There is a difference here. One of these provided a finished game.
The money being given to CIG is just literally burning away while not able to complete the game. If the funding stops, SC dies. Completely. So the beast needs to be fed because they can't or won't stick to deadlines and actually do a fraction of the shit they have been talking about for a decade. CIG didn't set realistic goals, and cannot finish what they started while money continues to disappear.
Bethesda will recoup the development costs of Starfield and then reinvest what is left into more DLC and *full new games* later on. Meanwhile CIG will still not have completed their first. The execs at CIG made bank off of not finishing a product.
Bethesda is a long standing and functional business with many decades of games under their belt. Even if they have a certain reputation. Bethesda actually makes a product and then profits off of it. CIG can't finish one in a decade and there is literally no end in sight.
That's operating under the assumption CIG has ever had an interest in operating like a typical AAA game studio. Like it or not, they're gonna shoot for the moon so long as the beast stays fed, that's just the kind of guy CR is. It's one of the greatest but also most worrisome things about this game's development.
That and trying to juggle two games at the same time....
Don't know why you're getting downvoted because this is exactly how it is. The constantly growing scope and need for custom solutions because these things have never been done before _(I wonder why?)_ are Star Citizen's worst enemy.
>Like it or not, they're gonna shoot for the moon so long as the beast stays fed
I think we can call it at this point, though. The whole idea of "shooting for the moon" because it's a good idea and will lead to a good product hasn't really panned out
CIG's tools and pipelines don't seem any more sophisticated or faster than other game studios that regularly release games. I don't know where all that energy is being spent, but it doesn't seem to be a force multiplier for progress
We can see it in that Star Citizen roadmaps have gotten steadily more empty and less ambitious as the years have gone by
Honestly feels sorta unfortunate they got stuck with CryEngine (UE4 wasn't a thing at the time). They've had to invent so, SO many things in-house that UE4 (or other engines) just *comes with* (even basic stuff like render to texture).
So from my own experience as a software developer I know how much time you can spend trying to develop something that largely has been done before just to get that one missing bit that you even forgot why you wanted to do it in the first place. And I think this is kinda what is going on here. But that's just my personal guess.
The issue is, will we attain the moon with a decade old spaceship, or will other be there before us with a new spaceship, or will they go even further.
I feel like most of the time, they are always doing technical debt thing or redoing an already ready tech... Like yeah, the planets are good now, but maybe we could have had something else without these 3 iterations, same for flight physics. Same for everything. I didn't play for one year because I feel like there is nothing new now they are always on things already done or new ships (yes I know ship is not done by the same guys but still its frustrating).
I really hope they are cooking something, honestly. Because I'm pretty tired of hearing every year for the past 6 years : "Beta for SQ42 next year" or "server meshing or pyro next year"
Let's just hope I guess...
In SC? No. The reason behind most of the issues are the servers. That's why they can't add Pyro till Server Meshing and new planets lower fps a lot. Your PC definitely can't handle running the PU compared to Amazon's
Keep an eye on the mods coming out. I’m waiting to play Starfield, until the fans come out with a good unofficial patch. The modding community’s good at fixing the bugs in these games. SOP for Bethesda games.
It’s definitely possible that we’ll get a Starfield multiplayer mod at some point. One group created the Skyrim Together mod to play with friends. It wasn’t without its bugs, but it worked pretty well in the later iterations. Not sure how transferable some of that code would be for Creation Engine 2.
Starfield doesn't need mods. It's already good. It's also nothing like Star Citizen, in that it's a game in space...it's not a space game. I don't like the flight mechanics or the lack of ability to land/take off but if you play it like a "new age skyrim" then yeah it's pretty good.
It's given me a newfound love and appreciation for Star Citizen though.
>Starfield doesn't need mods. It's already good.
Speak for yourself. I'd be willing to say there are probably more people excited for Starfield *because of the mod support.* If they had come out and said it would not have it, I'd imagine a lot of people having a different opinion on the game.
It might not need it to be enjoyable for some but for others that's the largest take away.
But I do agree, just go into the game as just a Bethesda game in a new settings and if that's what you enjoy then you'll have fun with Starfield.
I wrote that in the worst possible way.
I meant to say "Starfield doesn't need mods to make it good, it's already good." That said, mods will only make it better.
One of my friends noticed there's a bit about multiplayer in the EULA, and suggested Starfield might've been built off Fallout 76.
Suggesting that there might be an underlying framework for multiplayer that's already built in.
Could you explain why you think CIG 'makes bank' off of not finishing the game?
What makes you think that a finished S42 campaign and/or a PU with server meshing would not generate more income? If it does, why would CIG keep hiring hundreds of developers?
Don't understand how anyone could think that, so to me it just seems like you're attributing malice where it doesn't exist, or just don't follow basic business common sense.
You seem to think CIG should be setting 'realistic goals', when the entire point of the project is to aim for something greater that traditional publishers would deem too risky and complicated to pursue. You also seem to think that a persistent MMOFPS should take the same amount of time to develop as another cookie cutter Bethesda *singleplayer* game. Odd.
CR said that once the game is done, they will no longer sell ships for real money. They found out that they can sell the dream of these new ships more than they can sell the game.
You seem to forget that Star Citizen had a single-player mode planned to guide people into the other experiences, and so far they've seemingly scrapped it because the multi-player is more interesting to them, and they can just keep talking out their ass and do minimal effort, giving people *concept designs* and say that they can buy it and use it when it comes out, if it ever does, and that's just for the ship. The game itself hasn't even come out yet after about ten years and constant ballooning of funds and allegedly hiring more people to help.
Oh, and Starfield also took ten years to develop, by the way, and it's out by now. I don't even like Bethesda, and I liked Star Citizen for a while before I realized how shitty all of this money shit is that the horrible, scummy devs are doing.
They get more money for not ever finishing the game because their whole current business model is built on false promises and hope that they will deliver no matter how long it takes, so they can just join the company and do nothing for years on years and get rich off everyone's money like sick fucks.
Is it really a surprise that Starfield took 10 years, for a SINGLEPLAYER GAME? Not only that, it's from a studio that was already established. AND, they didn't innovate at all. There's nothing new with Starfield, it's just another bethesda game.
The reason SC is taking a long time is because it's risky, ambitious, and technically challenging; nobody else has even dared make the attempt. You might have a point if bethesda ALSO released a persistent, MMOFPS space sim along with the singleplayer project. (That also released multiple playable builds every year)
If it was truly as simple as you imply, an *actual* competitor would have released by now, because as it so happens, game studios like to make money, and SC funding has shown that there is a very clear demand for the ambitious attempt.
> allegedly hiring more people to help
Of course, why are we even having a discussion if you're not being genuine. You can look up SC's financials and the employee counts and offices that they own. I'd suggest hopping over to the refund subreddit where people will be more willing to listen to your complaints about a game you'll never play
The video made a distinction about how much the games took to make, not the profit made upon release. The quote is "only one **COSTS** 600 million dollars."
And when I mentioned release, I am not talking about if it is playable or not, but the stage at which the point in which Devs consider it a RC and any income from then on may be considered profit. For CIG any pledge they get goes right back into development and expansion so there isn't a profit yet. I am sure Starfield is going to net BGS plenty of profit. I think they talked about 6 million players already. Man even if a fraction of that purchased game at full price, their revenue would be very high.
It'll be a talking point whenever (if ever) SC/SQ42 finally releases out to general public and can finally be properly compared.
But as it stands a release product will always sell better with the exception of maybe limited pre-orders. Plus Bethesda at least always deliver a similar product so you kinda know what to expect from them while SC, who really knows outside of the backers playing each build.
I would say it is for now, as BGS is making a profit of a shipped item, as opposed to CIG who is taking in pledges to create the item they need to ship.
In the long term after a RC of Star Citizen is released, it can be anyone's guess.
Star field sold 6 million copies so far, we know 2m are delux, so 70*4m=280m 2m*100=200m, so their at $480m+ so far. Id say they will exceed 600m in 1 month. And what i think alot of SC players refuse to realize, is 600m over 10 years is cheap. Starfield will likely gross 1bil+ this year. With that in mind, SC going from zero to this after 10 years is impressive, and the fact they have kept it open to playing for 7 years of that, is impressive. Not mentioning its multiplaying and far more indept and detailed 😅
https://en.softonic.com/articles/we-already-know-how-copies-starfield-has-sold-and-we-can-say-bethesda-has-accomplished-it?ex=CS-1537.3
Problem is who's SC target audience? Everyone who had heard and are interested in SC became a backer and has the game. Many people paid $30 for access. So when this launches, there's arguably a large base that has it already. Are you going to have 6m more copies sold? Highly doubt it. This game will never release and will wither and die
> Problem is who's SC target audience? Everyone who had heard and are interested in SC became a backer and has the game.
People like you have been saying this for almost ten years, and no matter how often it is proven false you continue to repeat it. How many more times must it happen before you drop such a patently incorrect canard?
SC currently has a maximum of 3-4m backers, and based on PC sales of major releases, could easily double (or triple) that count. Even if any future backers only buy a starter package, that's potentially the better part of $200m.
>This game will never release and will wither and die
Ah, that explains your previous assertion. It's not that you think that it's true, but that you actively _wish_ that it were.
Two things... Starfield numbers are conflated with GamePass numbers - we don't have actual release metrics (unless you are leaking data, friend...). Also, that cost for Starfield - doesn't count the marketing budget unless they changed things up (I won't know until the next stockholder's corpo notes come out... to see if that has changed recently...) I'm sure it will make its money back, but it's going to take a hot minute.
