI is profit to its owners because RSI can be sold. People who have crowdfunded Star Citizen have made its founders obscenely rich.
killed by feature creep, games are released because investors require a return on their capital. Theres literally no reason for them to finish this game as long as people keep spending thousands on pixels and buying an idea. I doubt this game will ever be commercial ready, theres just no impetus, their tech will age then they will update it and start the cycle again, games need a project manager who will control the whims of developers and maintain progress towards the goal (release), its already years overdue.
Two points:
1. The game took on a commercial investor towards the end of 2017 and, as you say, they will want a commercial return. So - as you say - a reason for release.
If they aren't a majority share holder they don't have much say honestly. And frankly, the more money they pull in from sheeple, the less clout each investor has.
Eventually the investors will start to dry up, but I'm not sure they'll ever run out of whales.
As I have said previously and others have said above if you believe that the "acquisition of profit" is the motivation for this game then it will release. If, for example, SQ42 sells a fraction of the copies that Destiny sold (which was multi-platform but it sold tens of millions) then release will generate hundreds of millions in revenue. It has to release first though so - by your own logic - you can feel confident.
Witcher 3 base game generated about $250 million in revenue during first 3 years after its release, despite releasing on 3 different platforms.
It's not impossible that Squadron 42 could generate hundreds of millions in addition to the revenue it's already generated, but that's a best case scenario.
EDIT: Fixed Witcher 3 revenue numbers. It was in wrong currency
I highly doubt that SC or SQ 42 will make as much revenue as they have made in investments (I use that term loosely also). You have pointed out Witcher 3 was on 3 platforms and it took 3 years to make 250 million in revenue. Just pointing this out.
I'd be more interested if they weren't already half a decade into development and the game is still nothing but a glorified tech demo that runs like garbage.
The free fly weekends are a joke to show the gaming community just how smart they were for not backing this project.
You'd think it might work this way, but they raise millions more every time they do a free fly event.
But that is pretty much the problem...They have a game that is hugely profitable by not being a game. They are setting a trend and it's not a good one. To me, selling virtual ships for hundreds of RL dollars is just ridiculous, especially in a game that may never even launch. Chris Roberts could walk away today as a millionaire and the donators would have nothing to show for it.
Revenues are not equal to profit. They don't make profit, they develop two ambitious triple-A.
The cash machine is coming AFTER release for those with the biggest % of company shares not during development. This is for backers the best incentive of all!
By the way CR was already millionaire before starting this project... Also "nothing to show"... how it can be as we are alpha SC 3.9.1 and SQ42 (half of the projkect to be injected in SC at release) is at few quarters of beta.
Millionaire, eh? So, you've seen the books on Roberts finances before the windfall of Star Citizen?.... ....
Hey another genius! So... you've seen the books on Roberts finances before the windfall of Star Citizen?
You made the claim, genious. I was questioning your bona fides on this. Which you assuredly don't have.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Comments
For example, their article about the vampire skill line rework in ESO anticipates that some readers that might not have been interested in being a vampire before might be interested now. So it doesn't just quote the ZOS press release, it has a paragraph about how to go about becoming one even going so far as telling you not to waste 1500 crowns by buying it in the cash shop because it's trivial to get it in game from another player or going to one of 3 zones to be bitten by special NPC vampires.
You get the impression there that the writers' level of knowledge about the things they write about is at least equal to their audience if not well above it. Can't say the same about this place.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
You want to know a more relevant date? When they started development on Rocket Heavy... 2011... have fun
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
1. The game took on a commercial investor towards the end of 2017 and, as you say, they will want a commercial return. So - as you say - a reason for release.
And there is absolutely no way that games sales (a copy of the game comes with a ship so game sales is more accurate) are providing a return on the investment. Maybe its coincidental but the investment was made around the time of the "90 days tops " stories - which was accurate but for leaving out the "if no further money is raised".
As I have said previously and others have said above if you believe that the "acquisition of profit" is the motivation for this game then it will release. If, for example, SQ42 sells a fraction of the copies that Destiny sold (which was multi-platform but it sold tens of millions) then release will generate hundreds of millions in revenue. It has to release first though so - by your own logic - you can feel confident.
2. Feature creep.
SC doesn't suffer from feature creep. Between end 2012 and end 2014 there was full on feature blossom at breakneck speed with extra funding milestone after funding milestone being reached. Since then though pretty stable. As a result though the game being developed today is not the same as that promoted when the ks was launched towards the end of 2012.
Now is your statement that the extra feature "killed" the game accurate. Well notwithstanding the fact that its not dead its a serious question. Obviously what is done is done so there can be no definitive answer but there is a comparable case: Camelot Unchanged.
CU had its ks a scant 5 months after SC. It made a point of avoiding feature creep (by and large did so). Had some private investors as well - very little ks money. So release assured then by your logic? Sadly no. In case you haven't followed CU its struggled - lack of money.
And now to come back to SC's full on feature bloom: the extra features came with funding. By the end of 2014 when they drew the line they had raised $65M.
So extra features or extra money?
Comparing SC to CU it suggests that SC made the right call and that far from dooming the game the extra features that were taken on are what have gotten SC to what it is today albeit somewhat later than originally pitched.
And we can feel confident in saying that the investment group is happy with progress being made. Reason: we now know that the original deal included an option to purchase an additional 5% of the company at the same price per share. And earlier this year they exercised the option!
It's not impossible that Squadron 42 could generate hundreds of millions in addition to the revenue it's already generated, but that's a best case scenario.
EDIT: Fixed Witcher 3 revenue numbers. It was in wrong currency
This is just proving you know nothing about the word you use. Sold is not equal to profit otherwise no companies will never bankrupt ever... Internet is so lovely with all those expert about finance and game development
Hey another genius! So... you've seen the books on Roberts finances before the windfall of Star Citizen?
... so why are your even here, reading stuff on a site bringing no news?
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
RSI was valued $450 million dollars before they took their first private investment after the start of crowdfunding campaign.
Source: https://cloudimperiumgames.com/blog/corporate/cloud-imperium-investment-fact-sheet
Sales don't always equal to profit. But in this case RSI is valued so highly not because the profits it's been making (it hasn't made that much), but because of how well it's sold stuff.
People buying stuff from RSI is profit to its owners because RSI can be sold. People who have crowdfunded Star Citizen have made its founders obscenely rich.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Note the modern cranes. They are still at it in the photo.
I wonder if there's a cash shop?
https://www.archdaily.com/897792/historys-most-notorious-unfinished-buildings/5b40e903f197cc28d2000266-historys-most-notorious-unfinished-buildings-photo
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests