LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Cinematic sizzle reel also reveals the Nox hover speeder, planetary rovers and outposts.
Read more.Cinematic sizzle reel also reveals the Nox hover speeder, planetary rovers and outposts.
Lets hope it delivers a whole lot more than some FMV and cinematic vistas. Plenty of time for it to go full on #NoMansSky
Yeah, I'm being nice.. it could also get canned completely (rumblings all the way along those lines even from current/ex devs)
Last edited by s1lv3r; 24-07-2017 at 12:03 PM.
------------------------------------
information is not a property of matter, it's applied to matter by intelligence
As someone who follows the weekly dev videos for star citizen (I'd highly recommend them if you're interested in game development) this is quite right:
Last week Chris Roberts reportedly confirmed that Star Citizen will launch with 5 to 10 star systems, an apparent reduction in scope from original launch plans.
Its an MMO - it will never have a 'launch' - Its just going to grow and grow - The full universe will still go ahead - Check out the star map if you've not seen it - https://robertsspaceindustries.com/starmap
Also worth pointing out 3.0 is just containing moons around a gas giant. 3.1 should have the first full planet.
# Star Citizen kickstarter
# Elite kickstarter
# Elite released
# Elite expansions
# Get bored of Elite
# Finally see Star Citizen get released
Possibly with a grow old in there somewhere.
So glad I went with Elite over backing SC.
I like this infographic:
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.
CAT-THE-FIFTH (25-07-2017)
This game is turning out to be the Daikatana off the space sim!
CAT-THE-FIFTH (24-07-2017)
I've backed both. I've spent way more time playing SC (check my link in my sig - I'd have played more if not for fatherhood - also raptr didn't track it for awhile). They are very different games! Give 3.0 a go when its out later this month and you'll spot the difference in content and play...Originally Posted by Dashers
LMAO,years later and still an ALPHA,not a BETA boys and girls,but an ALPHA. Its the same with ARK,still in early access after years. Hype up any of these games,and its a money tree for these devs.
SC has passed $150 million - this is getting to major motion picture money. Yet what have they got to show for it??
Its bad enough PCMR puts up with shoddy full releases with a billion bugs and micro-transactions,we now are paying decent money for incomplete games,which might never get released. Thank goodness for people like CDPR,I might not be a massive Witcher series fan,but they still got my money as they at least show some appreciation for gamers.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 24-07-2017 at 05:18 PM.
ARK is hitting release, according to an nvidia press release:
http://hexus.net/tech/news/graphics/...-ready-driver/
First paragraph:
...ARK: Survival Evolved's official release...
It was meant to be released well over a year ago,and they promised it would be the first DX12 game in 2015. Instead they kept selling more DLC instead of releasing the game,and the last time I checked(a few months ago) it still ran like crap. I think someone showed a video on OcUK saying a GTX1080TI at 1080p was producing between 30FPS to 50FPS on highish settings.
Well better late than never I suppose!
SC was meant to be released in 2014 and 2016. The fact its still in Alpha in 2017,makes me wonder if they will hit their 2017 release date.
I am shocked that a game meant to be released this year,is not even in beta and its the second half of the year.
Kickstarter and Early Access for games was probably more intended for one man bands making smallish games,who need some funding. Yet,instead we have these large games,which in theory if they were viable business models,would have been funded by banks,investment funds or tech investors. The fact they are not,says something about their chances of success.
Kickstarter and Early Access is basically a free interest free loan,which no obligation to pay it back or deliver in any meaningful way. After all they are selling you a half developed game on the promise of it being completed. You only have to look at Spacebase DF9,which received over $3 million and see what happened to that.
Even with SC,I was rather dubious about it a few years ago,even on this forum especially with them selling ships,etc for extra money even before the game was out and people poo-pooed me. Now,2+ years later have they even delivered on half their promises??
The worst thing if it was like £5 or something its one thing,but a number of these kickstarter/early access games can be getting close to £40(!).
Also when you come to think of it alpha/beta testing of games used to be free(or you got rewards from the developer) - now we are paying for alpha/beta games.
Imagine if a much maligned company like EA tried this tactic - the interwebs would be full of "down with EA" kind of posts.
Edit!!
