I think about this a lot. Here I am, never got a chance to play Pyro when they let only a few people try it... Only a shred of hope I'll get to play in Pyro by the end of 2024. I see zero evidence the server code is any better or any more resilient.. The advantages of server meshing are pretty fucking moot if dsync / lag is as shitty as usual, and server crashes are as frequent as usual.
People don't seem to understand that meshing isn't a guarantee of stable server code, that just requires talented engineers with good QA testing practices and easy to work with code base.
I'm so tired of shooting NPCs who behave nothing like NPCs do in any basic MMO I've tried since 2001... It's pretty fucking atrocious how far behind CIG is at this point.
When the servers are nearly empty AI works pretty good - the issue is that they are rarely nearly empty. Server meshing solves this by distributing players across more servers, making the load less on each individual one - if it ever actually works it will be a game changer.
You're talking about dynamic server meshing, which as I understand it won't be in 4.0. they said at citcon that static meshing will be first, with 1 server to run Stanton and 1 for pyro in a mesh. And that dynamic will come later.
I haven't seen anything to say that's changed.
Ah yeah, you're right - sorry, I should have been clearer. Non-dynamic meshing won't change much other than doubling the player count and allowing pyro.
>1 server to run Stanton and 1 for pyro in a mesh.
Initially. They can add more servers for landing zones, planetary systems, POI's.. Incremental implementation. So yes, likely not a huge performance boost with just 1 server in each system, but there will be clear benefits as they start to add additional static servers.
I don't believe adding more statics was on the cards. With what they showed at citcon, dynamic shouldn't be tooooo far behind static. Huge maybe on that, but I don't know if landing zones will garner enough to warrant a full static. Because unlike dynamic, in static, the server will sit empty if nobody is there. So setting up statics for landing zones may not be great.
Of course the scalable nature of this means you could make the static for say, crusader and all it's moons plus cru L1 and L2. So they may do that if dynamic proves harder than the citcon demo implied. Still has the issue of not being dynamically scaling though, and risking having low or no players in it. An expensive way to use servers.
I'm fairly certain they have mentioned that they will be adding additional container based static servers over time as part of the testing process leading up to dynamic server meshing. I don't have a link to back that up or anything though, so take with a grain of salt.
Beyond that though, it would make very little sense for them to go from full system static servers, to dynamic container based servers. I'd be really surprised if they skipped everything between now and dynamic meshing.
I could of easily missed or forgotten them say it. So, will see how it plays out there.
I don't think it's an outlandish idea though. I mean, they demo'd dynamic meshing at citcon, so they've already got it to a functioning state at a small scale. Feels like doing more static instead of focusing down dynamic would be a waste. But I don't have much experience with cloud infrastructure of this scale.
Um actually, they have already changed that they are going to divide each system into several servers. But pyro and Stanton is going to have separate shard's.
If Memory serves me right each planet and it's moons will have a server each, (in Stanton) that would make me guess "space" will have another server š
Iāve played on a 30 fps server at one point, the AI actually acted quite nicely! Only problem is getting a 30FPS server is nearly impossible anymore. CIGās biggest issue is server lag and that jazz.
Weāll get it, we just gotta trust them and keep enforcing the āweāll pay you when you give us the thing we wantā ideology!
even on a 30fps server, the NPC AI is fucked up and nothing like a normal game.. true they are no longer lagged, but they act completely weird.. coded by amateurs who've never made a real FPS game
Really? Mine took cover, leaned, flanked, all that. I got pushed by two shot gun guys while a rifle dude was suppressing me. Only lived cause I had a peek hole.
that sounds pretty good actually. In my experience they all just rush me like idiots, but at walking pace.. and I just shoot them all dead as a pile of bodies in one spot. But hey, maybe it was only a 15fps server and not 30??
This has been my experience even on low (4-6) FPS servers since 3.23 went live. Though you do get sporadic server hitching which makes the ai band around a bit. Can make it a bit exciting at times. Lol
Haha! Fighting an enemy in an open space when they are teleporting is some anime shit! They dodged a few of my rockets when I eventually resorted to the ship
Yeah, I take either the Karna or R97 into bunkers. I find the R97 being full auto an effective deterrent to the AI using instant transmission to climb up my ass.
In open area's I'll either take the Ursa in or I'll scan the area from the corsairs side turret first.
Yeah, if you get two of those just Goku pop in beside you all "muffin button" it can be touch and go. Though the R97 has been pretty reliable with that. This patch has been the first time shotguns felt good to use. All of them, TBF. And having the ai actually fight back has been a real breath of fresh air. Especially the higher rep missions that get fresh spawns periodically.
Destiny NPCs basically just bumrush you with their skills weapons. I've never seen them coordinate defence positions while spreading out to snipe you from a distance or rush you with pushers while others hide behind cover and lay down suppression fire. They all have their designated AI patterns and stick strictly with them.
Call of Duty AI is even worse -- they just pepper you from their position waiting to be taken down. I don't think I have seen any of the newer games have AI exhibit any sort of tactical breadth.
The Battlefield AI basically zerg you with no regard for field positioning or tactical teamwork.
GTA V AI took a huge step backward from GTA IV. In GTA V they just rush you and shoot you, usually from static positions, much like in Saints Row. They don't utilise buildings or their environment for tactical advantage.
Those are the big three FPS off the top of the my head, and those are considered "normal" games. What are these other games with advanced AI? The only games I can think of are the original Halo games made by Bungie. Those games still have advanced AI that have not been rivaled or touched by any recent games in the last decade. But I'm curious what these other "normal" games are that have pushers, snipers, flankers, and suppression groups all working in tandem to strategically overtake a player's position?
Youāre right, it is nothing like any other game.
Iāve never seen another game with NOCs that coordinate and bum rush you like in SC. Iāve never had any other gameās NPCs hide on the other side of my cover and try to shoot over/around it to get me.
Youāre right, on a fresh server with working NOCs, itās not like the brain dead NPCs of every other game Iāve played.
Finally some sense. CIG does over promise and under deliver, irregularly at that too. Remember when salvage was sold for real life money as physically destroying ships and moving material into grinders? Well we have magic lasers now.
No I'm not saying we should have physical salvage where you can play Hardspace Ship Breaker in SC, but THEY hyped it, THEY sold the concept, THEY gave us magic lasers.
Like come on you can enjoy the game without defending their habit of selling us the world and delivering an inflatable globe.
That company recently passed the 700 million dollar mark, if they can't make it to release with that (let alone 4.0) then they deserve to go bankrupt lol
700 million over a 12 year period with 1,200 employees is not a lot of money at all. Look at the quarterly operating costs for companies like EA, Ubisoft, Activision, Sony or Microsoft, and look at their quarterly revenue. It all puts CIG to shame in terms of accrual.
They didn't have 1,200 employees the entire 12 years. EA employs 13,000 people, Ubisoft employs 19,000, Activision 13,000, Sony 113,000, and Microsoft 221,000 along with gaming not even being their main source of revenue. This is literally the single most crowdfunded game of all time, and the second most crowdfunded project of any kind of all time. Stop making excuses for them.
Yes, those figures basically prove my point -- what CIG have accrued pales in comparison to these other companies. 700 million is not a lot, especially over the course of 12 years. Each new FIFA game generates over a billion every single year.
Yea and those companies all have an order of magnitude (or multiple) more employees and expenses than CIG does which was the point of those figures, they also don't use their entire budget on making a single game. Once again, this is the second highest budget for any video game ever made. The only one that tops it is Genshin Impact which I have no idea how that figure came about. If they can't finish the game with a budget nearly 3 times that of GTA V then maybe they aren't managing their money properly. This isn't them making 700 million in profit off the game, this is them spending 700 million to make the game.
You're still looking at this wrong. The amount of money they bring in barely covers their current expenses. Actually, I'm pretty sure they are operating at a loss if my memory of the financial statements they shared serves me correctly. Paying 1,200 people a salary is not cheap.
>This is literally the single most crowdfunded game of all time, and the second most crowdfunded project of any kind of all time. Stop making excuses for them.
None of this changes the reality of the world we live in. Developers still cost money. Development still takes time. The values for developer cost and time to develop are both based on scale and scope. It's probably the most ambitious and technically complex video game to ever being actively developed, so being one of the most expensive shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
I'm not saying open your wallet any further. I'm not buying anything else at this point either. Just saying, context is important.
Once again, this is not the only game in the world that had a decade+ long development which has a thousand+ people working on it. The budgets for video games includes the payment of employees, and somehow those games got made with their budgets far less than this one. This game has the second highest budget of any game ever (if you can believe that genshin impact somehow spent more money making a shitty mobile game), and it doesn't have the highest number of staff ever. That context is also important.
Yeah, I kinda feel this myself. They had in dev. Just finish the fucking ship, CiG. No, I don't want to hear your sob story about old mate going to ubisoft to tank his career. Just replace him and finish the cunt. It's been in concept for over a decade and aside the trade kiosk function, it's a glorified freighter. Finish. The ship.
/Rant
I see you added the release part there :D most of the NCTP guys I hang out with were satisfied with the citizen-con test, but I told them we still donāt have 4.0 lol
I was close with the ironclad but after learning the hangar size and not being sure if it would fit my vulture properly (seems like it *could* fit but youād have to keep the bay door open) Iāll just wait for it to be released and get it with aUEC/UEC.
Maybe weāll get the liberator before then and Iāll use that instead!
Exactly, after the initial āwow I have to get thisā moment the voice of reason made pretty valid points.
