Also keep in mind, that many AAA games can leave alpha and enter into beta anywhere from 6 months to a year before release, this after having been in pre-alpha and alpha for nearly 3-4 years. These phases of development can be very lengthy (and it is during these stages that "what the product is" can fluctuate wildly), and the laymen out there need to just be patient and accept that this is how things work. A broken game, still in alpha, after 3 years is far more common than you realise - especially the bigger the game and budget.
Citizen-Con 2015 (Star Citizen)
- Thread starter Thunderous Cacophony
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Comparing Star Citizens budget to Destiny and GTA V's makes it look even worse, doesn't it? It's budget compared to other, lesser American games is atrocious.Corralis said:
They aren't paying big bucks because there's no point. You just have to poke the public a few times a month this early on. They will, without a doubt, start marketing the game closer to release.Corralis said:
Also, they do have a marketing team you know. Hell, their hiring even more marketing people as we speak.
We can also use Witcher 3 as a comparison here too. That was a god damn video game darling, massively hyped by the media for free. And they still had to dump tens of millions into advertising (37 million to be precise, if my memory holds true).
If what they've showed us so far is 'close' to the final product, I have wasted 75 dollars.Corralis said:
1.7 million is conservative. 300 people at an average of 80,000 a person is 24 million dollars a year, or 2 million a month. This is without office space (Three separate countries), two studios (Sound and mocap), taxes, actor pay rates, travel expenses, the expenses of things like a convention, software licensing fees, power, and so on.Corralis said:
If it has to be done, it has to be done. But should we really be happy that he may have killed the project out right, and was only saved by a big publisher/bank?Corralis said:
I didn't say he has everything he's going to get - I'm saying he's gotten a huge chunk of what he'll get. Elite Dangerous, a similar type of game, sold about 500,000 copies, as of April 2015. With 1 million backers, we can probably assume at least half of them have the game already purchased, at least (I think that number is fairly conservative). Now, we can get in to all sorts of arguments over how much more popular Star Citizen is, how much more hyped it is, how it will attract more customers. But how many more? Double, maybe. Triple? Ok. Quadruple? If there are this many people willing to dump 60+ dollars on a space sim, it seems almost unbelievable that the genre has been abandoned for so long, and that Elite Dangerous, so it seems, has done that badly.Corralis said:
Ok let's move away from cost here for a minute because to be quite frank we simply can not speculate on the financial's of CIG without knowing the accurate information which will never be released.AccursedTheory said:
What I am going to respond to is that you don't think this game is close based on what you saw? Well I'll tell you what I saw. I saw a small section of the persistant universe, one planet (Crusader) inside one system (Stanton). That small (ha) area was over a trilion KM cubed of space. Inside that area were several stations, fuel depots, points of interest, satellite communication towers, a dedicated FPS playground, 38 playable space missions (with even more to be added before we even see it), AI pirates and much more. I saw multi-crew ships working, I saw single crew ships working, I saw the fast travel system working, I saw asteroids fields that (I presume) can be mined, areas for explorers to search for secret stuff, I saw EVA working.
Now is everything fully working? Hell no, but if you don't see that as the beginning of the end of the wait for Star Citizen's release I pity you and you might as well ask for a refund because you are incapable of seeing what CIG truly has acomplished.
For future reference, you can just use {quote}{/quote} (with { replaced by a [ bracket) to break up someone's post for responses. It makes things a bit less confusing.
Also, spoilered for space:
Can we please stay on topic? I'm not here to debate every bad practice within the gaming industry. I'm here addressing concerns regarding Star Citizen.
Just look at this thread. People are attacking those who are bringing up concerns regarding the project, and some are even attempting to sound the death knell for this site.
Come on now. No one insults fans of triple-A games? Please. :/
So given that it's taken them practically three years to churn out what amounts to a sparse, over-hyped demo (which I'm barely willing to consider it as, given it's lack of content), it doesn't bode well for the final product, in my opinion.
And again, open development isn't even remotely a bad practice. It's worked fine for others.
Again, why the diversionary tactics? Positing a similar (but ultimately false) scenario doesn't make the current scenario any less egregious.
