3.0 is the first time you'll have some of the basic game loops and
mechanics. The AI
is still fairly basic - there's a lot more coming, but the AI... We have procedural missions so there's a lot of 'go deliver something
to this place', 'go identify a dead body on a spaceship', 'go after this
particular pirate'. There's a basic buying and
selling mechanic, hauling cargo, the ability to earn and spend money on
clothes, weapons, ship items or ship weapons.
I wonder just how basic all of this basic stuff will be? It seems strange to be talking about basic this, that and the other when the project is almost 5 years old.
"All the money we've raised dictates our budget - to a certain point where we have pretty much everything on our wishlist."
And that's precisely the problem Chris....
I'd imagine with the scope of the game, what he is calling basic is a finished product for my games out there. I mean on simple collection or identify missions, there can't be more basic than what is in most released games. But to him, that's incredibly basic. He calls it basic because his end-goal is a lot of next-level stuff. When people learn to ski, they may take a couple years of lessons and practice to feel competent and for some, complete as a skier. Some may say they have mastered skiing because they can do double black diamonds. But for the kid looking at the X-Games skiers throwing quad corks, he doesn't feel he has mastered skiing at the same level as some, he feels he has the basics and is now ready to make that push towards the next-level, standard redefining achievements.
For the vision of the game, a lot of complete released and even critically acclaimed games, would see basic and rudimentary to what is slowly being crafted in Star Citizen. Just a thought.
Stop with this bullshit already. Do something with your money that you can enjoy now or invest. Or if you are keen in throwing it away I have some student loan to be paid off too
Make something equivalent to 3.0 and I'll give you $45 for your student loans. Hell even make something equivalent to 2.6 and I'll give you $45 for your student loans. But you won't, though i'm sure you will tell me how easy it would be to do if you wanted.
If I'm willing to pay $60 for EA Star Wars BattleShit then i'll gladly give $45 to an early access state game that is actually (to me) pretty impressive and exciting to follow. I mean seriously, 2 years ago I (and millions others) dropped $60 for a shit game with a tiny scope that EA wanted to call Battlefront, but for some reason on these boards, dropping $45 on a crowdfunded game that is already about as large of a scope as a $80 million dollar game is somehow ridiculous? Everyone wants to dump on Star Citizen, but how's Camelot Unchained coming? Slow? Oh because crowd funded games take longer to make than major publisher games? That's weird, it's not like they have less money, internal resources or staff. Even the record breaking (crowd funding) Star Citizen doesn't have the budget of the significantly smaller scope of a game called Star Wars The Old Republic. Use your head before you tell me how to spend my money.
If I want a world in which people can purchase success and power with cash, I'll play Real Life. Keep Virtual Worlds Virtual!
3.0 is the first time you'll have some of the basic game loops and
mechanics. The AI
is still fairly basic - there's a lot more coming, but the AI... We have procedural missions so there's a lot of 'go deliver something
to this place', 'go identify a dead body on a spaceship', 'go after this
particular pirate'. There's a basic buying and
selling mechanic, hauling cargo, the ability to earn and spend money on
clothes, weapons, ship items or ship weapons.
I wonder just how basic all of this basic stuff will be? It seems strange to be talking about basic this, that and the other when the project is almost 5 years old.
"All the money we've raised dictates our budget - to a certain point where we have pretty much everything on our wishlist."
And that's precisely the problem Chris....
I'd imagine with the scope of the game, what he is calling basic is a finished product for my games out there. I mean on simple collection or identify missions, there can't be more basic than what is in most released games. But to him, that's incredibly basic. He calls it basic because his end-goal is a lot of next-level stuff. When people learn to ski, they may take a couple years of lessons and practice to feel competent and for some, complete as a skier. Some may say they have mastered skiing because they can do double black diamonds. But for the kid looking at the X-Games skiers throwing quad corks, he doesn't feel he has mastered skiing at the same level as some, he feels he has the basics and is now ready to make that push towards the next-level, standard redefining achievements.
For the vision of the game, a lot of complete released and even critically acclaimed games, would see basic and rudimentary to what is slowly being crafted in Star Citizen. Just a thought.
Stop with this bullshit already. Do something with your money that you can enjoy now or invest. Or if you are keen in throwing it away I have some student loan to be paid off too
Make something equivalent to 3.0 and I'll give you $45 for your student loans. Hell even make something equivalent to 2.6 and I'll give you $45 for your student loans. But you won't, though i'm sure you will tell me how easy it would be to do if you wanted.
If I'm willing to pay $60 for EA Star Wars BattleShit then i'll gladly give $45 to an early access state game that is actually (to me) pretty impressive and exciting to follow. I mean seriously, 2 years ago I (and millions others) dropped $60 for a shit game with a tiny scope that EA wanted to call Battlefront, but for some reason on these boards, dropping $45 on a crowdfunded game that is already about as large of a scope as a $80 million dollar game is somehow ridiculous? Everyone wants to dump on Star Citizen, but how's Camelot Unchained coming? Slow? Oh because crowd funded games take longer to make than major publisher games? That's weird, it's not like they have less money, internal resources or staff. Even the record breaking (crowd funding) Star Citizen doesn't have the budget of the significantly smaller scope of a game called Star Wars The Old Republic. Use your head before you tell me how to spend my money.
Camelot unchained built their own engine that allows thousands of players to battle in the same area with a steady 30+ fps. Camelot unchained is also a huge world. They're almost ready for beta. They raised around 8MILLION and MJ contributed a large portion. less then 5 years dev time.
Star Citizen is nothing but small instanced areas with max 12 - 16 players ? Fps is terrible. There is no chance of massive battles with players and AI. There is practically no game here it is an arena. They've raised 160MILLION. CR didn't invest any of it. 5years dev time.
What good is a universe with 100's of planets if you can only play with 16 people at a time ? You might get lucky and get a good single player game if they ever release SQ 42. Then again they won't even show SQ 42 content.
3.0 is the first time you'll have some of the basic game loops and
mechanics. The AI
is still fairly basic - there's a lot more coming, but the AI... We have procedural missions so there's a lot of 'go deliver something
to this place', 'go identify a dead body on a spaceship', 'go after this
particular pirate'. There's a basic buying and
selling mechanic, hauling cargo, the ability to earn and spend money on
clothes, weapons, ship items or ship weapons.
I wonder just how basic all of this basic stuff will be? It seems strange to be talking about basic this, that and the other when the project is almost 5 years old.
"All the money we've raised dictates our budget - to a certain point where we have pretty much everything on our wishlist."
And that's precisely the problem Chris....
I'd imagine with the scope of the game, what he is calling basic is a finished product for my games out there. I mean on simple collection or identify missions, there can't be more basic than what is in most released games. But to him, that's incredibly basic. He calls it basic because his end-goal is a lot of next-level stuff. When people learn to ski, they may take a couple years of lessons and practice to feel competent and for some, complete as a skier. Some may say they have mastered skiing because they can do double black diamonds. But for the kid looking at the X-Games skiers throwing quad corks, he doesn't feel he has mastered skiing at the same level as some, he feels he has the basics and is now ready to make that push towards the next-level, standard redefining achievements.
For the vision of the game, a lot of complete released and even critically acclaimed games, would see basic and rudimentary to what is slowly being crafted in Star Citizen. Just a thought.