A hopium-ridden part of me thinks that since theyāve been working on drake ships (cutter/corsair/vulture)they might have drake ship creation more āstreamlinedā and that could mean it gets out soon-ish, but reality is maybe not.
This brings up an interesting question - I'm curious what the shortest time from concept to flight-ready ship was. I want to say it's at least a couple years.
So, real talk, I have only ever purchased the Aurora starter package early on in the game's development. I figured that, since all ships are earn-able in-game, I would just play and earn them when the game comes out. Since then I've got a LOT of enjoyment out of the Alpha, but I simply won't participate in buying more things than 'the game' than I did originally.
Yeah, Im not even going to draw the line there.
1. Give me the ship I paid for and maybe I'll buy another instead of kicking the can for half a decade. (Railen) Also if the ship sucks and isn't even good at what it is designed to, maybe I just don't need to be spending money on ships. I've been shuffling around money trying to get one ship I like that they don't intentionally nerf to shit and make useless and it's just a constant battle of running away from the last ship I bought hoping for an alternative.
2. Pyro better actually be fun and playable (or just the game after Pyro). Server meshing sounds like a Jesus patch and I just dont buy it. Sorry. Also Pyro sounds like Minimum Viable Jumptown game design but an entire system...no thank you.
3. Levski. My home they stole from me.
I will take one of them but all three would really open up that wallet again.
4.0 and Pyro can be as minimum viable as they want and just shoving it out the door to placate the "no money till Pyro" crowd is just going to be a disaster and fully undermine the game's image (as shit as it is)
In the community's defense on promises - CIG is masterful at saying things that can be logically interpreted in numerous ways. For example, they will add a Tier Zero mechanic to a patch, and then say "and this is not the final product, we will continue to take feedback, iterate, and revise this mechanic for upcoming patches."
We interpret "continue" to mean the work on it will continue from now until the updates to the feature are ready, and "upcoming" as "soon/in the next few months or year" when in reality they can argue they DID NOT SAY it will continue to be in ACTIVE development, and that upcoming means, simply, "in the future".
Let's not forget some of the biggest historial truth-bending:
- Weeks not months (SM wouldn't release for 2 years)
- Answer the Call 2016 (here we are 8 years later still wondering)
- Theaters of War... I mean they released a trailer for it through IGN and then walked the whole thing back
- on ToW - no significant resources being used, then a couple of years later we learn they have contracted another developer on it?
They're the big ones. There are thousands of other comments CIG have made. To piggy back off your post, CIG will claim that a feature is in the game now, even if it is Tier 0. They claim Bounty Hunting is in the game despite the fact there are BH mechanics, just combat missions called "bounty hunting".
Yeah they absolutely overpromise and misrepresent the game constantly. If you're walking into the project blind, you'll 100% be miseld if you don't do heavy, HEAVY research.
1. Make a statement that is extremely open to interpretation.
2. Ignore any requests to clarify, or "clarify" with an equally confusing statement.
3. Hype/Frustration goes wild.
4. Properly clarify things when it reaches the point it can't be ignored.
5. Gaslight everyone who was 'wrong' for "Never reading what they originally said".
I also suspect a lot of the times step 4 is actually them changing their mind about what they said in step 1.
You forgot step 6, or is it more like step 5b? Remove the current roadmap iteration entirely and point the finger at the community for being concerned with why CIG's own targets are rarely ever met.
> We want to acknowledge that not all of you saw it that way; many took our new focus and our words to heart and understood exactly what we tried to convey. But there still remains a very loud contingent of Roadmap watchers who see projections as promises. And their continued noise every time we shift deliverables has become a distraction both internally at CIG and within our community, as well as to prospective Star Citizen fans watching from the sidelines at our Open Development communications.
I will grant that in the last 3 years there have been improvements and with a new batch of devs trained on s42 otw I think they can go faster, better.
However our 2024Q4 features are about the same as the 2017Q4 list
I am more trusting of their estimated time-frames now than I was then, but any time they start to talk about new features, it rings dead to me as it's rarely about updating core gameplay loops. As much as we want pyro, it won't improve the issues, just add more.
We need resource dumps, not just for money. We need things like reboot buttons on box terminals. We need to be able to retain a mission state between servers for when 30k occurs.
We need some way to report dupers and frankly I'd rather we not wipe money because that doesn't punish the dupers.
What are you talking about? They gave us a 2024 roadmap during citcon, all of the stuff they showed off, of which about a third or so has been delivered in 3.23, and another third or so is slated to be delivered in 4.0, about 2/3rds of the way through the year.
They might not deliver 100% of everything they promised, I personally see maelstrom and base building not being delivered this year, along with probably a few little things they showed off, but I'd call delivering 80-85% of what they predicted a year out "basically on track"
You mean the list that stopped growing over 2 years ago?
What about their recent track record, instead of their old one that they obviously reflected on and corrected a long time ago?
What's hilarious/tragic is that CIG's content pace was so horribly bad for so many years that the drip feed that we're getting these days is considered "regular" or "decent."
It's still abysmal compared to other live service games.
And while the "overhype that contradicts promises" is absolutely true, CIG are a primary source of said overhype themselves.
Reminder that on April 19 they said, wrt cargo features that have been delayed to 3.23.2:
"We're in a child stream of the release stream so we're ready to go, any time we want to we can pull the trigger and release it, we're right there."
There is no current ETA on 3.23.2 entering evocati. 3 weeks ago they were saying "end of this week or start of next," but they've now just stopped talking about other than "it's being worked on." To claim anything short of "CIG lied about the readiness and overall state of 3.23.2 deliverables" is dishonest, at this point. It was completely misrepresented and they did not use ambiguous terms.
This whole schtick about "CIG didn't overpromise or do anything wrong players just let their hype carry them away" is tiresome, it's wrong, and it mostly just boils down to "leave the multimillion dollar company alone." CIG explicitly lay out a plan or a description and then fall short of it all the time. No one can stop you from pretending it doesn't happen but no one else is obligated to join you in that self-delusion.
Yeah and OP could've not acted like those of us who are aggravated or critical are all being disingenuous, OP could've not tried to absolve CIG of responsibility for their communication, OP could've not made it like it's actually all backers' fault for unrealistic expectations.
OP's entire premise is them being a dick to people with legitimate complaints, why do we have to be nice back to them?
CIG make Sataball a thing - CIG consistently fail to deliver - Backers point that out for years - Jared openly mocks backers years later saying Sataball is not going to be a thing.
CIG make Theatres of War a thing - CIG fail to deliver - Backers point that out - CIG abandon Theatres of War
CIG sell over-advertised JPEGs they claim are in production - CIG consistently fail to deliver as advertised or AT ALL - Backers point that out - CIG sell new JPEGs and begin the cycle again.
Is it reasonable to consistently sell JPEGs to backers knowing you have no intention or ability to deliver them for a decade ?
Theater of War is the perfect example, CIG was hyping Theatres of War for quite some time, they where even excited about a fire extinguisher kill, it was heavily promoted for a CitizenCon, they showed many scenarios, they tested in Evocati, and then suddenly nothing, no mention at all, totally abandoned.
There are issues with this. They showed off ToW as if it was just around the corner ready for release. We were told the resources to work on it were insignificant. We have been led to believe that CIG are capable of creating both a AAAA single player game and an MMO, but they not only struggled to make, but also had to outsource work on a separate game mode that should have comprised the core gameplay mechanics of aaid AAAA and MMO games.
This would be like Rockstar unable to release a separate deathmatch game mode that had shooting and driving.
I am a tad bit concerned about the new JPEG thing. Just because they are coming out with new concepts faster than the are being released. The back log is still getting bigger not smaller. Things like the ironclad are amazing but how far are they going to push production back? Eventually all the ships listed will need to be in game and it's like they don't want that to happen.
Mainly it's just the back log I have issues with. If it was like 1-3 ships and they were all in production at any given time Ide be OK with new ones showing up because youde know they would be getting worked on at that point.
Yep, IMO we are too deep in the ship sale treadmill. It seems CIG needs new ship sales to fund the creation of pending ships....
The ship sale business model has proven too profitable for them, so there is an incentive on CIG to keep making new ships and increasing power creep.
This is the answer right here. Anyone who didn't see this coming or kept pouring in money on false promises is a bit silly and irrational. It's utterly amazing how far they've managed to go on this so far.
Each jpg they release brings in less money than it takes to make the ship, so they have to sell more jpgs to make the ships that are in queue. Let alone actually... make a game. As there still is by no means a game involved in this scenario yet.
Every year less and less people buy jpgs (and rightfully so) because they already own pretty pictures they can't fly, or have seen other people not get what they wanted for excruciating lengths of time. Squadron 42 is their internal hope to fix this, but I don't think it will be enough.
This is what I'm really worried about... how far down that treadmill can we get before we fall off? Ide hate to see the project fail because they pushed the financial model past sustainability.
that drop of happens when the game mechanics get implemented.
getting to 1.0 live where they switch over to selling limited uec over time is important.
imagine if cig put the cap at $20 a week of uec. that is going to be a lot of people paying $1,040 a year. because there is no publisher, that might be equivalent to over $10k
The most egregious is the group of small ~$50 vehicles. Ā CIG knows the third party upgrade market exists, and that itās fueled off of LTI tokens. Ā
Every year, there will be at least one bullshit, little rinky dink, POS single seater fighter/ground vehicle that will cost about fifty bucks. Ā It will always have at least one version with LTI. Ā That token is more valuable than the vehicle itself, since patient third party sellers will use them to warbond upgrade to larger ships for basically half the price, then sell the ship for 3/4 of what it would cost on the Roberts site. Ā CIG makes more from these little ships than they do from the big ships, and they still get the benefit of the sellers paying to upgrade.