Most of us are willing to give dev teams time to finish a product. We prefer a quality product over a rushed one. But again, when so many allegations are being levied, with potential proof behind them, it leaves those not hopelessly and emotionally attached to the project question the legitimacy of the production.
Perhaps Star Citizen will be different. But given recent events, I'm questioning that.
This is still diversionary tactics. "I know this thing seems bad, but look at this other bad thing someone else did!"
Regardless, I don't need any of them to tell me to have serious reservations about the project. I have my own myriad of reasons that have nothing, save purely coincidental reasons, to do with the Escapists reports.
In the end, I honestly do hope the project succeeds, to some degree. If only because, if it fails, it'll be a magnificent catastrophe. It will leave a bad mark on everyone involved with the project, space sim games as a genre, and ambitious Kickstarter projects as a whole. Not to mention leaving a LOT of people having lost a LOT of money.
Also, spoilered for space:
Where in my post(s) did I ever say pre-ordering games was a good thing? How does the negative nature of pre-ordering lessen the negative nature of funding a questionable project like Star Citizen?Corralis said:
Can we please stay on topic? I'm not here to debate every bad practice within the gaming industry. I'm here addressing concerns regarding Star Citizen.
Given the actions and responses of the SC fans within the past few weeks....I'm baffled how you can assert this. Literally baffled.
Just look at this thread. People are attacking those who are bringing up concerns regarding the project, and some are even attempting to sound the death knell for this site.
Are you fucking kidding me? Have you forgotten that terms like "COD kiddies" and "gamer dude-bros" and "casuals" exist?
Come on now. No one insults fans of triple-A games? Please. :/
You're right. But vehemently attacking anyone who dares criticize the game or question Roberts and the legitimacy of the project (not to mention dipping into ones life savings to buy digital ship packages that don't exist for a game that doesn't exist) ARE fanboyish actions.
Again, are you kidding me?
It's really not.
Except it's not a bad idea. It's more that CIG is cocking it up, and possibly not just on a PR level.
Fair enough.
It takes more than a year to build a triple-A game from the ground up, but CIG has had years and had a massive head start with their engine. Likewise, they have a budget that rivals, and even surpasses, some triple-A budgets, as well as a team far larger than most.
So given that it's taken them practically three years to churn out what amounts to a sparse, over-hyped demo (which I'm barely willing to consider it as, given it's lack of content), it doesn't bode well for the final product, in my opinion.
And again, open development isn't even remotely a bad practice. It's worked fine for others.
Even if this were true, what's your point? I'd give Kojima just as much flak for endlessly promising the world yet delivering nothing but vacuous 'samples' and longer and longer delays, all the while expecting me to pay him more and more money.
Again, why the diversionary tactics? Positing a similar (but ultimately false) scenario doesn't make the current scenario any less egregious.
Yes, it is. In fact...
You seem to agree.
No, the feature creep Roberts keeps promising is beyond the original plan. You've yet to receive your game. You've no idea what the final product will be.
So are most, but given recent events a lot of red flags have gone up. This leads many to question the production.
I may be speaking for myself, but I'd neither consider what was shown "seamless" nor would I consider it marked progress. For what has amounted to many millions of dollars in funding, and three years of work, what was shown is a far cry from what likely should have been achieved so far.
You should do more than that. You should demand a refund. In fact, given the seriousness of the allegations being levied lately, I feel the project backers should seek legal action.
But beyond some excruciatingly sparse "samples", and the endless promises of Roberts, what do we actually know of the game? Nothing. We know what they tell us it's supposed to be, we know what it is so far (not much), but we know nothing of where it'll end up.
Most of us are willing to give dev teams time to finish a product. We prefer a quality product over a rushed one. But again, when so many allegations are being levied, with potential proof behind them, it leaves those not hopelessly and emotionally attached to the project question the legitimacy of the production.
I don't think it does. What counts are those who are willing to take the effort and make the sacrifices required to finish the game. Roberts has proved, time and time again, he's not willing to do that. He has lofty goals and almost none of the resolve to see them through to fruition.
Perhaps Star Citizen will be different. But given recent events, I'm questioning that.
