Star Citizen: $48,000 is only $334/month for 12 years

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Star Citizen: $48,000 is only $334/month for 12 years

«‹›2 »

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

Tane

# ¿ Sep 6, 2019 13:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 19, 2024 11:37

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

Neurotic Roleplay posted:

jesus christ how broke is your brain if you keep up with and talk about this dumb loving game. and no, you aren't doing it "ironically"

Tell us how mad you aren't, thanks.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2019 14:38

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

Fargin Icehole posted:

Oh, it's back.

Well i gotta say this game is probably one of the worst cases of blind hype i have ever seen. Can't think of a game that even comes close to this amount of straight devotion

No Man's Sky was pretty close in terms of peak intensity, if not greater, but the sustain here is insane.

Though they've been losing people lately, especially now that they announced yet another delay to a supposed "firm date".

# ¿ Sep 6, 2019 15:43

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

Caros posted:

I'm so confused. This was announced in 2012, meaning it is halfway to duke nukem forever levels of development hell.

Yet people are still paying thousands of dollars for spaceship jpgs? They are still announcing these jpgs? I just sort of assumed star citizen quietly folded up and went bankrupt around 2015. You are telling me this is still a thing?

I feel like I need to go lay down.

They also got a capital infusion last year!

# ¿ Sep 6, 2019 19:26

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

Klyith posted:

(Also for some reason the edgiest of edgelords are among the last to leave a dying video game community. I don't know why but I've seen it repeated a couple times.)

I think they're clinging on to hope that if whoever they're following manages to somehow survive, they'll either be rewarded for their loyalty or able to reshape policy in a way favorable to them (which does tie into the first).

# ¿ Sep 8, 2019 14:29

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

How long till Chris demands ray tracing

# ¿ Sep 18, 2019 14:13

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

There's an argument to be made. Fast travel does have an impact on how big a gamespace feels. Time-distance adds significance to geography, to placement of assets, and so on and so forth.

But CiG's approach is just insane. The majority of SC community is apparently all in on big ones go faster for no god drat reason other than maybe it makes their dicks hard for their big ships to be better than everyone else. The times to get to anything useful and therefore accomplish anything in game are totally bonkers. You can't even go make some tea while in quantum space because of interdictions and random equipment failures.

The notion that small ships should just be sticking to one planet for their game-space is asinine in a game that wasn't even going to have planets as anything but a single landing zone. Flying in Quantum doesn't even look fun. It coulda been though.... *waves at Infinity Battlespace*

Let's compare and contrast, shall we?

Elite: Dangerous has two modes of fast travel:
1. Super Cruise
2. Hyperspace Jump

Super Cruise is the same across all the ships: You accelerate at the same rate and decelerate at the same rate, based on a bunch of factors. An Anaconda set to 75% throttle and a Sidewinder set to 75% throttle will get from entry to Hutton at the roughly the same time (the Sidey will win by virtue of aligning it's vector quicker, but that's besides the point). It's intrasystem only.

Hyperspace Jumps are between star systems. There's no way to go from Sol to Alpha Centauri without doing so (your ship gets blown up if you try). The distance depends on two major factors: your FSD rating and your mass. Each ship has a Frame Shift Drive, which can be upgraded in both rating and engineering to increase the range. You can then strip down the rest of the ship to min/max your range. Some ships, like dedicated haulers, have a pitiful range when hauling goods, others, like dedicated exploration ships, can go 60+ light years in a single jump. Including small ships.

Eve Online has four methods of FTL travel:
1. Warp
2. Gates
3. Jump Drives
4. Wormholes

Like Elite, #1 is analogous to super cruise: it's intrasystem only. However, you can only go from your start point to a point that's either a landmark or a bookmark; you can't warp to random point in space without having a bookmark there. Smaller ships warp faster, though you can use fleet warps to force the smaller ships to warp with the rest of the fleet. Interceptors have the fastest warp speed, allowing them to get in ahead of their buddies and prevent the target from warping off.

