Originally posted by jcrg99 [jcrg99 SC hate train and spam removed]
By the way according to your SC hate train they are even worse missing their Kickstarter delivery date in March, just saying. They missed their alpha date, they missed their standard alpha date, they missed their premium beta date, they missed their beta date, they missed their binding release date over 9 months ago which is binding according to Kickstarter terms, they missed EVERY date they ever put out because they are dilletants and amateurs only good at shill marketing and artificial hype for nothing. Someone should start a class action lawsuit against your low budget procedural scam title.
So hey your double standards are just showing, Frontier has probably hired a bunch of cronies who are hired to do constant thread derailing, spamming and advertising in SC threads and mods here around don´t care either?
I agree. They missed the March delivery date indeed. Don't remember of they losing any other dates, as far as I know, they have losing any date when they announced their alpha-beta release dates. Also, instead "talking" they actually provide constant updates fixing bugs and advancing, while in the terrain of CIG, is more like a lot of talking and updates that takes an era to come and improve their current game.
Another difference, my friend, is that they have the interest to deliver and not "happy coincidences" that make them make more money as more they delay. It's clear that they have the interest to release something great as quickly as possible, because that means to them more money, not holding the release meaning more money, or delivering more and more barely playable stuff, meaning more money. Can you see the difference? I don't put any dev in "angel of heaven" status, but the difference here is clear, and for the benefit of the players, in the case of what Frontier does. There is impossible to spend the money of real houses and cars on this game, even that maybe it was in the time of "funding", to donate money, its not now. No way. And no way to you have any head start above anyone else too. For real, not on speech, everyone is really equal. And for those who spend a lot more, they have a huge advantage to save money in the future. That's a prize to give to players, instead like CIG, that what they do is to torture more their lovers, encouraging them to, again, spend the money the houses and cars in a game, seriously abusing of addictive behaviours, that are encouraged by them, not for the sake of playing the game, but for the sake of money.
And there is another big difference between these two, in their own marketing and advertising attitude:
Here's the "Risks and Challenges" pointed by Frontier:
"Stating the obvious, all projects, whether building a bridge, making a film, studying for an exam or whatever, carry risk. Projects can run out of time or money, people can leave, assumptions that were made at the start may prove to be mistaken, or the results may simply not be as good as expected. Games development is no different.
Looking at all the high quality games we at Frontier have produced, from RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 to Kinectimals to LostWinds to Disneyland Adventures, I think the risk of non-delivery is small. We already have a large team who are very experienced at delivering complicated projects, and the key high-risk components (like networking) are already in place. If necessary then we will delay the release beyond March 2014, but I do not believe we will need to do so."
Meanwhile, in the CIG ad for SC... a SERIOUS marketing bait, serious Deceptive Marketing, not to make the things clear for customer to make their decisions, but trying to mislead people, motivating people to give them money, because more money would make sure to achieve the delivery promised dates:
"We are aiming for a AAA game experience. But depending on the funding levels reached, we may have to limit the experience for the initially released game version. "
The purpose of the higher stretch goals is to ensure that the game-as-described is finished in the two year time period. We intend to build the game that Chris Roberts described at GDC Online regardless, but without additional funding we are going to have to do it one piece at a time, starting with Squadron 42, rather than as a single larger production. With more funding we can include more ships, systems, unique locations, animations and cinematic sequences
"
See? Can you see the difference? (I doubt, but others probably will can). A lawsuit would take money from CIG, that assumed this terrible risk. There is no way to do that against Frontier because they were anything, but deceptive. They were pretty clear in their advertising, and CIG did the contrary, not just was deceptive as associated such deception with getting more money. A serious bad attitude that is classified as "Bad faith on business".
And besides that, you want really to compare a game a 8 months-delay, for reasons that are clearly not involved with money grabbing, with a delay of SC full release, about 2.5 years at the minimum and who knows how it could end to be, for clear money grabbing objective? And what about how advanced they are. ED did not become eternally in pre-alpha, until the time of the Beta was passed. They advanced, not just in speech and in videos. But in an actual game that you can put your hands on it. Its a huge difference. CIG is there, still an year far to get even their promised Alpha, where they promised that you would fly with whatever ship that you pledged for. Just their Alpha, as originally promised will delay almost like or maybe even more than the whole development time of ED, since that promise only will be accomplished with AC 2.0. Meanhile! Uhu! Stucked still in the pre-alpha, nothing advancing except by words in walls of text from CR. Words are cheap my friend.
LoL
You shouldn't. If you are trying to convince more fans with your speech, just to let you know, fans are already backers. Your speech is terrible to convince new players, that you made that clear that is your whole objective here on this website... making marketing, not seriously and independently discussing the game, and how it can be compared with others, etc.
Some of your thoughts sounds seriously odd for a "customer", so, sometiems you do not sound even a legit, more like a marketing puppet, so, its curious that you accuse others to be. If you try to focus on banning every single person that talks about SC in a way that you don't like, have critics for that and use best practices of other games as an example, really man... you will end alone in any place that exist in the world that is not controlled by the CIG Marketing team.
You talk about hate and "hate train" when in fact, I gave more constructive criticism for CIG and even for their backers, in how properly they should "work" with CIG, so they go to the right path in one single post, that yourself in all your posts spamming marketing messages and sometimes even lies, like "The game is going to be fully release don 2015", as you said, or "the alpha was promised for nov 2014" - another lie, and the list goes on and on.