What does that have to do with the current fiasco? The quality of his past work is irrelevant to allegations of poorly managed financial and project planning, racially motivated hiring practices, etc.
This is still diversionary tactics. "I know this thing seems bad, but look at this other bad thing someone else did!"
As is aggressively defending it. And I think you'll find most people aren't "attacking" the game, but rather criticizing the project and those behind it.
Just the one, though. Any further mistakes will lead to a public flaying.
Okay...but I wasn't talking about him. At all. In fact, most of the allegations against CIG and Star Citizen seem to be coming from former and current employees of CIG, not Derek Smart. So I don't see what Smart has to do with any of this.
Regardless, I don't need any of them to tell me to have serious reservations about the project. I have my own myriad of reasons that have nothing, save purely coincidental reasons, to do with the Escapists reports.
In the end, I honestly do hope the project succeeds, to some degree. If only because, if it fails, it'll be a magnificent catastrophe. It will leave a bad mark on everyone involved with the project, space sim games as a genre, and ambitious Kickstarter projects as a whole. Not to mention leaving a LOT of people having lost a LOT of money.
The actual spreadsheet info of CIG seems to be besides the point. The point being precedent set by other games and companies, compared to SC and CIG, and what that says of Roberts' ability to deliver without being bailed out. Whether it warrants worry, even from a diehard fan. And going by the numbers provided earlier, Witcher 3 using the same amount of money in a country where that money goes a lot further, and still making a lesser game than SC has set out to be, I don't see how it couldn't. You bring up MMO numbers, but they just seem to further reinforce this point. Here are other MMOs and their price tags are many times that of SC. And still that does not suggest SC will need a miracle?
You bring up Polish salaries and MMO costs as if they make SC look better, when all I see is how they provide precedent that CIG doesn't have nearly the cash anyone else would need to do what they plan to. Meaning that by current industry standards, they will need a miracle, with the actual numbers in their books being irrelevant except as some holy grail for economists to study if they succeed.
And what convinces you of this miraculous ability to pull off more than CDPR in a more expensive country? Of doing an MMO at a fraction of the cost other companies pay? What makes you tolerant of the possibility that even with 90 million, SC can't be made as promised without further backing? Where does this faith come from?
From something that amounts to a vertical slice.
As if those as reliable. Let alone reliable enough to believe in miracles.
I said it before, and I will say it again: Crowdfunding is about faith, so no one can fault someone for believing in miracles. But in light of just the money precedent, no reasonable SC fan should be able to criticize skepticism and worry as somehow unwarranted or undeserved.
You bring up Polish salaries and MMO costs as if they make SC look better, when all I see is how they provide precedent that CIG doesn't have nearly the cash anyone else would need to do what they plan to. Meaning that by current industry standards, they will need a miracle, with the actual numbers in their books being irrelevant except as some holy grail for economists to study if they succeed.
And what convinces you of this miraculous ability to pull off more than CDPR in a more expensive country? Of doing an MMO at a fraction of the cost other companies pay? What makes you tolerant of the possibility that even with 90 million, SC can't be made as promised without further backing? Where does this faith come from?
From something that amounts to a vertical slice.
As if those as reliable. Let alone reliable enough to believe in miracles.
I said it before, and I will say it again: Crowdfunding is about faith, so no one can fault someone for believing in miracles. But in light of just the money precedent, no reasonable SC fan should be able to criticize skepticism and worry as somehow unwarranted or undeserved.
Wrong, you spent it on the promise of an in-game item on a hypothetical game which may or may not see the light of day (and each day that eventual elimination seems less likely). Also, where is cheap enough for 588$US to be a months rent in this day and age?Maxsin said:
Shame you couldn't use your own advice above because that was very difficult to read.Vigormortis said:For future reference, you can just use {quote}{/quote} (with { replaced by a [ bracket) to break up someone's post for responses. It makes things a bit less confusing.
Also, spoilered for space:
Where in my post(s) did I ever say pre-ordering games was a good thing? How does the negative nature of pre-ordering lessen the negative nature of funding a questionable project like Star Citizen? I'm comparing pre-ordering because it's the same thing as crowd-fundingCorralis said:
Can we please stay on topic? I'm not here to debate every bad practice within the gaming industry. I'm here addressing concerns regarding Star Citizen.
