|
Wrecked Angle posted:'If I look into the blackness of space I can nearly hit 60fps' They should really try to license this new tech. I'm sure lots of others game developers would love this new paradigm. Who would have known that rendering nothing meant higher fps ?
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2025 11:15 |
|
|
Solarin posted:Reading between the lines here says there will be no player to player trading in the MVP They are going to cultivate the ambiguity around the MVP in order to not admit this is their SC "1.0" release. They have absolutely no incentive on ever acknowledging a release. It wouldn't make sense from a business perspective (they'd have to stop selling their virtual ships since it was only supposed to fund development until the release). It wouldn't make sense from a PR perspective (masses of fans being disapointed in the state of the game at launch). It wouldn't make sense from a legal perspective (I bought that ship in 2015, game is released, why isn't it in it ?). Reading between the lines in their interviews, they're preparing their community for the MVP. It's all there in the verbiage. And when someone will point out that the game is full of bugs / unstable / lack feature X, their community's response will inevitably be "but it's a WIP, it's not released yet". Win and win. They've litterally invented a new paradigm that allows them to get away with everything and their fans are applauding with their two hands. If that isn't genius, I dunno what it is. Nyast fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Nov 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
his nibs posted:Welcome. Nothing really exciting I'm afraid. I'm a 2012 backer and I liked the original vision when it was a small focused game, but I've had my doubts on the project for a long time, pretty much since the scope increase and the sale of virtual ships in 2014. Never bought any additional digital package and never will. In a way I'm pretty fascinated to see that Chris Roberts pulled off something that no other company in the world has been able to: selling pay-to-win digital good for a game that isn't even free to play. EA got some serious backlash with Battlefront 2 recently, but remember: it's not the first time ( or last time ) a company is trying. But not only CIG is doing it, it's also doing it for a game that isn't out yet. And that could turn out to be pretty bad. And for sums that are absolutely indecent, not just a couple dollars DLC. And the fans totally want more. It's really baffling. It makes me feel old, like I'm a dinosaur that doesn't understand the new generation of gamers anymore. And scared for the future of gaming. I wish they would have spared $5M out of the $165M+ they got ( a month or two of development time's worth of expenses nowadays ) and realized the original 2012 vision; then spend their extra $160M in whatever they wanted. It would have relieved and made the original backers happy. But it seems like it was too much to ask for. Nyast fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Nov 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
AP posted:They have to have a "release" or the 14 day refund clock in the EU never starts ticking, so anyone in the EU will continue to enjoy the ability to force them to refund. 3.0 is what they will have to use I believe (though they still have an issue with SQ42 which should be included), so assuming by some miracle they do get 3.0 out the door, they'll eventually have to admit, yup that's the released game. There'll be hundreds of "buts", "coming soon", "working on", "episode 2 will contain", "in the long run" etc but it won't matter at all. Refunds are only a fraction of their income though. They have the choice between releasing and stopping that income ( and the shitstorm coming with it ), or not releasing and living with the refunds. Which of the two do you think make more sense for a business ? Of course they could take the third option: releasing and breaking their promise to stop selling virtual spaceships to fund the game because "it's a release but not a really real one, we're not like those evil publishers that release and stop supporting their game, so since we'll continue working on it we'll continue selling spaceships". And I have a suspicion none of their fanbase will care. That'll just be the Nth broken promise on top of a hundred more. I partially pledged to the game in 2012 because of VR. I also have a "suspicion" it's not gonna be in their MVP.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
peter gabriel posted:Same here and after making it 'work' in vorpx let me tell you, there is noooooooo loving way VR is ever coming to this game Well even if they fix the eyes projection and the HUD somehow works, the real, real big thing is: how do you make it run at a decent framerate ? They can barely run at 30-60 fps in 1080p, and that's with a top-end computer. VR requires far more power. Ideally 90 Hz per eye; so unless they reached 180 fps in 1080p.. yeah they're never going to reach a half-decent framerate in VR. .. unless they wait another decade for computers and video cards to catch up.