171 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyonan]

Well there was a demonstration of the dogfighting module, which shows off some pre-alpha gameplay. It is still silly to be proclaiming this as the greatest game ever.

 

I do agree that things have kind of run away on them a bit. I don't think Chris Roberts was expecting quite this much money to come in, and they keep trying to come up with new stretch goals. It seems that they caught on at some point however as for the last $10 million the stretch goals have all been either 1 new ship or 1 new system to explore.

 

Of course, now they're talking about a R&D team for procedurally generated planet landscapes(just a team to see if it's viable in the CryEngine, not a guarantee that it will be a feature in the final game).

 

It's also worth noting that the CryEngine already has FPS mechanics built into it that plays just like Crysis without the suit powers. Nothing mind blowing or revolutionary, but it gets the job done.

[upsettingshorts]

It kills me how gamers arbitrarily categorize some games as underdogs, and others as overhyped.  I'd like to do a study to determine the precise moment at which some parts on the internet turned on Star Citizen for being too successful.

[BaggyGreen]

It kills me how gamers arbitrarily categorize some games as underdogs, and others as overhyped.  I'd like to do a study to determine the precise moment at which some parts on the internet turned on Star Citizen for being too successful.

 

My gut feeling is it happened around $30 million. Up to $20 million it was this plucky, amazing thing. Between $20 and $30 it was like, 'Wow, Star Citizen does it again... but is it getting too big?' and then after $30 million (and taking into account we're about to hit $40 million), there was a lot more negative press.

 

Compared to something like SWTOR, $40 million still isn't that much... and I dare say if the game pulls off even half of what it wants to do, it won't fall over in a screaming heap and explode into a ball of fire and angry gamers within a few months, like SWTOR did and people will be playing it for years to come.

[Wires_From_The_Wall]

Compared to something like SWTOR, $40 million still isn't that much... and I dare say if the game pulls off even half of what it wants to do, it won't fall over in a screaming heap and explode into a ball of fire and angry gamers within a few months, like SWTOR did and people will be playing it for years to come.

 

As long as we speak solely of development costs,(as opposed to cash earmarked for dev+marketing combined) 40 mils is very respectable budget by anyone's standards. In this regard SC's budget now shares ballpark of typical AAA games. Fact they managed this via crowd funding is utterly awesome. I love the message it sends to direction of lizardmen suit people of EA&co. Mayhaps Space sims are coming back!

 

Having this much money and no leach of publisher to hold em back can be incredibly good thing. it also leaves good amount of opportunities to mess up. Much responsibility. I'm eagerly waiting for SC but when reading feature lists and fan day dreams, both pretty much promising Star Citizen will do literally everything anyone could ever imagine to do in a video game ever, it is easy to find the inner pessimist, too:p

 

What  negative undertones I have towards SC woke when I learned of this malign design to have some sort of an FPS game crammed in there too. This was relatively soon in to the Kickstart;original announcment spoke of Space Sim. Month or so later they figured SC would turn that much more awesome if you could take a break from all that boring flying stuff, hide behind some container and shoot people with laser pistols.Pewpew. Woo!!

 

Afaik SWTOR remains 2nd most expensive video game ever made, so not sure if paling in comparsion vs it's monster budget is sign of modesty here.

[Allan Schumacher]

Well, don't be too sure of that. You might enjoy dogfighting a lot, but one in awhile might want to go and mine. You'd need a completely different ship for that.

 

I will do what I did in Privateer and Freelancer.  Run missions to make some fat coin to buy one

 

 

EDIT: And $40 million is a huge chunk of change.

 

 

I am most fascinated with Star Citizen for the amateur sociological analysis I can do with the people.  I see the type of tiered payment stuff that a AAA studio gets raked over the coals for, while this is championed.  It really seems like some combination of "contributing to the game before it's done" coupled with some "starved for a game like this" and a general idea of being "small time" can make something like this a lot more encouraged.

 

The biggest one, IMO, is the "contribute before release."  I think a feeling of "without me, this game wouldn't be as awesome" makes a huge impact, compared to a game from a standard AAA studio which is typically entirely funded before hand (so one is able to conclude its existence is guaranteed, without any personal investment from fans) and I think it's seen a lot differently.  Although the ability for AAA to acquire funds makes a difference too I think.  If Chris worked for a large studio and did something like this and it existed in exactly the way that it is now, I'm not sure if it'd be as successful.  It'd lose some of the underdog appeal.