Given the actions and responses of the SC fans within the past few weeks....I'm baffled how you can assert this. Literally baffled.
Just look at this thread. People are attacking those who are bringing up concerns regarding the project, and some are even attempting to sound the death knell for this site.Well when the site in question decides to try and destroy the reputation of some very hard working people then they better be prepared to be attacked about it, especially when all they show is allegations with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
Are you fucking kidding me? Have you forgotten that terms like "COD kiddies" and "gamer dude-bros" and "casuals" exist?
Come on now. No one insults fans of triple-A games? Please. :/
You're right. But vehemently attacking anyone who dares criticize the game or question Roberts and the legitimacy of the project (not to mention dipping into ones life savings to buy digital ship packages that don't exist for a game that doesn't exist) ARE fanboyish actions. How is that different to pre-ordering games? OK I have put just over $700 into this game over the last 3 years, it basically equates to about half a month's pay for me. I don't give money that I can't afford and I assume that no-one else does either. Is what you are really upset about because you can't afford to buy the ships you want?
Again, are you kidding me? Show me another AAA title that has shown you more than what Star Citizen has at this stage in the development process? No sorry you can't because at this stage in the process you wouldn't even know the game exists yet.
It's really not. What other game has done it?
Except it's not a bad idea. It's more that CIG is cocking it up, and possibly not just on a PR level. Proof?
Fair enough.
It takes more than a year to build a triple-A game from the ground up I know that but what I was talking about is that the year that you know a game develpoment is several years into it's development process., but CIG has had years and had a massive head start with their engineNo they have had to re-write Cry-Engine from scratch.. Likewise, they have a budget that rivals, and even surpasses, some triple-A budgets, as well as a team far larger than most.Again, no they may have a big team now but it wasn't always that way, the scope of the game has only increased along with the budget, but a long time ago(around the 65 million mark Chris decided to stop all new features and just work on what was already promised).
So given that it's taken them practically three years to churn out what amounts to a sparse, over-hyped demo (which I'm barely willing to consider it as, given it's lack of content), it doesn't bode well for the final product, in my opinion.
And again, open development isn't even remotely a bad practice. It's worked fine for others.Who?
Even if this were true, what's your point? I'd give Kojima just as much flak for endlessly promising the world yet delivering nothing but vacuous 'samples' and longer and longer delays, all the while expecting me to pay him more and more money.
Again, why the diversionary tactics? Positing a similar (but ultimately false) scenario doesn't make the current scenario any less egregious.Not a diversionary tactic, but you have to quote full length of text not just little bits of it.
Yes, it is. In fact...No it isn't, I could make a massive list of all the ways that the game has changed since the kickstarter and if you think that someone could make all those changes and still get the game out on the original date then sir, you are a fool.
You seem to agree.
No, the feature creep Roberts keeps promising is beyond the original plan. You've yet to receive your game. You've no idea what the final product will be.Yea I do, read below.
So are most, but given recent events a lot of red flags have gone up.Red Flags with no proof behind them are just flags in the dirt, this doesn't concern me until I see the evidence that The Escapist seems unwilling to provide. This leads many to question the production.
I may be speaking for myself, but I'd neither consider what was shown "seamless" nor would I consider it marked progress. For what has amounted to many millions of dollars in funding, and three years of work, what was shown is a far cry from what likely should have been achieved so far.You say above that AAA games take longer than a year to make but right here you complain that the game isn't out yet after only 3 years in production, do you know how long games take to make?
You should do more than that. You should demand a refund. In fact, given the seriousness of the allegations being levied lately, I feel the project backers should seek legal action.No cause then the game will never come out, I don't want to waste backers money with stupid law suits.
But beyond some excruciatingly sparse "samples", and the endless promises of Roberts, what do we actually know of the game? Nothing.Quite a lot actually but you would have to want to learn about it and you clearly do not want to. We know what they tell us it's supposed to be, we know what it is so far (not much), but we know nothing of where it'll end up.
