squeegee joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 59 minutes later[^][v]#776,881
oh yeah? awesome dude. it sounds like 3.0 is coming pretty soon. lots of emphasis on "soon." we aren't even 100% sure there won't be a 2.7, but one of the devs said they're really aiming for 3.0 right now and don't have hard plans to do 2.7 but if there's good reason we'll get another 2.x patch. we don't have any kind of target date for it either other than "hopefully next" and "soon." but, 3.0 is a huge leap in terms of features so i'm thinking months rather than weeks probably. and probably 2 weeks on the PTU or maybe longer.
in other words you've still got plenty of time before the full gamification of the Stanton System. so nice timing on your part.
squeegee replied with this 3 weeks ago, 7 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^][v]#776,973
@776,916 (cccuuunnttt !yDoooooooo)
yeah, it just lacks most of the planned features. a majority of the core tech is now finished or being completed and i don't know of any more major engine work that needs to be started. at this point most of their energy is being directed towards content generation. 3.0 is their next huge jump where they roll out an entire star system complete with landing locations, missions, and trading. there's more to it, there's a huge AI roll out happening as well to help populate the system with functional NPCs doing their jobs and all that. that is what we're immediately looking forward to and expecting in the coming months.
don't worry, i'll be sure to update everyone as soon as it's an actual game
Meta replied with this 2 weeks ago, 8 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^][v]#778,354
@778,350 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
How many more of these crowdfunded half-baked early access games will people take before they go back to the old fashioned way where developers make complete and fully functional games and sell them as finished products?
in their 5th year, yup. 4 years and change since the original kickstarter to be exact. and they were only like 10 employees with CIG at that time. now they have like 400ish. the first year they spent as much time building the infrastructure to build the game as they spent time building the game. in fact to fill out the staff enough to actually begin work CIG had to bring in a bunch of 3rd party contractors like Illfonic and Behavior. it's really only been in this last year that they began bringing all development in-house, and even then they still rely on a couple of contractors to handle stuff like the website. CIG wasn't Bethesda in 2012, they didn't get the running start of being an established developer. they had to build themselves before they could really build the game.
> and $145,000,000
that's money earned rather than money spent, mind you, we don't know what portion of that money has already gone against overhead. CIG claims to have much of it still available to them, if funding stopped today they'd still be able to complete the game with what's left according to Chris Roberts. it's not like 145 million is just vanished and all they have to show for it are a few game modes and a half finished sandbox.
> and the game is not fully playable
i'm not exactly sure what you mean by "fully playable" since you follow this up with a comment about lacking planned features. the game is 100% "fully playable," but, it does lack most of the planned features. Arena Commander and Star Marine, the two promised "arcade" game modes are just done, the MMO is nearing beta, and the Campaign is behind the curtain still - which it was always planned to be until it launches. so the campaign won't release until it's ready for a general launch as a stand alone game. that thing was planned to launch in 2014 according to the original kickstarter, but the kickstarter goals were all reset in 2013 when the community voted to expand the planned feature set. the game funding skyrocketed so far beyond their 2 million dollar game design (and kickstarter goal) that they had to redesign it to take advantage of the like 25 million they actually DID raise.
the community likens it to opening a Pizza shop by kick starter and then receiving 20 million dollars. you can start up a national franchise with that kinda money, building a mom and pop pizza parlor in one town would be a disservice. it would be like notch making 12 million bucks on alpha minecraft and using the money to make a bunch of shitty little games rather than putting it all into the IP that made him rich and improving development to make the best game possible.
> and lacks most of the planned features?
as far as the year old 2.x builds go, yeah. that's why everyone is so stoked for the 3.x iteration since it includes features they've been working on for years in some cases.
most of these big AAA games are taking in the neighborhood of 4-7 years to finish a title depending on how established the IP is. new ips take longer since there's no legacy code to build off of. like i've said before, i've felt since i heard about it that a game like this would take 5 years to finish pretty easily - just based on how long it took rockstar to do GTA V and stuff like that.
now, a good question would be, "can they finish by the 5 year mark," and at this point i highly doubt it. i was probably wrong in my 5 year estimate, really there's no way the MMO will be completed this year. we can't really even guesstimate on the campaign since that's behind a dev curtain. that could maybe be out by the end of the year. they have almost everything they need for it barring the AI work and what i've discovered is called "bind culling." all the ships for the campaign are done, the planets and moons are in final production, the missions have all been mocapped and they're doing QA testing on them now. it's possible that the campaign will be ready sooner than we think.
that would effectively deliver the majority of the content as "fully playable" and will satisfy the promises of the kickstarter and original funding campaigns. everything else, mmo included, are stretch goals that ended up becoming part of the pitch once like 80 million was in the bank.
mostly all i ever talk about is MMO development since Arena Commander and Star Marine are done and the Campaign is not in "open development" like the MMO.
squeegee double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^][v]#778,369
@778,354 (Meta) @778,355 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
when publishers start making good games that actually function well and are fun and aren't just lazy remakes of the same old IPs and genres with outrageous DLC then maybe gamers will feel like they don't need to try something outlandish like crowdfunding crazy dreamers. but, as long as they can save money by gutting features and make a killing on microtransactions i think publishers will keep the shovel ware crammed down our throats.