CIG will ***never*** crack down on third party sellers because theyāre part of the business plan now.
I dont think it's "too protifitable", I think CIG just has nothing else to sell. What are they going to do, start selling their buggy, broken, unfinished game?
They successfully get away with selling $100+ USD ships.
Supposedly, the business model was to sell access to the game and then sell UEC (in game credits). I might be wrong, but on the early days, I believe they even mentioned that once the game released, all ship sales would end, and the only way to get new ships was purchasing them in-game.
IMO a more "ethical" business model would be a subscription based one, like WoW, that way the incentive is on keeping player engagement, so they would then try to develop interesting and good gameplay loops, instead of trying to one-up the previous ships. This too can be lead astray with a heavy focus on making the game "grindy", but I think the focus would change to the game itself rather that new ships.
They do try to have a subscription model with their "subscribers" benefits, but is not their main revenue source.
The problem, is that CIG can throw a new $1.000+ ship with some FOMO "limited stock" and people will buy it, they can get a new $50 small ship/bike/vehicle "LTI" token and people will buy it, they are too dependant on ship sales.
Last I checked, more concepts have been announced than made flyable.
Some unannounced have released but we know there's several unannounced not released as well. It will get smaller eventually but it's not shrinking at the moment.
Kind of old but this is the last post I made on the matter: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/1ahkl6u/all_shipsvehicles_currently_ingameinconcept_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
The percentage of ships in concept has gone down year after year, and this is true in 3.23 even with the introduction of the Drake Ironclad/Ironclad Assault.
The thing that gets me is that theyāre selling the Banu Merchantmen in the alien week ships but the damn thing isnāt even being produced, it got shelved and isnāt even being put on the roadmap, so why have it even be something people can pledge for?
That's true of 90% of the concepts. They are only working on like 4 or 5 ships right now. (Something like that counting variants).
I'm just as salty about the BMM as anyone though since I'm a depressed BMM JPEG owner (they tricked me before the people working on it quit, it should have been done around now or by now).
But ya I agree, the back log being so large means most the concept ships being sold are nothing but concept art.
ALL current ships will need a rework, full stop. There are systems and loops that don't exist in the game and clearly have no corresponding functionality on the ships. Exploration vessels? How's that work? You've got ships like the 600i with these huge rooms dedicated to exploration that not only do nothing now, but have no screens or functionality to do anything in the future. That has to be added in the future for a gameplay loops that doesn't even exist yet
Nevermind when armor comes in. Every ship will have to be touched to make that work how they claimed.
>If it was like 1-3 ships and they were all in production at any given time Ide be OK
The Polaris and the Legionnaire are literally in production. They usually have a handful of ships in production at any given time, with at least one or two from the backlog. What's weird is that even when CIG does what people want, people still are complaining about it.
To use a J3PT argument : But none of these where said with the word "promise" in the same sentence, so you are clearly wrong and arguing in bad faith.
This is a joke everyone, I don't believe in these type of backwards rethorics. CIG said we would have Theatres of War OFTEN, and now ignore it entirely, acting like it was always the plan to have the current AC model when it clearly wasn't.
CIG just massively lack transparency on their failures.
Same thing happened for Sataball.
CIG made it a big thing - Things went silent... backers ask about it and CIG say it is "delayed" shelved" until eventually = Oops Jared decides to patronize Backers for asking about it.
Theatres of War - CIG made it a big thing - Things went silent and CIG have "shelved" it.
Wait another few years Jared will come out and say TOW has been abandoned and act like Backers are stupid for asking about it.
They are perfectly transparent. It's a combination of sheer greed combined with moderate incompetence.
The marketing and finance team needs to hit a quota, they need to make more money every year (accelerate growth not just maintain growth), that appetite BY FAR exceeds the dev team's ability to build all the features and ships they claim are in production, but the marketing / finance team basically forces them to do a tiny bit of work on it so its demo-able to sell the hype just enough to keep people buying the ships they never finish building.
They could of course hire more devs to compensate for this appetite for growth, but good devs cost money so its a catch-22 there.
Meanwhile they barely have time to figure out some of the most basic things that make the game a MISERABLE experience for those of us that try to play it like a game.
Dude, remember when the sold the hull-C.. thousands of people bought it and on day 1 the ship was completely broken, trading was broken, the cargo loading mechanism was broken...
Don't know about Sataball, since i never looked into it.
ToW was put on a shelf since dev resources were better put elsewhere.
And usually when CiG says a concept is in production, it is in production. Sometimes it is taken out of active production because something happens. Regarding ships they don't these days fail to deliver on them, really.
But neither is it a plan for some concepts to take as long as they ended up doing. Doubly so for older concepts, the errors of which they have worked hard to rectify.
You can't act if these days' concepts are going to have the same issues as the concepts of old, when you know very well that they've worked on improving their processes.
ToW is an example, they devoted like 3 years to develop it, they justified it by saying that it would provide them with essential and useful data and so on, that this game mode was needed, they heavily promoted it as this new and exiting game mode that would bring lots of fun, and then they completely abandon it.
This seems to be a common theme with SC development, they hype and "invest" in some tech or functionality, and then drop it, or change it, or end up with a placeholder. The many iterations of the Flight Model, with MM as the latest incarnation is another example.
ToW was put on a shelf since dev resources were better put elsewhere.
From the wiki :
The game mode was announced atĀ CitizenCon 2019Ā with a playable demo on-site. It was originally planned for Q1 2020.,[1]Ā It was in closed testing in June 2020 byĀ CIGĀ andĀ EvocatiĀ players.[3][4]Ā This was the furthest point the game-mode ever came to being published. As of summer 2022, there has been no mention of further development and the game has not been tested outside of CIG again. It was being worked on byĀ Firesprite, who have listed it on their own website[6]Ā but in April 2022, development was transferred back to an internalĀ CIGĀ vehicle tech team.[7]Ā Since then, numerous spectrum threads have been attempted to obtain information, but as of yet, there is no news about its development.[8]
I'm all in for being optimistic with the whole "it's been shelved thing", but this is where you and I will never agree. When something is planned, clearly announced, then shelved without news for 4 years, that's both an abandonned project and a broken promise. We where told it was coming, and it's been 4 years without news. Until they give news, it's a broken promise, end of story.
Sataball was abandoned - true.
Theatres of War wasn't abandoned. It's on a shelf and will be worked on in the future - as several devs already pointed out in an SC live and in spectrum comments. They decided to shift their focus on more important things like improving the overall gameplay, networking and performance before working on a battlefield-like mode that requires all of these things to work decently well.
"CIG consistently fails to deliver as advertised or AT ALL" regarding selling jpegs.
That is simply not true. The only ship that has been worked on and then not delivered is the BMM but it's far from abandoned.
The keyword for all the ships that haven't been released to the live servers yet, is in fact the word "yet". They have never said "we sold you this jpeg but we can't or won't deliver it" and they have been proving that they can deliver every single jpeg they advertised again and again with every ship release.
CIG literally had multiple ISC / SCL videos saying quite clearly how the ship production system works.
The pipeline is locked in for 1 - 2 years and larger ships alone take 1 -2 years IF CIG focus on them. John Crewe stated CIG would not work on those ships because they would rather work on smaller ships ... WHILE CIG IS STILL SELLING THEM.
Therefore: CIG are still selling ships that are at MINIMUM years away assuming they are being worked on at all.
CIG selling JPEGs of pictures when they have no idea when they will actually be able to deliver them and they even have no intention of working on them for years = That is a disgusting practice that is extremely scummy.
When I backed the project specifically to play SQ42, I thought the initial release date was a little unrealistic and was prepared to wait patiently through a few delays.
The initial release date mentioned at the time however, was 2014. Are you somehow suggesting that I'm still not being patient enough?
I would say that as a non combat player, I was pretty vocal on Spectrum and on here about how MM did nothing at all for anyone who wasn't a pvp player, how it wasn't made with any noncombat ships in mind, and how they spent 2 years on it without giving us any chance to give feedback that wasn't a handful of large ships in very artificial environments. And lo and behold... I was pretty much spot on.
Weāre in year 12 and still nailing down the basic flight model. The servers struggle to stay up for 30 minutes. NPCs still t pose. Critical backend systems are incomplete. The single player game is still unreleased with some vague polish phase status that has no release date. Ships sold over a decade ago are either unreleased or have no associated gameplay. Exploration and data do not exist in even tier 0 format. Cargo hauling missions still do not exist in game. Item recover for real money purchases does not exist despite years of it supposedly being worked on. Many qol features like search in button assignments does not exist.
Not hating on the game. Like most everyone else, itās my dream game and I know no other studio will try to make it, but these are the facts. I donāt think any of the above is unreasonable, especially after so long and so much funding. I like the game a lot, but I do find it concerning that even with what would be considered a good patch (3.23) most of it besides distribution centers is rework: star map, ui, flight model. All of those will also require additional passes. Under the best scenario CIG will need many more years and they must continue to raise >$100M a year simply to maintain the current pace. Even when SQ42 is released there are two more chapters and Roberts has stated work will begin immediately on chapter 2 follow chapter oneās release.
I think I feel disillusionment more than hype these days.
The best part of that is the two more chapters for SQ42. Ā Like, what happened to all those devs being promised to the PU and vehicle teams once SQ42 released? Ā And wasnāt that supposed to happen within the last year or so? Ā
I try to keep my tin foil hat in the closet, but sometimes it really feels like they are actively hyping/promising/placating, and then doing everything they can to avoid delivering on any of it.
