• The ResetEra Games of the Year Awards 2018 results are now live! Congratulations to all the winners!
  • Sidebar and Width settings will now no longer reset after 4 hours of inactivity! We have implemented a new system that will remember these preferences on each browser, for both members and guests. This allows you to choose different settings on different devices if you so desire.

Star Citizen raises more than $1 million in four days following alpha 3.3 test release

Oct 25, 2017
589
I would love to know why these types of posts are allowed when they wouldn't be in any other thread.

Like literally just spewing bullshit that's obviously factually wrong and it's allowed to slide without even a warning.
Be careful, you might get warned for trying to silence criticism of the game.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,016
Be careful, you might get warned for trying to silence criticism of the game.
There is plenty of criticism that Star Citizen warrants, but that post ain't it. They have had issues for years with keeping dates, breaking things and glitches. What they haven't produced is "smoke and mirrors" or "a few scripted good looking trailers".
 
Oct 27, 2017
643
Any idea how big the download is? Last time I tried it a couple years ago I think it was close to 100GB, if I can free up some space on my SSD I might try it again. Paid $30 back in 2012 and not a penny more so I feel I've gotten my money's worth just playing around with the alpha. Hopefully we'll find out in the next couple months when the single player is coming out.
 
Oct 26, 2017
162
Nothing but smoke and mirrors, and they still keep getting money.

Well, someone is doing their job well that's for sure.

Developers should learn from this! You dontd have to crunch and still make tons of money: You promise something insane in scope, get hundreds of millions of dollars, show a few scripted good looking trailers, offer unoptimized tidbits of gameplay after 6 years or so, sell in-game stuff for your game that doesn't even exist yet, and keep the door open for more money, which people keep on giving.

I mean these guys have some next level micro-transactions in this game. You buy them before there's even a game. Now that's a good business model.
someone has found derek smarts checklist, that's for sure
 

Shy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,428
Nothing but smoke and mirrors, and they still keep getting money.

Well, someone is doing their job well that's for sure.

Developers should learn from this! You dontd have to crunch and still make tons of money: You promise something insane in scope, get hundreds of millions of dollars, show a few scripted good looking trailers, offer unoptimized tidbits of gameplay after 6 years or so, sell in-game stuff for your game that doesn't even exist yet, and keep the door open for more money, which people keep on giving.

I mean these guys have some next level micro-transactions in this game. You buy them before there's even a game. Now that's a good business model.
Please illuminate us all, how SC is all smoke and mirrors.
 
Oct 25, 2017
589
I thought you were implying you already know that information?
I follow the game and have read what CIG has said in interviews where the question of "some fans wanted a smaller game" comes up. They agree it's a legitimate point but that their metrics show the vast majority of their fans are happy with the direction they're going and would change the direction if it ever changed.
 
Oct 25, 2017
589
Any idea how big the download is? Last time I tried it a couple years ago I think it was close to 100GB, if I can free up some space on my SSD I might try it again. Paid $30 back in 2012 and not a penny more so I feel I've gotten my money's worth just playing around with the alpha. Hopefully we'll find out in the next couple months when the single player is coming out.
The download is around 40-50 GB, don't have an exact number. I'd recommend trying it in a few weeks when the PTU is ironed out a bit more and they add the big planet from the recent demo.
 

SmarmySmurf

Banned
Member
Nov 5, 2017
1,931
I don't understand why in the age of early access and GaaS where a huge part of both the AAA and indie game industry is basically trying to pull off the same perpetual unfinished game thing this game specifically upsets some so much. Is it just the amount of money they've managed to get? They have basically 2 games and they are making some progress from all that I'm reading. Clearly the continued fund raising is evidence enough that people like what they are being told and given.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,316
I don't understand why in the age of early access and GaaS where a huge part of both the AAA and indie game industry is basically trying to pull off the same perpetual unfinished game thing this game specifically upsets some so much. Is it just the amount of money they've managed to get? They have basically 2 games and they are making some progress from all that I'm reading. Clearly the continued fund raising is evidence enough that people like what they are being told and given.

I mean, I dont like the model


But I backed pantheon with alpha access 4 years ago and still have anything playable/testable. Its still pre alpha.