Meta replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^][v]#778,422
Sorry I meant 4 years, 5 months, and 29 days, not "5 years".
> that's money earned rather than money spent, mind you
That's great but 4 years, 5 months, and 29 days and $145 million has gone into this, and a complete or substantially complete game has not come out.
> i'm not exactly sure what you mean by "fully playable" since you follow this up with a comment about lacking planned features. the game is 100% "fully playable," but, it does lack most of the planned features.
But that's what I mean. You can say any game is fully playable. Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing was a fully playable game that just happened to lack most of the planned features. Like, you know, racing and functional AI opponents. But it was fully playable!
Meta replied with this 2 weeks ago, 13 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^][v]#778,427
I don't play space games and I refuse to buy early access games on principle. I don't have one red cent invested in Star Citizen. I'm just saying, this is already one of the most expensive videogames of all time and it's not done yet.
Killer Lettuce🌹 !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 51 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^][v]#778,434
It hasn't just been a conga line of failures and undelivered deadlines, there have been some huge successes with video game crowdfunding. Pillars of Eternity, Wasteland 2, Yooka-Laylee and Torment: Tides of Numenera were all crowdfunded games that actually came out and were well-received.
You see, a big advantage of crowdfunding games is that it gets around the usual reticence of publishers to publish certain games, despite some demand. The games I listed back there were all genres that had gone out of vogue in traditional game development, but when a crowdfunding opportunity arose, they were massively crowdfunded because the fans wanted those types of games despite publishers thinking they weren't popular.
I totally get your scepticism, there's been a lot of shite and let-downs with crowdfunding. But in my opinion, the ones that come good are totally worth it. You've just gotta be careful where you invest.
I've heard some very interesting points about how it suffers because it tries to recreate the Banjo Kazooie formula without modernising it. But, I think, in terms of the hype it generated, it shows that crowdfunding can fill a gap. Dreamworks.
Killer Lettuce🌹 !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 1 week ago, 9 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^][v]#778,642
Perhaps not, but that was not the thrust of my argument. What I'm saying, mainly, is that there was big demand for something like Yooka-Laylee, but it never would've been made without crowdfunding. And it couldn't have been a self-funded indie game either, at least not to the scale that it was.
Personally, I would argue that crowdfunded games are wholly necessary to maintain a diverse and open gaming landscape. When you've got publishers doing stuff like making Dead Space into a co-op action game or just refusing to back certain types of games, then you need an alternate option that can create big-budget games. Crowdfunding isn't perfect, no, but you can lower your risk of disappointment by doing research into the developer(s) and their pitch to try and judge how experienced they are and how likely they are to deliver.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 week ago, 4 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^][v]#778,665
@previous (Killer Lettuce🌹 !!iNo3FkiZx)
Oh that's a fair point, I am not saying that crowdfunding is inherently bad, there are too many acclaimed titles to say that. I do think that it is a poor idea from a consumer standpoint to actually fund a game, unless you are completely ok with losing that money without ever receiving a product. Same with early access games.
You are essentially buying a product without the protection you would get if you'd buy a released product. I think there should be some sort of accountability on the part of the developer or manufacturer.
squeegee replied with this 1 week ago, 10 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^][v]#778,957
that's like saying don't go to a movie based on the trailer. look, if a company is dishonest and presents a misleading advertising campaign then it's hardly fair to blame the people who were taken advantage of. now, i get your point and i've learned my lesson too, game publishers are never punished for misleading their consumers and the only way to know how it will play is to watch live gameplay before you buy. but that doesn't mean that game publishers aren't willfully lying to and misleading their customers. and i can hardly blame the victims just because publishers aren't held to account. because until publishers are punished for outright lying then they'll continue to engage in what's basically fraud.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 week ago, 33 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^][v]#778,963
I wasn't blaming them, I was giving advice. I agree with a that though, the traditionally funded game industry has plenty of shit too. Luckily now there's origin and steam refunds.