Most of us are willing to give dev teams time to finish a product. We prefer a quality product over a rushed one. But again, when so many allegations are being levied, with potential proof behind them,The potential proof that no one has shared yet, hmm, I wonder why? Maybe cause it doesn't exist? it leaves those not hopelessly and emotionally attached to the project question the legitimacy of the production.
I don't think it does. What counts are those who are willing to take the effort and make the sacrifices required to finish the game. Roberts has proved, time and time again, he's not willing to do that. He has lofty goals and almost none of the resolve to see them through to fruition.Almost none? Chris has made a ton of games with only Freelancer not completed under his watch.
Perhaps Star Citizen will be different. But given recent events, I'm questioning that.
What does that have to do with the current fiasco? The quality of his past work is irrelevant to allegations of poorly managed financial and project planning, racially motivated hiring practices, etc.No proof of this once again.
This is still diversionary tactics. "I know this thing seems bad, but look at this other bad thing someone else did!"
As is aggressively defending it.I'm not aggressively defending it, I'm rationally defending it. And I think you'll find most people aren't "attacking" the game, but rather criticizing the project and those behind it. Which is attacking the studio and therfore the game.
Just the one, though. Any further mistakes will lead to a public flaying.
Okay...but I wasn't talking about him. At all. In fact, most of the allegations against CIG and Star Citizen seem to be coming from former and current employees of CIG, not Derek Smart. So I don't see what Smart has to do with any of this.Well in the original article from The Escapist, Derek Smart's name comes up 23 times so your wrong there.
Regardless, I don't need any of them to tell me to have serious reservations about the project. I have my own myriad of reasons that have nothing, save purely coincidental reasons, to do with the Escapists reports.
In the end, I honestly do hope the project succeeds, to some degree. If only because, if it fails, it'll be a magnificent catastrophe. It will leave a bad mark on everyone involved with the project, space sim games as a genre, and ambitious Kickstarter projects as a whole. Not to mention leaving a LOT of people having lost a LOT of money.
Look it appear's as though there are two main arguements levelled against Star Citizen. The first being finances which as I have said several times in my previous posts, is impossible to argue because we do not have access to CIG's finances. All I'll say to that is just wait and see, if it turns out that the game fails then I'll have lost over $700 and you can be happy knowing that you were right. On the other hand, you could be wrong and we both win. At this point I just don't care, I have given my money to CIG to make the kind of game that no one except Chris Roberts has the balls to attempt, sure I'll be disapointed but there will always be other games.
The second arguement seems to be levelled against the demo of a game in ALPHA! You all seem to expect it to be completed already, 100% working. No! It isn't finished, I don't look at the demo and think 'My God that game is finished, it's perfect'. What I'm thinking is 'That demo just gave me my first taste of what Star Citizen could be soon(ish)'.
You say that I don't know what the final product will be, well sorry but yes I do because I have taken the time to learn about the game and understand these things. I know how many systems will be in the game (at launch, look at the star-map), I know how many ships will be in the game (or close to it at launch), I know that there will be a 60+ mission single-player campaign, I know there will be seemless space to ground combat (what didn't you see as seemless in that demo by the way? Other than the very start, I didn't see a loading screen).
I am not aggressively defending Star Citizen by the way, I am defending it with my eyes open, Blind faith is just as bad in my opinion but I'm taking an objective look at the game and what I see looks very good.
EDIT: You need to open the spoiler cause I have made a few notes in bold text inside it.
I'd love to respond to each of your points, but you kind of turned the entire post into a cluster fuck. And frankly, I have no interest in taking THAT much time to wade through it, editing out the parts that aren't relevant, just to reiterate my points. (points you've failed to really address or refute, by the way)Corralis said:
You continue to make bold assertions, based entirely on your limited experience with (as you've admitted) a shockingly sparse alpha build and the continued promises of Roberts. You keep saying you know what the final product will be, but you don't. You just don't. What you know is what little you've seen and what Roberts says he'll 'totes for real' put in the final build. All other claims are just assumptions.
If you were being intellectually honest with yourself, you'd admit to that.