At least SC players have something to have fun with
 
Oct 25, 2017
589
I don't understand why in the age of early access and GaaS where a huge part of both the AAA and indie game industry is basically trying to pull off the same perpetual unfinished game thing this game specifically upsets some so much. Is it just the amount of money they've managed to get? They have basically 2 games and they are making some progress from all that I'm reading. Clearly the continued fund raising is evidence enough that people like what they are being told and given.
Pretty much, SC is very much living on a GaaS model at this point and wants to head in that direction with indefinite 3 month rolling patches.

Squadron 42 on the other hand is the traditional AAA campaign akin to something like Last of Us 2 and they're planning on making at least two more entries in the saga. So, fans get the best of both worlds in a sense.

It's a little strange that people tell the SC community not to spend money on this game, of course we could be viewed as biased, on the other hand, we keep up with the game more than anyone. CIG isn't blackmailing me, I like the progress I see and I'll continue to fund them until I don't, obviously many others feel the same way, the reason this is such a big issue is beyond me.
 
Oct 25, 2017
589
By the time this game comes out its going to be outdated.
We've been hearing this since 2013 yet:


Left is last year, right is this year.

They are constantly improving the games, constantly updating Star Citizen with new content. That's what development is about, they're not stuck in one place, they're constantly moving forward to provide the best game possible to their fans.
 
Oct 28, 2017
475
SC does have high quality smoke and mirrors thanks to the gas cloud and render to texture tech. Fidelity!
That's mostly smoke though, not mirrors. RTT is really expensive to use on something like a mirror, they're mostly using it for viewscreens and holographics and such where the base asset quality isn't as important (versus a mirror which should look identical to what's behind you). Even with the video chat stuff they mentioned on ATV a while back that the viewport for the person you're talking to is greatly optimized, basically just the bare minimum assets around them, often no shadows, etc since you can't really tell when it's piped onto a holographic display and such.

Hopefully they add RTX for real mirrors and reflections!
 
Feb 10, 2018
6,348
We've been hearing this since 2013 yet:


Left is last year, right is this year.

They are constantly improving the games, constantly updating Star Citizen with new content. That's what development is about, they're not stuck in one place, they're constantly moving forward to provide the best game possible to their fans.
I hope they deliver a final product soon and I hope they port it to next gen.
 
Nov 2, 2017
82
I always wonder how many people are going to continue zealously defending this project when the current development time doubles. Let's say that, miraculously, CIG can continue convincing the well-to-do (and those who are challenged in a financial management sense) to plough funds into this project, allowing CIG to stay afloat for another 6 years. Given where the project is at now, and given the enormous backlog of stuff to be included in the game, most serious backers would need to be aware that the game may not even be anywhere near completion in 2024, let alone 2020. Some of them may say they are perfectly OK with that.

Let's not forget that the sort of apologist rhetoric evidenced in many comments in this thread has been repeated since CIG first started missing release dates. It is obvious that many backers have blind faith in their figurehead, that he will deliver the game they have dreamed of since the mid to late 90s, no matter how long it takes. This doesn't make such backers bad people. It is completely understandable. Desperation can lead to delusion and defensiveness. Instead of acknowledging the, to put it mildly, 'less than ideal position' of the project, certain backers will resort to aggressively mobbing any thread on Star Citizen, shouting down naysayers with accusations of them spreading 'FEAR, UNCERTAINTY and DOUBT! (FUD)' about the project. Such people will also get excited about mundane tech such as 'object container streaming' and even claim that CIG has 'invented' such tech, which 'didn't previously exist', all the while ignoring or downplaying the fact that many basic game play functions are still MIA after 6 years of development, not to mention the lack of content within the game.

As an impartial observer, it is interesting to see how this project and its managers have manipulated vulnerable backers. Whether or not this game ever cracks up to what it was meant to be, the development process and PR alone are worth the price of admission. I, for one, wish Chris Roberts all the best on this wild adventure.
 
Dec 14, 2017
255
I would love to know why these types of posts are allowed when they wouldn't be in any other thread.

Like literally just spewing bullshit that's obviously factually wrong and it's allowed to slide without even a warning.
My apologies if I was a bit of an assholrewhen writing that post but everything around the development of this game pisses me off. It feels like a scam.
People aren't playing a game, they are playing small parts of an unfinished game that is promising too much. This game seems like it's never coming out and will never be a complete and coherent product. It's a never ending work in progress and backers get a little taste here and there.
It honestly feels like they are milking people of their money, specially the ones that are already invested.
 