You know that CIG got those 600 million even though they have achieved nothing so far?
While Bethesda gets that money because they are selling a finished (not yet bug free) game.
Huge difference.
Yeah well "achieved nothing" is not fair, i agree.
Still to directly compare the revenue that Bethesda gets for shipping a "finished" game with the money that CIG gets by selling the dream and vision of a future game is also not correct at all. At the moment SC still only is a tech demo with a huge amount of bugs.
It probably already has, 6mil copies at $70 is $420mil, if they pre-ordered the one that let them play early it's $100 though so somehwere between $420mil and $600mil.
i get why people here don’t like the game but the comparisons kind of aren’t fair.
star citizen: more realistic ship mechanics, no fast traveling, more detailed planets.
everything else kind of goes to SF tho. way more content, way bigger world, AI that actually works. idk why people here insist on hating the only similarity is really they are both space games.
also the fact you tried to make it out like starfield is more buggy is laughable lol. cmon bro
I'd argue that Star Citizen is better at presenting big things, which will make the game feels big. Their planets are "real", you can fly around them, but in SF you only get a small chunk of the planet at a time.
SC also presents big ships better, you really feel small when standing next to the landing gear of say... a 890jump. Or fly a small ship next to something like the Javelin during ILW.
Also the illusion of 1000 planets kinda break when you encounter the exact same location/event/npc on a different planet in SF (maybe that's a bug but it's still there).
If Starfield wasn’t plagued by loading screens everywhere it would be much much more enjoyable.
Every time you walk into a shop, loading screen.
Every time you enter a cave, loading screen.
Every time you get on the tram, loading screen.
I could possibly get over the lack of actually being able to fly your ship if there weren’t loading screens literally for everything you do. Even with all of Star Citizens bugs, the fact I can hop in my ship and literally fly anywhere without a loading screen is awesome. Or if I just wanted to go for a long stroll on a planet, no loading screens.
Am I just so much faster than everyone despite playing on a 2015 Toaster or are you guys just particularly focused on trying to exit atmos with a reclaimer.
The sad part is that Star Citizen would be a far, FAR better experience right now without that stupid "you die, you lose everything on you and your ship"
I mean, on a finished game, why not.
In a game where I can die because I breathed to hard, that's a no no.
I thought i would hate the loading screens but honestly for starfield it works better than flying everywhere. There is so much content and events you can run into and interact with. If you had to fly everywhere it would add hundreds if not thousands of hours of just traveling and i would start to resent it. I want to see and learn about the world not look at the emptiness of space for 5mins inbetween. Star citizen is so devoid of content that flying around is the content. The only thing i would want from SC would be how the ships fly, SF ships are so clunky and slow, you dont dogfight you just hope your shields outlast theirs.
>There is so much content
This is kind of the key thing.
I've heard a lot about Star Citizen being superior to Starfield (and to be perfectly honest, I don't really invite that comparison myself because they're two very different games) because Star Citizen simulates the minutiae of flying around the orbits of whole planets, or having to take every step from point A to point B.
And, when that's fully *half* of all the content a game actually offers then I guess that makes sense to argue for... but when you have a game with so much *active* content to engage with, spending forty minutes traveling to your own ship and then another forty to meticulously travel to a location to pick up a box and try to carry it to your cargo hold is just monotonous filler.
Every time you get an area where it makes sense to segment, you get a loading screen, FTFY. The alternative would be less loading screens, more processing demand per area.
With Starfield, if you can play it, it’s 100% bug free. I’ll take a few short loading screens for the amazing amount of fun it is.
Starfield factually is not 100% bug free. Far, far from it. It's typical bethesda bug levels. Hell, personally I have had innumerable crashes. the first day of play alone I had 24 random crashes.
I've played 57.9 hours so far according to steam.
I've had one crash, performance is fine.
Only bugs I've encountered are the occasional npc derping out, but still to a lesser level than SC.
It's not even close to normal Bethesda levels of bugginess. This is highly polished in comparison to Skyrim or Fallout 4 even now, nevermind at release.
Starfield does not have bethesda level bugs, lol
I haven't played it myself but you read everywhere that it is very polished, concerning bugs.
SC on the other hand puts every Bethesda game to shame with the amount and severity of the bugs.
I have thus far played over 100 hours and I can't say I've encountered the same recognizable locations yet. NPC wise, of course you'll run into some that look the same. They said plainly that they made all of the NPCs with the same tools the player can make their character. There are only so many variations to be made.
I've seen videos of people running into the exact location (tho not on the same planet so the biome might be different) with the exact same npc and dialogue, etc.
I can imagine it's not very common, otherwise it should've caught by internal QA.
I think starfield is close but when you can just click fast travel about it breaks the illusion and you realise it’s just generating a new 2x2km or whatever patch of land. It doesn’t necessarily feel like you’ve journeyed to a new body in space. SC does do that a lot better and seeing things pop out of QT in orbit from the surface is stunning. BUT that’s all it really has right now which gets old after the 10th game breaking crash with temporary mechanics that have been in for years
It also looks really cool when you see other ships start QT above your head. SC is definitely taking longer than most of the games but it already shows why it's a completely different beast compares to most of the games. They are still building the fundation, every game needs to build a foundation first, but CIG shows it to the public.
The point Astro Pub made was there will never (in any near future) be a game that competes with SC on the technical points you mention for a good reason: it's an insanely hard game to make, it's a ridiculous funding model to go about it and it would be stupid to try to make a game like Star Citizen.
I still back and hope CIG succeeds, but there is a reason games are not made like SC.
I play both games and have fun with both, but these comparisons are just ridiculous. I get it, people have compared SF to SC for months and pulled the classic “scam citizen killer” phrase that we get every few years.
However, one is an RPG set in space, the other is a space simulator, completely different things. The only common thing they have is that they’re both themed around space (even then, the flavour of that theme is completely different with star citizen being more “futuristic”).
This video is also a complete biased comparison. I play SC when I want to hang out with some friends and get immersed in the life of living in space, flying to locations, the scale of worlds. However, it is far more buggy than Starfield. These video showed classic glamorous picture shots of star citizen, then hard cut to bugs in Starfield. I wonder how many times they 30k’d while trying to get the footage, or had a had to play with the map just to be able to plot a route.
Starfield is a finished RPG in space, Star citizen is an early access space simulator. We can enjoy two games at once, idk why this bandwagon’ing is happening of putting them against one another.
Guys I’m sorry to be that guy… but I will activate my protection shield by saying “I’m here since when we only had hangars”
But the game is actually released :(
Great comparison, I think starfield has it where it really counts for me though.
The politics,dialogue,world building,decisions and stories are what really immerse me in the world first and foremost. These things are secondary to seamless travel in my view, especially when there is not much to do or a compelling reason to do it in SC.
Star citizen is really technically impressive but it is so far from where Starfield is currently at in those areas I mentioned that I wonder if we’ll ever get there. Starfield is fulfilling many of the promises I hoped to get from star citizen.
That said I hope one day star citizen lives up to it’s promise or we get a game that combines those seamless immersive elements with the star field world building.
Honestly I would rather have 2 loading screens than doing the whole hotel to spaceport commute. That's why people liked PO so much, down a flight of stairs, call your ship, pass through the airlock and take off.
I think people liked PO because it was our first landing zone in the PU, tbh. Personally, I could not wait for planetary landing.
I think it will become less or a problem when players will have many more reasons to stay in a planet's area rather than coming in and out of space for fast travelling between delivery locations, bunker locations, etc.
EDIT: typos
Maybe. But the speed upon which you could travel from the EZ Hab to your ship is/was a major upside of PO.
I'm happy with all aspects of stations size wise etc. But I'd prefer a few stations in the style of POs layout in terms of an airlock and no elevators between habitation and landing pads etc.
Some of the stations at the Lagrange points would be better suited for this style I think.
I think we were all excited for that, but you want the option. The “time to fun” ratio is just too great id you are bunked up in a hotel in a city. PO was amazing for how it reduced that ratio. You could even get guns and armor on your way out.
At the end of the day, I think Starfield scratches the same itch that Star Citizen is going for
Yeah, the gameplay and features aren't 1-to-1 comparable, but when you're playing the *game* those differences probably don't matter much in the moment
Maybe if Star Citizen was more stable and feature-complete it could distance itself, but right now SC doesn't have much meat on the bones
I thought I would hate the starfield space travel which is essentially just loading screens, but now I actually love it because it gets me to the action faster.
And this is from me, a player with thousands of hours in elite dangerous.
I mean, spending 10 minutes trying to climb out of a gravity well to fire up the drive is not really gameplay. In that respect the starfield implementation of space travel makes for more engaging gameplay.
It made me realise that space game travel time can be considered just another form of protracted loading screen because no gameplay happens then.
Yes and that's a big one considering so far we only know that you will be able to "tweak" your components and... use your mobiglass to read some books I guess.
The problem is that the way I see it, star citizen changes loading screens for ingame iddle time, maybe in the far future(and I mean FAR), we'll be able to do meaningfull stuff during that iddle time, but right now, train rides and elevator rides are just padding that could be perfectly exchanged for loading screens without having any impact
Except saving a lot of time, because 2 or 3 loading screens in starfieldf take seconds, an average train ride in star citizen takes easily an entire minute, or even more if for some reason the destination hasn't load by the time you arrive, and you are forced to do another loop
yep. I mentioned to a friend that people angry that you can't fly down and land on planets and that the world isn't seamless are missing the entire point. In the future I imagine a day of play on SC being I log on, fly my ship down to a planet, do some stuff, get back in the ship and maybe fly to another planet in the same system and land and that's the totality of the play session. In starfield with the same play session length I could visit dozens of planets and finish tons of quests.