Stop with this bullshit already. Do something with your money that you can enjoy now or invest. Or if you are keen in throwing it away I have some student loan to be paid off too
Make something equivalent to 3.0 and I'll give you $45 for your student loans. Hell even make something equivalent to 2.6 and I'll give you $45 for your student loans. But you won't, though i'm sure you will tell me how easy it would be to do if you wanted.
If I'm willing to pay $60 for EA Star Wars BattleShit then i'll gladly give $45 to an early access state game that is actually (to me) pretty impressive and exciting to follow. I mean seriously, 2 years ago I (and millions others) dropped $60 for a shit game with a tiny scope that EA wanted to call Battlefront, but for some reason on these boards, dropping $45 on a crowdfunded game that is already about as large of a scope as a $80 million dollar game is somehow ridiculous? Everyone wants to dump on Star Citizen, but how's Camelot Unchained coming? Slow? Oh because crowd funded games take longer to make than major publisher games? That's weird, it's not like they have less money, internal resources or staff. Even the record breaking (crowd funding) Star Citizen doesn't have the budget of the significantly smaller scope of a game called Star Wars The Old Republic. Use your head before you tell me how to spend my money.
Camelot unchained built their own engine that allows thousands of players to battle in the same area with a steady 30+ fps. Camelot unchained is also a huge world. They're almost ready for beta. They raised around 8MILLION and MJ contributed a large portion. less then 5 years dev time.
Star Citizen is nothing but small instanced areas with max 12 - 16 players ? Fps is terrible. There is no chance of massive battles with players and AI. There is practically no game here it is an arena. They've raised 160MILLION. CR didn't invest any of it. 5years dev time.
What good is a universe with 100's of planets if you can only play with 16 people at a time ? You might get lucky and get a good single player game if they ever release SQ 42. Then again they won't even show SQ 42 content.
CU was weeks away from a beta over a year and a half ago.... just sayin. Also, if you give me a hundred bucks I'll generate you a world that is the largest ever seen. It might be lifeless and pointless, but it'll be big! Point being, we can speculate until we're blue in the face, but in the end neither is out, both are wildly behind schedule, and you can't say that one will be of better quality than the other.
3.0 is the first time you'll have some of the basic game loops and
mechanics. The AI
is still fairly basic - there's a lot more coming, but the AI... We have procedural missions so there's a lot of 'go deliver something
to this place', 'go identify a dead body on a spaceship', 'go after this
particular pirate'. There's a basic buying and
selling mechanic, hauling cargo, the ability to earn and spend money on
clothes, weapons, ship items or ship weapons.
I wonder just how basic all of this basic stuff will be? It seems strange to be talking about basic this, that and the other when the project is almost 5 years old.
"All the money we've raised dictates our budget - to a certain point where we have pretty much everything on our wishlist."
And that's precisely the problem Chris....
I'd imagine with the scope of the game, what he is calling basic is a finished product for my games out there. I mean on simple collection or identify missions, there can't be more basic than what is in most released games. But to him, that's incredibly basic. He calls it basic because his end-goal is a lot of next-level stuff. When people learn to ski, they may take a couple years of lessons and practice to feel competent and for some, complete as a skier. Some may say they have mastered skiing because they can do double black diamonds. But for the kid looking at the X-Games skiers throwing quad corks, he doesn't feel he has mastered skiing at the same level as some, he feels he has the basics and is now ready to make that push towards the next-level, standard redefining achievements.
For the vision of the game, a lot of complete released and even critically acclaimed games, would see basic and rudimentary to what is slowly being crafted in Star Citizen. Just a thought.
Stop with this bullshit already. Do something with your money that you can enjoy now or invest. Or if you are keen in throwing it away I have some student loan to be paid off too
Make something equivalent to 3.0 and I'll give you $45 for your student loans. Hell even make something equivalent to 2.6 and I'll give you $45 for your student loans. But you won't, though i'm sure you will tell me how easy it would be to do if you wanted.
If I'm willing to pay $60 for EA Star Wars BattleShit then i'll gladly give $45 to an early access state game that is actually (to me) pretty impressive and exciting to follow. I mean seriously, 2 years ago I (and millions others) dropped $60 for a shit game with a tiny scope that EA wanted to call Battlefront, but for some reason on these boards, dropping $45 on a crowdfunded game that is already about as large of a scope as a $80 million dollar game is somehow ridiculous? Everyone wants to dump on Star Citizen, but how's Camelot Unchained coming? Slow? Oh because crowd funded games take longer to make than major publisher games? That's weird, it's not like they have less money, internal resources or staff. Even the record breaking (crowd funding) Star Citizen doesn't have the budget of the significantly smaller scope of a game called Star Wars The Old Republic. Use your head before you tell me how to spend my money.
Camelot unchained built their own engine that allows thousands of players to battle in the same area with a steady 30+ fps. Camelot unchained is also a huge world. They're almost ready for beta. They raised around 8MILLION and MJ contributed a large portion. less then 5 years dev time.
Star Citizen is nothing but small instanced areas with max 12 - 16 players ? Fps is terrible. There is no chance of massive battles with players and AI. There is practically no game here it is an arena. They've raised 160MILLION. CR didn't invest any of it. 5years dev time.
What good is a universe with 100's of planets if you can only play with 16 people at a time ? You might get lucky and get a good single player game if they ever release SQ 42. Then again they won't even show SQ 42 content.
CU was weeks away from a beta over a year and a half ago.... just sayin. Also, if you give me a hundred bucks I'll generate you a world that is the largest ever seen. It might be lifeless and pointless, but it'll be big! Point being, we can speculate until we're blue in the face, but in the end neither is out, both are wildly behind schedule, and you can't say that one will be of better quality than the other.
The only difference is that CIG collected exponentially more cash to develop their title, which means they've had an exponentially larger workforce on it.
3.0 is the first time you'll have some of the basic game loops and
mechanics. The AI
is still fairly basic - there's a lot more coming, but the AI... We have procedural missions so there's a lot of 'go deliver something
to this place', 'go identify a dead body on a spaceship', 'go after this
particular pirate'. There's a basic buying and
selling mechanic, hauling cargo, the ability to earn and spend money on
clothes, weapons, ship items or ship weapons.
I wonder just how basic all of this basic stuff will be? It seems strange to be talking about basic this, that and the other when the project is almost 5 years old.
"All the money we've raised dictates our budget - to a certain point where we have pretty much everything on our wishlist."
And that's precisely the problem Chris....
I'd imagine with the scope of the game, what he is calling basic is a finished product for my games out there. I mean on simple collection or identify missions, there can't be more basic than what is in most released games. But to him, that's incredibly basic. He calls it basic because his end-goal is a lot of next-level stuff. When people learn to ski, they may take a couple years of lessons and practice to feel competent and for some, complete as a skier. Some may say they have mastered skiing because they can do double black diamonds. But for the kid looking at the X-Games skiers throwing quad corks, he doesn't feel he has mastered skiing at the same level as some, he feels he has the basics and is now ready to make that push towards the next-level, standard redefining achievements.
For the vision of the game, a lot of complete released and even critically acclaimed games, would see basic and rudimentary to what is slowly being crafted in Star Citizen. Just a thought.