Seriously... if you want to have some credibility, don't lie, mainly when you can easily been proven as doing that. Just sayin. Hope to help you to become a better marketing puppet for CIG, that you made clear that is your whole objective. My own, is to speak freely and openly about any game.
And you should not take offense that the Frontier team makes a better job. Again, you should try to get that as an example and try to ask for CIG to follow better lines, since they are letting more and more along the time, the marketing messages of CIG empty and been much more effective in anything that they do. Instead "hating" why don't take that as an example and demand some improvements in the CIG side, mainly in respect of marketing approach, marketing messages, etc?
Why so much interest to you tell just half-trues to people. Are you trying to increase the number of disappointed people in the CIG backers list? What you will say to these people after you basically called everyone a liar and that the release of SC is for 2015 (calling even Chris Robets a liar at this case, since he confirmed that its only coming later on 2016 and what is coming isthe first chapter of SQ42 MAYBE will be done for 2015 and maybe a possible pre-pre-pre-pre alpha PU?). This is not RELEASE. This is still far from that.
You want to people going to your cause. Be fair with them. Tell them the true. Tell them that they screwed adn that they are delaying the game and possibly making al ot of money, but eventually, some game will come, and if the person has no problem to be stuck for years with a ship that they barely can have any fun, they can pay that low-entry pkg, otherwise, the best would wait for release, or just pay 30 and never go back until release, to do not become more disappointed by the wait. That is the fair thing to do.
Why so much focus to try to deceive people. Aren't you a massive success already? Aren't you already with all themoney necessary? So why to feed what could become a train wreck of complaints that can destroy your game for good?
Seroiusly. Your strategy makes no sense. You sound like trolls in disguise, trying to sabotage your own game, instead actually supporitng, because that's what you do when you do not tell the history of this company for people and overhype the things and claim that the release is coming earlier. You are sabotaging your own game. And that does not sound a legit attitude of someone "smart" that wants the game to be a success. That sounds or that you are interested to get money from people (and that's why I called you marketing puppet of CIG), regardless the consequences.
just sayin. I hope you improve your ways. Maybe you can finally to start to get REAL backers in a REAL relevant manner, instead just phantoms, new accounts of the same people that is backer alerady again adn again.
Seroiusly... Just try to be honest instead deceptive. That's what could improve the CIG image, that is obviously terrible today between a majority of people that could be already backers if wasn't by their continuously deceptive attitude, both from backers and from their marketing team, to the point of the whole development compromised today by a marketing "money grabbing" plan, and not really delaying due development issues.
I have been playing this Ut3 MOD forever, always wondered, why, WHY is no one turning this into a commercial product?
Now it's happening. Unbelievable. The game? Star Citizen.
Tactical FPS, ship hoarding, ship boarding, station defending, cap ship conquering with assault teams, flying ships through a gigantic universe, multi crew ships, guilds and organizations, plus mining, trading.
This is the game. This is the BDSSE. Thank you Chris Roberts, you're da man.
We shall see. All SC is right now is a clever kickstarter campaign and a MMO development project. When it launches, and not until, then it will be possibly "The greatest space adventure MMO ever". Not all MMO projects launch and some of the ones I looked forward to the most ended up being vaporware.
Seems like Star Citizen has kicked off a new trend ... space sims are back again. Go eat your heart out, all ya zombie games !
We will see a lot more of this genre in the near future, i think ..... and i luv it.
--------------------
And as a solution to the SC hate spam train i point at the approx. 10.000 posts (and still going up) "official" SC thread about the question "Is SC P2W ?" (including the official answer and links to further reading)
Everything that can be said about this topic HAS been said there ... often ;-) All too often ;-) But hey, type on, bro .... 10001+
What made ME smile in that thread was the way the moderators handled the SPAMers ;-)
--> "Final note: Jeanelle Schmidt is not a moderator. This user posted spam on the forums. This user's post has been repurposed for use as the P2W merge thread. May whatever powers that be have mercy on this person's soul, because obviously, we didn't. "
I absolutely dislike topics like these. nothing but pure hype and complete faith into promises which are yet to come into fruitation. And then people like OP wonder why more and more gamers are getting cynical about hype surrounding new MMOS.
Originally posted by Bigdaddyx I absolutely dislike topics like these. nothing but pure hype and complete faith into promises which are yet to come into fruitation. And then people like OP wonder why more and more gamers are getting cynical about hype surrounding new MMOS.
You think "Angels Fall First" and "Fractured Space" (and/or "Star Citizen") is all hype and promises ?
I think in this age of "Early Access" and "Multi-year-Open-Beta-Testing" it will be rare indeed to see a big gaming event with an UNEXPECTED announcement of a big new (space) game that has NEVER before been shown. So i guess there will ALWAYS be quite a bit of hype before ANY new release.
Seems like Star Citizen has kicked off a new trend ... space sims are back again. Go eat your heart out, all ya zombie games !
We will see a lot more of this genre in the near future, i think ..... and i luv it.
--------------------
And as a solution to the SC hate spam train i point at the approx. 10.000 posts (and still going up) "official" SC thread about the question "Is SC P2W ?" (including the official answer and links to further reading)
Everything that can be said about this topic HAS been said there ... often ;-) All too often ;-) But hey, type on, bro .... 10001+
What made ME smile in that thread was the way the moderators handled the SPAMers ;-)
--> "Final note: Jeanelle Schmidt is not a moderator. This user posted spam on the forums. This user's post has been repurposed for use as the P2W merge thread. May whatever powers that be have mercy on this person's soul, because obviously, we didn't. "
Have fun
First of all, Space Sims are not "back". What is "back" are Space Sims from Braben and Roberts.