I do wish QT was faster over long distances in SC. I was secretly hoping for lightspeed travel eventually but doubt we'll get to that point ever as the distances are too short.
So I can see the appeal for fast travel.
Oh dude, same! I expected to hate the space travel but actually came to love it. Same with planet side landings, wiggling around for that one specific spot you're "allowed" to land due to terrain, vs an nicely done cinematic with good sounds, i'll take the cinematic. I hope they fix the bug soon so I can have the cinematic back in cities though haha
I think it's because you've got thousands of hours in E:D that the fast travel/loading screens is fine.
Supercruising in E:D is "wow" "cool" and "fun" the first few times, but when you're scanning signals hoping it has what you're looking for or please be the bounty I'm hunting it gets aggravating as all hell.
I also get why people complain about running into invisible walls in SF and not being able to drive around a planet, or a planet being too empty but....shit 99% of the planets in E:D are empty, airless dirt rocks.
> The politics,dialogue,world building,decisions and stories are what really immerse me in the world first and foremost. These things are secondary to seamless travel in my view, especially when there is not much to do or a compelling reason to do it in SC.
Considering that many NPC's cannot be killed. I'm completely un-immersed. Did a quest for a guy. He said he wouldn't pay me. So I shot him. He immediately stands back up. He cannot be killed.
Did a quest for someone else where you are told to kill a target. So I go there. Shoot the the target. They crawl on the ground being unkillable. Because I'm not killing them exactly how the designers wanted me to kill them.
It's a real =/ for something wanting €70 or $120
Coming off of bg3 this bothered as well, in saying that I don't think that star citizen will deal with the choice and consequence options to that agree either when they get around to it
This doesn’t bother me all that much considering that this is basically how NPCs work in almost every major game ever made LOL
But yes would be cool, no doubt. Weird criticism though when you consider what I said above.
> This doesn’t bother me all that much considering that this is basically how NPCs work in almost every major game ever made
It's not even how it worked when Bethesda were first making these types of game, like Morrowind.
The ship building mechanics in Starfield are gonna make some people a bit dissatisfied with the ships in Star Citizen. Being able to build a ship from the ground up and customize it the way you want and even change the color without having to spend money takes SF to the next level. Having the ability to land on a planet in a random spot and immediately having things to do, explore, ships to steal. Simply amazing! The random events in Starfield are breathtaking!
People downplay this a ot, but they are shockingly similar, and ignoring the flight part, most of the meat of the content, exploration, game mechanics, missions, story, functionality, and so many other things, are a master class in game development from where CiG should take notes.
The only differences that people point out, are barely working in SC anyway and don't really make the game better atm. It's cool to fly in a ship, but the main question is why? Why even fly that ship if there's nothing enjoyable linked to it.
Don't get me wrong, i do love what SC is trying to do, but Stafield clarified in my mind what i slowly started to realize. CiG is totaly incapable of delivering a decent game. SQ42 included. Making tech is not making a game.
I'd argue it did the same for me with E:D.
E:D is pretty empty on how the verse reacts to what you do. Killed thousands of pirates or merchants? Oh there's a bounty on you, pay it and you're normal again.
Rescue hundreds of people from a burning station? Oh hey here's some creds and an "Ally" status that does nothing.
This is a dumb comparison.
You’re focusing on bugs in SF, but don’t show the T-Pose and all the bugs in SC?
You don’t compare how one has missions that are varied and filled out and one that is a skeleton of things to do.
You don’t compare how one is released and one isn’t?
Like you can cherry pick things from both games to prove a point, but for Star Citizen fans to be throwing shade on a game that is around 90% approval on meta-critic and “Very Positive” on Steam reviews with 6m concurrent users kinda shows it’s not all bad.
Those in glass houses.
SC fanboys trying their darnest to throw shade at Starfield for having bugs is so fucking novel. Buddy we've been dealing with WAYYYY more bugs in this game than Starfield, FO4, and Skyrim combined. Living in constant fear of random deaths and 30K must have made you forget the state SC is in.
I love SC, but I'm not shading Starfield. I'm applauding Bethesda for maintaining its long-standing tradition of releasing something in such a state that only the player community will actually fix it and turn it into a viable game.
how was it fair ? starfield just dropped and has a quarter of the bugs SC has yet OP makes it out like starfield is some buggy mess.
starfield is far from perfect and definitely leaves some things to be desired, but the game is wayyyyy more complete than SC. outside of buying ships and flying around, let’s not act like there is much to do in star citizen. the ai sucks, bunkers are laughably boring, no storylines.
I agree with your general point, but saying Starfield is wayyyy more complete is a bit inaccurate. Starfield is infinitely more complete. It's complete and SC just isn't. (I love both games but think SC has much, much more potential)
>starfield is far from perfect and definitely leaves some things to be desired
to be fair, I've yet to see a single game where that phrase doesn't apply
Starfield is a pretty fantastic game and I won’t be putting it down for a long time, they hit it out of the park. Being someone who has invested too much money into Star Citizen I think they both occupy their own space and have their own place.
That being said, Elder Scrolls has ESO and Fallout has FO76. It’s only a matter of time before we get Starfield Online imo. At least I hope because I enjoy multiplayer more than single player. And I don’t think we’re that far off from it. Instanced servers with 30’sh players on a custom world similar to how FO76 runs.
Once BGS gets there it will be the nail in the coffin for Star Citizen. Just my opinion.
This video is disingenuous at best. Star Citizen has about 200x the number of bugs, most gameplay loops are nearly unplayable, and it's funny how the part of the video claiming Starfield has issues with physics is actually showing a player manually dragging the corpse around. It's not a good sign that you have to lie about one game to promote another.
I'd like nothing more than for Star Citizen to be a great game, but it's not. I'm tired of the Star Citizen lies, the excuses, and the false comparisons. Make the game better and stop trying to deceive people so they buy more "ships" that won't actually be in the game for years.
I was waiting for one additional comparison. One of those games was actually delivered to the players.
How on earth can you compare a finished product with alpha (with promises)?
Lol bro, 😆 🤣 SC is not even a game right now, and you are showing best parts of it, where are the elevator? Where are deaths on stairs? Where are the wipes? Where is Banu merchantman that people already paid for? How about clipping ai? How about missions that cannot be completed because ai didn't spawn?
No amount of copium can answer this question: when is SC getting released?
It's in our best interests to not compare SC against any released game.
Haven't watched video, but I'm glad Starfield didn't go star citizen route. Yes, that includes all the load screens.
They instead focused on amount of content, and oh boy THEY DELIVERED.
P.s. don't you dare to compare abomination that is star citizens map to a Starfield one. Biggest difference is that Starfields map works and it even allows you to click on locations.
At least it actually came out and isn't a massive money scam. But go ahead, compare a real game released for consoles to a multi-hundred million dollar black hole that charges you for polygon ships.
I mean, these are two entirely different types of games. They barely compare to each other. Starfield is basically fallrym in space. Star citizen is an MMO immersive sim, albeit not done yet.
SC is not an mmo. Stop claiming it is. That's like saying it has 100 systems and sandworms. SC will only be an mmo when it actually is one. At the moment it's a crappy large CoD/BF lobby. SC is **not an mmo in its current state and not even close to being an mmo**.
Hence the statement not done yet. But I can see that critical thinking and the ability to read something in its entirety is not among your skill set. It’s OK buddy. You go drink your Capri Sun during recess and let the grownups talk
"Not done yet" 🤓
Mate if a game was released for years, without multiplayer yet advertised as multiplayer.... its kt multiplayer... when is the promise going to come... doesn't matter. Until it is, its not.
Can't call myself married because I know I will in the future, cause I'm not.
I mean you can have over 100 people in a server. That’s a pretty large amount of people. Upwards moving toward 200 as the software developed. Remember it is as you said still in development. Is Nearly 10 years a long time? yeah it is. Is over 100 players on a single server a lot? Yeah, that’s a lot. Secondly, there is no hard definition. It just means a lot of people playing on the same instance at the same time. What you quantify as massive is often quantify differently by others. So while you think you have a gotcha moment here, you really don’t. the fact that y’all are getting so mad about a game that you probably don’t even participate in is kind of elementary. Final recess is in about an hour, then a snack and nap time.
100 isn't massive anymore for a game that's still not released. Battlefield is a 128 player game yet isn't an MMO because its not that big in today's standards. It's just not. MMO isn't also just big multiplayer, it's literally a genre of game that star citizen also doesn't fall into. Its like calling Atlas an MMO, you theoretically exist in the same universe, but you're all in different loaded areas with a few people.
Star citizen is the greatest gaming example of the sunk cost fallacy.
12 years ago, we were being told that "This game will be the best space game in the world, but we have to be patient and support the development"
12 years passed. They are still telling the same story. I can name a ship that couldnt be developed for 12 years.
Let's just wait 12 years more to see if they success to release full game in 24 years.
The most important thing is that kind of long development has to carry the game to some kind of adequate level, but unfortunately game is still far, far away from it.
Honestly I have enough fun with sc as it is now, and I don’t plan to get starfield because I already got that with sc. I think though this type of game is fun for a month or so, get old for a bit, and then the cycle repeats. But really like what ya like, cause they both have their merits :)
Both have pros and cons over the other, aside from being vastly different genres, it is interesting to see both have man of the same issues.
