Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Alpha 3.2 teaser - PC Gaming Show 2018 - Star Citizen Videos - MMORPG.com

SystemSystem Member UncommonPosts: 12,599
edited June 2018 in Videos Discussion

imageAlpha 3.2 teaser - PC Gaming Show 2018 - Star Citizen Videos - MMORPG.com

During yesterday's PC Gaming Show, Roberts Space Industries showed off a brand new trailer teasing Alpha 3.2. The new version of the game is said to be "coming soon".

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • Whiteshade92Whiteshade92 Member UncommonPosts: 95
    My grandsons going to play this game. They will be thankful to me for backing this on KS.
    KyleranShadowStyleBzigalucardTyserie
  • kappei378kappei378 Member UncommonPosts: 9
    im saving money for buying an i15 and dual titan 10080 so i can play this game in 2030
    KyleranWhiteshade92Ganksinatra
  • hyllyhhyllyh Member UncommonPosts: 477
    coming soon, coming soon, coming soon, like an echo in the death valley...
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,882
    My grandsons going to play this game. They will be thankful to me for backing this on KS.
    Um, congratulations on upcoming birth of your first child?
    KyleranMawnee
     
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,765
    edited June 2018
    By the way this is not na Alpha 3.2 teaser/trailer, it's a broad trailer for SC itself. The upcoming alpha 3.2 bit on the end of the video was taken by what it was for.


  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,882
    MaxBacon said:
    By the way this is not na Alpha 3.2 teaser/trailer, it's a broad trailer for SC itself. The upcoming alpha 3.2 bit on the end of the video was taken by what it was for.


    I don't know. PC Gamer is the host of PC gaming show, they made world exclusive release of that video, and labeled it Alpha 3.2 teaser. I think this same video is now officially both "Alpha 3.2 teaser" and "PC Gaming 2018 Persistent Universe Trailer".
     
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,765
    Vrika said:
    I don't know. PC Gamer is the host of PC gaming show, they made world exclusive release of that video, and labeled it Alpha 3.2 teaser. I think this same video is now officially both "Alpha 3.2 teaser" and "PC Gaming 2018 Persistent Universe Trailer".
    The PC Gamer titling is not official, they mistakenly took that last bit from the trailer that is a plug for Alpha 3.2 coming soon for the vid being about it. 
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,882
    MaxBacon said:
    Vrika said:
    I don't know. PC Gamer is the host of PC gaming show, they made world exclusive release of that video, and labeled it Alpha 3.2 teaser. I think this same video is now officially both "Alpha 3.2 teaser" and "PC Gaming 2018 Persistent Universe Trailer".
    The PC Gamer titling is not official, they mistakenly took that last bit from the trailer that is a plug for Alpha 3.2 coming soon for the vid being about it. 
    PC gamer made world exclusive release. Whatever info they released is by definition official.
     
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,765
    edited June 2018
    Vrika said:
    PC gamer made world exclusive release. Whatever info they released is by definition official.
    No it is not unless you can prove it was CIG that said them to title this as Alpha 3.2 or stated it as such. If it is their titling based on their perception of the video, then it is a wrong one.

    And I don't think it has been the first time, I think when CIG gave them a feature reel last year, they titled "3.0 trailer".
    Darkpigeon
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,882
    MaxBacon said:
    Vrika said:
    PC gamer made world exclusive release. Whatever info they released is by definition official.
    No it is not unless you can prove it was CIG that said them to title this as Alpha 3.2 or stated it as such. If it is their titling based on their perception of the video, then it is a wrong one.

    And I don't think it has been the first time, I think when CIG gave them a feature reel last year, they titled "3.0 trailer".
    No, because PC Gamer published it (on behalf of CIG) in PC Gaming Show 2018. In that matter they represented CIG.

