Star Citizen Alpha 3 teaser video shows moon landings

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I disagree with you Cat.

You mention ARK. I mention Playerunknown Battlegrounds.

PUBG has to be the best game in the Early Access stages, that is worth forking out the money for.

If you want to support the developer then you buy the game, if not then no one is forcing you.

Not everyone cares about the FPS etc. Some might just care about the enjoyment they get out of the game?

Least Star Citizen, PUBG, ARK etc bring out a polished game and not like well. AC: Unity... I am following Star Citizen, but it is a choice so I will continue to wait.

The latest game/developer I am supporting is Escape From Tarkov; Battlestate Games.

Then include Spacebase DF9 - I love the expectations though. Even with PUBG - its not out,and they even have delayed the release date.

ARK,SC,DF9,etc all showed the same. MASSIVE hype,LOADS of people buying them since it was the next best thing since sliced bread,then as time progressed more and more delays and less and less people playing them. Then when people point out this,then come all the people saying "but you are not seeing reason".

In the past many devs would release alpha/beta versions of games a year or so before release FOR FREE. You were essentially bug testing and you might even have been paid for it or get some rewards from the dev.

The whole "I don't care about FPS" - is this what we have come to??

So first we have to put up with buggy normal games and people said it was fine.

Then came all the stupid DLC stuff which replaced expansion packs,and people said it was fine.

Then the DLC became even crappier,people said it was fine.

Then we had all these "pre-order" bonuses,which you needed to get in before you saw any reviews,that was fine.

You mentioned AC:Unity well there see that then - what do you expect,when games have been heading that way for years,and the devs still making tons of money.

PC Gamers just throwing money at devs and all their new schemes is why we have come to this point. It obviously works for them.

Now we are paying more or less upto £40(proper game money) for a buggy,unoptimised game which is an alpha or beta.

They have a money tree - why not milk it some more?

Companies are there to make money,and those individuals are there for their own benefit not yours. Always remember that.

What incentive is there for devs,to actual release a bug free game which runs well and actually has decent content??

Not much is there.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

If SC was based around a viable business plan,they could have used normal funding methods for games,just like most of the others.

Kickstarter/Early Access is about managing people's expectations and getting a free interest free "loan" with the backers "maybe" getting a finished product.

Even with PUBG,why didn't the dev go and get a loan from a bank then?? Isn't Tera and Devilian generating enough money for Bluehole to develop new games,or even back a loan or some other form of traditional investment?

PUBG will only get any money from me when its a properly released game.

Then you compare that to CDPR and The Witcher 3,and they could have easily begged for more money using kickstarter/early access considering how many people worked on that and how many fans they do also have. Yet,they could find more traditional funding methods. As time progresses,I seem to realise they are an increasing rarity when it comes to a dev and I hope they are not converted to the dark side like so many others before them.

[Macman]

Then include Spacebase DF9 - I love the expectations though. Even with PUBG - its not out,and they even have delayed the release date.

ARK,SC,DF9,etc all showed the same. MASSIVE hype,LOADS of people buying them since it was the next best thing since sliced bread,then as time progressed more and more delays and less and less people playing them. Then when people point out this,then come all the people saying "but you are not seeing reason".

In the past many devs would release alpha/beta versions of games a year or so before release FOR FREE. You were essentially bug testing and you might even have been paid for it or get some rewards from the dev.

The whole "I don't care about FPS" - is this what we have come to??

So first we have to put up with buggy normal games and people said it was fine.

Then came all the stupid DLC stuff which replaced expansion packs,and people said it was fine.

Then the DLC became even crappier,people said it was fine.

Then we had all these "pre-order" bonuses,which you needed to get in before you saw any reviews,that was fine.

You mentioned AC:Unity well there see that then - what do you expect,when games have been heading that way for years,and the devs still making tons of money.

Now we are paying more or less upto £40(proper game money) for a buggy,unoptimised game which is an alpha or beta.

What incentive is there for devs,to actual release a bug free game which runs well and actually has decent content??

Not much is there.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Then you compare that to CDPR and The Witcher 3,and they could have easily begged for more money using kickstarter/early access considering how many people worked on that and how many fans they do also have. Yet,they could find more traditional funding methods.

I think you will find that there is ALOT of gamers who don't have 'time'.

If they've worked a hard shift and aren't console gamers. One perhaps uses Elite Dangerous as an example, at one point. That was buggy but it was still playable, he/she can just play for a few hours, they get enjoyment out of it and then get back to parenting duties or caring for an individual or another job etc.