Oct 27, 2017
328
That's mostly smoke though, not mirrors. RTT is really expensive to use on something like a mirror, they're mostly using it for viewscreens and holographics and such where the base asset quality isn't as important (versus a mirror which should look identical to what's behind you). Even with the video chat stuff they mentioned on ATV a while back that the viewport for the person you're talking to is greatly optimized, basically just the bare minimum assets around them, often no shadows, etc since you can't really tell when it's piped onto a holographic display and such.

Hopefully they add RTX for real mirrors and reflections!
 
Oct 25, 2017
589
My apologies if I was a bit of an assholrewhen writing that post but everything around the development of this game pisses me off. It feels like a scam.
People aren't playing a game, they are playing small parts of an unfinished game that is promising too much. This game seems like it's never coming out and will never be a complete and coherent product. It's a never ending work in progress and backers get a little taste here and there.
It honestly feels like they are milking people of their money, specially the ones that are already invested.
WTF kind of attitude is this? Do you understand that people can make their own decisions and don't have to agree with you, why does that piss you off? Just because YOU feel like this game will be unfinished, just because YOU feel like I'm not playing a game when I've been launching it everyday for the past two weeks, just because YOU feel like the progress isn't enough doesn't mean ANYONE else has to feel like you and you shouldn't hold your feelings as gospel for an entire community who can think and decide for themselves. I have no idea what possess people to have this kind attitude attached to this game. Do you go into every other thread about games and tell people they shouldn't like the game they're playing, that it pisses you off people are having fun because you might not be? I don't particularly like PUBG or Fortnite, I don't think it's a compelling game for me, I feel like they could have put out a better game than what they did, and I feel like the whole Battle Royale experience is a "small part" of what should be an overall game. I don't see why I would ever go to a thread dedicated to talking about PUBG or Fortnite and tell them that PUBG scammed them, that they could have bought a better game, or that I think Fortnite is milking them for their money and hasn't given them substantial updates every "season". I also would be talking out of my ass (like most of the people who talk about Star Citizen on this forum) because I have no idea what Fortnite added last season, which is why I don't talk about Fortnite. I don't know why I would ever feel pissed off about someone buying the starter pack or whatever it's called in Fortnite, my attitude is let people enjoy what they want, let people have fun, and I can have my own fun as well.

The idea that CIG is maniacally milking all our money will only showing "a taste here and there" is just insulting to both the developers of this game who work tirelessly on trying to deliver what the community wants, and the community who really just wants to enjoy a video game like everyone else on this forum, even if we have to wait. We're not brainless idiots throwing money at nothing, and CIG aren't evil masterminds sitting on some investment and laughing.
 
Oct 25, 2017
172
Star citizen people, is the Alpha actually worth playing now? I backed it forever ago and just put it on hold waiting for it to get updated to a point where it was fun and playable. By playable I mean are the performance issues resolved enough ( I can handle some jank but it was garbage for a while) and are there enough things to do currently where it is an enjoyable experience?
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,249
your last location.
Star citizen people, is the Alpha actually worth playing now? I backed it forever ago and just put it on hold waiting for it to get updated to a point where it was fun and playable. By playable I mean are the performance issues resolved enough ( I can handle some jank but it was garbage for a while) and are there enough things to do currently where it is an enjoyable experience?
Still in PTU, but 60 fps is the norm now. Probably wait until Nov. for the release of Hurston. More content coming with that planet.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,246
The stand alone packs are $54 each.

Squadron 42 stand alone package.

Mustang Alpha Star Citizen (the mmo) starter package.
Aurora Star Citizen (the mmo) starter package.

And the double packs are $78 bucks.
Mustang Alpha Star Citizen+Squadron 42, combo starter package.
Aurora Star Citizen+Squadron 42, combo starter package.

Which ever you choose (if any) You'll have full access to each (or both) game and will never have to spend anymore money.

Hope that helps you.

The only thing that gets to me is the drive by, and ad-hominin attacks.
I didn't know they started selling the two games separately.

What does this mean for original backers? Do they get both games? I backed the original Kickstarter, and haven't kept up with the news much.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,381
I am okay with this, even content, people need to get paid and other people could be expending money in something worse.

Like smack.
 