#2 and #3 are intersystem methods of travel. Gates are a system to system device, meaning gate A always goes to the same system. Always. #3 allows you to jump to any place a cyno beacon is lit, provided the target beacon is lit by someone in your fleet and you're in range. Only capital ships, jump freighters, and black ops battleships have jump drives. Titans and black ops can also create jump portals, with Titans for all sub-capital ships, and black ops for anything capable of fitting a covert cloak.

#4 is a weird duck, as wormholes, while open, function similar to gates (a given wormhole, until it despawns, will always lead to the same systems), but they have a limited lifespan in both time and mass allowed through.

Star Citizen:
1. Quantum Travel.

We don't have intersystem travel yet (I think), so QT is the only one here. It functions very similar to Eve's warp, but you can only warp to major landmarks, and once there, or close enough, a minor landmark.

Oh and bigger, more expensive ships are somehow faster.

iospace fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Oct 3, 2019

# ¿ Oct 3, 2019 20:30

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

I come bearing a message from Beet:

# ¿ Oct 4, 2019 03:26

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

Agony Aunt posted:

So, Cobra TV is using the "what is release anyway?" defense.

I think its really time someone did a review of SC as though its a released product.

I'm sure it will bring the "ITS ALPHA" horde screaming in, but they can't have it both ways. Either its a partially finished buggy alpha or its a quality product that can be considered released.

Agreed. It's common to point out the bugs in response to the "MOST FUN EVAR" posts, and get "IT'S AN ALPHA" in response.

I mean, alphas are buggy messes by definition, and it's entirely possible to enjoy yourself in a buggy mess, but the sunk coast fallacy is strong here.

# ¿ Oct 15, 2019 14:34

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

So I have a question: since funding per backer is increasing, which means more backers are starting with higher pledges or whales are shoveling more in.

What this does is make me curious about a graph of backers over time. I want to see how this looks compared to funding over time.

# ¿ Oct 22, 2019 04:33

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

So, Elite announced that they were putting their next big feature (player owned carriers) on hold in favor of a serious bug hunt. From what I can tell, most are pleased with this, as there are a bunch of bugs that potentially break the game.

Naturally, someone asked about their track record with releases, and another goon provided the goods:

Sanya Juutilainen posted:

Elite release: expected March 2014, released December 2014

No estimates were done - AFAIK - about further releases for seasons 1 and 2 (base and Horizons), but I'll try to follow "4 months per release" (so 3 releases a year) schedule. Remember, for these no dates were announced, so technically they were never late (at least I couldn't find any dates, feel free to fill them in if you know about some):
1.1: February 2015, on time
1.2: March 2015, on time
1.3: June 2015, on time
1.4: October 2015, on time
2.0: December 2015, on time
2.1: May 2016, "delayed" a month
2.2: October 2016, "delayed" a month
2.3: April 2017, "delayed" a month
2.4: September 2017, "delayed" a month

Beyond had a roadmap:
3.0: Q1 (February), on time, full
3.1: Q2 (June), on time, full
3.2: Q3 (August), on time, full
3.3: Q4 (December), on time, missing ice worlds and carriers

Post Beyond, the plans were split between 2020 update and smaller updates. these again had no given date, though we can again use the 4 months periods:
4.0: April 2019, on time
4.1: September 2019, a month late
4.2: December 2019, ???

In conclusion - so far, FDev's time management is really solid to me, they mostly hit their cycle and if it slips, then just barely (two to three weeks tops). Especially if you compare it to stuff like Valve time or Star Citizen's still not completely released 3.0 roadmap. There's an issue with ice planets and carriers, but I'll reserve my judgment on those to when they are released, tbh.

Funny, eh?

iospace fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Oct 24, 2019

# ¿ Oct 24, 2019 14:28

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

Tane

# ¿ Nov 5, 2019 16:53

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

TheAgent posted:

guess they had to switch to 720p

That's numberwang!

# ¿ Nov 23, 2019 15:05

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

Fidelitious posted:

Yeah I think y'all are being oversold on how 'bad' this was for CIG. Obviously it was the usual disaster but I expect that their annual funding will not crater, but just be a bit lower than usual.
The last time there was a finances analysis the understanding was that with the Calder's investment and assuming roughly normal pledge levels they can go at least another 2-3 years before their finances hit crisis level.