Here's the thing: If I were actually invested in the game, I'd be among the first to start voicing concerns over the allegations being levied against CIG and Roberts. There's been more than enough 'hints' to throw into question the production, with or without the Escapist expose. What I certainly wouldn't do is just flatly ignore the allegations and continually say, "Psh, you're all just haters! You just want it to fail!"
Regardless, I don't care enough about an absurd project headed by a pretentious clod, nor the rabid fan base associated with it, to continue with a 'debate' that has the other side sticking their fingers in their ears yelling, "Nah-uh! Nah-uh! Everything's fine! Nothing could possibly be wrong!" (regardless of whether any of the allegations are real or not, just pretending everything's fine does no one any good) I have a busy weekend ahead and I've just no interest in internet squabbles.
Good day to you. And for your sake, I hope the game comes to fruition and that you have endless hours of fun. (as well as a good return on your investment) If it doesn't, I'll be mature enough not to say, "I told you so."
One thing I seen during that FPS presentation where they couldn't actually shoot anyone and the pirates just ran past and took the ship. I really did have to laugh hard at that one. In other games during early alpha stages I seen people say will it's alpha what you expect, but I have never seen in any early alpha FPS where you couldn't shoot the other player. Just for that it makes me think they have a super long way to go. I still believe the chances of this game ever releasing in what CR wants will never happen. Maybe a smaller aspect of what he wants but not the full vision he has.
But then again I been wrong before it is going to be interesting what happens in the future. So now I just sit back and wait to see what money CR wastes on next, sort of glad it isn't my money he is wasting.
But then again I been wrong before it is going to be interesting what happens in the future. So now I just sit back and wait to see what money CR wastes on next, sort of glad it isn't my money he is wasting.
Look you seem like a resonable person so I'm gonna tell you straight up, until someone shows me actual, real proof that CIG is in financial turmoil, I will never believe that they are. One of two things will happen, either the game gets finished or it doesn't. No one short of Chris' inner circle has access to CIG's financial reports and a bunch of baseless allegations is simply not proof. Nor is saying this game made in Poland cost the same as CIG have raised so that means it can't possibly get finished, I'm sorry but that is an assumption, not fact. I deal in facts.Vigormortis said:
I also take offence to you saying that I've admitted that the alpha is 'shockingly sparse'. In the post at the top of page 3 I list a crap ton of things that I saw in the Alpha demo and nowhere have I ever said it is shockingly sparse, I actually think the reverse is true.
I am also tried of this conversation so this will be my last post on this forum regarding Star Citizen. Hopefully I have made enough good points to change at least one person's mind about this game.
Look at all these spiteful people, grumbling to Mr. Wilson about how SC *has* to be a lie, angrily shaking their fists in the air, hoping that if they mumble enough about it, it will finally become true.
Meanwhile I'm playing it and wondering what the fuck are you talking about. I can't hear you over the sound of my engines.
Meanwhile I'm playing it and wondering what the fuck are you talking about. I can't hear you over the sound of my engines.
I think what most people are reasonably worried about is; what exactly are you playing? Which parts of aaaall the things that are promised are you playing? What has tens of millions of dollars of development costs have bought you, out of everything it's promised us.Qvar said:
Putting aside the scandal that unraveled on this site, I still see Star Citizen as a Tower of Babel situation.
Why do they even need actors like Oldman and Serkis? It's a space sim, a game where most of your time is spent flying around in a metal box pretending that you're Han Solo. There's so much bloat to this game, with individual FPS modes with their own dev teams, to MMO style elements for the base game as well as the single player campaign that I no longer even know what's going on.
Elite Dangerous made good on its promise, and quickly too. It's currently quite popular and is enjoying a good community. Star Citizen on the other hand, has a stupidly large budget, a gigantic community and there's barely any game out. To me, these are all warning signs of an upcoming failure. It's like the usual AAA hype problem, but extrapolated to an incredible level.
I mean, what the hell is the story going to even be about that it requires Hollywood actors? Is Chris Roberts known for his writing? Is anyone on the dev team even proven as a games writer? Just what the hell necessitates this sort of expense except from doing it for its own sake? Broken Age went down the same road and look where that ended up.
If this succeeds...somehow, if somehow we get a good, comprehensive game experience where every single mode and element put in has depth and meaning attached to it, then I will gladly eat these words with tartar sauce. However, that's about as likely as KoTOR III being released and developed by Obsidian.