Stop with this bullshit already. Do something with your money that you can enjoy now or invest. Or if you are keen in throwing it away I have some student loan to be paid off too
Make something equivalent to 3.0 and I'll give you $45 for your student loans. Hell even make something equivalent to 2.6 and I'll give you $45 for your student loans. But you won't, though i'm sure you will tell me how easy it would be to do if you wanted.
If I'm willing to pay $60 for EA Star Wars BattleShit then i'll gladly give $45 to an early access state game that is actually (to me) pretty impressive and exciting to follow. I mean seriously, 2 years ago I (and millions others) dropped $60 for a shit game with a tiny scope that EA wanted to call Battlefront, but for some reason on these boards, dropping $45 on a crowdfunded game that is already about as large of a scope as a $80 million dollar game is somehow ridiculous? Everyone wants to dump on Star Citizen, but how's Camelot Unchained coming? Slow? Oh because crowd funded games take longer to make than major publisher games? That's weird, it's not like they have less money, internal resources or staff. Even the record breaking (crowd funding) Star Citizen doesn't have the budget of the significantly smaller scope of a game called Star Wars The Old Republic. Use your head before you tell me how to spend my money.
Camelot unchained built their own engine that allows thousands of players to battle in the same area with a steady 30+ fps. Camelot unchained is also a huge world. They're almost ready for beta. They raised around 8MILLION and MJ contributed a large portion. less then 5 years dev time.
Star Citizen is nothing but small instanced areas with max 12 - 16 players ? Fps is terrible. There is no chance of massive battles with players and AI. There is practically no game here it is an arena. They've raised 160MILLION. CR didn't invest any of it. 5years dev time.
What good is a universe with 100's of planets if you can only play with 16 people at a time ? You might get lucky and get a good single player game if they ever release SQ 42. Then again they won't even show SQ 42 content.
CU was weeks away from a beta over a year and a half ago.... just sayin. Also, if you give me a hundred bucks I'll generate you a world that is the largest ever seen. It might be lifeless and pointless, but it'll be big! Point being, we can speculate until we're blue in the face, but in the end neither is out, both are wildly behind schedule, and you can't say that one will be of better quality than the other.
The only difference is that CIG collected exponentially more cash to develop their title, which means they've had an exponentially larger workforce on it.
Don't forget, they'll likely have exponentially higher expectations. For whatever reason one of these quotes doesn't jive. You tell me which:
"Well, I suppose we couldn't expect something amazing for $8 million"
"Well, I suppose we couldn't expect something amazing for $160 million"
3.0 is the first time you'll have some of the basic game loops and
mechanics. The AI
is still fairly basic - there's a lot more coming, but the AI... We have procedural missions so there's a lot of 'go deliver something
to this place', 'go identify a dead body on a spaceship', 'go after this
particular pirate'. There's a basic buying and
selling mechanic, hauling cargo, the ability to earn and spend money on
clothes, weapons, ship items or ship weapons.
I wonder just how basic all of this basic stuff will be? It seems strange to be talking about basic this, that and the other when the project is almost 5 years old.
"All the money we've raised dictates our budget - to a certain point where we have pretty much everything on our wishlist."
And that's precisely the problem Chris....
I'd imagine with the scope of the game, what he is calling basic is a finished product for my games out there. I mean on simple collection or identify missions, there can't be more basic than what is in most released games. But to him, that's incredibly basic. He calls it basic because his end-goal is a lot of next-level stuff. When people learn to ski, they may take a couple years of lessons and practice to feel competent and for some, complete as a skier. Some may say they have mastered skiing because they can do double black diamonds. But for the kid looking at the X-Games skiers throwing quad corks, he doesn't feel he has mastered skiing at the same level as some, he feels he has the basics and is now ready to make that push towards the next-level, standard redefining achievements.
For the vision of the game, a lot of complete released and even critically acclaimed games, would see basic and rudimentary to what is slowly being crafted in Star Citizen. Just a thought.
Stop with this bullshit already. Do something with your money that you can enjoy now or invest. Or if you are keen in throwing it away I have some student loan to be paid off too
Make something equivalent to 3.0 and I'll give you $45 for your student loans. Hell even make something equivalent to 2.6 and I'll give you $45 for your student loans. But you won't, though i'm sure you will tell me how easy it would be to do if you wanted.
If I'm willing to pay $60 for EA Star Wars BattleShit then i'll gladly give $45 to an early access state game that is actually (to me) pretty impressive and exciting to follow. I mean seriously, 2 years ago I (and millions others) dropped $60 for a shit game with a tiny scope that EA wanted to call Battlefront, but for some reason on these boards, dropping $45 on a crowdfunded game that is already about as large of a scope as a $80 million dollar game is somehow ridiculous? Everyone wants to dump on Star Citizen, but how's Camelot Unchained coming? Slow? Oh because crowd funded games take longer to make than major publisher games? That's weird, it's not like they have less money, internal resources or staff. Even the record breaking (crowd funding) Star Citizen doesn't have the budget of the significantly smaller scope of a game called Star Wars The Old Republic. Use your head before you tell me how to spend my money.
Camelot unchained built their own engine that allows thousands of players to battle in the same area with a steady 30+ fps. Camelot unchained is also a huge world. They're almost ready for beta. They raised around 8MILLION and MJ contributed a large portion. less then 5 years dev time.
Star Citizen is nothing but small instanced areas with max 12 - 16 players ? Fps is terrible. There is no chance of massive battles with players and AI. There is practically no game here it is an arena. They've raised 160MILLION. CR didn't invest any of it. 5years dev time.
What good is a universe with 100's of planets if you can only play with 16 people at a time ? You might get lucky and get a good single player game if they ever release SQ 42. Then again they won't even show SQ 42 content.
CU was weeks away from a beta over a year and a half ago.... just sayin. Also, if you give me a hundred bucks I'll generate you a world that is the largest ever seen. It might be lifeless and pointless, but it'll be big! Point being, we can speculate until we're blue in the face, but in the end neither is out, both are wildly behind schedule, and you can't say that one will be of better quality than the other.
The only difference is that CIG collected exponentially more cash to develop their title, which means they've had an exponentially larger workforce on it.
Don't forget, they'll likely have exponentially higher expectations. For whatever reason one of these quotes doesn't jive. You tell me which:
"Well, I suppose we couldn't expect something amazing for $8 million"
"Well, I suppose we couldn't expect something amazing for $160 million"
CIG was promising a lot more than what they've got completed a looonnngggg time before they even dreamt of $160 million.
EDIT- And all this without mentioning that MJ and his team built the engine from the ground up.
I dont see what the big deal is, you can already jump in and fly a ship which is pretty much what early access is. The cash shop is open and they are adding persistence so what is the big deal?
Early access is really just a term game devs made up to entice people to pay for access to alpha/beta builds. It has no definition or qualifications so you could throw down a plane and add the standard asset package for walking and your game would qualify for EA.
I think the bigger deal would be when can it be reviewed??? If persistence is in and there are no more wipes, the game costs money and the cash shop is open then by most standards it is a launched product regardless of what the developers say. I guess it will all boil down to what they mean by persistence.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
I dont see what the big deal is, you can already jump in and fly a ship which is pretty much what early access is. The cash shop is open and they are adding persistence so what is the big deal?