Oct 25, 2017
589
It's hilarious that people like Zambayoshi will masquerade themselves as impartial observers, the bastions of rational thought, who conduct thought experiments on where SC will be 6 years from now. People like him, who have spent years of their lives dedicated to talking shit about a game they don't like, who have coordinated together to spread their nonsense across multiple forums, have doxxed developers and once harassed Chris Roberts' wife so much that she had to leave twitter, will try and paint people just excited for a game to come out and watch it be developed as irrational. Now I'm not saying Zambayoshi himself has done any of that, but certainly there is a group of people who love to paint themselves as impartial while trying to do everything they can to discourage both backers and developers, and even spouses I suppose from enjoying a game.

Zambayoshi will say he's an impartial observer. but if you look he's done nothing but post FUD that has been disproved everytime he's posted. He just posted that funding is "TANKING" when there is no evidence to support that, year over year, there's a slight drop of less than 5%, and the CitizenCon drop is explained by them not opening up the very anticipated capital ship "The Kraken" up for sale to the backers yet, while last year they sold an $750 ship without wait. As I wrote before, CIG brought in numerous very well known companies as sponsors during CitizenCon. And last but not least, funding isn't an issue because CIG operates as a live company, meaning they plan based on how much money they're bringing in per month, per year, and plan based off that. If funding was really "tanking" and once again, it's not, with CIG having one very consistent thing very well that everyone can agree upon, which is raising money, one can assume they're prepared for it.

As for release dates, CIG has hit their quarterly patch dates this year for the most part. They delivered OCS and bind-culling on time, Hurston is delayed by a few weeks but the release dates have stuck, their putting new content into the game every 3 months and the community is enjoying it, playing the game a lot more regularly.

Now about Zambayoshi saying CIG produces mundane tech, I mean, I think Durante would disagree about the quality of work they've put into the game so far. And if Durante is impressed by the work they're doing, I think most people would take his word over someone who just posted something ridiculously off-base in his last post and now again has just posted a clear lie.

You can see that Zambayoshi is clearly lying when he says that fans say CIG "invented" OCS, when we posted an extensive interview by CIG developers in our own OT saying they didn't invent the technology that OCS is, they're expanding on the tech that OCS is based on, by delivering a universe over a network and the complexity comes within the scale, nesting and having to transmit this all over the network with persistence working for all players.

An IMPARTIAL OBSERVER would probably know something about that, but Zambayoshi is not impartial at all. He wants to see this game's demise, just as much as this community wants its to succeed.

Also, some people are excited about realistic horse testicle simulation in RDR2, all the power to them, maybe I think that's quite a mundane detail ;). People who follow Star Citizen will naturally be more interested in the technology side of things based on the deep dives we get into the development and all the technical hurdles they've had to overcome, and continue to overcome.

I don't paint myself to be an impartial observer, I don't have to lie to anyone. I want to see this game succeed, my friends play this game, some of my friends work on this game, this is the only game I see having the potential to be the dream game that we as a community and even the development team always wanted. I don't think this is a scam, I don't think progress is too slow, I don't think that CIG is milking me or the community, I don't think there's feature creep. I don't encourage anyone to back the game unless they're willing to lose the money they put into it, to try and support the game, wait until it's done. Nobody is perfect, they've made mistakes in the past and will do so in the future just like any video game company will, there will be more missteps. I'm disappointed deeply with the lack of diversity in Squadron 42, I would love for both games to be magically finished up and delivered today, and everyone would love the development to go faster ~ especially CIG.

But I'll quote Zambayoshi here : "Desperation can lead to delusion and defensiveness." and I think based off the money that CIG is raising and the things they're accomplishing, only one side here is getting desperate. Probably the one that posts misleading graphs about funding taking, but I'll leave that up to whoever's reading this to decide. All the while, please do feel bad for us poor, vulnerable, manipulated backers who will continue to plough money into this game even 10 years from now or something like that.
 
Oct 25, 2017
489
It's hilarious that people like Zambayoshi will masquerade themselves as impartial observers, the bastions of rational thought, who conduct thought experiments on where SC will be 6 years from now. People like him, who have spent years of their lives dedicated to talking shit about a game they don't like, who have coordinated together to spread their nonsense across multiple forums, have doxxed developers and once harassed Chris Roberts' wife so much that she had to leave twitter, will try and paint people just excited for a game to come out and watch it be developed as irrational. Now I'm not saying Zambayoshi himself has done any of that, but certainly there is a group of people who love to paint themselves as impartial while trying to do everything they can to discourage both backers and developers, and even spouses I suppose from enjoying a game.