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Solarin posted:welcome to the fud campaign hate machine. The old turds, like me, pledged during the campaign in 2012. The young (and naive) ones are the ones currently funding the dream IMO. Nyast fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Nov 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Scruffpuff posted:That's all accurate, and also about 1% of what's wrong. The other 99% of the problem is Chris Roberts, "Director", thinks games are movies and he simulates what your perspective is by basically taping a camera to your forehead. Every headbob, every time he takes control of the camera, every immersion animation is a one-way trip to vomitsville. Of course those animations don't work in VR. But disabling them isn't hard. In fact you could easily fade to black and make the camera jump into the ship / cockpit / whatever. Of course that wouldn't align with CR's "vision", but all I'm saying is that at least there's an easy and cheap-to-implement solution to that problem. On the other hand, solving the framerate.. there's no solution to that. You either accept the current sub-par framerate and the induced headache/nausea, either wait until hardware catches up. I don't believe for one second they'll be able to optimize the engine/assets to reach a much higher framerate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
peter gabriel posted:It's not even just that really, you can have a great time in the Rift at 45 fps, Star Citizen can't even get near that. Which vision and design choices ? SC at the moment is like the Frankenstein monster. Everybody has a different idea in his mind of what the game is going to be. You can litterally go anywhere and see Star citizen fans making GBS threads on Elite: Dangerous for downtime, lack of action, and overall "being a borefest". And in the same community, other fans defending the 8-minutes quantum-drive we saw a month ago, saying they don't want travel to be too fast, because it's more immersive and they want to experience the real thing in realtime. The disconnect in the community is absolutely hilarious. It's gonna be really interesting the day they're gonna reconcile dreams with reality.. assuming it ever gets to that stage.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
The Titanic posted:I’m fairly sure we’re approaching the “buy your land on this planet!” And house building or apartment rentals on planet(s?) to cash in on the lingering money there. This. Once people start to get bored of ships ( or they run out of "exciting" jpegs they could think of ), they'll shift towards other things they can sell. Housing is the next logical step.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
starkebn posted:One of their big catch cries used to be that they wouldn't have to waste money on marketing. All the do is put out marketing videos. .. but but but.. marketing helps bring more people. And it's a MMO. So that's a good thing.. right ?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
no_recall posted:Current guesses for their black friday / anniversary week sale. (in millions). I'll bite: 4.6 millions. Edit: didn't see 4.5 was already "taken", so increased a bit. Nyast fucked around with this message at 13:28 on Nov 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
Sabreseven posted:Hmm, only watched about 20 seconds, but in that 20s I discovered that the only way to make a door open in 3.0 is to hammer the living fuckery out of the 'open door' popup and then look away from the door. Forget Prey 2017 and its mimics, Star Citizen has better antagonists. Doors and ramps and ladders. They're really dangerous. And benches too. Those are real traps. They'll glue your rear end and you won't be able to recover.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Sarsapariller posted:9. I took too long to get in my ship that I spawned at Port Olisar and the station spawned another ship INSIDE of mine. "If thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
It is incredibly funny to watch all these streams and look at the face of the streamers. The embarassed stares. The frowns. The sweatting. Words can lie, but facial expressions cannot 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
I've been watching all the streams since the 3.0 PTU "release", and it's absolutely hilarious. But the developer in me must be fair and mention that half of the bugs/issues seem related to poor server/network performance. Things such as massive input delays ( sometimes in the order of tens of seconds ), jittering / avatars / ships teleporting around, stuff bouncing or weird loss of control ( you don't touch anything but your ship still moves ): I'm pretty sure most of this is coming from their test server being overloaded. Does anybody know if they still use the 60+ player count limit ? Because if they do, my little finger tells me they're probably going to decrease it soon in order to keep the server from saturating. So half of these problems could easily be swept under the carpet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