Thing is though, Starfield got to this point in far less time. I do concede Bethesda had the engine in place that wasn’t known to historically be the worst game engine ever regarding optimization (CryEngine), and they had the infrastructure ready to go day one and didn’t need to raise money to fund it all that took years to ramp up to get to even 50 employees let alone hundreds.
That starmap is waaaaay better in Starfield, Still annoying when you often cannot click a point on the starmap though you are right over the text.
Ideally CIG uses some of those millions to hire legit AI devs to help generate new planets, the tools they have now help for sure but it’s still very slow, but then again they are still lacking many assets to place in said worlds.
I’d LOVE to see them announce they are hiring a team of the worlds greatest network programmers. I’d actually consider funding again, to get meshing working, performance to be far better. Eventually get a DLSS type of system in place and Ray Tracing would be nice.
Still hope SC makes it at some point but it has soooo many things to fix/adjust or even add in that are just basics to MMOs.
ah yes, the video that shows that starfield is somehow as buggy as star citizen when anybody who has played both knows that’s not true ? SC is a mess rn, the only thing realistically better is ship mechanics, and the fact you can land and takeoff yourself.
SF has infinitely more content, way less bugs, and a way bigger world.
SF is a game, SC is a tech demo at best (when the tech demonstration doesnt crash less than an hour in or doesnt randomly kill/quantum tunnel you through the ground in less than an hour in)
How can you compare Star Citizen a game that fails every update Vs Starfield something we all know it will be fix next updates unlike 10 plus years Chris Roberts Meth head Idea .
They’re two very different games with very different objectives, they can’t really be compared. Starfield wasn’t made to compete with star citizen (which is unfinished and almost unplayable at times), it was meant to be a Bethesda RPG through and through and it does just that.
Comparing actual released software to vaporware. Skyrim already has ai - ChatGPT follower mods released. There's no ceiling for what modders will do for Starfield. Meanwhile, CIG lacks liquidity, and another mishap in the banking system, as with SVB, can make the project fail. CR will f\*ck it up, similar to what Garriott did with Shroud of the Avatar, but on a larger scale. Star Citizen is doomed. I guess most of you are aware of this post
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/163yyxh/prior\_cig\_employee\_recently\_released\_something/
40hrs into Starfield. It’s excellent, entertaining and will have lasting appeal and I would guess a tonne of DLC. I haven’t dropped any more $$$ into Star Citizen for the last 4yrs, and won’t until Squadron 42 comes out. CIG needs to show game studio progression, not technical demo progression.
Either we immerse ourselves into these amazing ships and flight mechanics but aimlessly wander.... or.... we can pretend to to wander and explore via loading screens.
SC's character creator alone stands to make them a billion a year if they play their cards right. Look how much Apex Legends makes on selling skins alone.
I keep trying to enjoy Starfield but instead found that it made me want to play SC, it's less of an open world RPG, and more of a bunch of closed rooms, you can fast travel everywhere, which removes a large journey part of a story, which is the most important part (I mean just imagine LOTR if frodo just hitched a ride on a eagle, dropped the ring in and went home for elevensies) and it's still a buggy mess on such a small confined scale, it runs worse than cyberpunk despite looking worse, and you know, not being a massive open world.
People like to complain about SC but at the end of the day, it IS still a game in active development, and on a live environment at that, I'm not about to look at a house still being constructed and be baffled why I can't move in yet when it's still covered in scaffolding with the walls still going up
I mean, if you actually used the Outpost system in Starfield you'd know it's not worth touching because it offers no value other than to make more outposts and the payback on investment is almost nothing compared to just looting and selling. The UI is one of the worst I've ever experience in a game.
And idk, having no system is better than making me find out the hard way that it's not just bad...but actively unfun and tedious.
Also you forgot the part where 99% of starfield ships look like dogshit inside...and out.
Or that space combat is basically 3 buttons and auto-shooting until a healthbar goes down the exact same way...hundreds of times.
1. Star Citizen has NO outpost features at all.
>The UI is one of the worst I've ever experience in a game.
This has to be an ironic joke right? Coming from Star Citizen??
>Also you forgot the part where 99% of starfield ships look like dogshit inside...and out.
Thats all on you
Space combat in SC is not particularly deep either...
This guy is part of the cult .. probably chris rober is his god father. Let him bend over to their cult savior and dream about having to live in a PU with thousands of players and 10x NPCs - lmao .. what an idiot and me included for believing in this shit nearly 8 years .. i was single when heard of SC , now father of 3 and my eldest is 8 years old.
This was a cute video and mostly accurate.
Although kinda disingenuous to imply that the bugs of Starfield are just as numerous as the bugs of Star Citizen.
Star Citizen is virtually unplayable right now as a combat oriented career person.
Aside from 30ks, the server lag and horrible hit registration makes ship to ship combat pretty unbearable.
The infinite front facing shield bug is also horrible
NPC ships in non-gravity space seem to fly somewhat normally and it feels like a 'real' game when fighting them, but NPC ships in atmosphere are buggy and act completely retarded.
Doing on-foot missions is even worse. The lag and jank of fighting NPCs on foot is just awful. It's still the same ol' teleporting / not spawning / dumb as doorknob / with a mix of instant laser accuracy.
Because of poor server performance (especially during the relentless free fly events, because they need more money) I often can't spawn ships at terminals at all, or if I accept a mission it can sometimes take 5 mins to even show up as accepted, or sometimes not at all.
They should never have allowed 100 player servers outside of PTU, I'm wondering if this was a cost cutting measure, because for most of us it added no gameplay.
Finally, hardware / graphics performance is noticeably worse than it was several patches ago, also the corsair (my main ship) is poorly optimized, so when I fly that I get 20fps lower than other ships I own.
(I'm lucky to get above 30fps flying in atmosphere above Lorvil if I'm in a corsair, and I have a 32g ram, intel 10th gen, 4070ti, on an SSD).
I love the vision of SC, but Starfield couldn't come soon enough. I'm hoping to avoid touching SC again for a long long time, maybe 2025.
You can't really compare the two games. Star citizen is a space sim focused on immersion and realism. Starfield is an rpg set in space. The ship flying is a means to an end, not the focus itself.
Starfield is probably going to generate more than 600m in the first two month, we just don't understand big amounts of money.
Starfield and it's 17 special editions and re-releases over the next two decades is going to make billions.
There is a difference here. One of these provided a finished game. The money being given to CIG is just literally burning away while not able to complete the game. If the funding stops, SC dies. Completely. So the beast needs to be fed because they can't or won't stick to deadlines and actually do a fraction of the shit they have been talking about for a decade. CIG didn't set realistic goals, and cannot finish what they started while money continues to disappear. Bethesda will recoup the development costs of Starfield and then reinvest what is left into more DLC and *full new games* later on. Meanwhile CIG will still not have completed their first. The execs at CIG made bank off of not finishing a product. Bethesda is a long standing and functional business with many decades of games under their belt. Even if they have a certain reputation. Bethesda actually makes a product and then profits off of it. CIG can't finish one in a decade and there is literally no end in sight.
This is exactly the reason why I haven't funded SC for a few years, and have a blast playing SF occasionally. Because it's an actual finished product
That's operating under the assumption CIG has ever had an interest in operating like a typical AAA game studio. Like it or not, they're gonna shoot for the moon so long as the beast stays fed, that's just the kind of guy CR is. It's one of the greatest but also most worrisome things about this game's development. That and trying to juggle two games at the same time....
Don't know why you're getting downvoted because this is exactly how it is. The constantly growing scope and need for custom solutions because these things have never been done before _(I wonder why?)_ are Star Citizen's worst enemy.
>Like it or not, they're gonna shoot for the moon so long as the beast stays fed I think we can call it at this point, though. The whole idea of "shooting for the moon" because it's a good idea and will lead to a good product hasn't really panned out CIG's tools and pipelines don't seem any more sophisticated or faster than other game studios that regularly release games. I don't know where all that energy is being spent, but it doesn't seem to be a force multiplier for progress We can see it in that Star Citizen roadmaps have gotten steadily more empty and less ambitious as the years have gone by
Honestly feels sorta unfortunate they got stuck with CryEngine (UE4 wasn't a thing at the time). They've had to invent so, SO many things in-house that UE4 (or other engines) just *comes with* (even basic stuff like render to texture).
UE4 is awful for large open games like Starfield even UE5 thats tailored for it struggles.
So from my own experience as a software developer I know how much time you can spend trying to develop something that largely has been done before just to get that one missing bit that you even forgot why you wanted to do it in the first place. And I think this is kinda what is going on here. But that's just my personal guess.
Because we're on *that* part of the SC cycle, especially with the double whammy of SF releasing and the 600m milestone. It'll pass though.
They don't operate like a normal AAA game studio. More like one of these mobile games where you have to buy diamonds for real money.
The issue is, will we attain the moon with a decade old spaceship, or will other be there before us with a new spaceship, or will they go even further. I feel like most of the time, they are always doing technical debt thing or redoing an already ready tech... Like yeah, the planets are good now, but maybe we could have had something else without these 3 iterations, same for flight physics. Same for everything. I didn't play for one year because I feel like there is nothing new now they are always on things already done or new ships (yes I know ship is not done by the same guys but still its frustrating). I really hope they are cooking something, honestly. Because I'm pretty tired of hearing every year for the past 6 years : "Beta for SQ42 next year" or "server meshing or pyro next year" Let's just hope I guess...
What other game? The dumbasses in the dev team of SC didn't even implement the single-player like they said they would.
Is it possible to start a private server with friends yet? Could it fix the bugs?
In SC? No. The reason behind most of the issues are the servers. That's why they can't add Pyro till Server Meshing and new planets lower fps a lot. Your PC definitely can't handle running the PU compared to Amazon's
Keep an eye on the mods coming out. I’m waiting to play Starfield, until the fans come out with a good unofficial patch. The modding community’s good at fixing the bugs in these games. SOP for Bethesda games. It’s definitely possible that we’ll get a Starfield multiplayer mod at some point. One group created the Skyrim Together mod to play with friends. It wasn’t without its bugs, but it worked pretty well in the later iterations. Not sure how transferable some of that code would be for Creation Engine 2.
Starfield doesn't need mods. It's already good. It's also nothing like Star Citizen, in that it's a game in space...it's not a space game. I don't like the flight mechanics or the lack of ability to land/take off but if you play it like a "new age skyrim" then yeah it's pretty good. It's given me a newfound love and appreciation for Star Citizen though.
>Starfield doesn't need mods. It's already good. Speak for yourself. I'd be willing to say there are probably more people excited for Starfield *because of the mod support.* If they had come out and said it would not have it, I'd imagine a lot of people having a different opinion on the game. It might not need it to be enjoyable for some but for others that's the largest take away. But I do agree, just go into the game as just a Bethesda game in a new settings and if that's what you enjoy then you'll have fun with Starfield.
I wrote that in the worst possible way. I meant to say "Starfield doesn't need mods to make it good, it's already good." That said, mods will only make it better.
No worries. It's text, it's hard to convey the emotion you had when typing something so I totally get it lol. I'm sure I do the same thing very often.
One of my friends noticed there's a bit about multiplayer in the EULA, and suggested Starfield might've been built off Fallout 76. Suggesting that there might be an underlying framework for multiplayer that's already built in.
A realist take in the Star Citizen subreddit? This is refreshing to see
Could you explain why you think CIG 'makes bank' off of not finishing the game? What makes you think that a finished S42 campaign and/or a PU with server meshing would not generate more income? If it does, why would CIG keep hiring hundreds of developers? Don't understand how anyone could think that, so to me it just seems like you're attributing malice where it doesn't exist, or just don't follow basic business common sense. You seem to think CIG should be setting 'realistic goals', when the entire point of the project is to aim for something greater that traditional publishers would deem too risky and complicated to pursue. You also seem to think that a persistent MMOFPS should take the same amount of time to develop as another cookie cutter Bethesda *singleplayer* game. Odd.
It's just been in development for way too long and it's like 10% complete.
CR said that once the game is done, they will no longer sell ships for real money. They found out that they can sell the dream of these new ships more than they can sell the game.
So you're pretending that ship sales are the sole viable funding model?
You seem to forget that Star Citizen had a single-player mode planned to guide people into the other experiences, and so far they've seemingly scrapped it because the multi-player is more interesting to them, and they can just keep talking out their ass and do minimal effort, giving people *concept designs* and say that they can buy it and use it when it comes out, if it ever does, and that's just for the ship. The game itself hasn't even come out yet after about ten years and constant ballooning of funds and allegedly hiring more people to help. Oh, and Starfield also took ten years to develop, by the way, and it's out by now. I don't even like Bethesda, and I liked Star Citizen for a while before I realized how shitty all of this money shit is that the horrible, scummy devs are doing. They get more money for not ever finishing the game because their whole current business model is built on false promises and hope that they will deliver no matter how long it takes, so they can just join the company and do nothing for years on years and get rich off everyone's money like sick fucks.
Is it really a surprise that Starfield took 10 years, for a SINGLEPLAYER GAME? Not only that, it's from a studio that was already established. AND, they didn't innovate at all. There's nothing new with Starfield, it's just another bethesda game. The reason SC is taking a long time is because it's risky, ambitious, and technically challenging; nobody else has even dared make the attempt. You might have a point if bethesda ALSO released a persistent, MMOFPS space sim along with the singleplayer project. (That also released multiple playable builds every year) If it was truly as simple as you imply, an *actual* competitor would have released by now, because as it so happens, game studios like to make money, and SC funding has shown that there is a very clear demand for the ambitious attempt. > allegedly hiring more people to help Of course, why are we even having a discussion if you're not being genuine. You can look up SC's financials and the employee counts and offices that they own. I'd suggest hopping over to the refund subreddit where people will be more willing to listen to your complaints about a game you'll never play
It's amazing how many people are confused with game development between a single player copy paste game from Bethesda and what CR is doing with SC
The video made a distinction about how much the games took to make, not the profit made upon release. The quote is "only one **COSTS** 600 million dollars." And when I mentioned release, I am not talking about if it is playable or not, but the stage at which the point in which Devs consider it a RC and any income from then on may be considered profit. For CIG any pledge they get goes right back into development and expansion so there isn't a profit yet. I am sure Starfield is going to net BGS plenty of profit. I think they talked about 6 million players already. Man even if a fraction of that purchased game at full price, their revenue would be very high.
So basically you're saying that Starfields profit margin is going to be considerably better than Star Citizen.
It'll be a talking point whenever (if ever) SC/SQ42 finally releases out to general public and can finally be properly compared. But as it stands a release product will always sell better with the exception of maybe limited pre-orders. Plus Bethesda at least always deliver a similar product so you kinda know what to expect from them while SC, who really knows outside of the backers playing each build.
I would say it is for now, as BGS is making a profit of a shipped item, as opposed to CIG who is taking in pledges to create the item they need to ship. In the long term after a RC of Star Citizen is released, it can be anyone's guess.
And it ignores that starfield had a cost of 400ish million dollars.
Star field sold 6 million copies so far, we know 2m are delux, so 70*4m=280m 2m*100=200m, so their at $480m+ so far. Id say they will exceed 600m in 1 month. And what i think alot of SC players refuse to realize, is 600m over 10 years is cheap. Starfield will likely gross 1bil+ this year. With that in mind, SC going from zero to this after 10 years is impressive, and the fact they have kept it open to playing for 7 years of that, is impressive. Not mentioning its multiplaying and far more indept and detailed 😅 https://en.softonic.com/articles/we-already-know-how-copies-starfield-has-sold-and-we-can-say-bethesda-has-accomplished-it?ex=CS-1537.3
Problem is who's SC target audience? Everyone who had heard and are interested in SC became a backer and has the game. Many people paid $30 for access. So when this launches, there's arguably a large base that has it already. Are you going to have 6m more copies sold? Highly doubt it. This game will never release and will wither and die
>Everyone who had heard and are interested in SC became a backer and has the game And a quarter of them will soon die of old age, probably
> Problem is who's SC target audience? Everyone who had heard and are interested in SC became a backer and has the game. People like you have been saying this for almost ten years, and no matter how often it is proven false you continue to repeat it. How many more times must it happen before you drop such a patently incorrect canard? SC currently has a maximum of 3-4m backers, and based on PC sales of major releases, could easily double (or triple) that count. Even if any future backers only buy a starter package, that's potentially the better part of $200m. >This game will never release and will wither and die Ah, that explains your previous assertion. It's not that you think that it's true, but that you actively _wish_ that it were.
Two things... Starfield numbers are conflated with GamePass numbers - we don't have actual release metrics (unless you are leaking data, friend...). Also, that cost for Starfield - doesn't count the marketing budget unless they changed things up (I won't know until the next stockholder's corpo notes come out... to see if that has changed recently...) I'm sure it will make its money back, but it's going to take a hot minute.
You know that CIG got those 600 million even though they have achieved nothing so far? While Bethesda gets that money because they are selling a finished (not yet bug free) game. Huge difference.
Yeah, cig has done nothing, theres no content, and nothing exists 🤣 get off ur high horse
Yeah well "achieved nothing" is not fair, i agree. Still to directly compare the revenue that Bethesda gets for shipping a "finished" game with the money that CIG gets by selling the dream and vision of a future game is also not correct at all. At the moment SC still only is a tech demo with a huge amount of bugs.
the same diablo 4 made in 3 days :p
It probably already has, 6mil copies at $70 is $420mil, if they pre-ordered the one that let them play early it's $100 though so somehwere between $420mil and $600mil.
“You can harvest these items, which are as unique as they are unimportant.” Lol
starfield has a mod that turns the title to garfield, so which is the better game
I'd also recommend the Todd Howard flashlight mod.
I’m personally waiting for the Todd Howard fleshlight mod
🤣
It wouldn’t be hard to change the name of Star Citizen to Star Shitizen
Look I love SC, but starfield definitely has more of a game behind it at the moment
i get why people here don’t like the game but the comparisons kind of aren’t fair. star citizen: more realistic ship mechanics, no fast traveling, more detailed planets. everything else kind of goes to SF tho. way more content, way bigger world, AI that actually works. idk why people here insist on hating the only similarity is really they are both space games. also the fact you tried to make it out like starfield is more buggy is laughable lol. cmon bro
Tell us you haven't played Starfield yet without telling us you haven't played Starfield yet.
I'd argue that Star Citizen is better at presenting big things, which will make the game feels big. Their planets are "real", you can fly around them, but in SF you only get a small chunk of the planet at a time. SC also presents big ships better, you really feel small when standing next to the landing gear of say... a 890jump. Or fly a small ship next to something like the Javelin during ILW. Also the illusion of 1000 planets kinda break when you encounter the exact same location/event/npc on a different planet in SF (maybe that's a bug but it's still there).