Zambayoshi will say he's an impartial observer. but if you look he's done nothing but post FUD that has been disproved everytime he's posted. He just posted that funding is "TANKING" when there is no evidence to support that, year over year, there's a slight drop of less than 5%, and the CitizenCon drop is explained by them not opening up the very anticipated capital ship "The Kraken" up for sale to the backers yet, while last year they sold an $750 ship without wait. As I wrote before, CIG brought in numerous very well known companies as sponsors during CitizenCon. And last but not least, funding isn't an issue because CIG operates as a live company, meaning they plan based on how much money they're bringing in per month, per year, and plan based off that. If funding was really "tanking" and once again, it's not, with CIG having one very consistent thing very well that everyone can agree upon, which is raising money, one can assume they're prepared for it.

As for release dates, CIG has hit their quarterly patch dates this year for the most part. They delivered OCS and bind-culling on time, Hurston is delayed by a few weeks but the release dates have stuck, their putting new content into the game every 3 months and the community is enjoying it, playing the game a lot more regularly.

Now about Zambayoshi saying CIG produces mundane tech, I mean, I think Durante would disagree about the quality of work they've put into the game so far. And if Durante is impressed by the work they're doing, I think most people would take his word over someone who just posted something ridiculously off-base in his last post and now again has just posted a clear lie.

You can see that Zambayoshi is clearly lying when he says that fans say CIG "invented" OCS, when we posted an extensive interview by CIG developers in our own OT saying they didn't invent the technology that OCS is, they're expanding on the tech that OCS is based on, by delivering a universe over a network and the complexity comes within the scale, nesting and having to transmit this all over the network with persistence working for all players.

An IMPARTIAL OBSERVER would probably know something about that, but Zambayoshi is not impartial at all. He wants to see this game's demise, just as much as this community wants its to succeed.

Also, some people are excited about realistic horse testicle simulation in RDR2, all the power to them, maybe I think that's quite a mundane detail ;). People who follow Star Citizen will naturally be more interested in the technology side of things based on the deep dives we get into the development and all the technical hurdles they've had to overcome, and continue to overcome.

I don't paint myself to be an impartial observer, I don't have to lie to anyone. I want to see this game succeed, my friends play this game, some of my friends work on this game, this is the only game I see having the potential to be the dream game that we as a community and even the development team always wanted. I don't think this is a scam, I don't think progress is too slow, I don't think that CIG is milking me or the community, I don't think there's feature creep. I don't encourage anyone to back the game unless they're willing to lose the money they put into it, to try and support the game, wait until it's done. Nobody is perfect, they've made mistakes in the past and will do so in the future just like any video game company will, there will be more missteps. I'm disappointed deeply with the lack of diversity in Squadron 42, I would love for both games to be magically finished up and delivered today, and everyone would love the development to go faster ~ especially CIG.

But I'll quote Zambayoshi here : "Desperation can lead to delusion and defensiveness." and I think based off the money that CIG is raising and the things they're accomplishing, only one side here is getting desperate. Probably the one that posts misleading graphs about funding taking, but I'll leave that up to whoever's reading this to decide. All the while, please do feel bad for us poor, vulnerable, manipulated backers who will continue to plough money into this game even 10 years from now or something like that.
too long, didn't scam
/s

I've honestly heard that it was a scam from even friends of mine and it just makes me scratch my head. People that brought in at 30bux and are getting just about... everything, I think? How scammed do you feel right now? is RSI milking your bloated fat wallet with Big Thick Ships every few months? Do you think it's a scam if you just backed it, will get it, and didn't drop a dime in? Do you miss that 30 dollars for paying for 'vaporware'?

Jfc, if i paid 30 bux for the scope of this game i'd wonder how I got away with it. I don't own the game, but just from what I've seen and what I personally like in games and from watching some streams already out there, even just that 30 bux would get you quite a few hours of something fairly interesting, if incomplete.

I'll sit here, cash in hand, waiting for my new computer to kick in, then ill snag up this thing. The literal only thing i'm not real savvy about this game? the whole hollywood actor thing. I never really follow actors and the like so all of those go over my head. If yall gonna call this a scam, please explain yourselves more than 'its taking forever' because there sure is a lot more game here than there was of Final Fantasy XV was, 6 years into its own development. And I love that game, all of it's faults included.
 