Yes there are people who are running top rigs but aren't concerned that they are running fps in acceptable levels, why? They have more important things to worry about. A game is a choice, if they want to charge £10 or £50 to play a game then so be it.

I've never bothered my backside with preorders based on its bonuses. Preorders were always based on "Do I want this game a few days before its actual release day?".

"Now we are paying more or less upto £40(proper game money) for a buggy,unoptimised game which is an alpha or beta."

Again, it's a choice. No ones holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy it.

[Joe_Blober]

#


I like this infographic: (picture)

I want to believe that it'll be released one day. I want to believe it'll be released with the depth and scope that we were lead to believe at the start. I want to believe it won't be full of microtransactions and DLC to support the development of the rest of the game post-go-live. I want to believe I won't be long dead by the time of launch.

Yeah a link provided by the few anti-SC doing almost daily job of predicting the end in the next 90 days since 3 years … at least that change a bit from scam, vaporware and Jpges the ten haters and alt are shooting every day. this time we got some colors

That said, CIG do release very detailed patch schedule, updated every single weeks, with even thread with comparison between two weeks…

So in summary, we got less planets or moons and a couple months of “delays” but very few features reduction compared to plan… and what is not released in 3.0 will be in 3.1 or 3.2… A true disaster

Backers do not pledge based on the numbers of tons of rocks represented by moons or planets?

This link proves one thing: CIG is focusing on quality rather than quantity and have balls to change their plan 6 months after if this is required to improve player experience (mainly test because of Alpha).

You mentiont Elite Dangerous? Fine, I am also a lifetime free update backer of ED... CIG could litteraly spread SC universe with millions of planets and moon in 3.0 patch coming in a few weeks.

CIG do have the procedural generation tech to populate a galaxy… but they decided to release less because purposes of an Alpha is to test not play a game that is not yet released (so obvious but…)…
We Backers do not want half crap released by Publishers but a unique experience.

This is not the end quite the opposite.

Edit: by the way, a guy named Christopher Livingston left a couple of days an article on another web site dedicated to PC gamers. An article about his own private experience (not commenting a video)… playing 3.0…. Seamless from space to moon… and more.

I thought it was not possible as per a well known troll… Christopher wrote a dithyrambic article about how much he enjoyed the experience…

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I think you will find that there is ALOT of gamers who don't have 'time'.

If they've worked a hard shift and aren't console gamers. One perhaps uses Elite Dangerous as an example, at one point. That was buggy but it was still playable, he/she can just play for a few hours, they get enjoyment out of it and then get back to parenting duties or caring for an individual or another job etc.

Yes there are people who are running top rigs but aren't concerned that they are running fps in acceptable levels, why? They have more important things to worry about. A game is a choice, if they want to charge £10 or £50 to play a game then so be it.

I've never bothered my backside with preorders based on its bonuses. Preorders were always based on "Do I want this game a few days before its actual release day?".

"Now we are paying more or less upto £40(proper game money) for a buggy,unoptimised game which is an alpha or beta."

Again, it's a choice. No ones holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy it.

Lots of people don't have time - maybe since we are adults,we have this thing called patience??

Wait for the game to be actually released??

Like I said companies used to release alpha/beta games for free so people could bug test - even look at Blizzard. When you subscribe to other games,they usually open up alphas/betas for their new games for FREE.

If you buy a game like D3,OW,etc the alpha/betas are free,and you get the PTR,so people can test out new features and characters,etc.

This is how it used to be.

Alpha/beta releases were for bug testing and feedback.

Now we have to pay for bug testing??

I am sorry dude,but if companies can sell buggy alpha games for more or less the price of normal released games,what incentive is there for normal games,to be bug free or even complete??

Companies are there to make the biggest return they can,so if they can release buggy games they will.

Being bug free and complete costs more money,so whilst you are jumping the gun,the ramifications for normal games are not good at all. You mention AC:U,this is what happens when people have no patience and no control at all,the dev thought it was fine to release it in a crap state.

If people are throwing $153 million at an uncomplete alpha,then a buggy complete game,can't be that bad,eh??

Like I said the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I still remember years ago,not being that happy Intel was locking out overclocking on its CPUs,and making something all the CPUs had,a paid option,and many here said I was being unreasonable. Years later,we saw what happened with that,with Intel increasingly segmenting everything.

The same is now happening with gaming.

Edit!!

Whilst at the same time the people keep throwing money at incomplete alphas,they also have a go at companies like Rockstar,EA,Bethesda,etc.