Early access is really just a term game devs made up to entice people to pay for access to alpha/beta builds. It has no definition or qualifications so you could throw down a plane and add the standard asset package for walking and your game would qualify for EA.
I think the bigger deal would be when can it be reviewed??? If persistence is in and there are no more wipes, the game costs money and the cash shop is open then by most standards it is a launched product regardless of what the developers say. I guess it will all boil down to what they mean by persistence.
Early access was a few days when the game was ready to launch.
Then early access was monetized and testing was included. People agreed to pay companies to test their game where before it was the company who paid testers.
Now its launch the game with "BASIC" mechanics but promise everything. Deliver the promise later, unless they forget and then savings...opm.
The big deal is SC is far from what was promised and people are just rolling over. I think its because they put too much hope into the belief that SC/CR was going to break the AAA market but in the end it has fallen way short. but let the spin continue...its entertaining watching the sheeple.
3.0 is the first time you'll have some of the basic game loops and
mechanics. The AI
is still fairly basic - there's a lot more coming, but the AI... We have procedural missions so there's a lot of 'go deliver something
to this place', 'go identify a dead body on a spaceship', 'go after this
particular pirate'. There's a basic buying and
selling mechanic, hauling cargo, the ability to earn and spend money on
clothes, weapons, ship items or ship weapons.
I wonder just how basic all of this basic stuff will be? It seems strange to be talking about basic this, that and the other when the project is almost 5 years old.
"All the money we've raised dictates our budget - to a certain point where we have pretty much everything on our wishlist."
And that's precisely the problem Chris....
I'd imagine with the scope of the game, what he is calling basic is a finished product for my games out there. I mean on simple collection or identify missions, there can't be more basic than what is in most released games. But to him, that's incredibly basic. He calls it basic because his end-goal is a lot of next-level stuff. When people learn to ski, they may take a couple years of lessons and practice to feel competent and for some, complete as a skier. Some may say they have mastered skiing because they can do double black diamonds. But for the kid looking at the X-Games skiers throwing quad corks, he doesn't feel he has mastered skiing at the same level as some, he feels he has the basics and is now ready to make that push towards the next-level, standard redefining achievements.
For the vision of the game, a lot of complete released and even critically acclaimed games, would see basic and rudimentary to what is slowly being crafted in Star Citizen. Just a thought.
Stop with this bullshit already. Do something with your money that you can enjoy now or invest. Or if you are keen in throwing it away I have some student loan to be paid off too
Make something equivalent to 3.0 and I'll give you $45 for your student loans. Hell even make something equivalent to 2.6 and I'll give you $45 for your student loans. But you won't, though i'm sure you will tell me how easy it would be to do if you wanted.
If I'm willing to pay $60 for EA Star Wars BattleShit then i'll gladly give $45 to an early access state game that is actually (to me) pretty impressive and exciting to follow. I mean seriously, 2 years ago I (and millions others) dropped $60 for a shit game with a tiny scope that EA wanted to call Battlefront, but for some reason on these boards, dropping $45 on a crowdfunded game that is already about as large of a scope as a $80 million dollar game is somehow ridiculous? Everyone wants to dump on Star Citizen, but how's Camelot Unchained coming? Slow? Oh because crowd funded games take longer to make than major publisher games? That's weird, it's not like they have less money, internal resources or staff. Even the record breaking (crowd funding) Star Citizen doesn't have the budget of the significantly smaller scope of a game called Star Wars The Old Republic. Use your head before you tell me how to spend my money.
Camelot unchained built their own engine that allows thousands of players to battle in the same area with a steady 30+ fps. Camelot unchained is also a huge world. They're almost ready for beta. They raised around 8MILLION and MJ contributed a large portion. less then 5 years dev time.
Star Citizen is nothing but small instanced areas with max 12 - 16 players ? Fps is terrible. There is no chance of massive battles with players and AI. There is practically no game here it is an arena. They've raised 160MILLION. CR didn't invest any of it. 5years dev time.
What good is a universe with 100's of planets if you can only play with 16 people at a time ? You might get lucky and get a good single player game if they ever release SQ 42. Then again they won't even show SQ 42 content.
CU was weeks away from a beta over a year and a half ago.... just sayin. Also, if you give me a hundred bucks I'll generate you a world that is the largest ever seen. It might be lifeless and pointless, but it'll be big! Point being, we can speculate until we're blue in the face, but in the end neither is out, both are wildly behind schedule, and you can't say that one will be of better quality than the other.
The only difference is that CIG collected exponentially more cash to develop their title, which means they've had an exponentially larger workforce on it.
Don't forget, they'll likely have exponentially higher expectations. For whatever reason one of these quotes doesn't jive. You tell me which:
"Well, I suppose we couldn't expect something amazing for $8 million"
"Well, I suppose we couldn't expect something amazing for $160 million"
CIG was promising a lot more than what they've got completed a looonnngggg time before they even dreamt of $160 million.
EDIT- And all this without mentioning that MJ and his team built the engine from the ground up.
You're assuming that building an engine from the group up is more difficult than what CIG did with Cryengine. There's no way you could possibly know which is more difficult.
It's like saying, I'll build a dog house and you add a new floor to a skyscraper. We're both making buildings, and I'm building my building from the ground up! So I've obviously got a bigger job ahead of me.
I don't know about what building and dog house you are going on about but SC as it sits is not what most would say it what they promised and no where close to what early access is what most thought it would be.
Basically, SC is going with whatever they got and the rest will come later.
3.0 is the first time you'll have some of the basic game loops and
mechanics. The AI
is still fairly basic - there's a lot more coming, but the AI... We have procedural missions so there's a lot of 'go deliver something
to this place', 'go identify a dead body on a spaceship', 'go after this
particular pirate'. There's a basic buying and
selling mechanic, hauling cargo, the ability to earn and spend money on
clothes, weapons, ship items or ship weapons.
I wonder just how basic all of this basic stuff will be? It seems strange to be talking about basic this, that and the other when the project is almost 5 years old.
"All the money we've raised dictates our budget - to a certain point where we have pretty much everything on our wishlist."
And that's precisely the problem Chris....
I'd imagine with the scope of the game, what he is calling basic is a finished product for my games out there. I mean on simple collection or identify missions, there can't be more basic than what is in most released games. But to him, that's incredibly basic. He calls it basic because his end-goal is a lot of next-level stuff. When people learn to ski, they may take a couple years of lessons and practice to feel competent and for some, complete as a skier. Some may say they have mastered skiing because they can do double black diamonds. But for the kid looking at the X-Games skiers throwing quad corks, he doesn't feel he has mastered skiing at the same level as some, he feels he has the basics and is now ready to make that push towards the next-level, standard redefining achievements.
For the vision of the game, a lot of complete released and even critically acclaimed games, would see basic and rudimentary to what is slowly being crafted in Star Citizen. Just a thought.
Stop with this bullshit already. Do something with your money that you can enjoy now or invest. Or if you are keen in throwing it away I have some student loan to be paid off too
Make something equivalent to 3.0 and I'll give you $45 for your student loans. Hell even make something equivalent to 2.6 and I'll give you $45 for your student loans. But you won't, though i'm sure you will tell me how easy it would be to do if you wanted.