 

And of course, keeping your game open to crowd funding is also a HUUUGE impact too.

[BaggyGreen]

What  negative undertones I have towards SC woke when I learned of this malign design to have some sort of an FPS game crammed in there too. This was relatively soon in to the Kickstart;original announcment spoke of Space Sim. Month or so later they figured SC would turn that much more awesome if you could take a break from all that boring flying stuff, hide behind some container and shoot people with laser pistols.Pewpew. Woo!!

 

Well, looking at it objectively, how else would they implement ship boarding... something that's a major part of any good space opera?

 

I think FPS, of some kind, was always going to end up present in the game, given the way we already had avatars, and we wanted to board ships.

[BaggyGreen]

The biggest one, IMO, is the "contribute before release."  I think a feeling of "without me, this game wouldn't be as awesome" makes a huge impact, compared to a game from a standard AAA studio which is typically entirely funded before hand (so one is able to conclude its existence is guaranteed, without any personal investment from fans) and I think it's seen a lot differently.  Although the ability for AAA to acquire funds makes a difference too I think.  If Chris worked for a large studio and did something like this and it existed in exactly the way that it is now, I'm not sure if it'd be as successful.  It'd lose some of the underdog appeal.

 

Well, I would suggest if a AAA game is fully funded beforehand, it's by businesses/angel investors looking for a return on that investment. And there's nothing wrong with that; it's the way investment works, after all. So I don't think that's "wrong" in itself. But when a AAA game attempts tiered funding, the perception from the community is, quite rightly, that it's seeking to make a profit to (at least in part) pay off the investors who invested in the first place.

 

In the case of a crowd funded game, those businesses/angel investors have been avoided. Chris Roberts initially thought he'd get a few million from crowd funding and maybe $10 million from businesses/angel investors, but in the end he didn't have to. So although Star Citizen has used tiered funding, the perception from the community is, quite rightly, that it's going to the game; not to something that's already been paid for and is trying to profit on top of that.

 

At the end of the day, that's the big thing. All the Star Citizen devs, etc, will get a wage. But I don't see "mega profit" being made anywhere. Meanwhile, a AAA game under the old method of publishing and distributing, has to pay all those devs, etc, AND make a profit on top (preferably a mega one!) and that is really the big difference between the two. To be honest I think it's the reason why I think we will see more and more titles take a crowd funding route in the future.

[Allan Schumacher]

Well, I would suggest if a AAA game is fully funded beforehand, it's by businesses/angel investors looking for a return on that investment. And there's nothing wrong with that; it's the way investment works, after all. So I don't think that's "wrong" in itself. But when a AAA game attempts tiered funding, the perception from the community is, quite rightly, that it's seeking to make a profit to (at least in part) pay off the investors who invested in the first place.

 

"Investors" in most AAA games is just the capital of the studio/publisher though.  At best they may leverage loans to help finance it.  I'm not really familiar with outside investment coming in for a AAA studio.  (And just to make sure there's no confusion from people that are reading, unless a public company issues stock they receive zero capital from stockholders, and unless they issue dividends stockholders won't see a penny from a game's revenues).  If Chris had $40 million dollars and made Star Citizen, it'd be pretty much identical to standard AAA game development.

 

 

 

In the case of a crowd funded game, those businesses/angel investors have been avoided. Chris Roberts initially thought he'd get a few million from crowd funding and maybe $10 million from businesses/angel investors, but in the end he didn't have to. So although Star Citizen has used tiered funding, the perception from the community is, quite rightly, that it's going to the game; not to something that's already been paid for and is trying to profit on top of that.

 

At the end of the day, that's the big thing. All the Star Citizen devs, etc, will get a wage. But I don't see "mega profit" being made anywhere. Meanwhile, a AAA game under the old method of publishing and distributing, has to pay all those devs, etc, AND make a profit on top (preferably a mega one!) and that is really the big difference between the two. To be honest I think it's the reason why I think we will see more and more titles take a crowd funding route in the future.