At least those companies will give you a complete game(even if its buggy and has crappy DLCs).

The internet is terrible for this - people go on packs lambasting these companies,but at the same time they throw money at things like SC,and then like a cult of personality seem to ignore the release dates of the game,try to shut down anyone saying its delayed massively as being unreasonable.

Yet,they don't seem to understand if you don't hold these companies to their promises,why should they care one iota?? They have your money,so tough luck.

Having all this nostalgia for Chris Roberts means nothing. So what he was involved with Wing Commander?? The last game he was involved with was 14 YEARS AGO.

I mean FFS,does it mean just because Ridley Scott has done some great films,ALL his films are utterly great(especially his more recent ones which are a bit meh IMHO OFC).

[Macman]

Lots of people don't have time - maybe since we are adults,we have this thing called patience??

Wait for the game to be actually released??

Like I said companies used to release alpha/beta games for free so people could bug test - even look at Blizzard. When you subscribe to other games,they usually open up alphas/betas for their new games for FREE.

If you buy a game like D3,OW,etc the alpha/betas are free,and you get the PTR,so people can test out new features and characters,etc.

This is how it used to be.

Alpha/beta releases were for bug testing and feedback.

Now we have to pay for bug testing??

I am sorry dude,but if companies can sell buggy alpha games for more or less the price of normal released games,what incentive is there for normal games,to be bug free or even complete??

Companies are there to make the biggest return they can,so if they can release buggy games they will.

Being bug free and complete costs more money,so whilst you are jumping the gun,the ramifications for normal games are not good at all. You mention AC:U,this is what happens when people have no patience and no control at all,the dev thought it was fine to release it in a crap state.

If people are throwing $153 million at an uncomplete alpha,then a buggy complete game,can't be that bad,eh??

Like I said the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I still remember years ago,not being that happy Intel was locking out overclocking on its CPUs,and making something all the CPUs had,a paid option,and many here said I was being unreasonable. Years later,we saw what happened with that,with Intel increasingly segmenting everything.

The same is now happening with gaming.

This is how it used to be. Key word, used. Companies are of course now seeing to take advantage of the fact that people are willing to pay to gain early access. Me personally, I don't have an issue with it.

Alpha/Beta access is no longer for just bug testing, it's also to play the game until it's actual release date. And because of this, Playerunknown Battlegrounds have taken in over $100m dollars I believe? And the devs have been great in terms of supporting the game, new maps are due shortly and no, they aren't charging us lol.

"If people are throwing $153 million at an uncomplete alpha,then a buggy complete game,can't be that bad,eh?? "

If its incomplete, then yeah it's going to be buggy. And if they have amassed $153m, well... you know whats going to happen if they fail to deliver? The company is going to crumble.

I still don't get what the issue is, just because YOU don't want to fork out for a incomplete game that may well be buggy. Just don't buy it :/.

Devs releasing games that have either been buggy or needs a massive day one patch, Pre Order bonuses has been part of the business model for years :/.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Honestly some of you need to stand back and look at it?

Imagine if you were making a product for release in 2018,and went to investors,and got the investors to invest in your company.

Yet,come 2018,no final product,but we have another prototype,with some features which some people might get.

Then you say 2019,and the same thing happens,yet you get more investors to invest for the 2019 date.

Then come 2019 no release.

Then its 2020,and the same thing happens.

Then its 2021...!

What if they then hinted- oh we didn't actually say you would DEFINITELY get a full product but you might.

At this point what would you call such a company??

[Macman]

Honestly some of you need to stand back and look at it?

Imagine if you were making a product for release in 2018,and went to investors,and got the investors to invest in your company.

Yet,come 2018,no final product,but we have another prototype,with some features which some people might get.

Then you say 2019,and the same thing happens,yet you get more investors to invest for the 2019 date.

Then come 2019 no release.

Then its 2020,and the same thing happens.

Then its 2021...!

What if they then hinted- oh we didn't actually say you would DEFINITELY get a full product but you might.

At this point what would you call such a company??

If Star Citizen have pulled in over $150m, they are doing something right for now. Lets just hope they utilize it well.

Like I said, I disagree with your view. This is just going to keep going round in circles so I'm going to leave it here.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

This is how it used to be. Key word, used. Companies are of course now seeing to take advantage of the fact that people are willing to pay to gain early access. Me personally, I don't have an issue with it.

Alpha/Beta access is no longer for just bug testing, it's also to play the game until it's actual release date. And because of this, Playerunknown Battlegrounds have taken in over $100m dollars I believe? And the devs have been great in terms of supporting the game, new maps are due shortly and no, they aren't charging us lol.