If I'm willing to pay $60 for EA Star Wars BattleShit then i'll gladly give $45 to an early access state game that is actually (to me) pretty impressive and exciting to follow. I mean seriously, 2 years ago I (and millions others) dropped $60 for a shit game with a tiny scope that EA wanted to call Battlefront, but for some reason on these boards, dropping $45 on a crowdfunded game that is already about as large of a scope as a $80 million dollar game is somehow ridiculous? Everyone wants to dump on Star Citizen, but how's Camelot Unchained coming? Slow? Oh because crowd funded games take longer to make than major publisher games? That's weird, it's not like they have less money, internal resources or staff. Even the record breaking (crowd funding) Star Citizen doesn't have the budget of the significantly smaller scope of a game called Star Wars The Old Republic. Use your head before you tell me how to spend my money.
Camelot unchained built their own engine that allows thousands of players to battle in the same area with a steady 30+ fps. Camelot unchained is also a huge world. They're almost ready for beta. They raised around 8MILLION and MJ contributed a large portion. less then 5 years dev time.
Star Citizen is nothing but small instanced areas with max 12 - 16 players ? Fps is terrible. There is no chance of massive battles with players and AI. There is practically no game here it is an arena. They've raised 160MILLION. CR didn't invest any of it. 5years dev time.
What good is a universe with 100's of planets if you can only play with 16 people at a time ? You might get lucky and get a good single player game if they ever release SQ 42. Then again they won't even show SQ 42 content.
CU was weeks away from a beta over a year and a half ago.... just sayin. Also, if you give me a hundred bucks I'll generate you a world that is the largest ever seen. It might be lifeless and pointless, but it'll be big! Point being, we can speculate until we're blue in the face, but in the end neither is out, both are wildly behind schedule, and you can't say that one will be of better quality than the other.
The only difference is that CIG collected exponentially more cash to develop their title, which means they've had an exponentially larger workforce on it.
Don't forget, they'll likely have exponentially higher expectations. For whatever reason one of these quotes doesn't jive. You tell me which:
"Well, I suppose we couldn't expect something amazing for $8 million"
"Well, I suppose we couldn't expect something amazing for $160 million"
CIG was promising a lot more than what they've got completed a looonnngggg time before they even dreamt of $160 million.
EDIT- And all this without mentioning that MJ and his team built the engine from the ground up.
You're assuming that building an engine from the group up is more difficult than what CIG did with Cryengine. There's no way you could possibly know which is more difficult.
It's like saying, I'll build a dog house and you add a new floor to a skyscraper. We're both making buildings, and I'm building my building from the ground up! So I've obviously got a bigger job ahead of me.
Your comparison of CU to a dog house shows your impartiality in the situation and how it colors your perspective.
There's no way to know, but it's much, much more reasonable to assume building a game engine from the ground up is a larger endeavor than modding an existing engine. Unless, again, you're not looking at it from a truly neutral perspective.
3.0 is the first time you'll have some of the basic game loops and
mechanics. The AI
is still fairly basic - there's a lot more coming, but the AI... We have procedural missions so there's a lot of 'go deliver something
to this place', 'go identify a dead body on a spaceship', 'go after this
particular pirate'. There's a basic buying and
selling mechanic, hauling cargo, the ability to earn and spend money on
clothes, weapons, ship items or ship weapons.
I wonder just how basic all of this basic stuff will be? It seems strange to be talking about basic this, that and the other when the project is almost 5 years old.
"All the money we've raised dictates our budget - to a certain point where we have pretty much everything on our wishlist."
And that's precisely the problem Chris....
I'd imagine with the scope of the game, what he is calling basic is a finished product for my games out there. I mean on simple collection or identify missions, there can't be more basic than what is in most released games. But to him, that's incredibly basic. He calls it basic because his end-goal is a lot of next-level stuff. When people learn to ski, they may take a couple years of lessons and practice to feel competent and for some, complete as a skier. Some may say they have mastered skiing because they can do double black diamonds. But for the kid looking at the X-Games skiers throwing quad corks, he doesn't feel he has mastered skiing at the same level as some, he feels he has the basics and is now ready to make that push towards the next-level, standard redefining achievements.
For the vision of the game, a lot of complete released and even critically acclaimed games, would see basic and rudimentary to what is slowly being crafted in Star Citizen. Just a thought.
Stop with this bullshit already. Do something with your money that you can enjoy now or invest. Or if you are keen in throwing it away I have some student loan to be paid off too
Make something equivalent to 3.0 and I'll give you $45 for your student loans. Hell even make something equivalent to 2.6 and I'll give you $45 for your student loans. But you won't, though i'm sure you will tell me how easy it would be to do if you wanted.
If I'm willing to pay $60 for EA Star Wars BattleShit then i'll gladly give $45 to an early access state game that is actually (to me) pretty impressive and exciting to follow. I mean seriously, 2 years ago I (and millions others) dropped $60 for a shit game with a tiny scope that EA wanted to call Battlefront, but for some reason on these boards, dropping $45 on a crowdfunded game that is already about as large of a scope as a $80 million dollar game is somehow ridiculous? Everyone wants to dump on Star Citizen, but how's Camelot Unchained coming? Slow? Oh because crowd funded games take longer to make than major publisher games? That's weird, it's not like they have less money, internal resources or staff. Even the record breaking (crowd funding) Star Citizen doesn't have the budget of the significantly smaller scope of a game called Star Wars The Old Republic. Use your head before you tell me how to spend my money.
Camelot unchained built their own engine that allows thousands of players to battle in the same area with a steady 30+ fps. Camelot unchained is also a huge world. They're almost ready for beta. They raised around 8MILLION and MJ contributed a large portion. less then 5 years dev time.
Star Citizen is nothing but small instanced areas with max 12 - 16 players ? Fps is terrible. There is no chance of massive battles with players and AI. There is practically no game here it is an arena. They've raised 160MILLION. CR didn't invest any of it. 5years dev time.
What good is a universe with 100's of planets if you can only play with 16 people at a time ? You might get lucky and get a good single player game if they ever release SQ 42. Then again they won't even show SQ 42 content.
CU was weeks away from a beta over a year and a half ago.... just sayin. Also, if you give me a hundred bucks I'll generate you a world that is the largest ever seen. It might be lifeless and pointless, but it'll be big! Point being, we can speculate until we're blue in the face, but in the end neither is out, both are wildly behind schedule, and you can't say that one will be of better quality than the other.
The only difference is that CIG collected exponentially more cash to develop their title, which means they've had an exponentially larger workforce on it.
Miracle Man Month
Your autocorrect sniped you, but I understood you.
It may be true here for CIG, but of course, the decision to add the manpower is the responsibility the project manager, yes?
You're assuming that building an engine from the group up is more difficult than what CIG did with Cryengine. There's no way you could possibly know which is more difficult.
It's like saying, I'll build a dog house and you add a new floor to a skyscraper. We're both making buildings, and I'm building my building from the ground up! So I've obviously got a bigger job ahead of me.
Your comparison of CU to a dog house shows your impartiality in the situation and how it colors your perspective.
There's no way to know, but it's much, much more reasonable to assume building a game engine from the ground up is a larger endeavor than modding an existing engine. Unless, again, you're not looking at it from a truly neutral perspective.