 

The biggest difference is that Chris can sell zero copies of the game and be mostly unaffected (which is an interesting model - and as long as he keeps contributors happy and satisfied the model remains available to him).  Every copy of the game sold after release is straight profit rather than recuperating any initial investment.  We agree that it's a perception issue, but I disagree that Chris isn't looking to be profitable.  If he wasn't, I'd actually be concerned, and if he isn't interested in making a profit that means he'd be okay giving the game away after release.  I don't think he'd do that (admittedly I don't follow the game that closely since I've already decided I'm getting it).  I'm curious if the backers would be okay with that, however.

 

Once the game is released, do you think perceptions on his current monetization would change (or that he'll even keep the current monetization?  I could see it, because as you point out there's less of a perception that the money is going back to the game.  I think it'll be interesting at release to see what Chris does and how people react.  I do think the game will be very profitable, though.

 

 

It may sound like I am being harsh on Chris and crowdfunding.  I'm not.  I doubt the game would exist without it, and it's just a different model and I find it interesting to philosophize.  Though if a game cost, say $40 million from a AAA publisher, I do think that there's a slight error with this statement: "it's going to the game; not to something that's already been paid for and is trying to profit on top of that."  Yes they're trying to profit, but they're also trying to recuperate initial costs.  The advantage of crowdfunding is that the initial costs are directly paid by the customer, although those contributors won't be included in post-release sales either.

[Cyonan]

The biggest difference is that Chris can sell zero copies of the game and be mostly unaffected (which is an interesting model - and as long as he keeps contributors happy and satisfied the model remains available to him).  Every copy of the game sold after release is straight profit rather than recuperating any initial investment.  We agree that it's a perception issue, but I disagree that Chris isn't looking to be profitable.  If he wasn't, I'd actually be concerned, and if he isn't interested in making a profit that means he'd be okay giving the game away after release.  I don't think he'd do that (admittedly I don't follow the game that closely since I've already decided I'm getting it).  I'm curious if the backers would be okay with that, however.

 

Once the game is released, do you think perceptions on his current monetization would change (or that he'll even keep the current monetization?  I could see it, because as you point out there's less of a perception that the money is going back to the game.  I think it'll be interesting at release to see what Chris does and how people react.  I do think the game will be very profitable, though.

 

 

It may sound like I am being harsh on Chris and crowdfunding.  I'm not.  I doubt the game would exist without it, and it's just a different model and I find it interesting to philosophize.  Though if a game cost, say $40 million from a AAA publisher, I do think that there's a slight error with this statement: "it's going to the game; not to something that's already been paid for and is trying to profit on top of that."  Yes they're trying to profit, but they're also trying to recuperate initial costs.  The advantage of crowdfunding is that the initial costs are directly paid by the customer, although those contributors won't be included in post-release sales either.

 

It is all fairly interesting. Chris has essential already sold nearly 400k(current number of backers for the game) copies of the game and if it sells no more at launch then as you said, he's going to be mostly unaffected. The model is essentially selling a game that's not out or even finished yet which is funding the game itself actually being made.

 

If I remember right, they've said they're going to stop selling ships for money once the game is actually released. They're still going to sell in-game money for real money however.

 

While I'm not an expert on how AAA studios run their business, I would have to imagine that some of that profit is also going towards future initial investments for other games. Most companies don't get to just make one game and work on that for 10 years like Chris is planning, unless your game happens to be World of Warcraft.

[ruggly]

Well, don't be too sure of that. You might enjoy dogfighting a lot, but one in awhile might want to go and mine. You'd need a completely different ship for that. Or, what about if a ship is destroyed? The insurance policy will return it in a certain period of time, but it won't be instant. And I believe the more expensive the ship, the longer it will take to get back. So having other ships is good for doing different things in the game, as well as having something else to fly if waiting for insurance.

 

In terms of real money, I really can't afford to get a new ship right now (bills and loan payments kind of suck), so I'm fine with just the one.  Once the games comes out, I'll work on getting in-game money to purchase a new one, but hopefully I'll get good enough at running away so as to not have to wait for a new ship too often.

[Cyonan]

In terms of real money, I really can't afford to get a new ship right now (bills and loan payments kind of suck), so I'm fine with just the one.  Once the games comes out, I'll work on getting in-game money to purchase a new one, but hopefully I'll get good enough at running away so as to not have to wait for a new ship too often.

 

From the sounds of things, it seems like costs will be enough that you wont be able to easily get every ship but you wont have to spend 6 months trying to get another ship if you need/want it, which is good for people who don't want to buy up all the ships right now with real money.

 

In a recent video I believe Chris mentioned they're shooting for ~60 hours to get a Constellation, which is about the largest ship that a single player will want to deal with before getting other people involved(It's actually listed as a multi-person ship).

 

You'll also be able to get insurance so that it's a little bit harder to completely lose your ship.

[ruggly]

From the sounds of things, it seems like costs will be enough that you wont be able to easily get every ship but you wont have to spend 6 months trying to get another ship if you need/want it, which is good for people who don't want to buy up all the ships right now with real money.

 

In a recent video I believe Chris mentioned they're shooting for ~60 hours to get a Constellation, which is about the largest ship that a single player will want to deal with before getting other people involved(It's actually listed as a multi-person ship).

 

You'll also be able to get insurance so that it's a little bit harder to completely lose your ship.

 

Mmm, 60 hours isn't so bad.  I think insurance came with the 300i package, so I shouldn't have to worry about that.

[Allan Schumacher]

If I remember right, they've said they're going to stop selling ships for money once the game is actually released. They're still going to sell in-game money for real money however.

 

I'm interested to see if there's any reaction/response to a decision like this.

 

 

You'll also be able to get insurance so that it's a little bit harder to completely lose your ship.

 

What happens if you only have one ship, or no insurance?

[Cyonan]

I'm interested to see if there's any reaction/response to a decision like this.

 

 

 

What happens if you only have one ship, or no insurance?

 

 

I'll be interested to see as well as I imagine they're going to be selling the game like one normally would with a micro-transaction on top, something that I recall BioWare took a bit of heat for in Mass Effect 3 with the multiplayer unlock system.

 

According to their website, if you don't have insurance then you lose your ship when it gets destroyed. In this event, you'll need to buy a new ship with your own credits or else you can fly missions with either NPCs or other players until you have enough. One of the stretch goals also mentions a public transit system, but I'm not sure how easy one will be able make credits off of it.

 

They do also mention that it takes time to get a replacement ship, and that if you lose your ship a lot within a short time then the delay starts increasing. They don't mention just how long it takes beyond saying it's "time consuming". I imagine this is in response to the concern that people with insurance will just throw away their ships because they know they can get a replacement.

 

So if you only have the one ship, it sounds like you'll end up being shipless for a time if it gets destroyed regardless of if you had insurance or not.

[ruggly]

So note to self: get really good at flying away

[Lotion Soronarr]

You can buy in-game insurance with in-game credits, but it's not eternal. It has to be renewed and premiums go up the more your ships get destroyed (like in RL)

 

 

The insurance you get as a backer is eternal

[Cyonan]

You can buy in-game insurance with in-game credits, but it's not eternal. It has to be renewed and premiums go up the more your ships get destroyed (like in RL)

 

 

The insurance you get as a backer is eternal

 

They actually changed it so you only get 6 months for your ship if you're a backer.

 

Those who originally backed the game before the change still do get lifetime insurance, though.

[Allan Schumacher]

According to their website, if you don't have insurance then you lose your ship when it gets destroyed. In this event, you'll need to buy a new ship with your own credits or else you can fly missions with either NPCs or other players until you have enough. One of the stretch goals also mentions a public transit system, but I'm not sure how easy one will be able make credits off of it.

 

They do also mention that it takes time to get a replacement ship, and that if you lose your ship a lot within a short time then the delay starts increasing. They don't mention just how long it takes beyond saying it's "time consuming". I imagine this is in response to the concern that people with insurance will just throw away their ships because they know they can get a replacement.

 

So if you only have the one ship, it sounds like you'll end up being shipless for a time if it gets destroyed regardless of if you had insurance or not.

 

I'm more concerned about the aspect of "Can I not currently play the game in any meaningful capacity because my ship is destroyed and I am waiting for a replacement?"  It's a tricky tightrope to walk with respect to your actions having consequences (i.e. don't be reckless) while still allowing players to play the game (especially if ways of griefing players becomes apparently).

 

 

They actually changed it so you only get 6 months for your ship if you're a backer.