"If people are throwing $153 million at an uncomplete alpha,then a buggy complete game,can't be that bad,eh?? "

If its incomplete, then yeah it's going to be buggy. And if they have amassed $153m, well... you know whats going to happen if they fail to deliver? The company is going to crumble.

I still don't get what the issue is, just because YOU don't want to fork out for a incomplete game that may well be buggy. Just don't buy it :/.

Devs releasing games that have either been buggy or needs a massive day one patch, Pre Order bonuses has been part of the business model for years :/.

Its only used to because PC gamers have low expectations and the more things are hyped on social media,the more overexcited they get.

The reason games have all these bugs and crappy DLCs,are because overexcited PC gamers have done all this.

Many have pointed it out in the past but all the fanbois get annoyed and then also jump on anyone who does not get into the silly hype circles for these games as not being when of the crowd and a spoil sport.

Then at the same time moan when other games are more buggy and have DLCs.

Its nothing but rank hypocrisy TBH that the internet can moan at EA,Rockstar and Bethesda,whilst throwing money at incomplete games which are buggy and might or might not be released anytime this century.

Its the defenders on forums,that have lead to SC going from a 2014 released to maybe a 2017 release(who knows,now?).

When you userbase has such low expectations and defends the devs delaying and not release all the content its why we have ended up here.

That is the same for whether its a fully released game or one of these paid alphas.

All the people who said years ago,that people should have not excepted any of this have been proven right 10000x,yet I am have not seen any of those people on the interwebs being apologised to.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

If Star Citizen have pulled in over $150m, they are doing something right for now. Lets just hope they utilize it well.

Like I said, I disagree with your view. This is just going to keep going round in circles so I'm going to leave it here.

OFC,you are because you are emotionally invested in it. If people were so great with money why is personal debt so high,and people were paying beyond the odds for housing(when they could clearly not afford the loans) which lead to the sub-prime crash and the great recession.

Also,what about all the Ponzi schemes,and people like this chap:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff

People threw billions of USD at this chap. Yet it was a fraud.

What about things like BCCI(the bank)?? Another one.

What about the hype around the dot.com companies??

How many lost money when the hype became reality??

Don't equate throwing money at anything other than marketing or hype.

Just like all the people paying silly money for mining cards with the prices now actually starting to go downwards.

Edit!

This is the same almost religious defence of the game I saw in the last few years.

2014 release not realised - deflect.
2015 release not realised - deflect.
2016 release not realised - deflect.
2017 still in Alpha - deflect.

Plus apparently $19 million was enough to finish the game in 2014.

Apparently $150 milllion is not enough in 2017.

Cough,I wonder where we have heard that one before.



Now I am just waiting for EA,Rockstar,Bethesda,etc to release their next games as crowd funded early access alphas. They are already half way there,why not go the whole hog??

Maybe I do need to disagree with some of you since its a question of faith now.

[Tabbykatze]

Honestly some of you need to stand back and look at it?

Maybe you need to stand back and look at it objectively. You obviously have a problem with a transparent development system which is not handcuffed to a publishers schedule. You cannot compare SC to 95% of other AAA games on the market because SC has the power, capabilities and the funding to go "we want to make sure this is right, date has shifted 30days for release".

They are completely transparent on this, their development timetables are online to see and everyone gets frequent updates.

You are succumbing to your own incorrect expectations, you expected it to be out, you thought it should be out because you expected it to be our but then CR and CIG went "nope" and you quite obviously sound upset. Whether that be upset at you wanting to play a finished product or upset at the fact that you think we're all complete idiots for supporting this game.

My core thoughts on SC (i have backed for two ships but haven't played since alpha 1.0) is I have invested in a dream, a very god damn feasible dream. That I will be able to play a space game that has only every been a pipedream fantasy. Every day that passes, every blog, every shifted timetable brings that dream closer. The reason why they are shifting the timetables as well is because people (similar to yourself) will bitch about it less than if they kept to the timetables, screwed up the end result and ended up with a buggy, crap steaming honk of rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish (*cough* No Mans Sky).

They want to do it right the first and last time and I have faith in the team at CIG not CR. Because it's been a transparent development cycle and the moneys they have been raising through the crowdfunding ongoing since the original kickstarter they have been able expand the scope of the dream.

If it fails, it will be the biggest fail in history of gaming development. So they want to make sure it's right the first time and not arbitrarily hold themselves to timetables which become unfeasible.