FailureToReport posted:I honestly wanted CIG to pull it all off, I have played a LOT of early access titles, I've done a lot of closed testing for a lot of AAA games, I understand how Alpha's and Beta's USED to be, the problem with Star Citizen is the community/backers have completely redefined what all of these terms actually mean now, they only apply when it fits the Pro-CIG narrative and when they don't you can watch the community completely change the rules. These are the same guys that are making GBS threads over Battlefront 2 for EA's pay-to-win practise, yet see nothing wrong with buying hundreds+ of dollars of virtual spaceships for a game that will become pay-to-win too and that doesn't even exist yet. At least in BF2 you know what you get, while with SC you're gambling on the good faith of CR. These are the same guys that are making GBS threads over Elite:Dangerous for being a borefest, but applaud CR when it takes 8 mins to travel to a planet in the same solar system, because "much realism". These are the same guys that will explain to you that GTA V has been in production for 6+ years, conveniently forgetting that half of it is just pre-production with a much smaller team ( actual full production took 3 years, see wikipedia ) and that at year 6 you had a release, not an just an alpha.. And that all AAA games take 8 years in average and that anyways SC is much more ambitious so that it doesn't matter if it takes a decade.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Kylra posted:Also raising your landing gears makes you go 3x faster. I hope you're being sarcastic. They can't be that dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Dusty Lens posted:Well to be fair having your landing gear down generally means you're going to land and maybe you want finer control over what you're about to be doing with respect to moving towards solid objects. So it lowers the acceleration too ? Then that would make sense. That's like an auto flight assist in landing mode.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
BeigeJacket posted:lol. What did you chat about? Imagine the horror if we find out that Derek was actually the source of inspiration of Chris to come back and make a new space sim.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
Codezombie posted:64bit precision would be struggling at that range. I believe double precision will handle around around 1.e-15 before precision becomes an issue, the value in that picture is 9e15 so yeah, I'd really not want to be that far away from the *origin*. It is however possible that the player is *not* at the origin here, and the above value could be only (for example) 9e7 away from the origin itself, in which case its probably ok. This is because the Xe14(?) range of acceptable precision is a radius that describes a sphere around the origin, so that max would be Xe28 which is a fairly big number. Doing a quick test in my debugger, precision at this distance ( assuming viewer is at origin ) is at the order of 50 cm to 1 meter. So yeah, 64-bits precision wouldn't be enough. If you want a precision of the order of the millimeter, you could only handle up to 1/1000th of this distance. Edit: 9678516584585 Km is around 64523 AUs, which if I remember correctly, is 1 LY. So there we go, that distance showed in that pic is actually 1 LY. There shouldn't be a need for such precision within a solar system though. 1/1000th of a LY is still 64 AUs, which should be plenty enough. Nyast fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
MedicineHut posted:Yeah, that is what I thought. 1LY... but QT is just at 0,2c and I am pretty sure the 3.0 PTU was not launched 5 years ago. Also the part that does not quite add up yet is the gooncati claim that the ship was nearing actual planetary locations in the PTU (although forbidden as of yet). So either the PTU star system is YUGE and QT speed has jumped up by a significant factor, o the actual range is not taken from the origin, or the range figure is about something totally unrelated, or just wrong. Occam's Razor: just like the rest they hosed it up and the display is bugged.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Beet Wagon posted:The problem with putting Chris up on 10ftC every week and letting him say "yes" to every single suggestion ever made in the history of videogames is that when the final product comes out there's no possible way it can ever live up to the expectations (see: 3.0) these guys have spent five years creating in their own heads. Theorycrafting is all there is, so it's all you do (especially if you're trying to have some kind of youtube/twitch presence) until such time as you're proved wrong. There's going to be mountains of salt when they finally push out that final update and post a self-congratulatory "we made it to release!" video. There's never going to be a "release". Everything you just explained, CIG fully realizes. The only way to keep the money flowing is to keep the dream alive. It's not in their interest to call something a release and awaken people from their dreams.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
XK posted:It accounts for the mass of the gasses in the room, the cross sectional area of the doors, and the flow rate through the doors. Did you miss the memo from CR where he asked to change the pitch of your voice if you inhale Helium ?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Xaerael posted:TECHNICALLY HE DIDN'T LIE *waves hands like crazy* Technically he's right. Just like they're not selling land, they're also not selling ships. They're selling jpegs of a ship 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Allright, so you can claim land. Once you do, it'll just be a barren useless piece of terrain right ? So the only interest in acquiring a piece of land is for housing purposes. So it'd be logical that they'd start selling buildings next. How much ? Place your bets. Would be pretty fun if a single building was as expensive as a ship, like $500. Would love to see the face of the guys who got a land claim but couldn't afford a building that goes on it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
NoMas posted:so you cant build anything without owning that ship too? wow. But but but.. you can acquire that ship with in-game credits! So it's definitely not P2W !
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
DapperDon posted:The moment CIG does this, not only does their entire TOS go up in flames but also expect to see formal charges brought up against them. This is not a simple "things change in development" thing to be hand waved away. This is bait and switch my dude and that poo poo is illegal. Chris's kickstarter sales pitch was hung on a point of no subscription fees. It could be argued that it was a valid reason behind its success in funding. But it is not something that he can just ignore without opening the floodgates for liability. You mean like VR ? Cause if you refer to the original KS pitch, there are lots of things that have been changed / dropped already.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
trucutru posted:Soon: Not enough Fidelity. Wouldn't play
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
Truga posted:This "mmos are really expensive to run" is a myth perpetuated by the industry to get you to pay for subs so they can make more money. Just like lootboxes and "games are getting more expensive to make" (games have been getting cheaper to make for big companies like EA for like half a decade now). You do not understand game development.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
Raskolnikov posted:
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2017 14:03
|
|
sometimes the only winning move is to not
|
Golli posted:Getting a female version of every animation implemented into the game. The goal is to have a large batch of the Usable animation assets polished and finalized by the end of the year. Can't wait to see the crowd applaud for yet-another-innovative-never-the-seen-before feature: female characters ! Clap clap, +3 millions dollars !
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
TheAgent posted:they've only had one december higher than $5m Yeah but.. 1) Anniversary sales are not finished yet 2) SQ42 reveal should bring more funding than other years
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
trucutru posted:How do you know they have 400 people? IIRC they reported 470 excluding contractors, but then who knows what the truth is..
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2017 12:40
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:Videos of 3.0 being played wouldn't get a kickstarter off the ground right now, not when Elite exists, Dual Universe exists as a slick, smooth alpha, especially not when it's unashamedly a p2w title and especially when it has a fraction of the gameplay that even the launch version of NMS had. With worse graphics than all of them, with worse performance than all of them, worse physics, worse animations. I feel like they'd suceed, maybe with a bit less money, but still... You're forgetting people pledge for loving Chris Roberts and a dream. The reality of what they have to show is only secondary. And everybody loves to line up against the "evil publishers" storyline.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
Btw what is the date of the new SQ42 reveal, again ?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
TheAgent posted:luckily the virus I'm working on will kill every human in this world, letting the dolphins finally ascend to their rightful place as this worlds intelligent and benevolent custodians https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_dUmDBfp6k
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
So what's up with the alleged 3-dozen layoffs ? I thought a blog or more news was incoming ?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Enot posted:Why is Derek decompiling CIG's source code? Isn't that illegal? Derek is now doxxing CIG's code itself. That evil man.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2017 11:13
|
|
|
Toops posted:My favorite part is not that the server crashes just as he's arriving at the place he wanted to go, in the ship he wanted to be in (which probably took an hour), and instantly got a criminal record due to CIG's buggy bullshit "criminal" system. No. My favorite part is that he muses to his subs "hey, I wonder when I reconnect if I'll be at the same place in my ship because of persistence. Also, I'll probably still have my criminal record, due to persistence." I really really wish they got persistence. Imagine all these people stranded on planets because they parked their ship in a way they can't reach the ladder anymore. They'd log off, log back in, and still be stranded on the same planet, desperately calling for help in chat. And nobody would come, because the game is too unstable.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2017 11:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2025 11:15 |
|
|
The Titanic posted:It needs persistence and how they will handle character death as well as ship replacement. Objection sir ! Out of these $490, $489 are to support development and chris's dreams, to save pc gaming. So if anybody complains that they lost a $490 ship, make sure to remind them they were donating to fund the game, not buying an actual ship
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2017 20:26
|
|