Again, you're assuming and have absolutely no idea what work was done on either. What we can say is that there was a genius who claimed that what CIG was trying to do with Cryengine was impossible. So if we're talking merely about levels of complexity, I'd say that CIG might be more complex. Both require work, but you have no idea about the scope of that work. Also, it shows because you believe that a neutral perspective is that it's more reasonable to assume that building a game engine is more difficult. An educated, neutral perspective would say that there are unknown factors which make it impossible to tell which has a larger scope of work.
You're assuming that building an engine from the group up is more difficult than what CIG did with Cryengine. There's no way you could possibly know which is more difficult.
It's like saying, I'll build a dog house and you add a new floor to a skyscraper. We're both making buildings, and I'm building my building from the ground up! So I've obviously got a bigger job ahead of me.
Your comparison of CU to a dog house shows your impartiality in the situation and how it colors your perspective.
There's no way to know, but it's much, much more reasonable to assume building a game engine from the ground up is a larger endeavor than modding an existing engine. Unless, again, you're not looking at it from a truly neutral perspective.
Again, you're assuming and have absolutely no idea what work was done on either. What we can say is that there was a genius who claimed that what CIG was trying to do with Cryengine was impossible. So if we're talking merely about levels of complexity, I'd say that CIG might be more complex. Both require work, but you have no idea about the scope of that work. Also, it shows because you believe that a neutral perspective is that it's more reasonable to assume that building a game engine is more difficult. An educated, neutral perspective would say that there are unknown factors which make it impossible to tell which has a larger scope of work.
Doubtful, considering the popularity of using premade engines to expedite development and reduce costs. But hey, let's not let a little thing like the industry norms apply to what's the impending gaming mecca, right?
You're assuming that building an engine from the group up is more difficult than what CIG did with Cryengine. There's no way you could possibly know which is more difficult.
It's like saying, I'll build a dog house and you add a new floor to a skyscraper. We're both making buildings, and I'm building my building from the ground up! So I've obviously got a bigger job ahead of me.
Your comparison of CU to a dog house shows your impartiality in the situation and how it colors your perspective.
There's no way to know, but it's much, much more reasonable to assume building a game engine from the ground up is a larger endeavor than modding an existing engine. Unless, again, you're not looking at it from a truly neutral perspective.
Again, you're assuming and have absolutely no idea what work was done on either. What we can say is that there was a genius who claimed that what CIG was trying to do with Cryengine was impossible. So if we're talking merely about levels of complexity, I'd say that CIG might be more complex. Both require work, but you have no idea about the scope of that work. Also, it shows because you believe that a neutral perspective is that it's more reasonable to assume that building a game engine is more difficult. An educated, neutral perspective would say that there are unknown factors which make it impossible to tell which has a larger scope of work.
Doubtful, considering the popularity of using premade engines to expedite development and reduce costs. But hey, let's not let a little thing like the industry norms apply to what's the impending gaming mecca, right?
Lol, what's more fucking hilarious is that you're arguing a point that has been argued to death since the beginning of the project. Go do some research, there are plenty of arguments suggesting that the scope of making these types of changes to Cryengine is equivalent to or greater than writing a custom engine. It's one of the main criticisms that's been made since the beginning.
Honestly, if you believe that's doubtful then I'd probably suggest that you do some research. Also, you can't say how much of the CU engine was pre-existing or has been done previously. It's not MJ's first rodeo, so I'm pretty sure he knows how to put an engine together and likely has a plethora of pieces and parts laying around his shop that he can use.
Again, an educated neutral party would say that there isn't enough known to say which of these tasks is larger in scope.
You're assuming that building an engine from the group up is more difficult than what CIG did with Cryengine. There's no way you could possibly know which is more difficult.
It's like saying, I'll build a dog house and you add a new floor to a skyscraper. We're both making buildings, and I'm building my building from the ground up! So I've obviously got a bigger job ahead of me.
Your comparison of CU to a dog house shows your impartiality in the situation and how it colors your perspective.
There's no way to know, but it's much, much more reasonable to assume building a game engine from the ground up is a larger endeavor than modding an existing engine. Unless, again, you're not looking at it from a truly neutral perspective.
Again, you're assuming and have absolutely no idea what work was done on either. What we can say is that there was a genius who claimed that what CIG was trying to do with Cryengine was impossible. So if we're talking merely about levels of complexity, I'd say that CIG might be more complex. Both require work, but you have no idea about the scope of that work. Also, it shows because you believe that a neutral perspective is that it's more reasonable to assume that building a game engine is more difficult. An educated, neutral perspective would say that there are unknown factors which make it impossible to tell which has a larger scope of work.
Doubtful, considering the popularity of using premade engines to expedite development and reduce costs. But hey, let's not let a little thing like the industry norms apply to what's the impending gaming mecca, right?
Lol, what's more fucking hilarious is that you're arguing a point that has been argued to death since the beginning of the project. Go do some research, there are plenty of arguments suggesting that the scope of making these types of changes to Cryengine is equivalent to or greater than writing a custom engine. It's one of the main criticisms that's been made since the beginning.
Honestly, if you believe that's doubtful then I'd probably suggest that you do some research. Also, you can't say how much of the CU engine was pre-existing or has been done previously. It's not MJ's first rodeo, so I'm pretty sure he knows how to put an engine together and likely has a plethora of pieces and parts laying around his shop that he can use.
Again, an educated neutral party would say that there isn't enough known to say which of these tasks is larger in scope.
No, an educated, neutral opinion would say that, all other things being equal, modding a game engine is a smaller endeavor than creating one from scratch.
If you've got some specifics about this modding that doesn't amount solely to talking points from CR, then please do share.
You're assuming that building an engine from the group up is more difficult than what CIG did with Cryengine. There's no way you could possibly know which is more difficult.
It's like saying, I'll build a dog house and you add a new floor to a skyscraper. We're both making buildings, and I'm building my building from the ground up! So I've obviously got a bigger job ahead of me.
Your comparison of CU to a dog house shows your impartiality in the situation and how it colors your perspective.
There's no way to know, but it's much, much more reasonable to assume building a game engine from the ground up is a larger endeavor than modding an existing engine. Unless, again, you're not looking at it from a truly neutral perspective.
Again, you're assuming and have absolutely no idea what work was done on either. What we can say is that there was a genius who claimed that what CIG was trying to do with Cryengine was impossible. So if we're talking merely about levels of complexity, I'd say that CIG might be more complex. Both require work, but you have no idea about the scope of that work. Also, it shows because you believe that a neutral perspective is that it's more reasonable to assume that building a game engine is more difficult. An educated, neutral perspective would say that there are unknown factors which make it impossible to tell which has a larger scope of work.
Doubtful, considering the popularity of using premade engines to expedite development and reduce costs. But hey, let's not let a little thing like the industry norms apply to what's the impending gaming mecca, right?
Lol, what's more fucking hilarious is that you're arguing a point that has been argued to death since the beginning of the project. Go do some research, there are plenty of arguments suggesting that the scope of making these types of changes to Cryengine is equivalent to or greater than writing a custom engine. It's one of the main criticisms that's been made since the beginning.