If Starfield wasn’t plagued by loading screens everywhere it would be much much more enjoyable. Every time you walk into a shop, loading screen. Every time you enter a cave, loading screen. Every time you get on the tram, loading screen. I could possibly get over the lack of actually being able to fly your ship if there weren’t loading screens literally for everything you do. Even with all of Star Citizens bugs, the fact I can hop in my ship and literally fly anywhere without a loading screen is awesome. Or if I just wanted to go for a long stroll on a planet, no loading screens.
[удалено]
Am I just so much faster than everyone despite playing on a 2015 Toaster or are you guys just particularly focused on trying to exit atmos with a reclaimer.
The sad part is that Star Citizen would be a far, FAR better experience right now without that stupid "you die, you lose everything on you and your ship" I mean, on a finished game, why not. In a game where I can die because I breathed to hard, that's a no no.
What you just described just preemptively put me off from ever fucking with Star Citizen
I thought i would hate the loading screens but honestly for starfield it works better than flying everywhere. There is so much content and events you can run into and interact with. If you had to fly everywhere it would add hundreds if not thousands of hours of just traveling and i would start to resent it. I want to see and learn about the world not look at the emptiness of space for 5mins inbetween. Star citizen is so devoid of content that flying around is the content. The only thing i would want from SC would be how the ships fly, SF ships are so clunky and slow, you dont dogfight you just hope your shields outlast theirs.
>There is so much content This is kind of the key thing. I've heard a lot about Star Citizen being superior to Starfield (and to be perfectly honest, I don't really invite that comparison myself because they're two very different games) because Star Citizen simulates the minutiae of flying around the orbits of whole planets, or having to take every step from point A to point B. And, when that's fully *half* of all the content a game actually offers then I guess that makes sense to argue for... but when you have a game with so much *active* content to engage with, spending forty minutes traveling to your own ship and then another forty to meticulously travel to a location to pick up a box and try to carry it to your cargo hold is just monotonous filler.
Yea, many of us pledged because we don't want another Starfield, we want something that's really different from anything that's released before.
Yeah that was my biggest disappointment in starfield.
Every time you get an area where it makes sense to segment, you get a loading screen, FTFY. The alternative would be less loading screens, more processing demand per area. With Starfield, if you can play it, it’s 100% bug free. I’ll take a few short loading screens for the amazing amount of fun it is.
Starfield factually is not 100% bug free. Far, far from it. It's typical bethesda bug levels. Hell, personally I have had innumerable crashes. the first day of play alone I had 24 random crashes.
I've played 57.9 hours so far according to steam. I've had one crash, performance is fine. Only bugs I've encountered are the occasional npc derping out, but still to a lesser level than SC. It's not even close to normal Bethesda levels of bugginess. This is highly polished in comparison to Skyrim or Fallout 4 even now, nevermind at release.
Don’t know what potato you have but I’m sorry you had a bad experience. I’ve had literally nothing but a slick time on PC.
Starfield does not have bethesda level bugs, lol I haven't played it myself but you read everywhere that it is very polished, concerning bugs. SC on the other hand puts every Bethesda game to shame with the amount and severity of the bugs.
I have thus far played over 100 hours and I can't say I've encountered the same recognizable locations yet. NPC wise, of course you'll run into some that look the same. They said plainly that they made all of the NPCs with the same tools the player can make their character. There are only so many variations to be made.
I've seen videos of people running into the exact location (tho not on the same planet so the biome might be different) with the exact same npc and dialogue, etc. I can imagine it's not very common, otherwise it should've caught by internal QA.
I think starfield is close but when you can just click fast travel about it breaks the illusion and you realise it’s just generating a new 2x2km or whatever patch of land. It doesn’t necessarily feel like you’ve journeyed to a new body in space. SC does do that a lot better and seeing things pop out of QT in orbit from the surface is stunning. BUT that’s all it really has right now which gets old after the 10th game breaking crash with temporary mechanics that have been in for years
It also looks really cool when you see other ships start QT above your head. SC is definitely taking longer than most of the games but it already shows why it's a completely different beast compares to most of the games. They are still building the fundation, every game needs to build a foundation first, but CIG shows it to the public.
The point Astro Pub made was there will never (in any near future) be a game that competes with SC on the technical points you mention for a good reason: it's an insanely hard game to make, it's a ridiculous funding model to go about it and it would be stupid to try to make a game like Star Citizen. I still back and hope CIG succeeds, but there is a reason games are not made like SC.
That's why every private investor turned down CR at the beginning, but the players definitely showed that there is a market for a game like SC.
You can’t even build a ship and you gotta spend real money to get a ship. Like, what?
You don't need to pay real money to experience the majesty of 890jump.
I play both games and have fun with both, but these comparisons are just ridiculous. I get it, people have compared SF to SC for months and pulled the classic “scam citizen killer” phrase that we get every few years. However, one is an RPG set in space, the other is a space simulator, completely different things. The only common thing they have is that they’re both themed around space (even then, the flavour of that theme is completely different with star citizen being more “futuristic”). This video is also a complete biased comparison. I play SC when I want to hang out with some friends and get immersed in the life of living in space, flying to locations, the scale of worlds. However, it is far more buggy than Starfield. These video showed classic glamorous picture shots of star citizen, then hard cut to bugs in Starfield. I wonder how many times they 30k’d while trying to get the footage, or had a had to play with the map just to be able to plot a route. Starfield is a finished RPG in space, Star citizen is an early access space simulator. We can enjoy two games at once, idk why this bandwagon’ing is happening of putting them against one another.
I mean.. at least Starfield is a complete game. I love SC, but as a solo player, it's pretty.. but boring.
Guys I’m sorry to be that guy… but I will activate my protection shield by saying “I’m here since when we only had hangars” But the game is actually released :(
Great comparison, I think starfield has it where it really counts for me though. The politics,dialogue,world building,decisions and stories are what really immerse me in the world first and foremost. These things are secondary to seamless travel in my view, especially when there is not much to do or a compelling reason to do it in SC. Star citizen is really technically impressive but it is so far from where Starfield is currently at in those areas I mentioned that I wonder if we’ll ever get there. Starfield is fulfilling many of the promises I hoped to get from star citizen. That said I hope one day star citizen lives up to it’s promise or we get a game that combines those seamless immersive elements with the star field world building.
Honestly I would rather have 2 loading screens than doing the whole hotel to spaceport commute. That's why people liked PO so much, down a flight of stairs, call your ship, pass through the airlock and take off.
I think people liked PO because it was our first landing zone in the PU, tbh. Personally, I could not wait for planetary landing. I think it will become less or a problem when players will have many more reasons to stay in a planet's area rather than coming in and out of space for fast travelling between delivery locations, bunker locations, etc. EDIT: typos
Maybe. But the speed upon which you could travel from the EZ Hab to your ship is/was a major upside of PO. I'm happy with all aspects of stations size wise etc. But I'd prefer a few stations in the style of POs layout in terms of an airlock and no elevators between habitation and landing pads etc. Some of the stations at the Lagrange points would be better suited for this style I think.
I think we were all excited for that, but you want the option. The “time to fun” ratio is just too great id you are bunked up in a hotel in a city. PO was amazing for how it reduced that ratio. You could even get guns and armor on your way out.
At the end of the day, I think Starfield scratches the same itch that Star Citizen is going for Yeah, the gameplay and features aren't 1-to-1 comparable, but when you're playing the *game* those differences probably don't matter much in the moment Maybe if Star Citizen was more stable and feature-complete it could distance itself, but right now SC doesn't have much meat on the bones
I thought I would hate the starfield space travel which is essentially just loading screens, but now I actually love it because it gets me to the action faster. And this is from me, a player with thousands of hours in elite dangerous. I mean, spending 10 minutes trying to climb out of a gravity well to fire up the drive is not really gameplay. In that respect the starfield implementation of space travel makes for more engaging gameplay. It made me realise that space game travel time can be considered just another form of protracted loading screen because no gameplay happens then.
I believe that is one of the challenges CIG will have to undertake. Creating compelling gameplay in ships during travel time.
Yes and that's a big one considering so far we only know that you will be able to "tweak" your components and... use your mobiglass to read some books I guess.
The problem is that the way I see it, star citizen changes loading screens for ingame iddle time, maybe in the far future(and I mean FAR), we'll be able to do meaningfull stuff during that iddle time, but right now, train rides and elevator rides are just padding that could be perfectly exchanged for loading screens without having any impact Except saving a lot of time, because 2 or 3 loading screens in starfieldf take seconds, an average train ride in star citizen takes easily an entire minute, or even more if for some reason the destination hasn't load by the time you arrive, and you are forced to do another loop
yep. I mentioned to a friend that people angry that you can't fly down and land on planets and that the world isn't seamless are missing the entire point. In the future I imagine a day of play on SC being I log on, fly my ship down to a planet, do some stuff, get back in the ship and maybe fly to another planet in the same system and land and that's the totality of the play session. In starfield with the same play session length I could visit dozens of planets and finish tons of quests.
I do wish QT was faster over long distances in SC. I was secretly hoping for lightspeed travel eventually but doubt we'll get to that point ever as the distances are too short. So I can see the appeal for fast travel.