Oct 25, 2017
589
Star citizen people, is the Alpha actually worth playing now? I backed it forever ago and just put it on hold waiting for it to get updated to a point where it was fun and playable. By playable I mean are the performance issues resolved enough ( I can handle some jank but it was garbage for a while) and are there enough things to do currently where it is an enjoyable experience?
I would say wait a few more weeks, I'll write your name down and ping you. The performance issues are resolved in this build, significantly, but they haven't added in the massive planet/city in the demo we saw yet. They'll also be adding in renting ships when the city is in, so you won't need to actually buy a ship with money to enjoy a particular piece of gameplay.

As for whether there are enough things to do, I would say currently no. I've been signing on everyday and despite the crashes, I enjoy mining and trying out some missions for an hour or two, but I wouldn't say there's enough content for the typical person to keep them engaged for a long time. Now, this might change when they add Hurston since they're adding new missions, and new mission givers, and of course new things to do will be added over time. The community is quite pleased with how the quarterly patches have held up this year so far.
 
Oct 25, 2017
172
I would say wait a few more weeks, I'll write your name down and ping you. The performance issues are resolved in this build, significantly, but they haven't added in the massive planet/city in the demo we saw yet. They'll also be adding in renting ships when the city is in, so you won't need to actually buy a ship with money to enjoy a particular piece of gameplay.

As for whether there are enough things to do, I would say currently no. I've been signing on everyday and despite the crashes, I enjoy mining and trying out some missions for an hour or two, but I wouldn't say there's enough content for the typical person to keep them engaged for a long time. Now, this might change when they add Hurston since they're adding new missions, and new mission givers, and of course new things to do will be added over time. The community is quite pleased with how the quarterly patches have held up this year so far.
Thanks. I don't need a lot of content to stay engaged, I'm used to alphas and such that have to add content, I just want there to be enough to do where it feels worth the time investment right now. I'll wait for Hurston and see how things look there.
 
Oct 25, 2017
589
too long, didn't scam
/s

I've honestly heard that it was a scam from even friends of mine and it just makes me scratch my head. People that brought in at 30bux and are getting just about... everything, I think? How scammed do you feel right now? is RSI milking your bloated fat wallet with Big Thick Ships every few months? Do you think it's a scam if you just backed it, will get it, and didn't drop a dime in? Do you miss that 30 dollars for paying for 'vaporware'?

Jfc, if i paid 30 bux for the scope of this game i'd wonder how I got away with it. I don't own the game, but just from what I've seen and what I personally like in games and from watching some streams already out there, even just that 30 bux would get you quite a few hours of something fairly interesting, if incomplete.

I'll sit here, cash in hand, waiting for my new computer to kick in, then ill snag up this thing. The literal only thing i'm not real savvy about this game? the whole hollywood actor thing. I never really follow actors and the like so all of those go over my head. If yall gonna call this a scam, please explain yourselves more than 'its taking forever' because there sure is a lot more game here than there was of Final Fantasy XV was, 6 years into its own development. And I love that game, all of it's faults included.
I have to say I gave CIG a lot more money than 30 bucks and I feel happy with how much I gave, right now we have a pretty amazing foundation to build the game on with OCS in place which has fixed A LOT of performance issues, not all of them, but a good rig runs this game good now. They can do a lot with this game and I'm very confident that they're going to be adding a lot in the coming year and beyond.

Any amount helps fund the game, but yeah, I think most of the people who paid 30 dollars are happy. Everyone gets a much better game than what we envisioned when SC started development with 8 people. We're at 500+ now, and it's exciting to be apart of this road.

Look forward to seeing you in SC when you get that new PC!
 
Oct 25, 2017
589
I didn't know they started selling the two games separately.

What does this mean for original backers? Do they get both games? I backed the original Kickstarter, and haven't kept up with the news much.
It was always two games, but sold as 1 package, Squadron 42 the single player game, and SC the MMO. If you backed in the original kick-starter you have both.
 
Nov 1, 2017
1,694
I just don't see this (the MMO game) being as fair as a sub based MMO with these ship prices. I can't see it being a reasonable grind for a $20 one, let alone a $330 one. While the SC backers know it's to invest in the game, will they be willing to allow those pricey ships to be more easily available once the game releases? I wonder.

I'm only interested in Squadron 42 at this stage because of my doubts with the MMO.
 