Honestly, if you believe that's doubtful then I'd probably suggest that you do some research. Also, you can't say how much of the CU engine was pre-existing or has been done previously. It's not MJ's first rodeo, so I'm pretty sure he knows how to put an engine together and likely has a plethora of pieces and parts laying around his shop that he can use.
Again, an educated neutral party would say that there isn't enough known to say which of these tasks is larger in scope.
No, an educated, neutral opinion would say that, all other things being equal, modding a game engine is a smaller endeavor than creating one from scratch.
If you've got some specifics about this modding that doesn't amount solely to talking points from CR, then please do share.
Lol, yes, "all things being equal", depending on the scope of the modifications being made and depending on what type of engine you're creating and how much experience you have making engines. However if we're talking about specifics, and I thought we were, then we don't have enough information to make any sort of commentary about which scope is larger.
Lol, what's more fucking hilarious is that you're arguing a point that has been argued to death since the beginning of the project. Go do some research, there are plenty of arguments suggesting that the scope of making these types of changes to Cryengine is equivalent to or greater than writing a custom engine. It's one of the main criticisms that's been made since the beginning.
Honestly, if you believe that's doubtful then I'd probably suggest that you do some research. Also, you can't say how much of the CU engine was pre-existing or has been done previously. It's not MJ's first rodeo, so I'm pretty sure he knows how to put an engine together and likely has a plethora of pieces and parts laying around his shop that he can use.
Again, an educated neutral party would say that there isn't enough known to say which of these tasks is larger in scope.
Okay, fine, but even if we assume that it really doesn't address that they said they could do with 6 million dollars what they can't seem to with 150. Why is that? I get being off by a few million, I'd even be willing to accept that it cost double or triple that to get this done, but can you deny that they offered something they could not have possibly delivered on?
Arguing about whether or not it is difficult to create something like SC is sort of immaterial at this point. I believe that it's difficult, sure, but the question is how much money does it actually take to complete a project like this? My guess is that their initial figure was a bit low, but not excessively far off the mark. Nothing I've seen or been shown would lead me to believe otherwise and the success of other projects like Elite: Dangerous, Infinity: Battlescape, and others with far less capital at their disposal makes me think we've been screwed.
You seem to be defending them at this point so I pose my question again. Why should I believe not only that CIG is using the money they made effectively, or that they will ever produce a game that comes anywhere close to what they originally promised? Can anyone convert me?
You're assuming that building an engine from the group up is more difficult than what CIG did with Cryengine. There's no way you could possibly know which is more difficult.
It's like saying, I'll build a dog house and you add a new floor to a skyscraper. We're both making buildings, and I'm building my building from the ground up! So I've obviously got a bigger job ahead of me.
Your comparison of CU to a dog house shows your impartiality in the situation and how it colors your perspective.
There's no way to know, but it's much, much more reasonable to assume building a game engine from the ground up is a larger endeavor than modding an existing engine. Unless, again, you're not looking at it from a truly neutral perspective.
Again, you're assuming and have absolutely no idea what work was done on either. What we can say is that there was a genius who claimed that what CIG was trying to do with Cryengine was impossible. So if we're talking merely about levels of complexity, I'd say that CIG might be more complex. Both require work, but you have no idea about the scope of that work. Also, it shows because you believe that a neutral perspective is that it's more reasonable to assume that building a game engine is more difficult. An educated, neutral perspective would say that there are unknown factors which make it impossible to tell which has a larger scope of work.
Doubtful, considering the popularity of using premade engines to expedite development and reduce costs. But hey, let's not let a little thing like the industry norms apply to what's the impending gaming mecca, right?
Lol, what's more fucking hilarious is that you're arguing a point that has been argued to death since the beginning of the project. Go do some research, there are plenty of arguments suggesting that the scope of making these types of changes to Cryengine is equivalent to or greater than writing a custom engine. It's one of the main criticisms that's been made since the beginning.
Honestly, if you believe that's doubtful then I'd probably suggest that you do some research. Also, you can't say how much of the CU engine was pre-existing or has been done previously. It's not MJ's first rodeo, so I'm pretty sure he knows how to put an engine together and likely has a plethora of pieces and parts laying around his shop that he can use.
Again, an educated neutral party would say that there isn't enough known to say which of these tasks is larger in scope.
No, an educated, neutral opinion would say that, all other things being equal, modding a game engine is a smaller endeavor than creating one from scratch.
If you've got some specifics about this modding that doesn't amount solely to talking points from CR, then please do share.
Lol, yes, "all things being equal", depending on the scope of the modifications being made and depending on what type of engine you're creating and how much experience you have making engines. However if we're talking about specifics, and I thought we were, then we don't have enough information to make any sort of commentary about which scope is larger.
When you don't have specifics, you work with what you've got.
If you're not willing to do that, you shouldn't have posted in the first place. I responded to your jumping into the thread to qualify CIG's progress as a comparison to CSE's. Are you attempting to submit you weren't making any assumptions with that post?
With what we've got, building the engine seems clearly the larger endeavor. Specifically when it's being done on a shoestring budget (comparatively) and with a much smaller team.
Lol, yes, "all things being equal", depending on the scope of the modifications being made and depending on what type of engine you're creating and how much experience you have making engines. However if we're talking about specifics, and I thought we were, then we don't have enough information to make any sort of commentary about which scope is larger.
When you don't have specifics, you work with what you've got.
If you're not willing to do that, you shouldn't have posted in the first place. I responded to your jumping into the thread to qualify CIG's progress as a comparison to CSE's. Are you attempting to submit you weren't making any assumptions with that post?
With what we've got, building the engine seems clearly the larger endeavor. Specifically when it's being done on a shoestring budget (comparatively) and with a much smaller team.
What we've got is a project at a level of complexity that the most senior developers who CREATED Cryengine have taken years to make the necessary changes. So are you saying that is trivial? Or are you contending that these guys are idiots? Or don't know what they're doing? I'm not sure what point you're making. You think we don't have any information, but we do. We have enough information to make pretty good estimates of the work that was being done and the complexity of that work. What we can say is that the work is non-trivial work that took a team of people, larger than the entire CU team (maybe double the size), who CREATED Cryengine years to rewrite. I think that's pretty significant.
Lol, yes, "all things being equal", depending on the scope of the modifications being made and depending on what type of engine you're creating and how much experience you have making engines. However if we're talking about specifics, and I thought we were, then we don't have enough information to make any sort of commentary about which scope is larger.
When you don't have specifics, you work with what you've got.
If you're not willing to do that, you shouldn't have posted in the first place. I responded to your jumping into the thread to qualify CIG's progress as a comparison to CSE's. Are you attempting to submit you weren't making any assumptions with that post?
With what we've got, building the engine seems clearly the larger endeavor. Specifically when it's being done on a shoestring budget (comparatively) and with a much smaller team.
What we've got is a project at a level of complexity that the most senior developers who CREATED Cryengine have taken years to make the necessary changes. So are you saying that is trivial? Or are you contending that these guys are idiots? Or don't know what they're doing? I'm not sure what point you're making. You think we don't have any information, but we do. We have enough information to make pretty good estimates of the work that was being done and the complexity of that work. What we can say is that the work is non-trivial work that took a team of people, larger than the entire CU team (maybe double the size), who CREATED Cryengine years to rewrite. I think that's pretty significant.