They are doing the right thing shifting the timetables.

Also, if people believe it to be vaporware then they have missed the core concept how SC is being developed by CIG.

[Macman]

Its only used to because PC gamers have low expectations and the more things are hyped on social media,the more overexcited they get.

The reason games have all these bugs and crappy DLCs,are because overexcited PC gamers have done all this.

Many have pointed it out in the past but all the fanbois get annoyed and then also jump on anyone who does not get into the silly hype circles for these games as not being when of the crowd and a spoil sport.

Then at the same time moan when other games are more buggy and have DLCs.

Its nothing but rank hypocrisy TBH that the internet can moan at EA,Rockstar and Bethesda,whilst throwing money at incomplete games which are buggy and might or might not be released anytime this century.

Its the defenders on forums,that have lead to SC going from a 2014 released to maybe a 2017 release(who knows,now?).

When you userbase has such low expectations and defends the devs delaying and not release all the content its why we have ended up here.

That is the same for whether its a fully released game or one of these paid alphas.

All the people who said years ago,that people should have not excepted any of this have been proven right 10000x,yet I am have not seen any of those people on the interwebs being apologised to.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.



OFC,you are because you are emotionally invested in it. If people were so great with money why is personal debt so high,and people were paying beyond the odds for housing(when they could clearly not afford the loans) which lead to the sub-prime crash and the great recession.

Also,what about all the Ponzi schemes,and people like this chap:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff

People threw billions of USD at this chap. Yet it was a fraud.

What about things like BCCI(the bank)?? Another one.

What about the hype around the dot.com companies??

How many lost money when the hype became reality??

Dont equate throwing money at anything other than marketing or hype.

Just like all the people paying silly money for mining cards with the prices now actually starting to go downwards.

Wow. Ok then.

[Dashers]

I think Frontier did a successful Kickstarter campaign with Elite: Dangerous. I was quite impressed, and whilst it wasn't as feature rich as SC is allegedly going to be, it was working from day one and has been built on-top of since then.

But I'd say that this is not the norm. Early Access is in the same territory as pre-ordering. You don't know what you're going to get. If you've got a lot of faith in the organisation developing it and you want to fund them, probably best to buy shares instead of an early copy of the game - at least that way you may see a return on your investment if the game doesn't go how you'd like.

Yeah a link provided by the few anti-SC doing almost daily job of predicting the end in the next 90 days since 3 years … at least that change a bit from scam, vaporware and Jpges the ten haters and alt are shooting every day. this time we got some colors

Sorry, you're not entirely clear, is the infographic incorrect? I'm not up-to-date with SC, so if you could put us right on what is wrong about it, that would be useful.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Maybe you need to stand back and look at it objectively. You obviously have a problem with a transparent development system which is not handcuffed to a publishers schedule. You cannot compare SC to 95% of other AAA games on the market because SC has the power, capabilities and the funding to go "we want to make sure this is right, date has shifted 30days for release".

They are completely transparent on this, their development timetables are online to see and everyone gets frequent updates.

You are succumbing to your own incorrect expectations, you expected it to be out, you thought it should be out because you expected it to be our but then CR and CIG went "nope" and you quite obviously sound upset. Whether that be upset at you wanting to play a finished product or upset at the fact that you think we're all complete idiots for supporting this game.

My core thoughts on SC (i have backed for two ships but haven't played since alpha 1.0) is I have invested in a dream, a very god damn feasible dream. That I will be able to play a space game that has only every been a pipedream fantasy. Every day that passes, every blog, every shifted timetable brings that dream closer. The reason why they are shifting the timetables as well is because people (similar to yourself) will bitch about it less than if they kept to the timetables, screwed up the end result and ended up with a buggy, crap steaming honk of rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish (*cough* No Mans Sky).

They want to do it right the first and last time and I have faith in the team at CIG not CR. Because it's been a transparent development cycle and the moneys they have been raising through the crowdfunding ongoing since the original kickstarter they have been able expand the scope of the dream.

If it fails, it will be the biggest fail in history of gaming development. So they want to make sure it's right the first time and not arbitrarily hold themselves to timetables which become unfeasible.

They are doing the right thing shifting the timetables.

Also, if people believe it to be vaporware then they have missed the core concept how SC is being developed by CIG.

I am looking at this objectively and I didn't invest in the game since I did a reality check on what the claims were and the release dates(it didn't pass and I was correct it seems) - they were not honest on the get go like almost all of these paid alphas that the final release will be a few years in the future.

Apparently $19 million was enough,but I doubt it was.