 

Those who originally backed the game before the change still do get lifetime insurance, though.

 

I can understand the need to keep it (since it was promised and may have impacted contributions).  Though this sounds to me like a non-trivial difference in game experiences for particular players.  And that's not to say those that have insurance are necessarily the winners (since they'll always have the insurance, they're denied the aspect of the game of not having the insurance and/or maintaining the insurance).

 

I'm assuming these topics have already come up in some capacity, however.

[BaggyGreen]

I'm more concerned about the aspect of "Can I not currently play the game in any meaningful capacity because my ship is destroyed and I am waiting for a replacement?"  It's a tricky tightrope to walk with respect to your actions having consequences (i.e. don't be reckless) while still allowing players to play the game (especially if ways of griefing players becomes apparently).

 

There will be plenty of stuff to do for people who lose a ship and don't have insurance, in order for them to earn a base model ship again in fairly quick order. So I dare say there will be those things, and likely more, for someone who loses a ship and is waiting for the insurance money. If anything, it will show anyone who says, "I only need one ship..." that there's a perfectly good reason for keeping at least two ships - even if the other one is a direct copy of their first ship!

[Allan Schumacher]

There will be plenty of stuff to do for people who lose a ship and don't have insurance, in order for them to earn a base model ship again in fairly quick order. So I dare say there will be those things, and likely more, for someone who loses a ship and is waiting for the insurance money. If anything, it will show anyone who says, "I only need one ship..." that there's a perfectly good reason for keeping at least two ships - even if the other one is a direct copy of their first ship!

 

Sure, I'm just somewhat concerned about the worst case of bad circumstances happening.

 

What's the griefing potential of the game (since that's a force multiplier for concern for this).

[TheJediSaint]

If nothing else, I think the money Chris Roberts has been able to raise so far shows how the power Wing Commander and Privateer nostalgia.  I don't know of other franchises that have gone so long without a release that can do that.

[BaggyGreen]

What's the griefing potential of the game (since that's a force multiplier for concern for this).

 

Well, you're putting people into ships, with big guns and the ability to go and blow up who they want. There will be absolute maniacs out there.

 

However, going out and blowing stuff up will have legal consequences; police, bounty hunters, other players, loss of citizenship, etc... so it will be interesting to see what happens.

[Wires_From_The_Wall]

I will do what I did in Privateer and Freelancer.  Run missions to make some fat coin to buy one

 

 

EDIT: And $40 million is a huge chunk of change.

 

 

I am most fascinated with Star Citizen for the amateur sociological analysis I can do with the people.  I see the type of tiered payment stuff that a AAA studio gets raked over the coals for, while this is championed.  It really seems like some combination of "contributing to the game before it's done" coupled with some "starved for a game like this" and a general idea of being "small time" can make something like this a lot more encouraged.

 

 

Chris Roberts' recent history as Hollywood producer really shows;p He clearly was born with talent to speak money out of people. Should he ever switch careers, world would lose a legendary game designer but gain magnificent used car salesman.  I think he was very clever to sink his teeth into ideological side of PC gamers. " Let's show those dirty console publishers that yes! we! can! Let's show the world it has room for a space sim tailor made by PC man for PC men! Roberts Garriot 2016!"  I think many PC gamers fustrated with hardly anyone making games for their monster rigs began paying for this ideal at least as much as they'd care to pay for a Wing Commander game or space sim.  Thought there beiing not a SINGLE space sim made in recent memory propably helped a touch;p

 

It is extremely odd how there has been literally no Space Sims in decades. Eve Online is remarkable game but doesn't really give you hands-on controls over your ship. X-series comes closer but I think it is more of a production sim rather than space sim.  Freespace and Xwing Alliance  must have brought plague,famine,swarms of grasshoppers and other proper iold testament stuff to their publishers. Why else would every.single.studio abandon such fun genre after release of these two games.

[Sailears]

Right, I've been teetering for too long - finally put in a pledge for the 315p package!

 

I've reasoned with myself that it's almost inevitable that I'll play this - with all being well and I'm alive, healthy, have a decent machine to run it, decent internet and time to play. Closest I came to pledging before was late last summer, but somehow managed to talk myself out of it then.

 

With ED I knew it would at most be a stop gap until SC, and even then I could live without it in the meantime.