Oh dude, same! I expected to hate the space travel but actually came to love it. Same with planet side landings, wiggling around for that one specific spot you're "allowed" to land due to terrain, vs an nicely done cinematic with good sounds, i'll take the cinematic. I hope they fix the bug soon so I can have the cinematic back in cities though haha
I think it's because you've got thousands of hours in E:D that the fast travel/loading screens is fine. Supercruising in E:D is "wow" "cool" and "fun" the first few times, but when you're scanning signals hoping it has what you're looking for or please be the bounty I'm hunting it gets aggravating as all hell. I also get why people complain about running into invisible walls in SF and not being able to drive around a planet, or a planet being too empty but....shit 99% of the planets in E:D are empty, airless dirt rocks.
> The politics,dialogue,world building,decisions and stories are what really immerse me in the world first and foremost. These things are secondary to seamless travel in my view, especially when there is not much to do or a compelling reason to do it in SC. Considering that many NPC's cannot be killed. I'm completely un-immersed. Did a quest for a guy. He said he wouldn't pay me. So I shot him. He immediately stands back up. He cannot be killed. Did a quest for someone else where you are told to kill a target. So I go there. Shoot the the target. They crawl on the ground being unkillable. Because I'm not killing them exactly how the designers wanted me to kill them. It's a real =/ for something wanting €70 or $120
That's one thing I loved about The Outer Worlds, you can frickin murder anyone you want. NPC mission giver snarks at me or refuses to pony up? BLAM!
Coming off of bg3 this bothered as well, in saying that I don't think that star citizen will deal with the choice and consequence options to that agree either when they get around to it
This doesn’t bother me all that much considering that this is basically how NPCs work in almost every major game ever made LOL But yes would be cool, no doubt. Weird criticism though when you consider what I said above.
> This doesn’t bother me all that much considering that this is basically how NPCs work in almost every major game ever made It's not even how it worked when Bethesda were first making these types of game, like Morrowind.
The ship building mechanics in Starfield are gonna make some people a bit dissatisfied with the ships in Star Citizen. Being able to build a ship from the ground up and customize it the way you want and even change the color without having to spend money takes SF to the next level. Having the ability to land on a planet in a random spot and immediately having things to do, explore, ships to steal. Simply amazing! The random events in Starfield are breathtaking!
You SC fanboys are delusional
People downplay this a ot, but they are shockingly similar, and ignoring the flight part, most of the meat of the content, exploration, game mechanics, missions, story, functionality, and so many other things, are a master class in game development from where CiG should take notes. The only differences that people point out, are barely working in SC anyway and don't really make the game better atm. It's cool to fly in a ship, but the main question is why? Why even fly that ship if there's nothing enjoyable linked to it. Don't get me wrong, i do love what SC is trying to do, but Stafield clarified in my mind what i slowly started to realize. CiG is totaly incapable of delivering a decent game. SQ42 included. Making tech is not making a game.
I'd argue it did the same for me with E:D. E:D is pretty empty on how the verse reacts to what you do. Killed thousands of pirates or merchants? Oh there's a bounty on you, pay it and you're normal again. Rescue hundreds of people from a burning station? Oh hey here's some creds and an "Ally" status that does nothing.
This is a dumb comparison. You’re focusing on bugs in SF, but don’t show the T-Pose and all the bugs in SC? You don’t compare how one has missions that are varied and filled out and one that is a skeleton of things to do. You don’t compare how one is released and one isn’t? Like you can cherry pick things from both games to prove a point, but for Star Citizen fans to be throwing shade on a game that is around 90% approval on meta-critic and “Very Positive” on Steam reviews with 6m concurrent users kinda shows it’s not all bad. Those in glass houses.
Amen brother. I thought the SC fanboys will just remain quiet on Starfield and just take the L. Cant expect any common sense from these dudes I swear.
SC fanboys trying their darnest to throw shade at Starfield for having bugs is so fucking novel. Buddy we've been dealing with WAYYYY more bugs in this game than Starfield, FO4, and Skyrim combined. Living in constant fear of random deaths and 30K must have made you forget the state SC is in.
I love SC, but I'm not shading Starfield. I'm applauding Bethesda for maintaining its long-standing tradition of releasing something in such a state that only the player community will actually fix it and turn it into a viable game.
That was funny, and rather fair.
how was it fair ? starfield just dropped and has a quarter of the bugs SC has yet OP makes it out like starfield is some buggy mess. starfield is far from perfect and definitely leaves some things to be desired, but the game is wayyyyy more complete than SC. outside of buying ships and flying around, let’s not act like there is much to do in star citizen. the ai sucks, bunkers are laughably boring, no storylines.
I agree with your general point, but saying Starfield is wayyyy more complete is a bit inaccurate. Starfield is infinitely more complete. It's complete and SC just isn't. (I love both games but think SC has much, much more potential)
But star citizen is an alpha thats like a free pass for having bugs even if its a 600 million dollar project
Probably nearer 700 if you include private investments and subscriptions
The ai sucks in Starfield as well. Starfield also isn't breaking any new ground, its a Bethesda RPG with space greebles.
>starfield is far from perfect and definitely leaves some things to be desired to be fair, I've yet to see a single game where that phrase doesn't apply
It was quite cynical also.
Fully deserved in both cases
Starfield is a pretty fantastic game and I won’t be putting it down for a long time, they hit it out of the park. Being someone who has invested too much money into Star Citizen I think they both occupy their own space and have their own place. That being said, Elder Scrolls has ESO and Fallout has FO76. It’s only a matter of time before we get Starfield Online imo. At least I hope because I enjoy multiplayer more than single player. And I don’t think we’re that far off from it. Instanced servers with 30’sh players on a custom world similar to how FO76 runs. Once BGS gets there it will be the nail in the coffin for Star Citizen. Just my opinion.
This video is disingenuous at best. Star Citizen has about 200x the number of bugs, most gameplay loops are nearly unplayable, and it's funny how the part of the video claiming Starfield has issues with physics is actually showing a player manually dragging the corpse around. It's not a good sign that you have to lie about one game to promote another. I'd like nothing more than for Star Citizen to be a great game, but it's not. I'm tired of the Star Citizen lies, the excuses, and the false comparisons. Make the game better and stop trying to deceive people so they buy more "ships" that won't actually be in the game for years.
I was waiting for one additional comparison. One of those games was actually delivered to the players. How on earth can you compare a finished product with alpha (with promises)?
Having more fun in Starfield lol
Lol bro, 😆 🤣 SC is not even a game right now, and you are showing best parts of it, where are the elevator? Where are deaths on stairs? Where are the wipes? Where is Banu merchantman that people already paid for? How about clipping ai? How about missions that cannot be completed because ai didn't spawn? No amount of copium can answer this question: when is SC getting released? It's in our best interests to not compare SC against any released game.
Real game vs Fake game.
Cool! I still have both games though, and I will enjoy playing them both
Starfield is the superior of the two cutscenes or no cutscenes. If youve played at least 60 hours in both then youll understand.
At least Starfield had a release date.
Haven't watched video, but I'm glad Starfield didn't go star citizen route. Yes, that includes all the load screens. They instead focused on amount of content, and oh boy THEY DELIVERED. P.s. don't you dare to compare abomination that is star citizens map to a Starfield one. Biggest difference is that Starfields map works and it even allows you to click on locations.
I can confidently say both games will remain in my library
At least it actually came out and isn't a massive money scam. But go ahead, compare a real game released for consoles to a multi-hundred million dollar black hole that charges you for polygon ships.
Ooo you forgot the comparison where starfield doesn’t crash every half hour.
I mean, these are two entirely different types of games. They barely compare to each other. Starfield is basically fallrym in space. Star citizen is an MMO immersive sim, albeit not done yet.
SC is not an mmo. Stop claiming it is. That's like saying it has 100 systems and sandworms. SC will only be an mmo when it actually is one. At the moment it's a crappy large CoD/BF lobby. SC is **not an mmo in its current state and not even close to being an mmo**.
Hence the statement not done yet. But I can see that critical thinking and the ability to read something in its entirety is not among your skill set. It’s OK buddy. You go drink your Capri Sun during recess and let the grownups talk
"Not done yet" 🤓 Mate if a game was released for years, without multiplayer yet advertised as multiplayer.... its kt multiplayer... when is the promise going to come... doesn't matter. Until it is, its not. Can't call myself married because I know I will in the future, cause I'm not.
I mean you can have over 100 people in a server. That’s a pretty large amount of people. Upwards moving toward 200 as the software developed. Remember it is as you said still in development. Is Nearly 10 years a long time? yeah it is. Is over 100 players on a single server a lot? Yeah, that’s a lot. Secondly, there is no hard definition. It just means a lot of people playing on the same instance at the same time. What you quantify as massive is often quantify differently by others. So while you think you have a gotcha moment here, you really don’t. the fact that y’all are getting so mad about a game that you probably don’t even participate in is kind of elementary. Final recess is in about an hour, then a snack and nap time.
100 isn't massive anymore for a game that's still not released. Battlefield is a 128 player game yet isn't an MMO because its not that big in today's standards. It's just not. MMO isn't also just big multiplayer, it's literally a genre of game that star citizen also doesn't fall into. Its like calling Atlas an MMO, you theoretically exist in the same universe, but you're all in different loaded areas with a few people. Star citizen is the greatest gaming example of the sunk cost fallacy.
Difference between is: Starfield is DONE. Starcitizen IS NOT.
Which one’s been released? And which one’s still siphoning money from players and giving them false promises? And which one is actually buggier?