They just lied through their teeth,and when their fans just defend this,all the other early access/kickstarter games which do this too,it grates. So many major kickstarter games have been delayed or just abandoned(ARK,Spacebase DF9),etc.

Do you honestly think the major games studios won't try doing this as time progressed.

People need to stop defending it and you need to look at the last three years of SC,to see the fanbase just defend and defend the continued shifted goalposts.

This is why they use kickstarter - if they had gone to normal funding avenues,they would need to have had a solid plan in place.

They obviously have not - compare also games like ARK and Spacebase DF9 which I know people have funded,the whole process of early access and kickstarter is wrong.

Both Valve and Kickstarter need to put in place proper penalties for devs,who do this.

I am worried given another 5 years or so that normal games from even bigger studios will start going this way too.

I think Frontier did a successful Kickstarter campaign with Elite: Dangerous. I was quite impressed, and whilst it wasn't as feature rich as SC is allegedly going to be, it was working from day one and has been built on-top of since then.

But I'd say that this is not the norm. Early Access is in the same territory as pre-ordering. You don't know what you're going to get. If you've got a lot of faith in the organisation developing it and you want to fund them, probably best to buy shares instead of an early copy of the game - at least that way you may see a return on your investment if the game doesn't go how you'd like.



Sorry, you're not entirely clear, is the infographic incorrect? I'm not up-to-date with SC, so if you could put us right on what is wrong about it, that would be useful.

If they said in 2014 the game would be a 2017/2018 release initially,and a later one for the added features, but you will be able to play the alphas until then I doubt they would have gotten as much money as they had now.

They reel people in with unfeasible launch dates which are "soon".

Plus I agree with you entirely - invest in shares if you want to push a company forward. It also means as a shareholder you have a chance of mentioning any issues at the shareholders meetings.

I mean 2017 and still an Alpha - that gives them like 5 months to release a beta and then the final game!!

It might happen!! Only three years late then expected. Better late than never I suppose!

[SylvanSagacious]

I like this infographic:

When Derek Smart said, paraphrased, "it'll never happen, it can't be done, blah blah ripping off backers" people laughed at him and said something about sour grapes.

Looks like he might have been right after all.

[Dashers]

The concept of a "release" has changed too, given that most PC game sales are now digital-downloads, and the idea of continual updates is fairly standard, it's easy to blur the lines between beta and gold.

I suspect when SC is finally "released" it'll still be lacking a lot of the content that was promised at the beginning (looking at the above, most probably in the quantity of systems). And these will be released bit-by-bit over time post-release. And of course this problem dupes another bunch of people into paying money into an incomplete product.

I've still got a directory on share called "patches", some of particularly buggy games got as many as 5 post-release patches. But it was usually just one or two. We've walked into a world where releasing sub-par stuff is acceptable with a mentally of patch-later, which I feel is an abuse of the update system. My Steam client seems to spend its life updating (mostly Ark at that).

[Tabbykatze]

When Derek Smart said, paraphrased, "it'll never happen, it can't be done, blah blah ripping off backers" people laughed at him and said something about sour grapes.

Looks like he might have been right after all.

My last defense on this because i don't believe Cat and i will be able to reach a middle ground is that Derek is an asshole of the highest order. His only desire and capability in life appears to be courting controversy and throwing stones in pounds. He is as about as trustworthy for gaming news and opinions as Donald Trump is for the status and political landscape for America.

The funny thing about all this is that because sc has a transparent development, the things happening here with the timetable shifting could have also happened with any of the other mainstream games you played. The difference being is that those games were developed behind closed doors and you were not aware of the game until it was on the tail end of developement where a fixed date could be put forward. And then you would still moan about a couple of weeks.

Cr made the mistake of very early on making a promise then the scope of the project shifted massively because they realised they needed to basically build what they wanted from scratch. They're done with that unexpected roadblock and now it's all systems go on building the actual universe.

But sadly because of people like Derek, there will always be people who want to crush a dream.

In regards to people thinking cig, rsi and cr are all a scam, 150mil is not enough to escape and buy your own island. Additionally thwy have a lot of people on their payroll who are officially being paid heaps of moneys to do an actual job. If it was a scam, it's a sh*t one.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It seems my fear of better known studios starting to use this model has been realised:

https://arstechnica.co.uk/gaming/201...-delay-launch/

So Epic is using a paid BETA for Fortnite. Apparently F2P later,although I would rather it was a normal release you paid for,but I can see that also going round in circles too,considering how long this game has been in development.