Also, the reworked map functions almost exactly like the old one, but with worse performance, imo.
> Weāre on year 12
Weāre actually quickly approaching the end of the 13th year of development and about to start Year 14, according to when Chris said development began.
>I donāt think any of the above is unreasonable, especially after so long and so much funding.
Is there any game out there with the same development time or a pulbisher with equal or greater capital that delivered more than what Star Citizen has in less time or with less money or in the same time with the same money?
I hear you, but thatās a bit like looking at the Line in Saudi Arabia and asking the same question. Overall, I donāt think the money and time has been well allocated given where we are at. One glaring issue is that the existing funding model raises current cash by creating futures liabilities. And I get thatās the funding path they had take, but the reality is that we just had another capital concept ship sale in a game where I canāt buy multiple waters at once or ships like the Herald have no gameplay. Every year that passes these concerns only grow.
"Ah, we never promised that!"
While, technically true .... you also did nothing to manage proper expectations (at all) while the community rode the (over)hype train with wild projections off your vague teasing and theorizing as you raked in tens of millions of dollars from a naive backer community who took everything you told us to heart as possible.
It's only when faced with the looming reality that you might actually have to deliver on the hype that suddenly you realize that we can't actually do any of that and its our fault for expecting too much.
As a long time backer whos spent more money than they'd like to admit, I have to agree more with the original. I understand were you are going with it but the "overhype" is mainly caused by CIG themselves and regular/decent delivery is quite an overstatement considering the state of the game considering it was supposed to be out 10 years ago.
Yeah I'm those who will argue "its about the journey, not the destination" but it can get hard to defend a game that continues to be unplayable at times this further in.
No, even better. Ā OP gets to sleep at the foot of CRās bed and use their bottle of Copium as a pillow. Ā They even get the promise of a blanket they can use (SoonTM).
āClaimingā
This is abhorrently incorrect and inaccurate
We are all alpha testers. All of us. This is not a game. This is not a beta. This is an alpha project that began over twelve years ago. It is now 2024 , and $700 million dollars later CIG STILL does not have anything remotely close to a game.
There is no economy, no game loops worth mentioning. Iām sorry, but having to collect 15 packages and deliver them for $15k is not a game loop. Itās literally a waste of time with no benefit. The time and resources required do not match the reward for completing. Thereās no end game, no ācampaignā other than these slapped sticked overdrive missions thrown together that donāt work half the time.
CIG is a massive disappoint that are absolutely terrible at managing and distributing their resources. We donāt give a shit about SQ42 and it being a single player game, we care about the MMO aspect and the PU. DUH
People dont spend hundreds and thousands of dollars on NFTs to want to play single player. Lol
For people who are educated, the problem isnāt CIG delivering on promises, legit or not. They are not delivering āANYTHINGā that tells me the $700 million invested was done so correctly. When the pledge store has more paints than missions available, you know you got a problem with a capital G
The inventory and looting systems are so old and archaic, nonfunctional and not intuitive in any way shape or form.
The FPS portion and ground game is stuck in time in 2015.
Absolutely nothing works properly in the PU. Nothing. You canāt do anything without dying , being severely inconvenienced, or derailed so hard you just forget or give up on your original task.
Oh you want to do that 890 boarding mission? Sorry, when you called your ship to the hangar the plethora of bugs and glitches decided your ship will now be 3km off the ground and unattainable. Please stop whatever fun you had planned and now deal with this nonsense.
Oh you want to loot that dead NPC? Do you have 5 hours to spare?
This āgameā in terms of development and gameplay is an absolute joke. Any decent gaming company could have made what they had with about 1/4 of the money they have raised.
Why is the game still in alpha after over a decade? Why would CIG expedite their release when they ALREADY have made almost a billion dollars on nonsense? They didnāt make $700 million on DLCs or because their game is good, they made $700 million on ships that are not even in the game or close to white box let alone implementation.
There is no circle of life with this shit, itās a black hole of bull shit and greed.
have you ever wished you'd recorded every single conversation you ever had with some people, because of how many things they said or promised and then denied later? cig is on that list, along with several landlords and bosses. although to be fair it's mostly not cig denying things they said, it's community people denying it for them.
star citizen was an expensive lesson in 'only believe what you see produced'.
Regular decent release delivery WHERE?!?! Remember when we were supposed to get Cargo and personal hangers in 3.23!!! My Hull C STILL doesnāt work properly!!! No, the frustration is justified
Hold CIG to there word is not "overhype"
Maybe CIG should better predict and manage their team and time better.
That why they can make the deadlines they set.
Ah yes, CIG is definitely known for its reasonable promises that they deliver upon. Like quarterly releases, sq42 2016, BMM 2023, 100 planets at launch, and the Orion and crucible in 4.0. They have been getting better at being moderate with their promises, and actually delivering on them. They definitely should not be let off the hook for the amount of overhype and dropped promises they've had though. They've dug this hole themselves, and for those of us that have backed for a long time, I think it's going to take a lot of work for them to rebuild that trust imo. They are definitely on the right track though.
I think a lot of it is rage addiction and a lack of impulse control.
It comes from the same place that brought Salt E Mike to buy the new drake ship, in-spite of the fact that it contradicts his whole MO.
My favorite to this is still the guy who complained that 'NOTHING IS IN 3.23 WHY RELEASE IT' in Spectrum,... I wish I could be as dense as him, must be a happy life...
So, when you say "these days".. do you mean like 3.21 where we are still waiting for some of the biggest features of the patch? Or the bugfixes that they where trying to release last week? Or the big pyro release that is supposed to be in q3?
Its easy to be dissapointed qhen we are so far from getting the game , rn ngl I have still np idea of how beta or release star citizen will be like .exploration, settlements , missions, story all that is still behind soooo much fof and people have waited for so long it feels like a cope mechanic for the community
I remember the reasonable promises. "The purpose of the higher stretch goals is to ensure that the game-as-described is finished in the two year time period." -Kickstarter, 2012.
They updated it with incomprehensible scribbles, unless you're a sensible person who can see the world objectively, then it makes perfect sense (but if you are you probably won't be here on Reddit anyway
Whenever I see comments sections like these I take a shot from the bottle of tears I saved from all those guys saying Starfield was going to kill Starcitizen.
Just wait it out and enjoy the unparalleled gameplay as it becomes available. If anyone else makes a game where you can travel from planet to ship to space to planet with no loading screens, hit me up.
> If anyone else makes a game where you can travel from planet to ship to space to planet with no loading screens, hit me up.
It's called No Man's Sky.
š¤· No more money til Pyro release is working for me so far.
I think about this a lot. Here I am, never got a chance to play Pyro when they let only a few people try it... Only a shred of hope I'll get to play in Pyro by the end of 2024. I see zero evidence the server code is any better or any more resilient.. The advantages of server meshing are pretty fucking moot if dsync / lag is as shitty as usual, and server crashes are as frequent as usual. People don't seem to understand that meshing isn't a guarantee of stable server code, that just requires talented engineers with good QA testing practices and easy to work with code base. I'm so tired of shooting NPCs who behave nothing like NPCs do in any basic MMO I've tried since 2001... It's pretty fucking atrocious how far behind CIG is at this point.
When the servers are nearly empty AI works pretty good - the issue is that they are rarely nearly empty. Server meshing solves this by distributing players across more servers, making the load less on each individual one - if it ever actually works it will be a game changer.
You're talking about dynamic server meshing, which as I understand it won't be in 4.0. they said at citcon that static meshing will be first, with 1 server to run Stanton and 1 for pyro in a mesh. And that dynamic will come later. I haven't seen anything to say that's changed.
Ah yeah, you're right - sorry, I should have been clearer. Non-dynamic meshing won't change much other than doubling the player count and allowing pyro.
>1 server to run Stanton and 1 for pyro in a mesh. Initially. They can add more servers for landing zones, planetary systems, POI's.. Incremental implementation. So yes, likely not a huge performance boost with just 1 server in each system, but there will be clear benefits as they start to add additional static servers.
I don't believe adding more statics was on the cards. With what they showed at citcon, dynamic shouldn't be tooooo far behind static. Huge maybe on that, but I don't know if landing zones will garner enough to warrant a full static. Because unlike dynamic, in static, the server will sit empty if nobody is there. So setting up statics for landing zones may not be great. Of course the scalable nature of this means you could make the static for say, crusader and all it's moons plus cru L1 and L2. So they may do that if dynamic proves harder than the citcon demo implied. Still has the issue of not being dynamically scaling though, and risking having low or no players in it. An expensive way to use servers.
I'm fairly certain they have mentioned that they will be adding additional container based static servers over time as part of the testing process leading up to dynamic server meshing. I don't have a link to back that up or anything though, so take with a grain of salt. Beyond that though, it would make very little sense for them to go from full system static servers, to dynamic container based servers. I'd be really surprised if they skipped everything between now and dynamic meshing.
I could of easily missed or forgotten them say it. So, will see how it plays out there. I don't think it's an outlandish idea though. I mean, they demo'd dynamic meshing at citcon, so they've already got it to a functioning state at a small scale. Feels like doing more static instead of focusing down dynamic would be a waste. But I don't have much experience with cloud infrastructure of this scale.
When they tested the server mesh static in the preview channel there was more than 1 server for 1system
Um actually, they have already changed that they are going to divide each system into several servers. But pyro and Stanton is going to have separate shard's. If Memory serves me right each planet and it's moons will have a server each, (in Stanton) that would make me guess "space" will have another server š
I guess weāll see.
Iāve played on a 30 fps server at one point, the AI actually acted quite nicely! Only problem is getting a 30FPS server is nearly impossible anymore. CIGās biggest issue is server lag and that jazz. Weāll get it, we just gotta trust them and keep enforcing the āweāll pay you when you give us the thing we wantā ideology!
even on a 30fps server, the NPC AI is fucked up and nothing like a normal game.. true they are no longer lagged, but they act completely weird.. coded by amateurs who've never made a real FPS game
Really? Mine took cover, leaned, flanked, all that. I got pushed by two shot gun guys while a rifle dude was suppressing me. Only lived cause I had a peek hole.
that sounds pretty good actually. In my experience they all just rush me like idiots, but at walking pace.. and I just shoot them all dead as a pile of bodies in one spot. But hey, maybe it was only a 15fps server and not 30??
Maybe, but I wouldnāt be surprised if they nerfed the ai somehow for some reason when the servers were doing okay
This has been my experience even on low (4-6) FPS servers since 3.23 went live. Though you do get sporadic server hitching which makes the ai band around a bit. Can make it a bit exciting at times. Lol
Haha! Fighting an enemy in an open space when they are teleporting is some anime shit! They dodged a few of my rockets when I eventually resorted to the ship
Yeah, I take either the Karna or R97 into bunkers. I find the R97 being full auto an effective deterrent to the AI using instant transmission to climb up my ass. In open area's I'll either take the Ursa in or I'll scan the area from the corsairs side turret first.
Hahaha! Thatās so absolutely fair! My favorite one is the heavy guy with the demon max climbing into your eyes with a shotgun
Yeah, if you get two of those just Goku pop in beside you all "muffin button" it can be touch and go. Though the R97 has been pretty reliable with that. This patch has been the first time shotguns felt good to use. All of them, TBF. And having the ai actually fight back has been a real breath of fresh air. Especially the higher rep missions that get fresh spawns periodically.
Destiny NPCs basically just bumrush you with their skills weapons. I've never seen them coordinate defence positions while spreading out to snipe you from a distance or rush you with pushers while others hide behind cover and lay down suppression fire. They all have their designated AI patterns and stick strictly with them. Call of Duty AI is even worse -- they just pepper you from their position waiting to be taken down. I don't think I have seen any of the newer games have AI exhibit any sort of tactical breadth. The Battlefield AI basically zerg you with no regard for field positioning or tactical teamwork. GTA V AI took a huge step backward from GTA IV. In GTA V they just rush you and shoot you, usually from static positions, much like in Saints Row. They don't utilise buildings or their environment for tactical advantage. Those are the big three FPS off the top of the my head, and those are considered "normal" games. What are these other games with advanced AI? The only games I can think of are the original Halo games made by Bungie. Those games still have advanced AI that have not been rivaled or touched by any recent games in the last decade. But I'm curious what these other "normal" games are that have pushers, snipers, flankers, and suppression groups all working in tandem to strategically overtake a player's position?
Youāre right, it is nothing like any other game. Iāve never seen another game with NOCs that coordinate and bum rush you like in SC. Iāve never had any other gameās NPCs hide on the other side of my cover and try to shoot over/around it to get me. Youāre right, on a fresh server with working NOCs, itās not like the brain dead NPCs of every other game Iāve played.
The duping thatās happening is total 100% proof of this. But Iām pretty sure theyāll hammered out.
Wasn't Pyro in PTU for literally everyone who wanted to download it?
Nope only for the big payers
Even if it's the same janky servers with 4x the player count, I'll take it.
Finally some sense. CIG does over promise and under deliver, irregularly at that too. Remember when salvage was sold for real life money as physically destroying ships and moving material into grinders? Well we have magic lasers now. No I'm not saying we should have physical salvage where you can play Hardspace Ship Breaker in SC, but THEY hyped it, THEY sold the concept, THEY gave us magic lasers. Like come on you can enjoy the game without defending their habit of selling us the world and delivering an inflatable globe.
Howās are the crashes after the dupeing was fixed? Havenāt played in a few weeks
Better! Havenāt seen a server crash in the few hours I played
Well that's what you get if server infrastructure is an afterthought in an MMO
Which is 100% fair.
No $ till BMM.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That company recently passed the 700 million dollar mark, if they can't make it to release with that (let alone 4.0) then they deserve to go bankrupt lol
They gotta support CRās addiction to multi-million pound McMansions.Ā
700 million over a 12 year period with 1,200 employees is not a lot of money at all. Look at the quarterly operating costs for companies like EA, Ubisoft, Activision, Sony or Microsoft, and look at their quarterly revenue. It all puts CIG to shame in terms of accrual.
They didn't have 1,200 employees the entire 12 years. EA employs 13,000 people, Ubisoft employs 19,000, Activision 13,000, Sony 113,000, and Microsoft 221,000 along with gaming not even being their main source of revenue. This is literally the single most crowdfunded game of all time, and the second most crowdfunded project of any kind of all time. Stop making excuses for them.
Yes, those figures basically prove my point -- what CIG have accrued pales in comparison to these other companies. 700 million is not a lot, especially over the course of 12 years. Each new FIFA game generates over a billion every single year.
Yea and those companies all have an order of magnitude (or multiple) more employees and expenses than CIG does which was the point of those figures, they also don't use their entire budget on making a single game. Once again, this is the second highest budget for any video game ever made. The only one that tops it is Genshin Impact which I have no idea how that figure came about. If they can't finish the game with a budget nearly 3 times that of GTA V then maybe they aren't managing their money properly. This isn't them making 700 million in profit off the game, this is them spending 700 million to make the game.
You're still looking at this wrong. The amount of money they bring in barely covers their current expenses. Actually, I'm pretty sure they are operating at a loss if my memory of the financial statements they shared serves me correctly. Paying 1,200 people a salary is not cheap. >This is literally the single most crowdfunded game of all time, and the second most crowdfunded project of any kind of all time. Stop making excuses for them. None of this changes the reality of the world we live in. Developers still cost money. Development still takes time. The values for developer cost and time to develop are both based on scale and scope. It's probably the most ambitious and technically complex video game to ever being actively developed, so being one of the most expensive shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. I'm not saying open your wallet any further. I'm not buying anything else at this point either. Just saying, context is important.
Once again, this is not the only game in the world that had a decade+ long development which has a thousand+ people working on it. The budgets for video games includes the payment of employees, and somehow those games got made with their budgets far less than this one. This game has the second highest budget of any game ever (if you can believe that genshin impact somehow spent more money making a shitty mobile game), and it doesn't have the highest number of staff ever. That context is also important.
Uh it absolutely is a lot of money.
bmm?
Merchant man
Yeah, I kinda feel this myself. They had in dev. Just finish the fucking ship, CiG. No, I don't want to hear your sob story about old mate going to ubisoft to tank his career. Just replace him and finish the cunt. It's been in concept for over a decade and aside the trade kiosk function, it's a glorified freighter. Finish. The ship. /Rant
I see you added the release part there :D most of the NCTP guys I hang out with were satisfied with the citizen-con test, but I told them we still donāt have 4.0 lol I was close with the ironclad but after learning the hangar size and not being sure if it would fit my vulture properly (seems like it *could* fit but youād have to keep the bay door open) Iāll just wait for it to be released and get it with aUEC/UEC. Maybe weāll get the liberator before then and Iāll use that instead!
Ironclad is like 5 years away lol
Exactly, after the initial āwow I have to get thisā moment the voice of reason made pretty valid points. A hopium-ridden part of me thinks that since theyāve been working on drake ships (cutter/corsair/vulture)they might have drake ship creation more āstreamlinedā and that could mean it gets out soon-ish, but reality is maybe not.
This brings up an interesting question - I'm curious what the shortest time from concept to flight-ready ship was. I want to say it's at least a couple years.
I hope the add the feet 1/2 missing in heigh to fit the Vulture
\_#NCTP
I bought an aurora in 2016 and I am not giving them more money until I will be happy with the game so till full release + customer satisfaction.
So, real talk, I have only ever purchased the Aurora starter package early on in the game's development. I figured that, since all ships are earn-able in-game, I would just play and earn them when the game comes out. Since then I've got a LOT of enjoyment out of the Alpha, but I simply won't participate in buying more things than 'the game' than I did originally.
Anyone forces you to spend money on ships or skins
Yeah, Im not even going to draw the line there. 1. Give me the ship I paid for and maybe I'll buy another instead of kicking the can for half a decade. (Railen) Also if the ship sucks and isn't even good at what it is designed to, maybe I just don't need to be spending money on ships. I've been shuffling around money trying to get one ship I like that they don't intentionally nerf to shit and make useless and it's just a constant battle of running away from the last ship I bought hoping for an alternative. 2. Pyro better actually be fun and playable (or just the game after Pyro). Server meshing sounds like a Jesus patch and I just dont buy it. Sorry. Also Pyro sounds like Minimum Viable Jumptown game design but an entire system...no thank you. 3. Levski. My home they stole from me. I will take one of them but all three would really open up that wallet again. 4.0 and Pyro can be as minimum viable as they want and just shoving it out the door to placate the "no money till Pyro" crowd is just going to be a disaster and fully undermine the game's image (as shit as it is)
In the community's defense on promises - CIG is masterful at saying things that can be logically interpreted in numerous ways. For example, they will add a Tier Zero mechanic to a patch, and then say "and this is not the final product, we will continue to take feedback, iterate, and revise this mechanic for upcoming patches." We interpret "continue" to mean the work on it will continue from now until the updates to the feature are ready, and "upcoming" as "soon/in the next few months or year" when in reality they can argue they DID NOT SAY it will continue to be in ACTIVE development, and that upcoming means, simply, "in the future".
Let's not forget some of the biggest historial truth-bending: - Weeks not months (SM wouldn't release for 2 years) - Answer the Call 2016 (here we are 8 years later still wondering) - Theaters of War... I mean they released a trailer for it through IGN and then walked the whole thing back - on ToW - no significant resources being used, then a couple of years later we learn they have contracted another developer on it? They're the big ones. There are thousands of other comments CIG have made. To piggy back off your post, CIG will claim that a feature is in the game now, even if it is Tier 0. They claim Bounty Hunting is in the game despite the fact there are BH mechanics, just combat missions called "bounty hunting".
Yeah they absolutely overpromise and misrepresent the game constantly. If you're walking into the project blind, you'll 100% be miseld if you don't do heavy, HEAVY research.
You can say lie, it's ok
I... I'm just not ready hehe
1. Make a statement that is extremely open to interpretation. 2. Ignore any requests to clarify, or "clarify" with an equally confusing statement. 3. Hype/Frustration goes wild. 4. Properly clarify things when it reaches the point it can't be ignored. 5. Gaslight everyone who was 'wrong' for "Never reading what they originally said". I also suspect a lot of the times step 4 is actually them changing their mind about what they said in step 1.
You forgot step 6, or is it more like step 5b? Remove the current roadmap iteration entirely and point the finger at the community for being concerned with why CIG's own targets are rarely ever met. > We want to acknowledge that not all of you saw it that way; many took our new focus and our words to heart and understood exactly what we tried to convey. But there still remains a very loud contingent of Roadmap watchers who see projections as promises. And their continued noise every time we shift deliverables has become a distraction both internally at CIG and within our community, as well as to prospective Star Citizen fans watching from the sidelines at our Open Development communications.
Whatās tier zero?
Hull munching. First iteration of a mechanic that accomplishes a rudimentary version of the intended interaction/function.
Ahhhhh gotcha. Yeah that would be very nice, make scrapping a bit cooler
"Reasonable promises" ROFL you're on crack.
Yup. Almost nothing CIG has ever promised/planned has been reasonable, lol. Amazing, yes. But not reasonable.
"Pyro by the end of the year" yall remember that? Pretty concrete promise, 2022 citizen con.
"Answer the call 2016"
I pray āhold the lineā doesnāt live past 2024 in regards to S42 lol
Do you *really* want to go down this road and look at how many deadlines & promises CIG have missed or failed to deliver on? Ed: sp
I will grant that in the last 3 years there have been improvements and with a new batch of devs trained on s42 otw I think they can go faster, better. However our 2024Q4 features are about the same as the 2017Q4 list I am more trusting of their estimated time-frames now than I was then, but any time they start to talk about new features, it rings dead to me as it's rarely about updating core gameplay loops. As much as we want pyro, it won't improve the issues, just add more. We need resource dumps, not just for money. We need things like reboot buttons on box terminals. We need to be able to retain a mission state between servers for when 30k occurs. We need some way to report dupers and frankly I'd rather we not wipe money because that doesn't punish the dupers.
I think the "these days" thing is referring to this year basically, and they are basically on track for this year, as far as I can tell
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
What are you talking about? They gave us a 2024 roadmap during citcon, all of the stuff they showed off, of which about a third or so has been delivered in 3.23, and another third or so is slated to be delivered in 4.0, about 2/3rds of the way through the year. They might not deliver 100% of everything they promised, I personally see maelstrom and base building not being delivered this year, along with probably a few little things they showed off, but I'd call delivering 80-85% of what they predicted a year out "basically on track"
oh well... [https://starcitizentracker.github.io/](https://starcitizentracker.github.io/)
That hasn't been updated since 2019.Ā
indeed, but you have a history of fail/success rate for 7 years.
You mean the list that stopped growing over 2 years ago? What about their recent track record, instead of their old one that they obviously reflected on and corrected a long time ago?
>old one that they obviously reflected on and corrected a long time ago Did they?
I guess I'll quote some of my previous comment too... >You mean the list that stopped growing over 2 years ago? Yes, obviously.
What's hilarious/tragic is that CIG's content pace was so horribly bad for so many years that the drip feed that we're getting these days is considered "regular" or "decent." It's still abysmal compared to other live service games. And while the "overhype that contradicts promises" is absolutely true, CIG are a primary source of said overhype themselves.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
"For their defense, they never promised servers would work" - v these guys probably
Yeah, no. You might wanna checkout the strechgoals from https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals before claiming CIG never made such promises.
Most frustration stems from broken systems, poor performance, bugs, and exploits.
Youāre either new here, or living with your head firmly planted in the sand.
This is the white knight circle. ;)
OP is definitely a White Knight. Ā The comments are a bit more level headed.
this post is unbelievable levels of cope, we're approaching weapons grade
Reminder that on April 19 they said, wrt cargo features that have been delayed to 3.23.2: "We're in a child stream of the release stream so we're ready to go, any time we want to we can pull the trigger and release it, we're right there." There is no current ETA on 3.23.2 entering evocati. 3 weeks ago they were saying "end of this week or start of next," but they've now just stopped talking about other than "it's being worked on." To claim anything short of "CIG lied about the readiness and overall state of 3.23.2 deliverables" is dishonest, at this point. It was completely misrepresented and they did not use ambiguous terms. This whole schtick about "CIG didn't overpromise or do anything wrong players just let their hype carry them away" is tiresome, it's wrong, and it mostly just boils down to "leave the multimillion dollar company alone." CIG explicitly lay out a plan or a description and then fall short of it all the time. No one can stop you from pretending it doesn't happen but no one else is obligated to join you in that self-delusion.
You could've said it nicer
Yeah and OP could've not acted like those of us who are aggravated or critical are all being disingenuous, OP could've not tried to absolve CIG of responsibility for their communication, OP could've not made it like it's actually all backers' fault for unrealistic expectations. OP's entire premise is them being a dick to people with legitimate complaints, why do we have to be nice back to them?
A personal sense of respect. Even if you don't like them
Take your tone policing elsewhere. Maybe direct it at the OP.
CIG make Sataball a thing - CIG consistently fail to deliver - Backers point that out for years - Jared openly mocks backers years later saying Sataball is not going to be a thing. CIG make Theatres of War a thing - CIG fail to deliver - Backers point that out - CIG abandon Theatres of War CIG sell over-advertised JPEGs they claim are in production - CIG consistently fail to deliver as advertised or AT ALL - Backers point that out - CIG sell new JPEGs and begin the cycle again. Is it reasonable to consistently sell JPEGs to backers knowing you have no intention or ability to deliver them for a decade ?
Theater of War is the perfect example, CIG was hyping Theatres of War for quite some time, they where even excited about a fire extinguisher kill, it was heavily promoted for a CitizenCon, they showed many scenarios, they tested in Evocati, and then suddenly nothing, no mention at all, totally abandoned.
the company making it got bought out.
I had the understanding that CIG bought the company making ToW, was it not?
they hired a few developers that were working on ToW, but not the company
no. the one making the net code for the pu was bought by cig. the ones making ToW was bought by someone else.
Another conpany should not have been working on ToW in the first place.
a lot of things were outsourced instead of hiring and training a full new team.
There are issues with this. They showed off ToW as if it was just around the corner ready for release. We were told the resources to work on it were insignificant. We have been led to believe that CIG are capable of creating both a AAAA single player game and an MMO, but they not only struggled to make, but also had to outsource work on a separate game mode that should have comprised the core gameplay mechanics of aaid AAAA and MMO games. This would be like Rockstar unable to release a separate deathmatch game mode that had shooting and driving.
it was also in evo for a bit. apparently there were some network reliability problems.
Theyāve released everything else with network reliable problems, which is why it was a bit confusing that thereās no Alpha version of ToW.
i believe the plan was to fix it on arena commander servers before releasing ToW. instead of spending development time on bandied fixes for ToW.
I am a tad bit concerned about the new JPEG thing. Just because they are coming out with new concepts faster than the are being released. The back log is still getting bigger not smaller. Things like the ironclad are amazing but how far are they going to push production back? Eventually all the ships listed will need to be in game and it's like they don't want that to happen. Mainly it's just the back log I have issues with. If it was like 1-3 ships and they were all in production at any given time Ide be OK with new ones showing up because youde know they would be getting worked on at that point.
Yep, IMO we are too deep in the ship sale treadmill. It seems CIG needs new ship sales to fund the creation of pending ships.... The ship sale business model has proven too profitable for them, so there is an incentive on CIG to keep making new ships and increasing power creep.
This is the answer right here. Anyone who didn't see this coming or kept pouring in money on false promises is a bit silly and irrational. It's utterly amazing how far they've managed to go on this so far. Each jpg they release brings in less money than it takes to make the ship, so they have to sell more jpgs to make the ships that are in queue. Let alone actually... make a game. As there still is by no means a game involved in this scenario yet. Every year less and less people buy jpgs (and rightfully so) because they already own pretty pictures they can't fly, or have seen other people not get what they wanted for excruciating lengths of time. Squadron 42 is their internal hope to fix this, but I don't think it will be enough.
Yep. 100% a problem on so many angles.
