I like it TGS! As you know they've been trailing it for a while now and I received the invitation from the Chairman's Club early this morning (UK) to take a look at it.
Mind you they tried to sell me stuff at the same time.
I like it TGS! As you know they've been trailing it for a while now and I received the invitation from the Chairman's Club early this morning (UK) to take a look at it.
It's telling that the only thing they've managed to finish is the website. And they've done that twice. Shows where their priorities are.
"The day I see dragons in the sky is the day that Star Citizen launched prematurely"
to be fair, SC in perfect condition would have at least one additional optimisation pass. which i think it didnt have in a while because they are continously adding stuff.fox wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:09 pmIf SC was out tomorrow, complete, perfect and fully featured as promised, only a minority of people worldwide would be able to enjoy it -- simply because the others would lack the hardware to make it run. Project SC has grown out of proportions and so have done the system requirements. At RSI they know it. Take a good look at their videos showcasing the game. You will notice small stutters, hiccups, late loading of resources (a door opens and for a split moment there is nothing on the other side of it). Who knows what else there is, but they managed to hide or disguise...
Those videos were not taken by an amateur on his 4-years old PC with a fragmented hard drive -- They were made by the devs who ran state-of-the-art hardware, the best of the best.
If the game runs suboptimally on their machines, how can it run properly on a PC that is less powerful?
I doubt the people making the game is the same people who updated the website. I don't think the game is going to be delayed because someone is working on improving their page.
Every web developer you hire is one less game developer you can hire.
That's a failure of game design, not of people's hardware. This game was to have been released for a couple of years already. I'm starting to get an F-35 vibe here: took 25 years from conception to where we are today due to the ridiculous requirements and scope creep, and the aircraft isn't yet operational: it's still in "beta."fox wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:09 pm"The day I see dragons in the sky is the day that Star Citizen launched prematurely"
Hi,
do not take my post in the wrong way -- I offer you another viewpoint of the situation: the world is not ready.
If SC was out tomorrow, complete, perfect and fully featured as promised, only a minority of people worldwide would be able to enjoy it -- simply because the others would lack the hardware to make it run. Project SC has grown out of proportions and so have done the system requirements. At RSI they know it. Take a good look at their videos showcasing the game. You will notice small stutters, hiccups, late loading of resources (a door opens and for a split moment there is nothing on the other side of it). Who knows what else there is, but they managed to hide or disguise...
Those videos were not taken by an amateur on his 4-years old PC with a fragmented hard drive -- They were made by the devs who ran state-of-the-art hardware, the best of the best.
If the game runs suboptimally on their machines, how can it run properly on a PC that is less powerful?
And so you understand how a proper launch is crucial for the success of this game, especially after all the years of development, all the PR they made, all the interviews, all the money that they amassed and spent, and all the promises that were made. You saw what happened with NMS. Take that and multiply it by 3 orders of magnitude: it is what awaits RSI, SC and Mr. Roberts if -on launch- the game is any less than what was promised to be. People would breath fire, grow wings and take off roaring. Guess whoose blood they would be out for?
But hiring an extra game developer doesn't necessarily speed up development of the game whatsoever.Arclite wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:06 pmEvery web developer you hire is one less game developer you can hire.
That's not how that works, and I suspect that you know that.Arclite wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:06 pmEvery web developer you hire is one less game developer you can hire.
The "Game" that was supposed to be released a couple of years ago was an inferior game based on a budget that was far less than what they ended up getting.Arclite wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:09 pmThat's a failure of game design, not of people's hardware. This game was to have been released for a couple of years already. I'm starting to get an F-35 vibe here: took 25 years from conception to where we are today due to the ridiculous requirements and scope creep, and the aircraft isn't yet operational: it's still in "beta."fox wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:09 pm"The day I see dragons in the sky is the day that Star Citizen launched prematurely"
Hi,
do not take my post in the wrong way -- I offer you another viewpoint of the situation: the world is not ready.
