The Star Citizen Thread V10

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Chris Roberts accusing gamers of not understanding "iterations" in games development:


Chris Roberts previously telling us that iterative development is bad:

It is almost as if he knows that the SC "launch", whatever form that ends up taking, will be as incomplete and/or problematic as those two games he compares it with (Anthem, No Man´s Sky), and he is just trying to control damage preemptively by developing a completly new narrative now (iterating and heads down) to the original narrative based on which he has got so far hundreds of millions (build all the foundations and content in parallel no post launch iterations, and deliver when final, AAA quality levels, and ready).

Blaming game communities for false expectations and admitting now he would do the same thing he has criticized in others in the past for doing. The nerve. It is impressive, I have to hand it to the CIG PR guys, the recent marketing 46 millions and the lack of memory / history rewriting brought in nicely together by both game press and community alike. I guess that is the luxury and magic of a 7-8 year old development.
 
Last edited:
Hey, anyone remember when SC was going to be released as a complete product and not a half baked game shoved out of the door in an incomplete state like certain other games?
Sure..."take as long as you need....I m willing to wait to get a good game" rings a bell?
 
If you had the tiniest knowledge of game development and were a true believer, you sure wouldn't remember things Chris said before. Heck, even if the Almighty Visionnaire decided SC is a iOS exclusive match-3 you would have to be perfectly OK with that and totally aware of it since years and blame other to not assume that.

BTW, I totally forgot to mention in my ED ship transfer vs living the dream - but don't blame me I experienced the most filled gameplay ever - waiting for train to arrive, depart and travel from station to star Port.

Star Citizen: everything is a journey.
 
A lot of gamers don't understand quite how difficult it is to deliver everything working flawlessly. The expectations keep ramping up, and in some ways those expectations may be higher than people are humanly possible of always delivering. Then you've got some other realities that come in, like if you've been working on it for a while and just need to get it out. In the case of the live side, just keep working at it. Keep on swimming.
No mention of that ramping of expectations being fueled by a "mastermind" that kept increasing the scope in order to obtain more money, instead of staying with the more realistic initial goals.
 
It is almost as if he knows that the SC "launch", whatever form that ends up taking, will be as incomplete and/or problematic as those two games he compares it with (Anthem, No Man´s Sky), and he is just trying to control damage preemptively by developing a completly new narrative now (iterating and heads down) to the original narrative based on which he has got so far hundreds of millions (build all the foundations and content in parallel no post launch iterations, and deliver when final, AAA quality levels, and ready).

Blaming game communities for false expectations and admitting now he would do the same thing he has criticized in others in the past for doing. The nerve. It is impressive, I have to hand it to the CIG PR guys, the recent marketing 46 millions and the lack of memory / history rewriting brought in nicely together by both game press and community alike. I guess that is the luxury and magic of a 7-8 year old development.
I honestly don't believe there is a "launch" plan as it stands. I believe the situation is, as is, and however StarCitizen is sold today is exactly how they intend to push it going forward, a perpetual work in progress, and the press seem oblivious to it. Listening to Chris Roberts talk in these interviews, he often seems to use the language of start-ups and I'm sure he thinks he's "disrupting" the industry.

Even though I only worked in the "biz" for a short time, I got a sense of the mentality in the industry particularly in larger studios where any sense of making fun software is overshadowed by the important money men. There is no benefit to them changing the business model when they are taking in good money on "pledges", as long as it's legal it gives them a neat loophole away from having to support the product at an akward consumer technical level, it's neatly dodges inconvenient consumer review material and regulations/standards. It's no surprise to me that their current target of releasing S42 carries the "beta" prefix. I am sure there have been discussions around CIG about what the drawbacks are and I'm convinced they've concluded that as long as it's legal, the model they have now - with iterative releases and all new alpha/beta protection is always going to be their best option indefinitely. No meta-review for Star Citizen, No steam review, no magazine review, no age rating, no refund policy - Star Citizen doesn't need those things, those are for dirty consumers - Star Citizen just needs faith and cash and all the time to "get it right"

The most frustrating thing is that consumers, especially a small group of enthusiasts are over valuing the product and there is no regulation to protect them. I keep hearing the argument "it's my money I'll spend it how I like" and I'm sure those same arguments were applied to pyramid schemes until someone stepped in. I have nothing against the early access model per-se, but it needs a framework that ensures the consumer has visibility on this situation when they go in, currently with Star Citizen it's massively misleading for them to continuously claim that there is some eventual "release" that they can't identify a date for and leaving the consumer to take all the risk. If there was some mechanism for refund or someone was verifying the quality of pre-ordered virtual goods delivered on a reasonable deadline as described it might not be so bad.
 
Last edited:

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
I honestly don't believe there is a "launch" plan as it stands. I believe the situation is, as is, and however StarCitizen is sold today is exactly how they intend to push it going forward, a perpetual work in progress, and the press seem oblivious to it. Listening to Chris Roberts talk in these interviews, he often seems to use the language of start-ups and I'm sure he thinks he's "disrupting" the industry.

Even though I only worked in the "biz" for a short time, I got a sense of the mentality in the industry particularly in larger studios where any sense of making fun software is overshadowed by the important money men. There is no benefit to them changing the business model when they are taking in good money on "pledges", as long as it's legal it gives them a neat loophole away from having to support the product at an akward consumer technical level, it's neatly dodges inconvenient consumer review material and regulations/standards. It's no surprise to me that their current target of releasing S42 carries the "beta" prefix. I am sure there have been discussions around CIG about what the drawbacks are and I'm convinced they've concluded that as long as it's legal, the model they have now - with iterative releases and all new alpha/beta protection is always going to be their best option indefinitely. No meta-review for Star Citizen, No steam review, no magazine review, no age rating, no refund policy - Star Citizen doesn't need those things, those are for dirty consumers - Star Citizen just needs faith and cash and all the time to "get it right"

The most frustrating thing is that consumers, especially a small group of enthusiasts are over valuing the product and there is no regulation to protect them. I keep hearing the argument "it's my money I'll spend it how I like" and I'm sure those same arguments were applied to pyramid schemes until someone stepped in. I have nothing against the early access model per-se, but it needs a framework that ensures the consumer has visibility on this situation when they go in, currently with Star Citizen it's massively misleading for them to continuously claim that there is some eventual "release" that they can't identify a date for and leaving the consumer to take all the risk. If there was some mechanism for refund or someone was verifying the quality of pre-ordered virtual goods delivered on a reasonable deadline as described it might not be so bad.
That model only works as long as you actually manage to get a decent money inflow. If it is not “launched” earlier then at the very least a reckoning day and possibly some kind of “launch” day will come when that becomes non sustainable.

With regards to your comment about lack of consumer protection also fully agree. I wonder what are actual regulators doing about this particular case, or if it is at all in their radars.
 
Last edited:
That model only works as long as you actually manage to get a decent money inflow. If it is not “launched” earlier then at the very least a reckoning day and possibly some kind of “launch” day will come when that becomes non sustainable.

With regards to your comment about lack of consumer protection also fully agree. I wonder what are actual regulators doing about this particular case, or if it is at all in their radars.
Its an interesting situation, and i'm sure publishers are watching and taking notes. If CIG can get away with never releasing, and thereby avoiding regulations and deflecting criticism, you can be sure the big bad publishers will definitely jump on the bandwagon. Hell, they might even pretend to do open development, showing off stuff they are doing all the time and say its being built for the fans because they are so open. They can even charge hundreds of dollars for things that are not even in game.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
I think they can consider experimenting with a couple projects here and there just so to understand better the model etc, but I highly doubt that can be extrapolated to mainstream publisher business model. As a start a project that is not released can not consider any money inflow as revenue from which to generate profit (and taxes) and impact share price or price to earning ratios etc. All the income from pre-launch is actually, in accounting terms, still deferred revenue and remains a liability until the project is officially delivered, hopefully as promised. I highly doubt regular shareholders would be thrilled to invest in a business model built mainly around liabilities as a source of revenue.
 
Last edited:
More giggle.
TheAgent said:
hello
  • investor and shareholder meeting set for late q3 or early q4
  • will be after citcon
  • traditional citcon may not happen this year
  • "looking at digital options"
  • Frankfurt has stage and streaming ability to broadcast entire show
  • certain backers and streamers invited to attend in person
  • additional sq42 preorders (???)
  • unknown if physical location a la 2018 will happen
  • have to sell "many more" seats in order not to go into red
  • expect a "huge twist" regarding ship sales
  • apartments or PHCs (personal habitation centers) to invite friends
  • can show them flair and achievements
  • a "natural extention" of the hangers that they've been "working on a long, long time"
  • travel times entirely placeholder for "beta"
  • "We expect a player to spend less than a minute or two getting into the action for certain game types."
  • exploration and "routes" to take longer and be more engaging, including charting and "shortcut" game play
  • "What we have now is rudimentary. Once players explore and find new routes, travel time will be reduced significantly."
  • *personal note, someone listed sq42 as "NOT A JOKE" per email lol
  • hiring push and marketing blitz results underperforming this year
  • continuous crunch had burned out "several key people" who are on a limited LOA
  • crunch doesn't affect everyone: "I come into an empty office almost every morning."
  • consoles a major focus but won't be revealed "until we absolutely have to"
  • Chris has been mostly absent (from one persons perspective)
  • "We are going after the 40+ crowd. We understand our audience and what they can do for us monetarily. Shaping the game to suit these people is our top priority and something I feel is a mistake."
  • sq42 expected to sell (and I'm not even ****ing joking here, my eyes popped outta my head like I was scoping Cameron Diaz in the Mask) over 20m copies in 5 years
  • "Everyone knows that's completely unattainable but we nod and get along with our day."
 
"digital Citcon" : given their last attempt and drama, it's pretty obvious
"route shortcut" : I wonder what they'll pulled out from their masterminds, when there's no orbit and gravity assist mechanics isn't the shortest route simply a straight line?
"Citizen condo" : thought it would already be a thing few months after the land claims...
"crunch" : I'm surprised Game Workers Unite union isn't already on the case, as it's pretty evident the poor fellows are in constant crunch mode since ages.
 
Its an interesting situation, and i'm sure publishers are watching and taking notes. If CIG can get away with never releasing, and thereby avoiding regulations and deflecting criticism, you can be sure the big bad publishers will definitely jump on the bandwagon. Hell, they might even pretend to do open development, showing off stuff they are doing all the time and say its being built for the fans because they are so open. They can even charge hundreds of dollars for things that are not even in game.
Warframe was in beta for a long time. With cash shop open and all. I think it might have set an example for more unscrupoulous schemes. In newspeak the whole thing seems to liken to GaaS slogans.
 
Its an interesting situation, and i'm sure publishers are watching and taking notes. If CIG can get away with never releasing, and thereby avoiding regulations and deflecting criticism, you can be sure the big bad publishers will definitely jump on the bandwagon. Hell, they might even pretend to do open development, showing off stuff they are doing all the time and say its being built for the fans because they are so open. They can even charge hundreds of dollars for things that are not even in game.
While I assume that CI-G will "ride this pony" until it drops dead I hope this will not work for other upstarts. Thats not going to say that there wont be more scams. There always have been and probably always will be new ones but the keyword is "new" here. Whatever made the SC scam work hopefully wont work again and people in general (especially the ones burned, not talking about the new and upcoming generation, they are going to do the same mistakes as the old ones did anyway) will become more careful with how they act and who they put their trust in.
 
"We are going after the 40+ crowd. We understand our audience and what they can do for us monetarily. Shaping the game to suit these people is our top priority and something I feel is a mistake."
What the lulz?

Genuine Roberts - I've already given you hundreds of dollars - and you owe me two games!

And a space ship shaped USB drive.

And a green box.

And you know, two actual, released, playable games.
 
You peoples and your demands!

Can't you be happy with the never-done-before features he's given you, like inverse kinematics and… I don't know… textures or something?
 
You peoples and your demands!

Can't you be happy with the never-done-before features he's given you, like inverse kinematics and… I don't know… textures or something?
Talking of textures...I fell through them tonight. First in a lift (Elevator for the Colonials) whilst silently wishing for some Harrod's lift music to while away the interminable waiting... then once again whilst walking across the apparently solid floor at Levski with a mission box to hand in. Little did I realise that Ci¬G had fidelitiously transmutated the metal floor into the video gaming version of quicksand just to catch me out :rolleyes:

Cue groundhog day of waking up in a bed at Levski slightly poorer than before I took on the mission...

Then my ship decided to boost all on it's own whilst on the landing pad as I switched the engines on...cue stuck in the cutely fidelatious scenery until my ship silently exploded...and cue another groundhog day of waking up in a bed at Levski slightly poorer...etc etc.

I'm done till Ci¬G sort this perpetual revolving door of development and programming buffoonery, cease trying to appease the Fortnite/War Thunder M/KB warriors... or at least fix the complete crapbag of the control and HOTAS settings as a small aside...

So, back to being Alexios of Sparta for a bit, who strangely doesn't fall through the scenery that much...maybe a bit of Artyom of Moscow...can't remember him being trapped by quicksand cunningly disguised as metal floor plates on his steam train either... or that pseudo French chap with the West London actor's guild accent from AC Unity. He doesn't fall through the floor per se, just falls from rather tall buildings through accidental pressing of the wrong controller buttons... The game names this death defying plunge into a haycart or 4" deep pile of leaves as a leap of faith...more like leap of .."Oh Crap, wrong button!"

(It was free, OK?)
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom