Star Citizen (PC)
Matej Mišovský last edited by
Today is the last day to try Star Citizen for free with a free fly weekend. You can register here https://robertsspaceindustries.com/enlist?referral=STAR-2JTM-YXPW
pphair last edited by
I don't think over-hyping a game is the right way to get over being disappointed by a fairly similar over-hyped game.
It might be good. But don't go expecting it to be the next big thing.
Paper Lion last edited by
@Paper-Lion Yes, I do. I think Chris Roberts is a fraud.
270 employees being paid at the average 60k, that's 16.2 million a year. Of course, watching that video, they didn't have 270 employees at the start, but what count is that is their current cost of salaries ONLY. Then you have to factor in the cost of leasing buildings, utilities, equipment, and, apparently, a lot of marketing. To give perspective, Ubisoft had 1,000 employees working solely on Assassin's Creed 2, and that 1,000 employees is still that high for every Assassin's Creed title. That's just for a singleplayer game that is only one thing.
Actually it does matter that they didn't start out with all those employees. I added it up. If they pay an average of 60k a year, they've spent 79 million 20 thousand dollars. So let's round it up to 80 million. Currently the funding counter is at 120 million, which leaves them with 40 million left, enough to keep developing for 2 and a half years.
Their average crowdfunding level this year has been around 2 million dollars per month, which of course fluctuates from month to month depending on when they release new ships, new concept sales, and put old stuff on sale like they do every year during the anniversary sale, when that figure skyrockets. But using that as an average, they'd generate about 24 million every year. Even with 16 million in wages they have more than enough to make it all go around.
Also that figure for Assassin's Creed is incorrect. That was the case for AC2. But it hasn't been the case since. That was an exception. Generally speaking there are about 300 - 400 people working on each AC game, and they only get 1 year of actual production time. Also, according to this interview done by Edge, the team for AC revelations was 180 people.
Chris Roberts isn't going to give us hard numbers of cost, or how much money is left, but I can tell you that making a Space-Sim with story and missions, an FPS with story and mission, a persistent trade economy, a persistent MMO, and a vast detailed universe, is going to take a decade or more.
This is based on your vast experience making these kinds of games, then? Or is it just speculation?
If I didn't already convince you that the numbers are stacked against Star Citizen, then let me go back to my original statement. Chris Roberts is a fraud. I didn't say is going to be, he is one. He did this exact same thing with a game called Freelancer. He promised persistent, dynamic trade systems and an over thousand player multiplayer, but he left the company before the game could be finished and Freelancer was a shell of what Chris Roberts promised.
Freelancer was great though.
What they showed at Gamescom was two barren planets with stations of fairly lifeless people and one quest NPC with absurd quality compared to the rest of the station, then some really bad (2-4 player?) PVP combat because the quest isn't finished with actual combat enemies, I guess. Did they show they are ready for their 2016 launch of Persistent Universe? Not to me.
It shows how far they've gotten since 2.0 was released at the end of last year. The PU has already been partly introduced, so I think it's entirely reasonable to think it'll be done this year.
Whoaness last edited by
@Paper-Lion Speculation? Games development existed for decades. It's decades of proof. There are no AAA multiplayer FPS that won't take a year or less to make. Also, I have 5 years experience in the industry.
The point wasn't if Freelancer was good or not, it did not live up to Chris Roberts's original concept, and the guy bailed on the team when Microsoft wouldn't give him money. After he bailed, he spent years on movie stuff, did some Harry Potter game for EA, then back to the same ludicrous Freelancer promise.
As for AssCreed thing, that citation you made isn't even about the final head count. It actually works for my point because going from 20 people to 180 people in months during, what sounds like pre-production, is really fast growth, and that's before AC Brotherhood was finished from what I guess was the time he is talking about. Guess how many people would be going over to work on the new game once the current one finishes? Also, have you heard of an 800 person layoff from Ubisoft at that time? Obviously, there wasn't. The 1000 people count includes other Ubisoft studios. That guy was just talking about his team in one studio location.
B-Cell last edited by
I only care about Squadron 42 single player campaign.
dafoomie last edited by
Chris Roberts has earned that skepticism of everything he ever says, but it's hard to accuse anyone of a Kickstarter scam when they're regularly releasing work in progress builds of the game. You can play it right now.