You, in your own post referred to developers of "Strike Suit Zero". EvE is there for than 10 years. X Series. And there are others that came in-between. It was never a dead "genre". It just became more niched. And continue to be. Nothing changed at this point. Not guilty of the Space Sims. Other genres came and stole their initial popularity of the past. Other genres grew, while Space Sims declined in popularity, probably by the influence of the other genres.
Second, the thread that you referred in the CIG Forums, discussed by CIG fans, mainly, is totally useless, since in that place only will prevail the opinion of the fans of Roberts, that actually, hardly have any opinion about anything... what they have is an obsession for marketing, leading to them do not publicizing any honest opinion. As you even mentioned, the critics out there, or the non-believers that the game is not pay to win, are usually deleted/censored by moderators and those people banned, and as you mentioned, treated as "spammers" or something.
Which is a serious flaw in your logic, because if people must to be banned because are "spammers of a similar/same opinion", you probably would be banned from any website, since you spend a lot of effort spamming more marketing for CIG than actually discussing subjects seriously, that is the purpose of a forum. It's very common people found you been proven wrong, clearly, and you trying to twist and sometimes, clearly trolling people, but as you "defend the game", then you think that it could put you away of any accusation of trolling or spamming... wrong notion... a wrong notion that has been popularized in the forums of games these days. It's the dead of the discussion, debates, that can lead to learning, discoveries, improvements.
All is about if you don't agree, or if you want to people learning your line of thinking, unless that thing is "for the marketing of such game", that becomes trolling. Which for any people REALLY mature, that's the pure and clear atittude of lack of maturity.
Seems like Star Citizen has kicked off a new trend ... space sims are back again. Go eat your heart out, all ya zombie games !
Developers don't decide to make space sims because of Star Citizen. We've had space sims in the last years if you would bother to think outside your biased box. Quite a few started development before SC funding became a success even
Many of them (all of them?) will be out before Star Citizen as well.
The only game that was influenced by SC was that blatant copy paste attempt that thankfully failed.
Everything that can be said about this topic HAS been said there ... often ;-) All too often ;-) But hey, type on, bro .... 10001+
Huh? Why even share a link in a commonly accepted biased forum about a topic that would obviously be affected by that bias? What is it supposed to tell us? lol
There's lots of fans of the game and multi-thousand dollar backers who are worried about the P2W elements in the game.
If you can't see P2W elements then I really don't know what to tell you.
Originally posted by Bigdaddyx I absolutely dislike topics like these. nothing but pure hype and complete faith into promises which are yet to come into fruitation. And then people like OP wonder why more and more gamers are getting cynical about hype surrounding new MMOS.
There is nothing good on hype. It's the cancer of the industry. Destroy games/companies that "in case not hyped insanely" could end to be considered good. If you complain, those "mature" people call you as "whinning" or "making drama", forgetting that behind such levels of destruction there are real lives involved, professionals, that could have their lives destroyed by lack of a job, or money, because you know... in this industry, devs, artists, etc. suffer, while producers, CEO, never.
Its curious this suicidal attitude of the CIG (because their producer/CEO only care about money) and of their fans. They are encouraging more and more hype.. which in the end will be what will make that game a "fail", for the whole game industry, even that the game itself can end to be in some level of "good".
But they are illogical in everything that they do. Everything is about to give money for Roberts, assuming that it will be good for the game, which is the most terrible assumptions that they could have. Obviously that should be the case in the beginning, when the game was not yet announced as "fully funded", but persisting on that, its outdated, illogical, against their own objective, and just acting like Lemmings, Zombies, continuously filling with milk a full glass... you know what happen if you do that.
CR became addicted by money grabbing and 3% of the backers by collecting ship draws. Both are destroying the fun of everyone else and destroying their own objective, that should be the game.
Developers don't decide to make space sims because of Star Citizen. We've had space sims in the last years if you would bother to think outside your biased box. Quite a few started development before SC funding became a success even
Do I think outside a biased box ?
Lemme see - in recent years since 2010 i played the following space games (excluding mobile and strategy games) :
Buzz Aldrins Race Into Space
Dark Star One
Elite Dangerous (Beta)
EVE Online (since 2004)
EVE Valkyrie (demo)
Faster than Light (FTL)
Freelancer
Homeworld series
Independence War series
Kerbal Space Program
Mass Effect series (limited free space flying content)
Nexus
Privateer series
Shuttle Simulator (the game and the real one ;-)
Soyuz Simulator (the real one ;-)
Star Citizen (in development)
Star Trek Online (MMO)
Star Trek series (many ;-)
SWG (included free space combat PvP)
SWTOR (starfighter part and railgun starfighter part)
Star Wars series (many ;-)
Wing Commander series (many ;-)
Wing Commander Saga
X-series
and numerous mods to these games
Furthermore I am in approx. 15 Early Access Steam Sci-Fi and space games in various stages of development (many of those simulating Mars exploration and/or building stuff and moving in space e.g. Space Engineers).
Hmm .... some more names that i cannot remember at the moment .... the above mentioned list is not 100 % complete.
Having played those games i STILL think that the space sim genre was in decline in recent years. In most cases publishers avoided it like the plague - most likely because the prevalent consoles were too old to run any decent space sim worth the name and therefore a PC to console port would not have been an option. IMHO with the announcement of Star Citizen (Kickstarter successful November 19 2012) and Elite Dangerous (kickstarter successful January 5 2013) a renaissance of space sim games has started. I expect many more space games in the near and medium future.
There's a slight increase in space games coming out... certainly not enough to call it a renaissance.
Also I don't think there's a single game that caused this.. easier distribution, accessible game creating engines and crowdfunding are all bringing us a lot more games than ever before.
There's always been some kind of space game to play, i.e. look at your list.
Personally I've been playing eve on and off for the last 7-8 years among others.
Space sims have always been a PC game characteristic... I don't think consoles had anything to do with it.
First person shooters were also a typical PC thing .... Halo changed all that. Now consoles are the driving factor there.
Strangely enough space sims never really made the jump to consoles in significant numbers.
With 80ish % of the sales of games currently being made with console sales, the publishers were not especially keen to fund space games that would not be portable to consoles. They were not keen to earn only 20 % of their potential profit.
Personally I consider consoles, even the 4th gen ones, mediocre variants of middle-class gaming PCs ... outdated from the start. Hopefully all these new crowdfunded PC games will truely show the consoleros what they are missing.
First person shooters were also a typical PC thing .... Halo changed all that. Now consoles are the driving factor there.
Driving factor? No I don't agree. Popular FPS games are developed taking into consideration several platforms.
There's still more FPS games on PC's than there are on consoles. Obviously not all of them are popular but there's plenty which are very healthy.
With 80ish % of the sales of games currently being made with console sales, the publishers were not especially keen to fund space games that would not be portable to consoles. They were not keen to earn only 20 % of their potential profit.
Your information is incorrect. In fact, PC gaming revenue has now surpassed console revenue.
You're probably forgetting the countless multiplayer games that have flexible non-traditional monetizing schemes.
For example League of Legends.
PC Gaming was never dying as people claimed and in fact it's striving these days more than ever.
There's still more FPS games on PC's than there are on consoles. Obviously not all of them are popular but there's plenty which are very healthy.
--> the first FPS shooter on the PC gaming sales list is Battlefield 4 at 15th place. Not too great. With the consoles you find a FPS game (CoD) on 2nd place.
Your information is incorrect. In fact, PC gaming revenue has now surpassed console revenue.
You're probably forgetting the countless multiplayer games that have flexible non-traditional monetizing schemes.
For example League of Legends.
PC Gaming was never dying as people claimed and in fact it's striving these days more than ever.
If we include Free to Play games with micro transactions the numbers change, thats true. However, it would be hard to make ANY comparison between a "boxed" game like Star Citizen "Squadron 42" (or lets say "Guild Wars 2") and a F2P micro-transaction game like "League of Legends".
I agree that PC gaming was never dying. Publishers did not have the same opinion as we have. Only now are they learning the error of their ways ...
--> the first FPS shooter on the PC gaming sales list is Battlefield 4 at 15th place. Not too great. With the consoles you find a FPS game (CoD) on 2nd place.
That means FPS games are popular on consoles, that doesn't mean FPS console games are defining PC FPS games.
If we include Free to Play games with micro transactions the numbers change, thats true. However, it would be hard to make ANY comparison between a "boxed" game like Star Citizen "Squadron 42" (or lets say "Guild Wars 2") and a F2P micro-transaction game like "League of Legends".
You don't need to make a comparison. Profit isn't only measured by box sales, we're not in the 1990s anymore dude
You were under the impression that PC game developers made less profit when in fact they make more.
@sgel ... Please Re-read what i wrote. I was talking about the "Sales of Games". Which is ZERO for F2P games. YOU are talking about profit, where microtransactions are important.
Originally posted by Erillion @sgel ... Please Re-read what i wrote. I was talking about the "Sales of Games". Which is ZERO for F2P games. YOU are talking about profit, where microtransactions are important.
Have fun
Here's what you wrote:
With 80ish % of the sales of games currently being made with console sales, the publishers were not especially keen to fund space games that would not be portable to consoles. They were not keen to earn only 20 % of their potential profit.
So it seems like you thought developers only gain profit when they sell boxes.
** sigh ** Profit from the sale of games. A F2P Game costs .... Nothing. Profit from selling the Game = Zero. Profit from in game sales / microtransactions = a lot ( hundreds of M$).
Originally posted by Erillion ** sigh ** Profit from the sale of games. A F2P Game costs .... Nothing. Profit from selling the Game = Zero. Profit from in game sales / microtransactions = a lot ( hundreds of M$).
Originally posted by Erillion Sorry, cannot explain it any simpler ...
Yeah pretty sure you're analysis is as simple as they get.
First you say that publishers didn't want to fund space games because they can't be ported to consoles and consoles make 60% more profit (lol). This isn't the case of course, not that a ridiculous statement like that actually needed a counter-argument.
Then you're trying to dodge your error by saying you weren't talking about profit but boxes, as if box sales are the only way of making profit these days. Again it's not, you even claimed it yourself.
It would be easier for you to just admit you were wrong than try pirouetting when you obviously can't dance.
I'm still waiting for you to show me all those non-money SC achievements you said you mentioned and claimed I ignored.
Well, you got your answers and your examples. If this is not enough for you - tough luck. Going through it again will just get the thread locked for off topic posting and endless repetitions.
At this point all Starcitizen is, is flair and glamour no substance. Elite dangerous on the other hand is almost a fully fledged game, with more than an arena. Not to mention the space combat feels much better than sitting and spinning in place ala SC. I seriously doubt even a quarter of the listed features will make it in game, and doubt it will even be a game with depth. I regret buying a ship package from them since that seems like their only goal at the moment.
So here is to ED potentially fulfilling that spot SC looks to serve.
Well ain't this a GREAT TOPIC!!! For all of you who did not get the chance to read through all of it, here are the main highlights:
- SC is not an MMO
- Yes..yes it is
- It is multiplayer. It is online. But it is NOT massive.
- I get the impression that some of the people here really have no idea what Star Citizen is. Thousands to millions of players on the same server cluster interacting with each other sounds like a MMO (I think this guy is from the future because at the moment servers are really struggling with just a few hundreds, and instanced. Besides, how do you communicate/interract with millions? Will this game have a telepathy feature ? )
- Star Citizen - NOT AN MMO !
-- Of course SC is an MMO, the most massive space MMO ever made in fact. Massive battles with 100 (!!!!!) player ships visible at the same time
- Chris said they're hoping for 50-70 people in the same instance, maybe more if possible. (Wait.. what??)
-100 is a great number, everything less would not qualify for a modern online game, so many ships on the screen is already more than anyone can count in the heat of a battle. (Well, 100 is not bad, actually)
- SC is hopping to have 50-70, they dropped the 100 some time ago. And currently they are having major problems going over 16, CIG's own words. (Oh my.)
-Star Citizen hit 2 stretch goals at once! Now almost 52$ MILLION BUDGET! (And?)
-So yet another patch late.This makes it 100% success rate for CIG being late on releasing every single AC content patch. (congratz!)
- We have passed $54 million in crowd funding, and we have two groups to thank:
*Insert word here* who picked up 600$ imaginary ships during our sale… and new backers who really hope they'll get a great space sim game during their current lifetime span. Hope.
"Starpoint Gemini 2 is an open-world 3D space simulation that combines powerful RPG mechanics with the frenzy of space combat, creating a particular blend that sets itself apart from all other games in the genre."
"Starpoint Gemini 2 is an open-world 3D space simulation that combines powerful RPG mechanics with the frenzy of space combat, creating a particular blend that sets itself apart from all other games in the genre."
Have fun
agreed, probably the only game to pass the time, also playing Kerbal Space Program and X3.
Plus whatever is coming for the autumn sales, probably lots of single player games going on sale.
Comments
I agree. They missed the March delivery date indeed. Don't remember of they losing any other dates, as far as I know, they have losing any date when they announced their alpha-beta release dates. Also, instead "talking" they actually provide constant updates fixing bugs and advancing, while in the terrain of CIG, is more like a lot of talking and updates that takes an era to come and improve their current game.
Another difference, my friend, is that they have the interest to deliver and not "happy coincidences" that make them make more money as more they delay. It's clear that they have the interest to release something great as quickly as possible, because that means to them more money, not holding the release meaning more money, or delivering more and more barely playable stuff, meaning more money. Can you see the difference? I don't put any dev in "angel of heaven" status, but the difference here is clear, and for the benefit of the players, in the case of what Frontier does. There is impossible to spend the money of real houses and cars on this game, even that maybe it was in the time of "funding", to donate money, its not now. No way. And no way to you have any head start above anyone else too. For real, not on speech, everyone is really equal. And for those who spend a lot more, they have a huge advantage to save money in the future. That's a prize to give to players, instead like CIG, that what they do is to torture more their lovers, encouraging them to, again, spend the money the houses and cars in a game, seriously abusing of addictive behaviours, that are encouraged by them, not for the sake of playing the game, but for the sake of money.
And there is another big difference between these two, in their own marketing and advertising attitude:
Here's the "Risks and Challenges" pointed by Frontier:
"Stating the obvious, all projects, whether building a bridge, making a film, studying for an exam or whatever, carry risk. Projects can run out of time or money, people can leave, assumptions that were made at the start may prove to be mistaken, or the results may simply not be as good as expected. Games development is no different.
Looking at all the high quality games we at Frontier have produced, from RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 to Kinectimals to LostWinds to Disneyland Adventures, I think the risk of non-delivery is small. We already have a large team who are very experienced at delivering complicated projects, and the key high-risk components (like networking) are already in place. If necessary then we will delay the release beyond March 2014, but I do not believe we will need to do so."
Meanwhile, in the CIG ad for SC... a SERIOUS marketing bait, serious Deceptive Marketing, not to make the things clear for customer to make their decisions, but trying to mislead people, motivating people to give them money, because more money would make sure to achieve the delivery promised dates:
"We are aiming for a AAA game experience. But depending on the funding levels reached, we may have to limit the experience for the initially released game version. "
Can you explain the stretch goals?
The purpose of the higher stretch goals is to ensure that the game-as-described is finished in the two year time period. We intend to build the game that Chris Roberts described at GDC Online regardless, but without additional funding we are going to have to do it one piece at a time, starting with Squadron 42, rather than as a single larger production. With more funding we can include more ships, systems, unique locations, animations and cinematic sequences
"
See? Can you see the difference? (I doubt, but others probably will can). A lawsuit would take money from CIG, that assumed this terrible risk. There is no way to do that against Frontier because they were anything, but deceptive. They were pretty clear in their advertising, and CIG did the contrary, not just was deceptive as associated such deception with getting more money. A serious bad attitude that is classified as "Bad faith on business".
And besides that, you want really to compare a game a 8 months-delay, for reasons that are clearly not involved with money grabbing, with a delay of SC full release, about 2.5 years at the minimum and who knows how it could end to be, for clear money grabbing objective? And what about how advanced they are. ED did not become eternally in pre-alpha, until the time of the Beta was passed. They advanced, not just in speech and in videos. But in an actual game that you can put your hands on it. Its a huge difference. CIG is there, still an year far to get even their promised Alpha, where they promised that you would fly with whatever ship that you pledged for. Just their Alpha, as originally promised will delay almost like or maybe even more than the whole development time of ED, since that promise only will be accomplished with AC 2.0. Meanhile! Uhu! Stucked still in the pre-alpha, nothing advancing except by words in walls of text from CR. Words are cheap my friend.
LoL
You shouldn't. If you are trying to convince more fans with your speech, just to let you know, fans are already backers. Your speech is terrible to convince new players, that you made that clear that is your whole objective here on this website... making marketing, not seriously and independently discussing the game, and how it can be compared with others, etc.
Some of your thoughts sounds seriously odd for a "customer", so, sometiems you do not sound even a legit, more like a marketing puppet, so, its curious that you accuse others to be. If you try to focus on banning every single person that talks about SC in a way that you don't like, have critics for that and use best practices of other games as an example, really man... you will end alone in any place that exist in the world that is not controlled by the CIG Marketing team.
You talk about hate and "hate train" when in fact, I gave more constructive criticism for CIG and even for their backers, in how properly they should "work" with CIG, so they go to the right path in one single post, that yourself in all your posts spamming marketing messages and sometimes even lies, like "The game is going to be fully release don 2015", as you said, or "the alpha was promised for nov 2014" - another lie, and the list goes on and on.
Seriously... if you want to have some credibility, don't lie, mainly when you can easily been proven as doing that. Just sayin. Hope to help you to become a better marketing puppet for CIG, that you made clear that is your whole objective. My own, is to speak freely and openly about any game.
And you should not take offense that the Frontier team makes a better job. Again, you should try to get that as an example and try to ask for CIG to follow better lines, since they are letting more and more along the time, the marketing messages of CIG empty and been much more effective in anything that they do. Instead "hating" why don't take that as an example and demand some improvements in the CIG side, mainly in respect of marketing approach, marketing messages, etc?
Why so much interest to you tell just half-trues to people. Are you trying to increase the number of disappointed people in the CIG backers list? What you will say to these people after you basically called everyone a liar and that the release of SC is for 2015 (calling even Chris Robets a liar at this case, since he confirmed that its only coming later on 2016 and what is coming isthe first chapter of SQ42 MAYBE will be done for 2015 and maybe a possible pre-pre-pre-pre alpha PU?). This is not RELEASE. This is still far from that.
You want to people going to your cause. Be fair with them. Tell them the true. Tell them that they screwed adn that they are delaying the game and possibly making al ot of money, but eventually, some game will come, and if the person has no problem to be stuck for years with a ship that they barely can have any fun, they can pay that low-entry pkg, otherwise, the best would wait for release, or just pay 30 and never go back until release, to do not become more disappointed by the wait. That is the fair thing to do.
Why so much focus to try to deceive people. Aren't you a massive success already? Aren't you already with all themoney necessary? So why to feed what could become a train wreck of complaints that can destroy your game for good?
Seroiusly. Your strategy makes no sense. You sound like trolls in disguise, trying to sabotage your own game, instead actually supporitng, because that's what you do when you do not tell the history of this company for people and overhype the things and claim that the release is coming earlier. You are sabotaging your own game. And that does not sound a legit attitude of someone "smart" that wants the game to be a success. That sounds or that you are interested to get money from people (and that's why I called you marketing puppet of CIG), regardless the consequences.
just sayin. I hope you improve your ways. Maybe you can finally to start to get REAL backers in a REAL relevant manner, instead just phantoms, new accounts of the same people that is backer alerady again adn again.
Seroiusly... Just try to be honest instead deceptive. That's what could improve the CIG image, that is obviously terrible today between a majority of people that could be already backers if wasn't by their continuously deceptive attitude, both from backers and from their marketing team, to the point of the whole development compromised today by a marketing "money grabbing" plan, and not really delaying due development issues.
We shall see. All SC is right now is a clever kickstarter campaign and a MMO development project. When it launches, and not until, then it will be possibly "The greatest space adventure MMO ever". Not all MMO projects launch and some of the ones I looked forward to the most ended up being vaporware.
We shall see. I wish the project well.
Another great space game coming soon : Fractured Space
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/10/22/former-strike-suit-zero-developers-announce-new-game-fractured-space
Seems like Star Citizen has kicked off a new trend ... space sims are back again. Go eat your heart out, all ya zombie games !
We will see a lot more of this genre in the near future, i think ..... and i luv it.
--------------------
And as a solution to the SC hate spam train i point at the approx. 10.000 posts (and still going up) "official" SC thread about the question "Is SC P2W ?" (including the official answer and links to further reading)
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/93157/katamari-damashii-pay-to-win
Everything that can be said about this topic HAS been said there ... often ;-) All too often ;-) But hey, type on, bro .... 10001+
What made ME smile in that thread was the way the moderators handled the SPAMers ;-)
--> "Final note: Jeanelle Schmidt is not a moderator. This user posted spam on the forums. This user's post has been repurposed for use as the P2W merge thread. May whatever powers that be have mercy on this person's soul, because obviously, we didn't. "
Have fun
You think "Angels Fall First" and "Fractured Space" (and/or "Star Citizen") is all hype and promises ?
I think in this age of "Early Access" and "Multi-year-Open-Beta-Testing" it will be rare indeed to see a big gaming event with an UNEXPECTED announcement of a big new (space) game that has NEVER before been shown. So i guess there will ALWAYS be quite a bit of hype before ANY new release.
Have fun
First of all, Space Sims are not "back". What is "back" are Space Sims from Braben and Roberts.
You, in your own post referred to developers of "Strike Suit Zero". EvE is there for than 10 years. X Series. And there are others that came in-between. It was never a dead "genre". It just became more niched. And continue to be. Nothing changed at this point. Not guilty of the Space Sims. Other genres came and stole their initial popularity of the past. Other genres grew, while Space Sims declined in popularity, probably by the influence of the other genres.
Second, the thread that you referred in the CIG Forums, discussed by CIG fans, mainly, is totally useless, since in that place only will prevail the opinion of the fans of Roberts, that actually, hardly have any opinion about anything... what they have is an obsession for marketing, leading to them do not publicizing any honest opinion. As you even mentioned, the critics out there, or the non-believers that the game is not pay to win, are usually deleted/censored by moderators and those people banned, and as you mentioned, treated as "spammers" or something.
Which is a serious flaw in your logic, because if people must to be banned because are "spammers of a similar/same opinion", you probably would be banned from any website, since you spend a lot of effort spamming more marketing for CIG than actually discussing subjects seriously, that is the purpose of a forum. It's very common people found you been proven wrong, clearly, and you trying to twist and sometimes, clearly trolling people, but as you "defend the game", then you think that it could put you away of any accusation of trolling or spamming... wrong notion... a wrong notion that has been popularized in the forums of games these days. It's the dead of the discussion, debates, that can lead to learning, discoveries, improvements.
All is about if you don't agree, or if you want to people learning your line of thinking, unless that thing is "for the marketing of such game", that becomes trolling. Which for any people REALLY mature, that's the pure and clear atittude of lack of maturity.
Developers don't decide to make space sims because of Star Citizen. We've had space sims in the last years if you would bother to think outside your biased box. Quite a few started development before SC funding became a success even
Many of them (all of them?) will be out before Star Citizen as well.
The only game that was influenced by SC was that blatant copy paste attempt that thankfully failed.
Huh? Why even share a link in a commonly accepted biased forum about a topic that would obviously be affected by that bias? What is it supposed to tell us? lol
There's lots of fans of the game and multi-thousand dollar backers who are worried about the P2W elements in the game.
If you can't see P2W elements then I really don't know what to tell you.
..Cake..
There is nothing good on hype. It's the cancer of the industry. Destroy games/companies that "in case not hyped insanely" could end to be considered good. If you complain, those "mature" people call you as "whinning" or "making drama", forgetting that behind such levels of destruction there are real lives involved, professionals, that could have their lives destroyed by lack of a job, or money, because you know... in this industry, devs, artists, etc. suffer, while producers, CEO, never.
Its curious this suicidal attitude of the CIG (because their producer/CEO only care about money) and of their fans. They are encouraging more and more hype.. which in the end will be what will make that game a "fail", for the whole game industry, even that the game itself can end to be in some level of "good".
But they are illogical in everything that they do. Everything is about to give money for Roberts, assuming that it will be good for the game, which is the most terrible assumptions that they could have. Obviously that should be the case in the beginning, when the game was not yet announced as "fully funded", but persisting on that, its outdated, illogical, against their own objective, and just acting like Lemmings, Zombies, continuously filling with milk a full glass... you know what happen if you do that.
CR became addicted by money grabbing and 3% of the backers by collecting ship draws. Both are destroying the fun of everyone else and destroying their own objective, that should be the game.
Do I think outside a biased box ?
Lemme see - in recent years since 2010 i played the following space games (excluding mobile and strategy games) :
Buzz Aldrins Race Into Space
Dark Star One
Elite Dangerous (Beta)
EVE Online (since 2004)
EVE Valkyrie (demo)
Faster than Light (FTL)
Freelancer
Homeworld series
Independence War series
Kerbal Space Program
Mass Effect series (limited free space flying content)
Nexus
Privateer series
Shuttle Simulator (the game and the real one ;-)
Soyuz Simulator (the real one ;-)
Star Citizen (in development)
Star Trek Online (MMO)
Star Trek series (many ;-)
SWG (included free space combat PvP)
SWTOR (starfighter part and railgun starfighter part)
Star Wars series (many ;-)
Wing Commander series (many ;-)
Wing Commander Saga
X-series
and numerous mods to these games
Furthermore I am in approx. 15 Early Access Steam Sci-Fi and space games in various stages of development (many of those simulating Mars exploration and/or building stuff and moving in space e.g. Space Engineers).
Hmm .... some more names that i cannot remember at the moment .... the above mentioned list is not 100 % complete.
Having played those games i STILL think that the space sim genre was in decline in recent years. In most cases publishers avoided it like the plague - most likely because the prevalent consoles were too old to run any decent space sim worth the name and therefore a PC to console port would not have been an option. IMHO with the announcement of Star Citizen (Kickstarter successful November 19 2012) and Elite Dangerous (kickstarter successful January 5 2013) a renaissance of space sim games has started. I expect many more space games in the near and medium future.
Have fun
I disagree.
There's a slight increase in space games coming out... certainly not enough to call it a renaissance.
Also I don't think there's a single game that caused this.. easier distribution, accessible game creating engines and crowdfunding are all bringing us a lot more games than ever before.
There's always been some kind of space game to play, i.e. look at your list.
Personally I've been playing eve on and off for the last 7-8 years among others.
Space sims have always been a PC game characteristic... I don't think consoles had anything to do with it.
..Cake..