Compare that to CDPR,who released a full game,then gave you the DLC for free,has a DRM free version and when they got criticism for Gameworks causing a performance drop,they even went and plonked in a tessellation slider. Even the engine can take advantage of more threads(ahem,Bethesda take some notes here!).Sure the game didn't look at shiny as it was first expected to be,but still they no doubt put a lot of effort into it and it still looks pretty.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 24-07-2017 at 09:00 PM.
You do realise that most games are only announced after 5-6 years development, when they're about 6 months from release?LMAO,years later and still an ALPHA,not a BETA boys and girls,but an ALPHA.
Chris Roberts himself said after the $19 million funding landmark it would be released in late 2014 - all the fans of this game are excuse making so much they instead moan at the people who point this out??You do realise that most games are only announced after 5-6 years development, when they're about 6 months from release?
HE MADE the promises. Not me.
You do realise that when a game was first announced for release in 2014,then 2016 and then 2017 its delayed??
He and his company made those indications - NOT ME.
Maybe he should have been honest and said it would be 2017 or 2018 for a release then?
Its like a cult of personality around this bloke - so what he made a good game decades ago.
He has lied through his teeth in reality - now think if this was not a game,but something else,would people be as forgiving??
Blackberry made good phones ages ago,it has no bearing on whether they are any good TODAY.
You do realise BETA comes after ALPHA,so please tell me exactly in 2017 when this is being released,ESPECIALLY with the informatic early in the thread with the ALPHA not even having half of what they promised??
This is the problem with early access and kickstarter games - the fans don't actually criticise the companies for doing crap like this and its why things like Spacebase DF9 never really got finished and so many other kickstarters have fizzled away.
The fans were excuse making in 2014,then 2015,then 2016 and now its 2017.
All this time they have tried to shut down any criticism of this game,and yet now years later,seriously,are they still at it??
No amount of massaging the facts,changes things - the game has over $150 million funding and everybody I know in real life(not the internet) is laughing at it,ie,its basically vaporware with some bits released to "show" its not "dead yet". Even if it was released this year it would be years late,and what kind of release?? A game with only a fraction of what was promised I suspect.
Then all the fans will proclaim "its out",but if anybody points out it does not even have a fraction of what it should have,its all a bit secret,and they will instead have a go at the people pointing it out.
This won't be the first game or last game like this.
None of the fans seem to ask the question why they used Kickstarter and not use more traditional funding methods??
That is because traditional funding methods actually need some degree of release plan,not maybe at some point in the future.
PCMR need to have some standards,because this is certainly not PCMR standards - more like people managing their expectations lower and lower. For what reason,I have zero clue.
I think the objectivity has gone out the window with this years ago.
Anybody with any logic will see a product which was PROMISED in 2014 by the creator,not even out of ALPHA in more or less August 2017,with a fraction of the features actually working.
Yet,at the same time the have accrued massively more funding and are still selling the product in an experimental form nearly THREE years after they promised it would be out.
Now in the real world if a company tried that stunt their investors might think differently.
Yet in kickstarter/early access world they can get away with it since they are selling an unfinished product with a "promise" of it being out at some point,which apparently seems to be not enforceable in any way.
In the end its no point trying to talk about it anymore - if people want to throw their money away on all these projects or live in hope for years,then good for them. Then instead of admitting they might have been conned,or at the very least strung along for years,they shoot the messenger.
I am still waiting for the early access crowd funded car where you get a seat and an engine two years later,with the promise of a full chassis sometime in the near future!
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 25-07-2017 at 10:08 AM.
If every ship, bugger or gun wasn't like £50 actual pounds or more to have a play with I would give it a go but I am not throwing that sort of cash at anything other than outright purchase of something, not just a setting choice in an unreleased game
CAT-THE-FIFTH (25-07-2017)
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.
Err Buggy :-)
If anyone knows a good 101 for Star Citizen I would happily give it a go. I have payed up to support Space Sim sector but never really clocked and time as I can't work out what there is to do..
And before you tell me the game is not for me... BBC B Elite vet here.. I am used to finding my own way... just SC seems like a very nice to look at empty cup.
SC holds "Free Fly" events every few months, where you can try the game for free. The next one is due around Gamescom (August 23-26).
You can play the in-game video game "Arena Commander" to earn REC currency, which can be used to rent other ships in Arena Commander, and weapons for use in the main game. Rental last for 7 24-hour periods (not a week, the 7 periods don't have to be contiguous).
All that is needed to play is a "Starter Pack", beyond that, everything else will eventually be earnable in-game.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