I see no reason for them to pack it in until they absolutely have to as it allows them to extract the most cash possible from the husk of the company.

I think it's more the cracks are really starting to show. I agree mostly that it's still got a year or two left, but the bottom cards look extremely shaky.

# ¿ Nov 24, 2019 20:04

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

Beet Wagon posted:

Call me crazy but I don't think he actually looks that bad? I haven't played it so it's hard to judge from a couple of still images but it looks like they got Cameron Monaghan pretty accurately modeled and then just sort of stylized some stuff. I can see where maybe the art direction is off-putting to folks but to me that looks way less upsetting than the Old Man Mark Hamill stuff CIG was showing off a while ago.

It's not photo realistic, therefore bad.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2019 16:17

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

AbstractNapper posted:

January 2017:

Source, might require archives access:
https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3800238&pagenumber=325&perpage=40#post467942665

When did 3.0 come out again?

# ¿ Nov 26, 2019 16:00

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

skeletors_condom posted:

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a significant overlap between Musk cultists and CIG cultists.

Been a perfect circle of a venn diagram for years now

# ¿ Nov 26, 2019 19:00

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

0 F is -17.78 C. Add in wind, and given downhill skiing will have wind, whether the weather provides it or the movement of the skier does, and you can get into dangerous territory pretty quick.

# ¿ Nov 26, 2019 21:18

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

echothreealpha posted:

How are they going to make that work.

*waves hands around*

# ¿ Nov 30, 2019 20:08

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

Why does the turbulent buyout feel like hush money?

# ¿ Dec 5, 2019 15:11

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

The best space A-10 is the Y-Wing :colbert:

# ¿ Dec 13, 2019 04:51

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

Tane

# ¿ Dec 19, 2019 16:06

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

Tane 2: tane harder

# ¿ Dec 19, 2019 21:56

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

Zzr posted:

Stop stealing taxes if it's to avoid them.

Jealous?

# ¿ Dec 19, 2019 23:54

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

Full Burn (of your money)

# ¿ Dec 21, 2019 19:44

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

Tane 3: electric tanealo

# ¿ Dec 24, 2019 05:15

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

TheAgent posted:

at this point I'm pretty fed up with an endless sea of railjack bugs in warframe and I'm gonna wait until they patch it (a lot) to play that mode

I have no idea how anyone can play SC for any amount of time without becoming incredibly frustrated

Have... to... own... the... haters!

# ¿ Dec 24, 2019 15:41

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

Tane 4: The Taning

# ¿ Dec 25, 2019 15:49

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

gently caress

# ¿ Dec 25, 2019 15:49

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

Agony Aunt posted:

You lose. Please report for deskeletonization immediately.

Nope.

# ¿ Dec 25, 2019 19:27

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

kilus aof posted:

In 2005 at e3 Sony released a Killzone 2 gameplay trailer they claimed was running on a PS3. Which was clearly a pre-rendered video especially because Guerrilla Games had only just received the PS3 dev kits. A lot of people called bull on that. Same poo poo happened with Madden 06. Now this wasn't the first time game companies had pulled this poo poo but this was right at the point Internet video had gone mainstream and the term bullshot was created because of those videos so I had a little hope this had enough momentum to stop this in its tracks. Of course I was wrong, really wrong. The games weren't punished in sales for blatant lies and their franchises just got bigger and bigger. And game companies to this day keep putting out bullshots.

Gamers as a group are dumb. You can explain things to them but you can't understand it for them. They complain all year that the e3 trailers didn't match the games released and then when the next e3 comes around will blindly jumped back on the hype train. Pretty pictures will always trick gamers.

Most, if not all, trailers that don't show obvious gameplay will have fine print at the bottom that says "not actual gameplay" (usually for pre rendered footage) or "in engine footage" (for something that's not gameplay).

# ¿ Dec 26, 2019 16:19