First person shooters were also a typical PC thing .... Halo changed all that. Now consoles are the driving factor there.
Strangely enough space sims never really made the jump to consoles in significant numbers.
With 80ish % of the sales of games currently being made with console sales, the publishers were not especially keen to fund space games that would not be portable to consoles. They were not keen to earn only 20 % of their potential profit.
Personally I consider consoles, even the 4th gen ones, mediocre variants of middle-class gaming PCs ... outdated from the start. Hopefully all these new crowdfunded PC games will truely show the consoleros what they are missing.
Have fun
Driving factor? No I don't agree. Popular FPS games are developed taking into consideration several platforms.
There's still more FPS games on PC's than there are on consoles. Obviously not all of them are popular but there's plenty which are very healthy.
Your information is incorrect. In fact, PC gaming revenue has now surpassed console revenue.
You're probably forgetting the countless multiplayer games that have flexible non-traditional monetizing schemes.
For example League of Legends.
PC Gaming was never dying as people claimed and in fact it's striving these days more than ever.
..Cake..
http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2014.pdf
Pages 11 and 12 might be most interesting for you. Especially the figure at the bottom of Page 12.
I assume you are speaking about reports similar to this one:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-01-20-league-of-legends-2013-revenue-topped-USD600m-report
If we include Free to Play games with micro transactions the numbers change, thats true. However, it would be hard to make ANY comparison between a "boxed" game like Star Citizen "Squadron 42" (or lets say "Guild Wars 2") and a F2P micro-transaction game like "League of Legends".
I agree that PC gaming was never dying. Publishers did not have the same opinion as we have. Only now are they learning the error of their ways ...
Have fun
I don't understand, why are you posting this link and then posting the next link which nullifies your first?
You don't need to make a comparison. Profit isn't only measured by box sales, we're not in the 1990s anymore dude
You were under the impression that PC game developers made less profit when in fact they make more.
..Cake..
Have fun
Here's what you wrote:
With 80ish % of the sales of games currently being made with console sales, the publishers were not especially keen to fund space games that would not be portable to consoles. They were not keen to earn only 20 % of their potential profit.
So it seems like you thought developers only gain profit when they sell boxes.
..Cake..
Profit from the sale of games.
A F2P Game costs .... Nothing. Profit from selling the Game = Zero.
Profit from in game sales / microtransactions = a lot ( hundreds of M$).
You're being ridiculous now
..Cake..
Have fun
Yeah pretty sure you're analysis is as simple as they get.
First you say that publishers didn't want to fund space games because they can't be ported to consoles and consoles make 60% more profit (lol). This isn't the case of course, not that a ridiculous statement like that actually needed a counter-argument.
Then you're trying to dodge your error by saying you weren't talking about profit but boxes, as if box sales are the only way of making profit these days. Again it's not, you even claimed it yourself.
It would be easier for you to just admit you were wrong than try pirouetting when you obviously can't dance.
I'm still waiting for you to show me all those non-money SC achievements you said you mentioned and claimed I ignored.
..Cake..
Have fun
At this point all Starcitizen is, is flair and glamour no substance. Elite dangerous on the other hand is almost a fully fledged game, with more than an arena. Not to mention the space combat feels much better than sitting and spinning in place ala SC. I seriously doubt even a quarter of the listed features will make it in game, and doubt it will even be a game with depth. I regret buying a ship package from them since that seems like their only goal at the moment.
So here is to ED potentially fulfilling that spot SC looks to serve.
MurderHerd
Well ain't this a GREAT TOPIC!!! For all of you who did not get the chance to read through all of it, here are the main highlights:
- SC is not an MMO
- Yes..yes it is
- It is multiplayer. It is online. But it is NOT massive.
- I get the impression that some of the people here really have no idea what Star Citizen is. Thousands to millions of players on the same server cluster interacting with each other sounds like a MMO (I think this guy is from the future because at the moment servers are really struggling with just a few hundreds, and instanced. Besides, how do you communicate/interract with millions? Will this game have a telepathy feature ?
)
- Star Citizen - NOT AN MMO !
-- Of course SC is an MMO, the most massive space MMO ever made in fact. Massive battles with 100 (!!!!!) player ships visible at the same time
- Chris said they're hoping for 50-70 people in the same instance, maybe more if possible. (Wait.. what??)
-100 is a great number, everything less would not qualify for a modern online game, so many ships on the screen is already more than anyone can count in the heat of a battle. (Well, 100 is not bad, actually)
- SC is hopping to have 50-70, they dropped the 100 some time ago. And currently they are having major problems going over 16, CIG's own words. (Oh my.)
-Star Citizen hit 2 stretch goals at once! Now almost 52$ MILLION BUDGET! (And?)
-So yet another patch late.This makes it 100% success rate for CIG being late on releasing every single AC content patch. (congratz!)
- We have passed $54 million in crowd funding, and we have two groups to thank:
*Insert word here* who picked up 600$ imaginary ships during our sale… and new backers who really hope they'll get a great space sim game during their current lifetime span. Hope.
Something to pass the time until the Star Citizen release :
Starpoint Gemini 2
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/starpoint-gemini-2
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/starpoint-gemini-2/trailers
PR-Talk:
"Starpoint Gemini 2 is an open-world 3D space simulation that combines powerful RPG mechanics with the frenzy of space combat, creating a particular blend that sets itself apart from all other games in the genre."
Have fun
agreed, probably the only game to pass the time, also playing Kerbal Space Program and X3.
Plus whatever is coming for the autumn sales, probably lots of single player games going on sale.