And CSE is attempting to to create an enginer, from scratch, capable of handling destructible environments, projectile and AoE spells that have to be tracked in real-time as they travel since they should interact, all the while rendering record numbers of players in the same space simultaneously. See? I can expound on assumptions, too!
Comments
David Miscavige, leader of the "Church of Scientology" and first-class asshat.
Make something equivalent to 3.0 and I'll give you $45 for your student loans. Hell even make something equivalent to 2.6 and I'll give you $45 for your student loans. But you won't, though i'm sure you will tell me how easy it would be to do if you wanted.
If I'm willing to pay $60 for EA Star Wars BattleShit then i'll gladly give $45 to an early access state game that is actually (to me) pretty impressive and exciting to follow. I mean seriously, 2 years ago I (and millions others) dropped $60 for a shit game with a tiny scope that EA wanted to call Battlefront, but for some reason on these boards, dropping $45 on a crowdfunded game that is already about as large of a scope as a $80 million dollar game is somehow ridiculous? Everyone wants to dump on Star Citizen, but how's Camelot Unchained coming? Slow? Oh because crowd funded games take longer to make than major publisher games? That's weird, it's not like they have less money, internal resources or staff. Even the record breaking (crowd funding) Star Citizen doesn't have the budget of the significantly smaller scope of a game called Star Wars The Old Republic. Use your head before you tell me how to spend my money.
If I want a world in which people can purchase success and power with cash, I'll play Real Life. Keep Virtual Worlds Virtual!
Camelot unchained built their own engine that allows thousands of players to battle in the same area with a steady 30+ fps. Camelot unchained is also a huge world. They're almost ready for beta. They raised around 8MILLION and MJ contributed a large portion. less then 5 years dev time.
Star Citizen is nothing but small instanced areas with max 12 - 16 players ? Fps is terrible. There is no chance of massive battles with players and AI. There is practically no game here it is an arena. They've raised 160MILLION. CR didn't invest any of it. 5years dev time.
What good is a universe with 100's of planets if you can only play with 16 people at a time ? You might get lucky and get a good single player game if they ever release SQ 42. Then again they won't even show SQ 42 content.
CU was weeks away from a beta over a year and a half ago.... just sayin. Also, if you give me a hundred bucks I'll generate you a world that is the largest ever seen. It might be lifeless and pointless, but it'll be big! Point being, we can speculate until we're blue in the face, but in the end neither is out, both are wildly behind schedule, and you can't say that one will be of better quality than the other.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Don't forget, they'll likely have exponentially higher expectations. For whatever reason one of these quotes doesn't jive. You tell me which:
"Well, I suppose we couldn't expect something amazing for $8 million"
"Well, I suppose we couldn't expect something amazing for $160 million"
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
How do you go from that to basic this basic that....the games so basic.
That bitter taste in your mouth is CR.
Have Fun.
EDIT- And all this without mentioning that MJ and his team built the engine from the ground up.
Early access is really just a term game devs made up to entice people to pay for access to alpha/beta builds. It has no definition or qualifications so you could throw down a plane and add the standard asset package for walking and your game would qualify for EA.
I think the bigger deal would be when can it be reviewed??? If persistence is in and there are no more wipes, the game costs money and the cash shop is open then by most standards it is a launched product regardless of what the developers say. I guess it will all boil down to what they mean by persistence.
Then early access was monetized and testing was included. People agreed to pay companies to test their game where before it was the company who paid testers.
Now its launch the game with "BASIC" mechanics but promise everything. Deliver the promise later, unless they forget and then savings...opm.
The big deal is SC is far from what was promised and people are just rolling over. I think its because they put too much hope into the belief that SC/CR was going to break the AAA market but in the end it has fallen way short. but let the spin continue...its entertaining watching the sheeple.
You're assuming that building an engine from the group up is more difficult than what CIG did with Cryengine. There's no way you could possibly know which is more difficult.
It's like saying, I'll build a dog house and you add a new floor to a skyscraper. We're both making buildings, and I'm building my building from the ground up! So I've obviously got a bigger job ahead of me.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Basically, SC is going with whatever they got and the rest will come later.
There's no way to know, but it's much, much more reasonable to assume building a game engine from the ground up is a larger endeavor than modding an existing engine. Unless, again, you're not looking at it from a truly neutral perspective.
It may be true here for CIG, but of course, the decision to add the manpower is the responsibility the project manager, yes?
Again, you're assuming and have absolutely no idea what work was done on either. What we can say is that there was a genius who claimed that what CIG was trying to do with Cryengine was impossible. So if we're talking merely about levels of complexity, I'd say that CIG might be more complex. Both require work, but you have no idea about the scope of that work. Also, it shows because you believe that a neutral perspective is that it's more reasonable to assume that building a game engine is more difficult. An educated, neutral perspective would say that there are unknown factors which make it impossible to tell which has a larger scope of work.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Lol, what's more fucking hilarious is that you're arguing a point that has been argued to death since the beginning of the project. Go do some research, there are plenty of arguments suggesting that the scope of making these types of changes to Cryengine is equivalent to or greater than writing a custom engine. It's one of the main criticisms that's been made since the beginning.
Honestly, if you believe that's doubtful then I'd probably suggest that you do some research. Also, you can't say how much of the CU engine was pre-existing or has been done previously. It's not MJ's first rodeo, so I'm pretty sure he knows how to put an engine together and likely has a plethora of pieces and parts laying around his shop that he can use.
Again, an educated neutral party would say that there isn't enough known to say which of these tasks is larger in scope.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
If you've got some specifics about this modding that doesn't amount solely to talking points from CR, then please do share.
Lol, yes, "all things being equal", depending on the scope of the modifications being made and depending on what type of engine you're creating and how much experience you have making engines. However if we're talking about specifics, and I thought we were, then we don't have enough information to make any sort of commentary about which scope is larger.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Arguing about whether or not it is difficult to create something like SC is sort of immaterial at this point. I believe that it's difficult, sure, but the question is how much money does it actually take to complete a project like this? My guess is that their initial figure was a bit low, but not excessively far off the mark. Nothing I've seen or been shown would lead me to believe otherwise and the success of other projects like Elite: Dangerous, Infinity: Battlescape, and others with far less capital at their disposal makes me think we've been screwed.
You seem to be defending them at this point so I pose my question again. Why should I believe not only that CIG is using the money they made effectively, or that they will ever produce a game that comes anywhere close to what they originally promised? Can anyone convert me?
If you're not willing to do that, you shouldn't have posted in the first place. I responded to your jumping into the thread to qualify CIG's progress as a comparison to CSE's. Are you attempting to submit you weren't making any assumptions with that post?
With what we've got, building the engine seems clearly the larger endeavor. Specifically when it's being done on a shoestring budget (comparatively) and with a much smaller team.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
What we've got is a project at a level of complexity that the most senior developers who CREATED Cryengine have taken years to make the necessary changes. So are you saying that is trivial? Or are you contending that these guys are idiots? Or don't know what they're doing? I'm not sure what point you're making. You think we don't have any information, but we do. We have enough information to make pretty good estimates of the work that was being done and the complexity of that work. What we can say is that the work is non-trivial work that took a team of people, larger than the entire CU team (maybe double the size), who CREATED Cryengine years to rewrite. I think that's pretty significant.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------