It's hilarious that people like Zambayoshi will masquerade themselves as impartial observers, the bastions of rational thought, who conduct thought experiments on where SC will be 6 years from now. People like him, who have spent years of their lives dedicated to talking shit about a game they don't like, who have coordinated together to spread their nonsense across multiple forums, have doxxed developers and once harassed Chris Roberts' wife so much that she had to leave twitter, will try and paint people just excited for a game to come out and watch it be developed as irrational. Now I'm not saying Zambayoshi himself has done any of that, but certainly there is a group of people who love to paint themselves as impartial while trying to do everything they can to discourage both backers and developers, and even spouses I suppose from enjoying a game.
Woah, is that true Zambayoshi did all that stuff? That's a really serious thing.

Edit: wait, you're saying he has not done any of that stuff while at the beginning you said he did it? The heck?
 
Nov 2, 2017
82
I just don't see this (the MMO game) being as fair as a sub based MMO with these ship prices. I can't see it being a reasonable grind for a $20 one, let alone a $330 one. While the SC backers know it's to invest in the game, will they be willing to allow those pricey ships to be more easily available once the game releases? I wonder.

I'm only interested in Squadron 42 at this stage because of my doubts with the MMO.
The problem is that Squadron 42 relies very heavily on the mechanics being developed in Star Citizen. Leaving aside all the VA, writing and mo-cap (which has apparently now been finished), the biggest barriers to SQ42 being released are similar to the ones holding up development of SC. If SC were fully functional (give or take bits and pieces like professions, which might not be required for SQ42) then SQ42 could conceivably be released at any time. The fact that SC is in such a primitive state mechanically suggests that SQ42 is still some way away.

In terms of the ship prices, I think it's fair for CIG to sell ship jpgs at high prices to backers in order to support development. Backers are under no illusion that the jpgs they are buying will be available anytime soon in game, and they know that the high prices are quite simply to fund development of the game(s). Most backers I've heard from are not against ships being available for a reasonably attainable amount of in-game currency. It would not be in CIG's interest to gate off ships, particularly as it would give the impression that SC is 'pay to win'. I'm sure there are a few elitists who want to be the only ones with Javelins or Bengals (whenever these are implemented in-game), but by and large I think backers would not want to prevent others from enjoying (for a reasonable time investment) something they themselves might have paid thousands of dollars to obtain.
 
Oct 25, 2017
589
Woah, is that true Zambayoshi did all that stuff? That's a really serious thing.

Edit: wait, you're saying he has not done any of that stuff while at the beginning you said he did it? The heck?
I never said he did anything other than pretend to be impartial when he clearly isn't, and blatantly lie about a number of things.
 
Oct 25, 2017
589
I just don't see this (the MMO game) being as fair as a sub based MMO with these ship prices. I can't see it being a reasonable grind for a $20 one, let alone a $330 one. While the SC backers know it's to invest in the game, will they be willing to allow those pricey ships to be more easily available once the game releases? I wonder.

I'm only interested in Squadron 42 at this stage because of my doubts with the MMO.
The majority of backers only have a starter package, or slightly upgraded ship.
 
Jun 1, 2018
1,083
To backers that already play the available content, how is the performance? Or, which kind/level of build do I need to run it? Cpu, Gpu and RAM?
Performance is amazing right now, you need 16gb ram.

I used to get 25/30 fps and now im getting 50-70fps in 4k

edit: the patch is only in ptu right now, not on live servers yet
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,004
The problem is that Squadron 42 relies very heavily on the mechanics being developed in Star Citizen. Leaving aside all the VA, writing and mo-cap (which has apparently now been finished), the biggest barriers to SQ42 being released are similar to the ones holding up development of SC. If SC were fully functional (give or take bits and pieces like professions, which might not be required for SQ42) then SQ42 could conceivably be released at any time. The fact that SC is in such a primitive state mechanically suggests that SQ42 is still some way away.

In terms of the ship prices, I think it's fair for CIG to sell ship jpgs at high prices to backers in order to support development. Backers are under no illusion that the jpgs they are buying will be available anytime soon in game, and they know that the high prices are quite simply to fund development of the game(s). Most backers I've heard from are not against ships being available for a reasonably attainable amount of in-game currency. It would not be in CIG's interest to gate off ships, particularly as it would give the impression that SC is 'pay to win'. I'm sure there are a few elitists who want to be the only ones with Javelins or Bengals (whenever these are implemented in-game), but by and large I think backers would not want to prevent others from enjoying (for a reasonable time investment) something they themselves might have paid thousands of dollars to obtain.