    It's possible that PC Gamer wasn't supposed to label it as Alpha 3.2 trailer and they might have given wrong info, but since they were representing CIG they were in a position where info given by them was official.
    rpmcmurphyDarkpigeon
     
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,502
    From the subreddit

    • 0:14 Space scenery not in game. Also that planet, I can't tell if it's Daymar or not and I don't think contrails go that far.
    • 0:25 Derelict space Javelin not in game.
    • 0:26 I've never seen this orbital in game, only in trailers.
    • 0:28 None of this would ever be happening in game. I'm not sure if this location is in game (because there's too much emptiness to explore, not because I haven't played). It looks like a cave so I'm assuming no.
    • 0:31 Another Javelin wreckage not in game. The Blade isn't either but that is 3.2 content.
    • 0:34 Same orbital from 0:26
    • 0:36 ArcCorp, not in game until 3.4 at best.
    • 0:39 600i not in yet, possibly in 3.2 but not favorable. The Cutlass looks like the old model so also not in.
    • 0:42 I don't think that armor is in game.
    • 0:43 There definitely aren't that many NPCs in stores.
    • 0:49 A montage of action which looks cool but would never happen in game begins.
    • 0:59 Cover mechanics aren't in game.
    • 1:03 I don't think either the armor or the suit are in game for players.
    • 1:08 Hurricane not in game (scheduled for 3.2).
    • 1:15 Situation which would never happen in game at a derelict which isn't in game while characters use a bunch of animations not in game.
    • 1:16 Capital bridge which isn't in game plus lots of SQ42 outfits which aren't in game.
    • 1:20 A ton of capitals which aren't in game. 
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,765
    Vrika said:
    No, because PC Gamer published it (on behalf of CIG) in PC Gaming Show 2018. In that matter they represented CIG.

    It's possible that PC Gamer wasn't supposed to label it as Alpha 3.2 trailer and they might have given wrong info, but since they were representing CIG they were in a position where info given by them was official.
    They must been the ones who titled it, because CIG official title for the same video is "PU Trailer", with a 3.2 plug at the end.

    And for all that is reasonable, this is a PU trailer, not in-game either yet labeled as in-engine.
    rpmcmurphy
  • alkarionlogalkarionlog Member EpicPosts: 3,584
    so the game will launch after what? alpha 245?
    FOR HONOR, FOR FREEDOM.... and for some money.
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 9,000
    The video is being shown on CIGs forums and CIG has not stated that it's a mistake. The same argument about if it's official or not is going on in the forums. If CIG knows about it, which they do and have not issued even a one line sentence saying the title is incorrect then one can assume it's OK with CIG and therefor official. CIG probably likes the hype and knows new people will see it and buy into the game so why should they correct it.

    "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

  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,765
    edited June 2018
    The video is being shown on CIGs forums and CIG has not stated that it's a mistake. The same argument about if it's official or not is going on in the forums. If CIG knows about it, which they do and have not issued even a one line sentence saying the title is incorrect then one can assume it's OK with CIG and therefor official. CIG probably likes the hype and knows new people will see it and buy into the game so why should they correct it.
    Well it's about logic, because obviously, SQ42 is not releasing this month with Alpha 3.2.

    Backers also pointed that out on the comments of the video, if they are to fix it the title or not, or even have that ability to get them to do such, idk, but the impact was already made.
  • mmrvmmrv Member RarePosts: 305


    From the subreddit

    • 0:14 Space scenery not in game. Also that planet, I can't tell if it's Daymar or not and I don't think contrails go that far.

    • 0:25 Derelict space Javelin not in game.

    • 0:26 I've never seen this orbital in game, only in trailers.

    • 0:28 None of this would ever be happening in game. I'm not sure if this
      location is in game (because there's too much emptiness to explore, not
      because I haven't played). It looks like a cave so I'm assuming no.

    • 0:31 Another Javelin wreckage not in game. The Blade isn't either but that is 3.2 content.

    • 0:34 Same orbital from 0:26

    • 0:36 ArcCorp, not in game until 3.4 at best.

    • 0:39 600i not in yet, possibly in 3.2 but not favorable. The Cutlass looks like the old model so also not in.

    • 0:42 I don't think that armor is in game.

    • 0:43 There definitely aren't that many NPCs in stores.

    • 0:49 A montage of action which looks cool but would never happen in game begins.

    • 0:59 Cover mechanics aren't in game.

    • 1:03 I don't think either the armor or the suit are in game for players.

    • 1:08 Hurricane not in game (scheduled for 3.2).

    • 1:15 Situation which would never happen in game at a derelict which
      isn't in game while characters use a bunch of animations not in game.