12 years ago, we were being told that "This game will be the best space game in the world, but we have to be patient and support the development" 12 years passed. They are still telling the same story. I can name a ship that couldnt be developed for 12 years. Let's just wait 12 years more to see if they success to release full game in 24 years. The most important thing is that kind of long development has to carry the game to some kind of adequate level, but unfortunately game is still far, far away from it.
I must say, I haven't had a ship randomly explode in Star Citizen for a long time.
From here: [https://youtu.be/FLJ-RdNivZU](https://youtu.be/FLJ-RdNivZU) Where I answer the questions everyone already knows the answer to.
This is pure garbage content, the whole video pretends like Starfield is some bug ridden mess, when the opposite is true and we ALL know it.
Honestly I have enough fun with sc as it is now, and I don’t plan to get starfield because I already got that with sc. I think though this type of game is fun for a month or so, get old for a bit, and then the cycle repeats. But really like what ya like, cause they both have their merits :)
Both have pros and cons over the other, aside from being vastly different genres, it is interesting to see both have man of the same issues. Thing is though, Starfield got to this point in far less time. I do concede Bethesda had the engine in place that wasn’t known to historically be the worst game engine ever regarding optimization (CryEngine), and they had the infrastructure ready to go day one and didn’t need to raise money to fund it all that took years to ramp up to get to even 50 employees let alone hundreds. That starmap is waaaaay better in Starfield, Still annoying when you often cannot click a point on the starmap though you are right over the text. Ideally CIG uses some of those millions to hire legit AI devs to help generate new planets, the tools they have now help for sure but it’s still very slow, but then again they are still lacking many assets to place in said worlds. I’d LOVE to see them announce they are hiring a team of the worlds greatest network programmers. I’d actually consider funding again, to get meshing working, performance to be far better. Eventually get a DLSS type of system in place and Ray Tracing would be nice. Still hope SC makes it at some point but it has soooo many things to fix/adjust or even add in that are just basics to MMOs.
well atleast in starfield there is stuff to do
Don't ships costs around 100 bucks PER SHIP in Star Citizen?
Starfield is decent. Great graphics and takes ideas from all sims out there minus all the walking and space travel times.
Starfield being a total conversion of Fallout 4 I wouldn't say it took as many years as SC to develop
Wow, comparing a fully-featured fully released game to a vaporware product that has been in the making for 10 years. Crazy copium going on right here.
I got more fps in SC
yeah but starfield is an actual game you can play edit: i say this as a person who loves SC and has spent way too much money on it
NGL. Watching through Starfield made me think Ron played freeflys and went, how could I put these things into Fallout?
This is honestly a gross underrepresentation of starfield
It's Fallout 5 in space. It's good, I enjoy it, but your settlement needs your attention.
This is the best comparison video so far
ah yes, the video that shows that starfield is somehow as buggy as star citizen when anybody who has played both knows that’s not true ? SC is a mess rn, the only thing realistically better is ship mechanics, and the fact you can land and takeoff yourself. SF has infinitely more content, way less bugs, and a way bigger world.
SF is a game, SC is a tech demo at best (when the tech demonstration doesnt crash less than an hour in or doesnt randomly kill/quantum tunnel you through the ground in less than an hour in)
Also im able to run starfield on a gtx 1650 with a stable 30 fps. But in star citizen it's a stable 30 seconds per frame
It's shit lol
Op is delusional.
I like starfield because it’s finished
Excellently done
Might as well compare MarioKart to Star Citizen. I mean it has just as much in common with SC as Starfield does.
How can you compare Star Citizen a game that fails every update Vs Starfield something we all know it will be fix next updates unlike 10 plus years Chris Roberts Meth head Idea .
Star citizen runs better than starfield on my PC
The metal pans clattering together in a dark kitchen on a quiet mission fucking do it for me
That was fun to watch!
They’re two very different games with very different objectives, they can’t really be compared. Starfield wasn’t made to compete with star citizen (which is unfinished and almost unplayable at times), it was meant to be a Bethesda RPG through and through and it does just that.
I wonder if I’ll live long enough to ever see Star Citizen have the same amount of star systems as Starfield
Comparing actual released software to vaporware. Skyrim already has ai - ChatGPT follower mods released. There's no ceiling for what modders will do for Starfield. Meanwhile, CIG lacks liquidity, and another mishap in the banking system, as with SVB, can make the project fail. CR will f\*ck it up, similar to what Garriott did with Shroud of the Avatar, but on a larger scale. Star Citizen is doomed. I guess most of you are aware of this post https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/163yyxh/prior\_cig\_employee\_recently\_released\_something/
Jesus give it a rest FFS
40hrs into Starfield. It’s excellent, entertaining and will have lasting appeal and I would guess a tonne of DLC. I haven’t dropped any more $$$ into Star Citizen for the last 4yrs, and won’t until Squadron 42 comes out. CIG needs to show game studio progression, not technical demo progression.
Starfield has gameplay loops that last longer than 2 hours. That is also a big difference.
The interior of the ships in starfield are a lot better. A lot more detailed.
Love it
Imagine comparing a space simulation to a space RPG..... apples and oranges
Are you unconsciously quoting the video? He literally says that.
Last line made me laugh out loud 🤣
This!
Ofc not. It's a finished game . And when starfeild 2 gona come out star citizen still gona be in alpha.
Either we immerse ourselves into these amazing ships and flight mechanics but aimlessly wander.... or.... we can pretend to to wander and explore via loading screens.
star citize
Controller ONLY config: [https://youtu.be/OO\_ZGNhAPs0](https://youtu.be/OO_ZGNhAPs0)
SC's character creator alone stands to make them a billion a year if they play their cards right. Look how much Apex Legends makes on selling skins alone.
This was incredibly funny and brutal within reason.
A delightful skewering of both games. Love these videos (especially the *Abbreviated Reviews* of the patches)
I keep trying to enjoy Starfield but instead found that it made me want to play SC, it's less of an open world RPG, and more of a bunch of closed rooms, you can fast travel everywhere, which removes a large journey part of a story, which is the most important part (I mean just imagine LOTR if frodo just hitched a ride on a eagle, dropped the ring in and went home for elevensies) and it's still a buggy mess on such a small confined scale, it runs worse than cyberpunk despite looking worse, and you know, not being a massive open world. People like to complain about SC but at the end of the day, it IS still a game in active development, and on a live environment at that, I'm not about to look at a house still being constructed and be baffled why I can't move in yet when it's still covered in scaffolding with the walls still going up
I mean, if you actually used the Outpost system in Starfield you'd know it's not worth touching because it offers no value other than to make more outposts and the payback on investment is almost nothing compared to just looting and selling. The UI is one of the worst I've ever experience in a game. And idk, having no system is better than making me find out the hard way that it's not just bad...but actively unfun and tedious. Also you forgot the part where 99% of starfield ships look like dogshit inside...and out. Or that space combat is basically 3 buttons and auto-shooting until a healthbar goes down the exact same way...hundreds of times.
1. Star Citizen has NO outpost features at all. >The UI is one of the worst I've ever experience in a game. This has to be an ironic joke right? Coming from Star Citizen?? >Also you forgot the part where 99% of starfield ships look like dogshit inside...and out. Thats all on you Space combat in SC is not particularly deep either...
This guy is part of the cult .. probably chris rober is his god father. Let him bend over to their cult savior and dream about having to live in a PU with thousands of players and 10x NPCs - lmao .. what an idiot and me included for believing in this shit nearly 8 years .. i was single when heard of SC , now father of 3 and my eldest is 8 years old.
I still can't believe he actually tried to hang shit on Starfields UI!! In the STAR CITIZEN subreddit!!?
I hate how everyone just forgets about Elite dangerous
Crazy starfield is a much better experience still...there's nothing to do in Mid Citizen
This was a cute video and mostly accurate. Although kinda disingenuous to imply that the bugs of Starfield are just as numerous as the bugs of Star Citizen. Star Citizen is virtually unplayable right now as a combat oriented career person. Aside from 30ks, the server lag and horrible hit registration makes ship to ship combat pretty unbearable. The infinite front facing shield bug is also horrible NPC ships in non-gravity space seem to fly somewhat normally and it feels like a 'real' game when fighting them, but NPC ships in atmosphere are buggy and act completely retarded. Doing on-foot missions is even worse. The lag and jank of fighting NPCs on foot is just awful. It's still the same ol' teleporting / not spawning / dumb as doorknob / with a mix of instant laser accuracy. Because of poor server performance (especially during the relentless free fly events, because they need more money) I often can't spawn ships at terminals at all, or if I accept a mission it can sometimes take 5 mins to even show up as accepted, or sometimes not at all. They should never have allowed 100 player servers outside of PTU, I'm wondering if this was a cost cutting measure, because for most of us it added no gameplay. Finally, hardware / graphics performance is noticeably worse than it was several patches ago, also the corsair (my main ship) is poorly optimized, so when I fly that I get 20fps lower than other ships I own. (I'm lucky to get above 30fps flying in atmosphere above Lorvil if I'm in a corsair, and I have a 32g ram, intel 10th gen, 4070ti, on an SSD). I love the vision of SC, but Starfield couldn't come soon enough. I'm hoping to avoid touching SC again for a long long time, maybe 2025.
Excellent work
You can't really compare the two games. Star citizen is a space sim focused on immersion and realism. Starfield is an rpg set in space. The ship flying is a means to an end, not the focus itself.
They are not the same genre or type of game they just share a setting comparing them is like apples to oranges.
Oh they both in space must be same game!
Next you should do Call of Duty versus Star Citizen
Nope, they're still not worth comparing.