The last major feature holding up Squadron 42 was OCS (which is in the current 3.3 build and they are finishing it up). Chris stated as much on stage. The other base features that are needed for Star Citizen are in fact not needed for Squadron 42. Not only that but the priority actually has been the other way around. Base tech, ships and functionality needed for Squadron 42 were developed first and then pushed to Star Citizen. So not only have you been totally wrong you are also spreading this nonsense around as if you actually know what you are talking about. It seems as if the assessment of you spreading FUD holds up.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
1,493
Sweden
The problem is that Squadron 42 relies very heavily on the mechanics being developed in Star Citizen. Leaving aside all the VA, writing and mo-cap (which has apparently now been finished), the biggest barriers to SQ42 being released are similar to the ones holding up development of SC. If SC were fully functional (give or take bits and pieces like professions, which might not be required for SQ42) then SQ42 could conceivably be released at any time. The fact that SC is in such a primitive state mechanically suggests that SQ42 is still some way away.
I haven't followed this game or isn't a backer, but they did just say that the majority (and biggest) of the technical hurdles are now gone.
 
Dec 14, 2017
255
WTF kind of attitude is this? Do you understand that people can make their own decisions and don't have to agree with you, why does that piss you off? Just because YOU feel like this game will be unfinished, just because YOU feel like I'm not playing a game when I've been launching it everyday for the past two weeks, just because YOU feel like the progress isn't enough doesn't mean ANYONE else has to feel like you and you shouldn't hold your feelings as gospel for an entire community who can think and decide for themselves. I have no idea what possess people to have this kind attitude attached to this game. Do you go into every other thread about games and tell people they shouldn't like the game they're playing, that it pisses you off people are having fun because you might not be? I don't particularly like PUBG or Fortnite, I don't think it's a compelling game for me, I feel like they could have put out a better game than what they did, and I feel like the whole Battle Royale experience is a "small part" of what should be an overall game. I don't see why I would ever go to a thread dedicated to talking about PUBG or Fortnite and tell them that PUBG scammed them, that they could have bought a better game, or that I think Fortnite is milking them for their money and hasn't given them substantial updates every "season". I also would be talking out of my ass (like most of the people who talk about Star Citizen on this forum) because I have no idea what Fortnite added last season, which is why I don't talk about Fortnite. I don't know why I would ever feel pissed off about someone buying the starter pack or whatever it's called in Fortnite, my attitude is let people enjoy what they want, let people have fun, and I can have my own fun as well.

The idea that CIG is maniacally milking all our money will only showing "a taste here and there" is just insulting to both the developers of this game who work tirelessly on trying to deliver what the community wants, and the community who really just wants to enjoy a video game like everyone else on this forum, even if we have to wait. We're not brainless idiots throwing money at nothing, and CIG aren't evil masterminds sitting on some investment and laughing.

Jesus man, you are taking it too personally.

I don't like the way the development and funding of this game is being handled. I feel like it is a scam in the sense that they are finding ways to keep getting money when I don't think the game will ever deliver on what it promises and seems like it's never coming out. People seem to be forever paying for an alpha.

I never spoke badly of you or anyone else that funded the game. I talk badly about the developer and the way they are managing the game and the development.

This isn't an official thread about the game. It's a thread about how much money they were given recently. I came here and expressed my opinion on it, and my opinion is that the whole thing is bullshit and unethical.

You don't agree, fine. I'm not imposing my opinion on anyone, but I think II hav the right to have it and say it in this forum and thread. I was a bit of an asshole in my first post and apologized for it, but this is a subject that grinds my gears. I would never post on the OT for this game something like I did here. (Or anything else for that matter)

If you funded the game and feel like you are getting your money's worth, then great.
If my opinion is in any way offensive to you then I don't know what to say.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,789
I never said he did anything other than pretend to be impartial when he clearly isn't, and blatantly lie about a number of things.
Sneaking in a "'I'm not saying this person did this" caveat is irrelevant when you literally say that they are the same kind of person that doxxed the developers and harassed Chris's wife to the point she left twitter.
 

Shy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,428
I don't like the way the development and funding of this game is being handled. I feel like it is a scam in the sense that they are finding ways to keep getting money when I don't think the game will ever deliver on what it promises and seems like it's never coming out. People seem to be forever paying for an alpha.
That's not what scam means.