    • 1:16 Capital bridge which isn't in game plus lots of SQ42 outfits which aren't in game.

    • 1:20 A ton of capitals which aren't in game. 



    Its the new wave of dishonestly plaguing the game industry right now. "footage taken with in game engine" fancy word smithing to try to trick you into thinking its "gameplay footage" when really its the same old non gamplay pre rendered cinematics that have nothing to do with what players will actually be playing.
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,502

    MaxBacon said:


    Vrika said:

    No, because PC Gamer published it (on behalf of CIG) in PC Gaming Show 2018. In that matter they represented CIG.

    It's possible that PC Gamer wasn't supposed to label it as Alpha 3.2 trailer and they might have given wrong info, but since they were representing CIG they were in a position where info given by them was official.

    They must been the ones who titled it, because CIG official title for the same video is "PU Trailer", with a 3.2 plug at the end.

    And for all that is reasonable, this is a PU trailer, not in-game either yet labeled as in-engine.



    PC Gamer obviously watched the video, saw the bit at the end and said "ok, it's a get yourself hyped for 3.2 trailer" as most logical people would.
    If there's any mistake it rests at CIG's feet, no one elses.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    MaxBacon said:
    The video is being shown on CIGs forums and CIG has not stated that it's a mistake. The same argument about if it's official or not is going on in the forums. If CIG knows about it, which they do and have not issued even a one line sentence saying the title is incorrect then one can assume it's OK with CIG and therefor official. CIG probably likes the hype and knows new people will see it and buy into the game so why should they correct it.
    Well it's about logic, because obviously, SQ42 is not releasing this month with Alpha 3.2.

    Backers also pointed that out on the comments of the video, if they are to fix it the title or not, or even have that ability to get them to do such, idk, but the impact was already made.
    There are already backers on Reddit talking about how the presentation absolutely would lead one to believe it's a teaser for 3.2 unless they were otherwise already informed.

    Considering E3 is not a CIG-specific event for backers, it's quite logical that a large amount of folks would watch that and assume it was coming in 3.2.  I daresay CIG isn't interested in dismissing those views unless/until enough backer/media backlash is given as to why CIG hasn't clarified.
    JamesGoblin

    image
  • HeraseHerase Member RarePosts: 993




    MaxBacon said:




    Vrika said:


    No, because PC Gamer published it (on behalf of CIG) in PC Gaming Show 2018. In that matter they represented CIG.

    It's possible that PC Gamer wasn't supposed to label it as Alpha 3.2 trailer and they might have given wrong info, but since they were representing CIG they were in a position where info given by them was official.


    They must been the ones who titled it, because CIG official title for the same video is "PU Trailer", with a 3.2 plug at the end.

    And for all that is reasonable, this is a PU trailer, not in-game either yet labeled as in-engine.






    PC Gamer obviously watched the video, saw the bit at the end and said "ok, it's a get yourself hyped for 3.2 trailer" as most logical people would.

    If there's any mistake it rests at CIG's feet, no one elses.



    I would actually agree, unless you'r a fan, people wouldn't logically think as Max put, they see "Prepare for update Alpha 3.2 coming soon" and think "Oh? so this is 3.2 alpha stuff coming to the game"

    Overall, I'm not sure why they showed a trailer, just felt bit....odd. Just a trailer that lead to nothing.

    A nice Idea would have been to put together some current in-game fan footage, would show that something is happening and people are enjoying themselves, all this did was make people roll their eyes as it didn't show any progress, just glossy trailer imho
    rpmcmurphy
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,765
    There are already backers on Reddit talking about how the presentation absolutely would lead one to believe it's a teaser for 3.2 unless they were otherwise already informed.

    Considering E3 is not a CIG-specific event for backers, it's quite logical that a large amount of folks would watch that and assume it was coming in 3.2.  I daresay CIG isn't interested in dismissing those views unless/until enough backer/media backlash is given as to why CIG hasn't clarified.
    It lacks a disclaimer at the end, they wanted to plug alpha 3.2 because that's coming soon, but after published it is published even if on their side they didn't title or described it as about 3.2

    The footage itself is typical of E3 trailer aside of that.
  • LustsLusts Member RarePosts: 205

    hyllyh said:

    coming soon, coming soon, coming soon, like an echo in the death valley...