If SC was out tomorrow, complete, perfect and fully featured as promised, only a minority of people worldwide would be able to enjoy it -- simply because the others would lack the hardware to make it run. Project SC has grown out of proportions and so have done the system requirements. At RSI they know it. Take a good look at their videos showcasing the game. You will notice small stutters, hiccups, late loading of resources (a door opens and for a split moment there is nothing on the other side of it). Who knows what else there is, but they managed to hide or disguise...
Those videos were not taken by an amateur on his 4-years old PC with a fragmented hard drive -- They were made by the devs who ran state-of-the-art hardware, the best of the best.
If the game runs suboptimally on their machines, how can it run properly on a PC that is less powerful?
And so you understand how a proper launch is crucial for the success of this game, especially after all the years of development, all the PR they made, all the interviews, all the money that they amassed and spent, and all the promises that were made. You saw what happened with NMS. Take that and multiply it by 3 orders of magnitude: it is what awaits RSI, SC and Mr. Roberts if -on launch- the game is any less than what was promised to be. People would breath fire, grow wings and take off roaring. Guess whoose blood they would be out for?
That's how I see it as well, fanboy...erm TGS.
Web developers are paid significantly less than game developers, and are paid mostly for the work they've done, and not in a fixed rate / month. And, as Dino said, simply throwing more man-hours at the problem doesn't mean it'll get fixed faster, or actually even fixed at all. Otherwise, China would already be building thermonuclear reactors and fusion drives for spaceships, with the amount of scientists they can throw at the problem
Gimme some examples, otherwise I agree with your thoughts.
That is a really pessimistic and flawed view of capitalism. Abusing human stupidity wasn't the main driver for Apple to design the first smartphone, etc. They were driven by the free market.TGS wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:26 pmIf CIG is abusing human stupidity and desire to always have more shinies, then so is pretty much every other consumer industry out there. Because that is literally the basis on which most consumer industries operate. Which if that is the case, then you cannot really blame CIG for that as they're just doing what everyone else does.outlander wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:14 amThat was one long wall of text
I personally think that CIG are abusing human stupidity and desire to ALWAYS HAVE MOAR SHINIES, but then so does pretty much everybody else these days, and I see no reason to attach the blame to one specific company, especially since they do actually work on their project, and their stated goals are not beyond what's physically possible or practical.
you mean that MMO component thats 100% highly volatile code?
So much wrong here.outlander wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:00 amWeb developers are paid significantly less than game developers, and are paid mostly for the work they've done, and not in a fixed rate / month. And, as Dino said, simply throwing more man-hours at the problem doesn't mean it'll get fixed faster, or actually even fixed at all. Otherwise, China would already be building thermonuclear reactors and fusion drives for spaceships, with the amount of scientists they can throw at the problem
Actually, that's exactly how it works. I've worked in software development for 20 years, so sorry, you can't bullshit me. If I hire too many UX designers, and not enough senior devs, I end up with lots of designs that never get implemented. If I hire too many web developers and not enough game developers, I end up with a gorgeous website that sells shit that doesn't exist. This is the exact situation we're in.
Please show me a timeline that communicates when the final 1.0 game version will be released.TGS wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:33 amThe "Game" that was supposed to be released a couple of years ago was an inferior game based on a budget that was far less than what they ended up getting.Arclite wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:09 pmThat's a failure of game design, not of people's hardware. This game was to have been released for a couple of years already. I'm starting to get an F-35 vibe here: took 25 years from conception to where we are today due to the ridiculous requirements and scope creep, and the aircraft isn't yet operational: it's still in "beta."
Oddly enough though as much as people like to claim "scope creep" in the context of Star Citizen, almost all of that scope was in the original plan. It just wasn't pitched to us because Chris never thought he'd get the money to do it all at once. So it was going to be done similar to how Elite Dangerous was done. In stages. Building upon previous successful iterations. Though who knows how well that would have worked in the case of this sort of game given the foundational work they are doing they would have likely struggled to add the depth and complexity had they "released" the game in any sort of intended final state.
Either way it seems as though most of the backers are on board with the way they are developing it. It's only the impatient people or those who have an agenda against the project who constantly seem to be at odds with it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests