Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
The Road to Alpha 3.0 & the Balance of 2017 Published - Star Citizen - MMORPG.com
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
The Road to Alpha 3.0 & the Balance of 2017 Published - Star Citizen - MMORPG.com
The Star Citizen site has been updated with the 2017 road map that gives an idea of the tasks the team will be working on with specific regard to the launch of Alpha 3.0 as well as the remainder of 2017. The target date for 3.0 is June 29th. The entire schedule includes a timeline of when each will begin and end, though as with any schedule, it is subject to change.
Post edited by SBFord on
Comments
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Patch 3.0 release aim 6 months afterwards: In less than 3 months
"I'll believe it when I see it"
Going repost what I wrote in the other thread: http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/comment/7152309/#Comment_7152309
******************************************************
Did they hope to have "3.0" last year? Sure.
Did they release "3.0" last year? Well .......yes and no.
Last year "3.0" was a "bunch of stuff". With whatever "key features" they wanted nailed before they moved to version 3.0. And looking at the schedule it was "networking stuff" - the long purple bars on the schedule - that was deemed to be not up to what they wanted for 3.0.
They could have called 2.6 version 3.0; its just a version number after all. And 2.6 did deliver significant advancements and was well received. Looking at the schedule however network performance didn't clear whatever bar they had set for version 3.0. So they opted instead to call it 2.6.
Which is how it goes. As @rpmcmurphy ;says - the version of 3.0 they are planning to release in summer won't(?) include mining.
You have different teams doing different stuff and its about integrating them together. If 3.0 had released last year all the other stuff in the schedule that started in 2017 wouldn't have been included. Yet 3.0 would have been released!
The bottom line is you have to look at the whole. And remember that outside of key elements the scope isn't fixed for these interim version numbers.
I vaguely remember back in the mists of time the rumblings about a game called Star Citizen...
...but then learned it was just the name of a new high-end MMO shopping mall.
~~ postlarval ~~
Remember those days? A child born during the kickstarter is now about to enter grade school. They will probably graduate before this game releases. People are going to have to put those pictures of ships in their will in order for someone to ever get any use out of them.
I think that's their new moto... Just Sounds like another stalling tactics.
Basically clicking away text windows ruins every MMO, try to have fun instead of rushing things. Without story and lore all there is left is a bunch of mechanics.
Reply
Add Multi-Quote
However, it got a much larger backing than it originally had intended, so new milestones had to be developed. Eventually over time, they had to redo most of the systems and engine. If you look at the Kickstarter video compared to recent ones, you can see a clear upgrade not only in graphics, but mechanics. Ships were reworked, as well as the rest of the assets in the game to a new, more efficient method that was engineered. There's a lot more going into Star Citizen than originally intended. Hell, planet landings weren't even suppose to be a thing, then later was stated they would come after release. Now we're getting them in the next update.
The technology changes, specially as a development team grows. More can be done with more hands on board. When Star Citizen originally started, it had a handful a devs. Now it has around 100-200 developers working on it. All with different experience and something to bring to the project.
That being said, while I am a supporter of Star Citizen, I tell everyone the same thing. If you are going to support Star Citizen, just buy the base package that guarantees you the game. All ships will be available and able to earn when the game launches. They intend to stop selling ships near release for that very reason. It's a waste to spend more money than needed on ships unless you specifically find it worth it. For example, I have $600 in ships. Mainly multicrew ships because I have friends and a community that play with me. I bought them to share them with friends so we can all have fun together. That $600 I spent was worth it to me cause I wasn't just supporting Star Citizen, I was spending it for friends.
So as stated before. Either wait till the game comes out, or if you find the ambition interesting and enough to support, don't go overboard and stay with the base package. Things change, stuff gets delayed. The game has only been in development for 5 or 6 years. That's much shorter than most AAA titles. "Oh, but it only takes them a year to push a new game out." Those games are usually in development for years. Example, Assassin's Creed Unity. Game was in development before Black Flag came out. And so forth. Making games is hard, and a lot goes into it. There have been games that took nearly 10 years to complete.
What are you waiting for? People here on mmorpg claim the game is already full of fun stuff to do.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15841-Spring-2947-Free-Fly
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/ [mod edit]
Long story short, there's plenty of work still to do, but there's a lot of fun to be had here already.
This misses the issue detractors take with the way crowdfunding has been handled here.
It leaves a bad taste in anyone's mouth (EDIT- being presumptuous here, so I'll amend it to *should leave) to watch a company rake in cash from customers based upon one set of information, only to then change that information significantly.
Chris and the gang made those assessments, and whether you want to admit it or not, part of the reason they did so WAS to garner interest and make money to continue development. It may not have been the only reason they made those timeline assessments, nor the primary, but we'd be naive to assert the need for funds didn't place pressure on them to reveal a timeline that wasn't "when it's ready." Because if you try to ask folks for money on a project with a promise to deliver of "well, whenever we can finish," you're not going to get a whole lot of interest.
Again, this situation leaves a bad taste in some consumers' mouths, and rightfully so. Folks need to understand better that these companies, even CIG, are doing this to make money first. As passionate as Chris and Co. may be, if he was going to be forced to give SC away, you can bet your ass the scope would be MUCH smaller and Chris would have a LOT less invested into the project.
That's not to knock him at all, but we shouldn't attempt mental gymnastics to make it seem like he's in "our corner," either.
We can and should hold companies responsible for failing to meet or exceed our expectations, particularly when they themselves set the expectation for us in very concrete terms.
It's becoming quite mind-boggling to me just how content consumers are to be the proverbial punching bag- take, for instance, littering. The issue of littering, I learned recently, was popularized (for lack of a better word) by soft drink manufacturers because they were getting backlash regarding how much extra refuse they were creating while trying to save a buck on bottles by switching to plastic disposables (prior to this, folks returned the glass bottles and they washed and reused them). The switch created over twice the amount of refuse as the old system and was motivated completely by profit. In response to the (rightful) public backlash, they launched a PR campaign attempting to convince folks that the additional refuse created was THEIR problem for not ensuring every single bottle made it to a landfill (as if that magically solves the amount of extra refuse created- but hey, out of sight, out of mind, right?). The companies creating the refuse COINED the term "litterbug" to attempt to shirk blame for this extra garbage THEY were creating by trying to increase profits. They convinced the general public that WE were the problem causing all this extra garbage, not the fact that they were abandoning a perfectly fine wash/reuse system for one that's exponentially more damaging to the environment, all just to make more cash.
Point is, these companies will use any marketing or PR trick possible to convince you that they have your best interest at heart, all the while they pad the bottom line on the backs of their customers. And no matter how "on our team" folks involved with a for-profit project are, money is the number one goal. Folks need to stop cutting these producers so much slack and performing mental gymnastics to attempt to rationalize it when a company hands you a shit sandwich and attempts to convince you it's a Philly cheesesteak.
2017 Roadmap
That's confusing AF bro, just tell me when the game is releasing!!!
2018 Roadmap
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah, trying to follow this game is like taking a, how to make an mmo, class. Tons of details focusing on the leaves in the forest and an occasional tree but very little about how the forest is coming along as a whole. Tons of player speculation as they give their best guess on progress. Best to wait for beta to see how progression is coming along. I've seen occasional mention of S42, already expecting the due date to change to 2018.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Yeah, game development is complicated. People wanted more information so there it is. Like building a fleet of real life aircraft-carrier Autobots that were produced by IKEA.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams
People also claim the same about Shroud of the Avatar.
Smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that these incompetent 'vet' developers need to GTFO of the industry. Their laziness is dragging down the genre. Time for some fresh new ideas.
~~ postlarval ~~
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
Holding him to specific year dates and criticizing the consistent failure to hit these dates as given by Chris and/or CIG themselves doesn't leave a lot of room for misinterpretation.
Nor does a fool misinterpreting a clear statement absolve the company from critique from folks who clearly are not.
While they did fault at this multiple times, there are people around using this selective perception as fuel to use on the hate "criticism" towards SC.
Problem is as of right now,Eve holds the flag and i give Eve a 1/10 as a complete lack of effort to make a fully fledged game.
SC will at least to me,blow Eve right out of the water but i doubt it will be more than a 5-6/10,by REALISTIC standards,not by media advertising standards.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
So now we're versioning alphas.
This genre is fucked.
~~ postlarval ~~
Exactly! Lol
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!