    I think you severely misunderstood the trailer. Patch 3.2 is coming soon. It's currently in testing with a group of players and general release time from a batch of players to public is about a month. It didn't state the game is coming soon. The game is still in development and has no release date currently.

    That being said, a lot more went into this game cause of how much money was received so a lot of revisions were made to the existing vision to improve and make a better version of the game. The game has been in development for around the same time a normal AAA title is in development and those are usually rushed. If you don't have the patience for it, don't back it. It is as simple as that.

    While I did back it, I backed it simple to show the industry, "Hey, this is the kind of game I want.". Even if Star Citizen were to fail, I am sure someone else will pick up the vision for the game and actually make it. The demand for it is there and the money is obviously there. Regardless of who makes it, I backed it hoping something like this will come out in the future.

    I will give everyone this though, CIG have been making rather stupid moves in terms of marketing and funding lately and even I am upset with it. I do not hold them up on a pedestal and I am critical of them as well. However, when it comes to development time, I use common sense when it comes to being critical with them. It's only been 5 years since the game started it's development.
    JoeBlober
  • ElsaboltsElsabolts Member RarePosts: 3,476
    Have they decided on when they will release SC on X-box and PlayStation yet.
    " Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Those Who  Would Threaten It "
                                            MAGA
  • JoeBloberJoeBlober Member RarePosts: 585

    mmrv said:





    From the subreddit

    • 0:14 Space scenery not in game. Also that planet, I can't tell if it's Daymar or not and I don't think contrails go that far.


    • 0:25 Derelict space Javelin not in game.


    • 0:26 I've never seen this orbital in game, only in trailers.


    • 0:28 None of this would ever be happening in game. I'm not sure if this

      location is in game (because there's too much emptiness to explore, not

      because I haven't played). It looks like a cave so I'm assuming no.


    • 0:31 Another Javelin wreckage not in game. The Blade isn't either but that is 3.2 content.


    • 0:34 Same orbital from 0:26


    • 0:36 ArcCorp, not in game until 3.4 at best.


    • 0:39 600i not in yet, possibly in 3.2 but not favorable. The Cutlass looks like the old model so also not in.


    • 0:42 I don't think that armor is in game.


    • 0:43 There definitely aren't that many NPCs in stores.


    • 0:49 A montage of action which looks cool but would never happen in game begins.


    • 0:59 Cover mechanics aren't in game.


    • 1:03 I don't think either the armor or the suit are in game for players.


    • 1:08 Hurricane not in game (scheduled for 3.2).


    • 1:15 Situation which would never happen in game at a derelict which

      isn't in game while characters use a bunch of animations not in game.


    • 1:16 Capital bridge which isn't in game plus lots of SQ42 outfits which aren't in game.


    • 1:20 A ton of capitals which aren't in game. 






    Its the new wave of dishonestly plaguing the game industry right now. "footage taken with in game engine" fancy word smithing to try to trick you into thinking its "gameplay footage" when really its the same old non gamplay pre rendered cinematics that have nothing to do with what players will actually be playing.



    Their is by definition no dishonestly involve especially because "footage taken with in game engine" is watermarked. Compare all E3 trailer/teaser which are not labeled "gameplay" and as a sudden, this CIG trailer is nothin but a teaser with information of current Alpha state 3.2 coming soon.

    If CIG is "guilty"... the all game companies are... :)
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    JoeBlober said:

    mmrv said:





    From the subreddit

    • 0:14 Space scenery not in game. Also that planet, I can't tell if it's Daymar or not and I don't think contrails go that far.


    • 0:25 Derelict space Javelin not in game.


    • 0:26 I've never seen this orbital in game, only in trailers.


    • 0:28 None of this would ever be happening in game. I'm not sure if this

      location is in game (because there's too much emptiness to explore, not

      because I haven't played). It looks like a cave so I'm assuming no.


    • 0:31 Another Javelin wreckage not in game. The Blade isn't either but that is 3.2 content.


    • 0:34 Same orbital from 0:26


    • 0:36 ArcCorp, not in game until 3.4 at best.


    • 0:39 600i not in yet, possibly in 3.2 but not favorable. The Cutlass looks like the old model so also not in.


    • 0:42 I don't think that armor is in game.


    • 0:43 There definitely aren't that many NPCs in stores.


    • 0:49 A montage of action which looks cool but would never happen in game begins.


    • 0:59 Cover mechanics aren't in game.


    • 1:03 I don't think either the armor or the suit are in game for players.


    • 1:08 Hurricane not in game (scheduled for 3.2).


    • 1:15 Situation which would never happen in game at a derelict which

      isn't in game while characters use a bunch of animations not in game.


    • 1:16 Capital bridge which isn't in game plus lots of SQ42 outfits which aren't in game.


    • 1:20 A ton of capitals which aren't in game. 






    Its the new wave of dishonestly plaguing the game industry right now. "footage taken with in game engine" fancy word smithing to try to trick you into thinking its "gameplay footage" when really its the same old non gamplay pre rendered cinematics that have nothing to do with what players will actually be playing.



    Their is by definition no dishonestly involve especially because "footage taken with in game engine" is watermarked. Compare all E3 trailer/teaser which are not labeled "gameplay" and as a sudden, this CIG trailer is nothin but a teaser with information of current Alpha state 3.2 coming soon.

    If CIG is "guilty"... the all game companies are... :)
    Except it contains gameplay elements and assets that are not available now and won't be available in 3.2.

    The information is fairly misleading without context from CIG, as has been noted by backers on the Reddit and as evidenced by the fact that the video led even journalists covering the game to believe it was a 3.2 teaser trailer.
    JamesGoblin

    image
  • JoeBloberJoeBlober Member RarePosts: 585



    JoeBlober said:



    mmrv said:








    From the subreddit

    • 0:14 Space scenery not in game. Also that planet, I can't tell if it's Daymar or not and I don't think contrails go that far.



    • 0:25 Derelict space Javelin not in game.



    • 0:26 I've never seen this orbital in game, only in trailers.



    • 0:28 None of this would ever be happening in game. I'm not sure if this


      location is in game (because there's too much emptiness to explore, not


      because I haven't played). It looks like a cave so I'm assuming no.



    • 0:31 Another Javelin wreckage not in game. The Blade isn't either but that is 3.2 content.



    • 0:34 Same orbital from 0:26



    • 0:36 ArcCorp, not in game until 3.4 at best.



    • 0:39 600i not in yet, possibly in 3.2 but not favorable. The Cutlass looks like the old model so also not in.



    • 0:42 I don't think that armor is in game.



    • 0:43 There definitely aren't that many NPCs in stores.



    • 0:49 A montage of action which looks cool but would never happen in game begins.



    • 0:59 Cover mechanics aren't in game.



    • 1:03 I don't think either the armor or the suit are in game for players.



    • 1:08 Hurricane not in game (scheduled for 3.2).



    • 1:15 Situation which would never happen in game at a derelict which


      isn't in game while characters use a bunch of animations not in game.



    • 1:16 Capital bridge which isn't in game plus lots of SQ42 outfits which aren't in game.



    • 1:20 A ton of capitals which aren't in game. 









    Its the new wave of dishonestly plaguing the game industry right now. "footage taken with in game engine" fancy word smithing to try to trick you into thinking its "gameplay footage" when really its the same old non gamplay pre rendered cinematics that have nothing to do with what players will actually be playing.






    Their is by definition no dishonestly involve especially because "footage taken with in game engine" is watermarked. Compare all E3 trailer/teaser which are not labeled "gameplay" and as a sudden, this CIG trailer is nothin but a teaser with information of current Alpha state 3.2 coming soon.



    If CIG is "guilty"... the all game companies are... :)


    Except it contains gameplay elements and assets that are not available now and won't be available in 3.2.

    The information is fairly misleading without context from CIG, as has been noted by backers on the Reddit and as evidenced by the fact that the video led even journalists covering the game to believe it was a 3.2 teaser trailer.



    Jopurnalist believe what they want to believe. The all 27K package "drama" is a prefect exemple. Only a few pinpoint that it was on request of an Org Leader and that it would sold once because nobody is going to flight +117 ships at once... nor that the cost per Org member is less than what pay a WOW player... per year!
Sign In or Register to comment.