Why do they even need actors like Oldman and Serkis? It's a space sim, a game where most of your time is spent flying around in a metal box pretending that you're Han Solo. There's so much bloat to this game, with individual FPS modes with their own dev teams, to MMO style elements for the base game as well as the single player campaign that I no longer even know what's going on.
Elite Dangerous made good on its promise, and quickly too. It's currently quite popular and is enjoying a good community. Star Citizen on the other hand, has a stupidly large budget, a gigantic community and there's barely any game out. To me, these are all warning signs of an upcoming failure. It's like the usual AAA hype problem, but extrapolated to an incredible level.
I mean, what the hell is the story going to even be about that it requires Hollywood actors? Is Chris Roberts known for his writing? Is anyone on the dev team even proven as a games writer? Just what the hell necessitates this sort of expense except from doing it for its own sake? Broken Age went down the same road and look where that ended up.
If this succeeds...somehow, if somehow we get a good, comprehensive game experience where every single mode and element put in has depth and meaning attached to it, then I will gladly eat these words with tartar sauce. However, that's about as likely as KoTOR III being released and developed by Obsidian.
That's because it's incomplete? In a traditional AAA dev cycle you wouldn't be playing ANYTHING AT ALL until it's released. With SC (and many other crowdfunded games that provide alpha access) you're often playing disparate parts that are not yet made whole. Expecting all the parts of the game to be ready (or playable) today is unrealistic and demonstrates ignorance when it comes to the software development process.Cowabungaa said:
To quote from Wikipedia: "Starting with Wing Commander III, every game (excluding Secret Ops) contained cutscenes that incorporated live action filming, starring several major Hollywood actors, including John Rhys-Davies, Mark Hamill, Thomas F. Wilson and Malcolm McDowell, as well as Christopher Walken, John Hurt, and Clive Owen in Privateer 2: The Darkening."Sigmund Av Volsung said:
Since SC is meant to be a spiritual sequel to Wing Commander (at least, that's what I've understood), there is a precedent for this sort of thing.
No no, that's not what I mean. It's not the simple fact of incompleteness that worries a lot of people, that by itself is fine. It's the apparent disparacy between money spent and results gained that instills doubt.Tharaxis said:
The doubt that comes from at the same time seeing a lot of energy put in CGI demos and "Yo look we got GARRY OLDMAN GUYS!" but at the same time actual gameplay is facing delay after delay. To then start thinking that SC is biting off more than it can chew isn't exactly unreasonable.
If it ends up working; great! But considering that apparent disparacy getting doubts isn't all that odd.
But weren't those FMV? Isn't this going a bit too far?Mangod said:
Though I suppose that does make sense. However, it stills seems an unnecessary expense, considering how games tech has changed in the intervening time between the last Wing Commander game and now.
I can understand where you're perhaps coming from, but I believe it's because it's difficult to understand a) how much as been spent, and b) how much gets spent at this point in time on other similarly large AAA titles. We all see articles like "$80 million spent! Nothing to show for it!" but the reality is we don't know for a fact if $80 million has *actually* been spent, and nor do we know if this is actually normal for most games. We all assume spending that much money in 3 years is somehow frivolous and unnecessary, but do we know? Do we have actual insight into the budgeting process of other AAA games? I would say no.Cowabungaa said:
Additionally, it's worth keeping in mind that what we've been shown and what there is currently behind closed doors are two different things, we can't really allocate $80 million (again if that figure is even correct) towards what we're just seeing now and then judging based on that (since the judgement would be incorrect).
Wait, paying for a completed product is a bad thing now? When did this happen? I really hope you're not trying to make the argument that plopping down money for something in alpha(and which may never leave alpha or actually become a remotely complete game in it's "final" state) because there are many examples, both on steam greenlight and in the AAA industry(AC:Unity, Aliens: Colonial Marines) to the contrary.Tharaxis said:
Are there a few games that are worth in Alpha and eventually go on to become even better games upon final release? sure. But they are few and far between(and I'm not convinced by any means that SC is going to be one of them).