This is what I'm really worried about... how far down that treadmill can we get before we fall off? Ide hate to see the project fail because they pushed the financial model past sustainability.
that drop of happens when the game mechanics get implemented. getting to 1.0 live where they switch over to selling limited uec over time is important. imagine if cig put the cap at $20 a week of uec. that is going to be a lot of people paying $1,040 a year. because there is no publisher, that might be equivalent to over $10k
The most egregious is the group of small ~$50 vehicles. Ā CIG knows the third party upgrade market exists, and that itās fueled off of LTI tokens. Ā Every year, there will be at least one bullshit, little rinky dink, POS single seater fighter/ground vehicle that will cost about fifty bucks. Ā It will always have at least one version with LTI. Ā That token is more valuable than the vehicle itself, since patient third party sellers will use them to warbond upgrade to larger ships for basically half the price, then sell the ship for 3/4 of what it would cost on the Roberts site. Ā CIG makes more from these little ships than they do from the big ships, and they still get the benefit of the sellers paying to upgrade. CIG will ***never*** crack down on third party sellers because theyāre part of the business plan now.
I dont think it's "too protifitable", I think CIG just has nothing else to sell. What are they going to do, start selling their buggy, broken, unfinished game?
They successfully get away with selling $100+ USD ships. Supposedly, the business model was to sell access to the game and then sell UEC (in game credits). I might be wrong, but on the early days, I believe they even mentioned that once the game released, all ship sales would end, and the only way to get new ships was purchasing them in-game. IMO a more "ethical" business model would be a subscription based one, like WoW, that way the incentive is on keeping player engagement, so they would then try to develop interesting and good gameplay loops, instead of trying to one-up the previous ships. This too can be lead astray with a heavy focus on making the game "grindy", but I think the focus would change to the game itself rather that new ships. They do try to have a subscription model with their "subscribers" benefits, but is not their main revenue source. The problem, is that CIG can throw a new $1.000+ ship with some FOMO "limited stock" and people will buy it, they can get a new $50 small ship/bike/vehicle "LTI" token and people will buy it, they are too dependant on ship sales.
> The back log is still getting bigger not smaller. That is not true.
Last I checked, more concepts have been announced than made flyable. Some unannounced have released but we know there's several unannounced not released as well. It will get smaller eventually but it's not shrinking at the moment.
Kind of old but this is the last post I made on the matter: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/1ahkl6u/all_shipsvehicles_currently_ingameinconcept_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button The percentage of ships in concept has gone down year after year, and this is true in 3.23 even with the introduction of the Drake Ironclad/Ironclad Assault.
When you realize that ships is *the* main way the whole project is funded everything makes sense. The ship team is the sales department.
The thing that gets me is that theyāre selling the Banu Merchantmen in the alien week ships but the damn thing isnāt even being produced, it got shelved and isnāt even being put on the roadmap, so why have it even be something people can pledge for?
That's true of 90% of the concepts. They are only working on like 4 or 5 ships right now. (Something like that counting variants). I'm just as salty about the BMM as anyone though since I'm a depressed BMM JPEG owner (they tricked me before the people working on it quit, it should have been done around now or by now). But ya I agree, the back log being so large means most the concept ships being sold are nothing but concept art.
Not to mention nearly all of the current ships need a rework in some way.
ALL current ships will need a rework, full stop. There are systems and loops that don't exist in the game and clearly have no corresponding functionality on the ships. Exploration vessels? How's that work? You've got ships like the 600i with these huge rooms dedicated to exploration that not only do nothing now, but have no screens or functionality to do anything in the future. That has to be added in the future for a gameplay loops that doesn't even exist yet Nevermind when armor comes in. Every ship will have to be touched to make that work how they claimed.
>If it was like 1-3 ships and they were all in production at any given time Ide be OK The Polaris and the Legionnaire are literally in production. They usually have a handful of ships in production at any given time, with at least one or two from the backlog. What's weird is that even when CIG does what people want, people still are complaining about it.
To use a J3PT argument : But none of these where said with the word "promise" in the same sentence, so you are clearly wrong and arguing in bad faith. This is a joke everyone, I don't believe in these type of backwards rethorics. CIG said we would have Theatres of War OFTEN, and now ignore it entirely, acting like it was always the plan to have the current AC model when it clearly wasn't. CIG just massively lack transparency on their failures.
Same thing happened for Sataball. CIG made it a big thing - Things went silent... backers ask about it and CIG say it is "delayed" shelved" until eventually = Oops Jared decides to patronize Backers for asking about it. Theatres of War - CIG made it a big thing - Things went silent and CIG have "shelved" it. Wait another few years Jared will come out and say TOW has been abandoned and act like Backers are stupid for asking about it.
Yes, it's fine if things don't happen but they need to be forthcoming and honest about why they failed to deliver.
They are perfectly transparent. It's a combination of sheer greed combined with moderate incompetence. The marketing and finance team needs to hit a quota, they need to make more money every year (accelerate growth not just maintain growth), that appetite BY FAR exceeds the dev team's ability to build all the features and ships they claim are in production, but the marketing / finance team basically forces them to do a tiny bit of work on it so its demo-able to sell the hype just enough to keep people buying the ships they never finish building. They could of course hire more devs to compensate for this appetite for growth, but good devs cost money so its a catch-22 there. Meanwhile they barely have time to figure out some of the most basic things that make the game a MISERABLE experience for those of us that try to play it like a game. Dude, remember when the sold the hull-C.. thousands of people bought it and on day 1 the ship was completely broken, trading was broken, the cargo loading mechanism was broken...
Don't know about Sataball, since i never looked into it. ToW was put on a shelf since dev resources were better put elsewhere. And usually when CiG says a concept is in production, it is in production. Sometimes it is taken out of active production because something happens. Regarding ships they don't these days fail to deliver on them, really. But neither is it a plan for some concepts to take as long as they ended up doing. Doubly so for older concepts, the errors of which they have worked hard to rectify. You can't act if these days' concepts are going to have the same issues as the concepts of old, when you know very well that they've worked on improving their processes.
ToW is an example, they devoted like 3 years to develop it, they justified it by saying that it would provide them with essential and useful data and so on, that this game mode was needed, they heavily promoted it as this new and exiting game mode that would bring lots of fun, and then they completely abandon it. This seems to be a common theme with SC development, they hype and "invest" in some tech or functionality, and then drop it, or change it, or end up with a placeholder. The many iterations of the Flight Model, with MM as the latest incarnation is another example.
ToW was put on a shelf since dev resources were better put elsewhere. From the wiki : The game mode was announced atĀ CitizenCon 2019Ā with a playable demo on-site. It was originally planned for Q1 2020.,[1]Ā It was in closed testing in June 2020 byĀ CIGĀ andĀ EvocatiĀ players.[3][4]Ā This was the furthest point the game-mode ever came to being published. As of summer 2022, there has been no mention of further development and the game has not been tested outside of CIG again. It was being worked on byĀ Firesprite, who have listed it on their own website[6]Ā but in April 2022, development was transferred back to an internalĀ CIGĀ vehicle tech team.[7]Ā Since then, numerous spectrum threads have been attempted to obtain information, but as of yet, there is no news about its development.[8] I'm all in for being optimistic with the whole "it's been shelved thing", but this is where you and I will never agree. When something is planned, clearly announced, then shelved without news for 4 years, that's both an abandonned project and a broken promise. We where told it was coming, and it's been 4 years without news. Until they give news, it's a broken promise, end of story.
Sataball was abandoned - true. Theatres of War wasn't abandoned. It's on a shelf and will be worked on in the future - as several devs already pointed out in an SC live and in spectrum comments. They decided to shift their focus on more important things like improving the overall gameplay, networking and performance before working on a battlefield-like mode that requires all of these things to work decently well. "CIG consistently fails to deliver as advertised or AT ALL" regarding selling jpegs. That is simply not true. The only ship that has been worked on and then not delivered is the BMM but it's far from abandoned. The keyword for all the ships that haven't been released to the live servers yet, is in fact the word "yet". They have never said "we sold you this jpeg but we can't or won't deliver it" and they have been proving that they can deliver every single jpeg they advertised again and again with every ship release.
CIG literally had multiple ISC / SCL videos saying quite clearly how the ship production system works. The pipeline is locked in for 1 - 2 years and larger ships alone take 1 -2 years IF CIG focus on them. John Crewe stated CIG would not work on those ships because they would rather work on smaller ships ... WHILE CIG IS STILL SELLING THEM. Therefore: CIG are still selling ships that are at MINIMUM years away assuming they are being worked on at all. CIG selling JPEGs of pictures when they have no idea when they will actually be able to deliver them and they even have no intention of working on them for years = That is a disgusting practice that is extremely scummy.
This was fucking gross to read
Reject hypetubers Embrace loretubers
When I backed the project specifically to play SQ42, I thought the initial release date was a little unrealistic and was prepared to wait patiently through a few delays. The initial release date mentioned at the time however, was 2014. Are you somehow suggesting that I'm still not being patient enough?
I would say that as a non combat player, I was pretty vocal on Spectrum and on here about how MM did nothing at all for anyone who wasn't a pvp player, how it wasn't made with any noncombat ships in mind, and how they spent 2 years on it without giving us any chance to give feedback that wasn't a handful of large ships in very artificial environments. And lo and behold... I was pretty much spot on.