I have followed this game quite closely for a long time. I have also played some of the build. My general feel is that if this were "a scam" they have really put their backs into trying to be convincing. I mean if they would release it now (or as soon as squadron 42 is released) I would still be there and spend many many hours flying around and doing random missions.
On the other hand I don't think it will be EVERYTHING that they promise, but then again, there are SO many games that say that everything is possible and yada yada. In the end the games comes out, they have a lot of fun and we get what we want. The game won't however be everyones cup of tea or meet all the expectations.
Guest last edited by Guest
I quickly let this game drop off my radar a long time ago, the amount of hype it had when it hit kickstarter made it sound like the next coming of Jesus.
Promises of grandeur that pretty much exceed everything else that's ever been promised in gaming...and with a rather steep asking price to develop this game, I mean it's more expensive than most AAA titles for crap's sake.
But then all the backdoor shady deals I've heard along the way, silencing dissenting opinions, removing the ability to get a refund, etc. This has media disaster written all over it, and I'm just gonna sit back till the bomb goes off.
iconmaster last edited by
Shipping. Matters. Love it or hate it, No Man's Sky is a product you can buy and play right now. That's 70% of the accomplishment in any software industry.
Guest last edited by
Gamescom was proof of two players on one ship, landing from space onto a planet. Space stations being in the same world as the planet surface as well, and seeing both players.
That is an insane accomplishment. Especially moving around the ship in multiplayer.
Everything else shown was a bonus.
dafoomie last edited by
@Stormcrownn I believe they've had multiple players on ships for some time, but I was very impressed by the seamless atmospheric entry and planetary landing in an arbitrary location. Their engine is in a reasonable state for a 2018 release.
The single player episodes will answer more questions when they start coming out in 2017. What remains to be seen is how much content the persistent universe will have when it finally launches, how much they'll show in the alpha/beta and how much they'll hold back.
Guest last edited by
@dafoomie Yeah. I'm currently refusing to play any "Alpha" versions of the game. I'd definitely rather see the game when its polished.
The singleplayer will make or break Star Citizen imo.
Paper Lion last edited by
@Paper-Lion Yeah! the more I see from this, the more I want to have an awesome PC to play this all day with.
Do anyone know of SC will support the Vive? I know it support the Oculus rift, but they work a bit differnt with tracking etc
suplextrain last edited by
I have a bad feeling about this game.
If anything this might become an even bigger dissapointment than NMS.
NMS was just poorly marketed and made by a small team, along with having a borderline delusional fanbase. I remember people getting upset because Brandon Jones wanted more details on what the game was like and I even argued with these people when I said that wanting to know more about the product you're buying is only natural, so you know what it is that you're buying.
I think you would do well to rein in your hype and expectations for SC.
@suplextrain I agree to some extent. I also disagree due to the bits Ive tested to it and just felt amazed and really dragged into this universe. The problem Ive seen is that people think it is all a scam, never gonna be released yadda yadda. What people miss to see is that this game has been in development for only 3 years. People are so used to seeing a game being announced then buy the finished game after 6-8 months. Here people can already play it, but its been "out there" from the start. I mean WoW took 5 years to develop and that were almost too short for it.
I'm not going in and saying "zomfg its gonna be da best game evurzh!!" I just think that people should kinda take for what it is and we will see. At least I think it will keep me occupied for quite some time, if I ever get around to buy a good enough PC
Ikataishou last edited by
suplextrain last edited by
While they have shown signs of progress the problems with the project is all over the place, especially when it comes to the management and questionable decisions.
The game could end up being great, but I think it's very understandable why some people are sceptical.
Also basically exclaiming that SC will do what NMS failed to do is at this stage rather silly. For all we know it could very well be another NMS or even outdo NMS (but not in a positive way).
I think it's still more prudent to stick with the wait-and-see approach right now.
@Ikataishou oh right. I knew they had the stretch goal hence why I assumed it would still be there, but I kinda see what they mean as you will not only fly ships, which may cause lotta troubles.
@suplextrain Yes I hear what you are saying. They could of had a more clear structure on it and try to communicate it better than "well we are working on these stuff and we guess it might be there in a couple of patches coming when ever". Yes in one way wait and see is the best, but then I feel like its recieveing a much higher hate ratio than I think it deserves. I mean it is possible to play the alpha and fly around doing some missions. But then again, its early development and are kinda empty. My biggest issue with "the final product" are that Im guessing there will be a lot of balancing issues with the gameplay