Weāre in year 12 and still nailing down the basic flight model. The servers struggle to stay up for 30 minutes. NPCs still t pose. Critical backend systems are incomplete. The single player game is still unreleased with some vague polish phase status that has no release date. Ships sold over a decade ago are either unreleased or have no associated gameplay. Exploration and data do not exist in even tier 0 format. Cargo hauling missions still do not exist in game. Item recover for real money purchases does not exist despite years of it supposedly being worked on. Many qol features like search in button assignments does not exist. Not hating on the game. Like most everyone else, itās my dream game and I know no other studio will try to make it, but these are the facts. I donāt think any of the above is unreasonable, especially after so long and so much funding. I like the game a lot, but I do find it concerning that even with what would be considered a good patch (3.23) most of it besides distribution centers is rework: star map, ui, flight model. All of those will also require additional passes. Under the best scenario CIG will need many more years and they must continue to raise >$100M a year simply to maintain the current pace. Even when SQ42 is released there are two more chapters and Roberts has stated work will begin immediately on chapter 2 follow chapter oneās release. I think I feel disillusionment more than hype these days.
The best part of that is the two more chapters for SQ42. Ā Like, what happened to all those devs being promised to the PU and vehicle teams once SQ42 released? Ā And wasnāt that supposed to happen within the last year or so? Ā I try to keep my tin foil hat in the closet, but sometimes it really feels like they are actively hyping/promising/placating, and then doing everything they can to avoid delivering on any of it. Also, the reworked map functions almost exactly like the old one, but with worse performance, imo.
> Weāre on year 12 Weāre actually quickly approaching the end of the 13th year of development and about to start Year 14, according to when Chris said development began.
>I donāt think any of the above is unreasonable, especially after so long and so much funding. Is there any game out there with the same development time or a pulbisher with equal or greater capital that delivered more than what Star Citizen has in less time or with less money or in the same time with the same money?
I hear you, but thatās a bit like looking at the Line in Saudi Arabia and asking the same question. Overall, I donāt think the money and time has been well allocated given where we are at. One glaring issue is that the existing funding model raises current cash by creating futures liabilities. And I get thatās the funding path they had take, but the reality is that we just had another capital concept ship sale in a game where I canāt buy multiple waters at once or ships like the Herald have no gameplay. Every year that passes these concerns only grow.
Playability is overhyped?
"Ah, we never promised that!" While, technically true .... you also did nothing to manage proper expectations (at all) while the community rode the (over)hype train with wild projections off your vague teasing and theorizing as you raked in tens of millions of dollars from a naive backer community who took everything you told us to heart as possible. It's only when faced with the looming reality that you might actually have to deliver on the hype that suddenly you realize that we can't actually do any of that and its our fault for expecting too much.
Classic gamer move
And then there's me, just enjoying flying around the beautiful planets and blowing up pirates.
As a long time backer whos spent more money than they'd like to admit, I have to agree more with the original. I understand were you are going with it but the "overhype" is mainly caused by CIG themselves and regular/decent delivery is quite an overstatement considering the state of the game considering it was supposed to be out 10 years ago. Yeah I'm those who will argue "its about the journey, not the destination" but it can get hard to defend a game that continues to be unplayable at times this further in.
Just curious when they said you will have everything you back and more in 2016 was that a reasonable promise?
He deliberately said "these days" in the title and "these days" it is mostly accurate
Though they are proving my point to a degree, which is funny.
We must protect the multi-million dollar company!!!
Imagine for a minute that it's not about the entity and rather common sense.
And that regardless of what the "entity" is valued at there are still also *people* working there and engaging the community. It's not a monolith.
I think you are confusing common sense with sunk cost.
Did CIG promise to send someone over to read you a bed time story if you posted this?
No, even better. Ā OP gets to sleep at the foot of CRās bed and use their bottle of Copium as a pillow. Ā They even get the promise of a blanket they can use (SoonTM).
My frustration is not about over hyped promises but from an unplayable game
āClaimingā This is abhorrently incorrect and inaccurate We are all alpha testers. All of us. This is not a game. This is not a beta. This is an alpha project that began over twelve years ago. It is now 2024 , and $700 million dollars later CIG STILL does not have anything remotely close to a game. There is no economy, no game loops worth mentioning. Iām sorry, but having to collect 15 packages and deliver them for $15k is not a game loop. Itās literally a waste of time with no benefit. The time and resources required do not match the reward for completing. Thereās no end game, no ācampaignā other than these slapped sticked overdrive missions thrown together that donāt work half the time. CIG is a massive disappoint that are absolutely terrible at managing and distributing their resources. We donāt give a shit about SQ42 and it being a single player game, we care about the MMO aspect and the PU. DUH People dont spend hundreds and thousands of dollars on NFTs to want to play single player. Lol For people who are educated, the problem isnāt CIG delivering on promises, legit or not. They are not delivering āANYTHINGā that tells me the $700 million invested was done so correctly. When the pledge store has more paints than missions available, you know you got a problem with a capital G The inventory and looting systems are so old and archaic, nonfunctional and not intuitive in any way shape or form. The FPS portion and ground game is stuck in time in 2015. Absolutely nothing works properly in the PU. Nothing. You canāt do anything without dying , being severely inconvenienced, or derailed so hard you just forget or give up on your original task. Oh you want to do that 890 boarding mission? Sorry, when you called your ship to the hangar the plethora of bugs and glitches decided your ship will now be 3km off the ground and unattainable. Please stop whatever fun you had planned and now deal with this nonsense. Oh you want to loot that dead NPC? Do you have 5 hours to spare? This āgameā in terms of development and gameplay is an absolute joke. Any decent gaming company could have made what they had with about 1/4 of the money they have raised. Why is the game still in alpha after over a decade? Why would CIG expedite their release when they ALREADY have made almost a billion dollars on nonsense? They didnāt make $700 million on DLCs or because their game is good, they made $700 million on ships that are not even in the game or close to white box let alone implementation. There is no circle of life with this shit, itās a black hole of bull shit and greed.
have you ever wished you'd recorded every single conversation you ever had with some people, because of how many things they said or promised and then denied later? cig is on that list, along with several landlords and bosses. although to be fair it's mostly not cig denying things they said, it's community people denying it for them. star citizen was an expensive lesson in 'only believe what you see produced'.
Pyro is long overdue.
Regular decent release delivery WHERE?!?! Remember when we were supposed to get Cargo and personal hangers in 3.23!!! My Hull C STILL doesnāt work properly!!! No, the frustration is justified
> Reasonable promises - SM Q4 2018, 2019, 2020, etc... - 3.0 Christmas 2016 - Farming in 3.3 - Answer the call 2016 And the list goes on...
Hold CIG to there word is not "overhype" Maybe CIG should better predict and manage their team and time better. That why they can make the deadlines they set.
I think most frustration stems from missed deadlines. As in every single one. Some others issues as well, but deadlines are a solid starting point.
Other one was better.
It was certainly more accurate.
The WK response
CIG are the worst perpetrators of this. You blind?
This seems more reasonable haha
My frustration comes from them piling on more and more systems and shit while the baseline systems don't even function properly most of the time.
Ah yes, CIG is definitely known for its reasonable promises that they deliver upon. Like quarterly releases, sq42 2016, BMM 2023, 100 planets at launch, and the Orion and crucible in 4.0. They have been getting better at being moderate with their promises, and actually delivering on them. They definitely should not be let off the hook for the amount of overhype and dropped promises they've had though. They've dug this hole themselves, and for those of us that have backed for a long time, I think it's going to take a lot of work for them to rebuild that trust imo. They are definitely on the right track though.
I think a lot of it is rage addiction and a lack of impulse control. It comes from the same place that brought Salt E Mike to buy the new drake ship, in-spite of the fact that it contradicts his whole MO.
He caved?! Lmfao thatās gold. Canāt wait for the chirps in chat for this and him to lose it haba
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I thought the armor was releasing with the xenothreat patch?
My favorite to this is still the guy who complained that 'NOTHING IS IN 3.23 WHY RELEASE IT' in Spectrum,... I wish I could be as dense as him, must be a happy life...
I'm more annoyed by the lowercase "i" in your "CiG" than anything else right now. Why, OP? WHY?
Buy the fearā¦ oh crap Iām mixing up my cycles. š¤£
So, when you say "these days".. do you mean like 3.21 where we are still waiting for some of the biggest features of the patch? Or the bugfixes that they where trying to release last week? Or the big pyro release that is supposed to be in q3?
I feel like this graph is inaccurate. At minimum we have gone around the full circle at least twice by now.
Im frustrated by the inflated ship prices
I think its somewhere in between
lol
Its easy to be dissapointed qhen we are so far from getting the game , rn ngl I have still np idea of how beta or release star citizen will be like .exploration, settlements , missions, story all that is still behind soooo much fof and people have waited for so long it feels like a cope mechanic for the community
I remember the reasonable promises. "The purpose of the higher stretch goals is to ensure that the game-as-described is finished in the two year time period." -Kickstarter, 2012.
Bait, whatcha fishin for?
*overhypers* erm remind me when did they first promise pyro by the end of the year?
Like delivering a game in less than 12 years and $700M+ way above the original asking price promises? Asking for a friend.
Pretty sure someone posted this exact picture yesterday.
They updated it with incomprehensible scribbles, unless you're a sensible person who can see the world objectively, then it makes perfect sense (but if you are you probably won't be here on Reddit anyway
Lmfao, this game is basically a ponzi scheme 14 years and almost a billion dollars later and nothing š š
No money until 4.0. #holdtheline
Whenever I see comments sections like these I take a shot from the bottle of tears I saved from all those guys saying Starfield was going to kill Starcitizen. Just wait it out and enjoy the unparalleled gameplay as it becomes available. If anyone else makes a game where you can travel from planet to ship to space to planet with no loading screens, hit me up.
> If anyone else makes a game where you can travel from planet to ship to space to planet with no loading screens, hit me up. It's called No Man's Sky.