Star Citizen will be free to play November 23-30

Do you even understand how ridiculous this statement is, either you are incredibly ignorant or willfully blind.

None of the games you mentioned were funded by hundreds of millions of dollars of public money and none of them charged egregious amounts of money for 'content' long before they were even released.

Please, if you are going to make comparisons, stick with apples to apples, not apples to velvet covered lawnmowers sold only in Kinshasa.

Thx

 

obviously they did, and they also received the backlash from their backing community which they deserved.

but then again its not like a lot of studios tried to achieve what they are doing. its not like the AAA games we see today are pushing the boundaries, and if they do then they only push the boundaries of consoles and if we are lucky then we don't receive a piss poor PC port.

the thing is: no one is forced to back the game. as one user mentioned you can get into the game for 40$. lets be honest: most people here at guru3d spend more on cables, fans, mouses and so on. yes you can also buy game packages for 27k$ but that's not something, you have to do. even if you did and lets say you are flying a hammerhead now: you will be still owned by every fighter, because such ships are pretty much useless when flying solo (you cant fire any guns as it has only manned turrets).

to be hones (as a software developer, but not related to gaming), for me the most interesting part of this whole project is the open development. never did i have the chance to view behind the curtain of such a massive development with it's pitfalls. and there were a lot of those and some of them could have been avoided some of them not. but this is the part which interests me most. to see how problems on such a big scale are handled and solved - and they did a lot of solving by now.

 

no they took money from publishers. and then publishers decided the boundaries of the games and the release date and the scope (DLC anyone, unfinished games anyone, not the games the developer or the fans imagined anyone?). do you truly say that publishers like EA are benefiting the gaming community? think twice before you answer with yes

your argumentation is pointless, because then you would have to stop any kickstarter project. and i was nowhere refering to funding in my post, but to the development time. so my post stays valid.

you started to bring the orange (or more precisely "velvet covered lawnmowers sold only in Kinshasa" ) into the comparison...

 

No, I don't think EA benefits the gaming community, what's your point exactly?

EA doesn't ask me to pre fund their games, they produce games and I decide whether I am going to buy them or not.

My argument is perfectly legitimate, what you think notwithstanding

 

Look I don't know if it's a good comparison or not but community/crowd funding is not a new concept - it's been around forever. CIG specifically stated the ship pricing would be high because they want people to know they are buying it to support the development of the game and not just get a ship.

You can buy into the game for $40 and never spend another penny. And as I and butterwaach stated there isn't much advantage to buying the ships anyway as most of them are multicrew. The big organizations split the price over dozens of members and those guys are dedicated enough to know what they are spending their money on.

I think the point of the comparison is that 5+ years of development isn't that long for what they are doing. Plenty of games by established studios have taken longer to ship less ambitious games.

 

@Denial

I totally agree that 5+ years is not that long if we are talking purely about development, no argument there.

 

your argument was based on funding, which is nowhere mentioned in my post.

also did CIG/RSI ask you to fund their game? are you not in power to decide whether you want to fund SC/SQ42? are you forced to buy in? how about any other kickstarter, do you place the same mistrust in those? once the games are released, is anything obstructing you to decide, just the same way as with any other shitty EA game, if you want to buy it? doesn't EA and all the other publishers push for pre release buys? aren't those companies using and pushing ingame buys and micro transactions?

sorry but i'm still not really convinced by anything you have argued so far. and again, may i remind you, i wasn't refering to funding in my original post.

 

I love how people adding "AAA game" in this thread. Does it mean AlphaAlphaAlpha? The problem with star citizen is that it most likely will never get finished as they keep adding new stuff that "sponsors" are asking for. Therefore if it continues this way it will be in "forever-alpha" state.
These kind of "free weekends" are designed to attract more NEW people to the game and get more money. And here is where the problem lies. Since it is player funded and not on a set budget, devs have no incentive to finish this game as this way money keeps flowing and will never run out.

 

No, because simply put, Star Citizen would not exist without public funds, these funds have been amassed by 'convincing' the public that at some point there will be this all encompassing space experience that will be unparalleled in scope and depth.

Roberts & Co have taken an incredibly large amount of public money based on promises and to this point they have delivered little more than a few glorified tech demos and a lot of very well produced videos.

They continue to take in large amounts of money on that very feeble foundation.

Understand, I hope this turns out well, I hope it is everything the backers want it to be and more, I'm not here to tear down anybody's dreams.

All I'll say is this, if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

If there is anything in recent history that this particular statement applies to, it's Star Citizen.

For the sake of clarity, I cannot argue that you did not mention financing but nevertheless, it is a massive part of the process where SC is concerned, so trying to discount it doesn't make it any less relevant although I concede that you did not mention it.
​

 

you see, now we are talking! yes i give you the point that is solely based on the trust of the community! and yes it can go wrong. but i rather throw my money at something ambitiousand big than at EA!

and while i think it's so much more than a tech demo by now, you will have to be convinced by yourself. and as the article states there is a free flight week coming up from 23. november til 30. november. give it a try, it costs you nothing.

i'm not even posting my referal code here, because i'm no advocate for spreading this game nor its funding. but before people ultimately decide its a scam, give it a go. its still an alpha, there are still tons of bugs, there is still a lot of unfinished functionality or simply not yet implemented functionality, but there is also potential for greatness and for something which we haven't seen for years on PCs. boundaries of the possible being shattered, not held back by financial return of investment of publishers, who just don't give a frack about the gamers and just want heir money. also ist something which is being made for the PC, not some shitty console advocating to be 4K where in reality they are just simply up scaling the image.

and if you are just a little interested in the technologies which are being used in the game, there is no other game where you will find such in depth info about the development.

 

sigh, if you don't like it then just move on, why do the skeptics have to constantly talk about something they clearly don't like so much? I have enjoyed all of Chris Roberts' games, he has a PROVEN gaming track record. This is not Dayz stand alone were the original creator jumped ship and little development happened.

The scope of this game is absolutely massive. the typical publisher could never build this game, as they don't care about building something this complex as it wouldn't make them more money. they rather regurgitate the same tripe we have been playing for the last decade. Also remember, these same global publishers have an interest in these types of crowdfunding to not succeed as it would upset their methods of control of market and resources.

Rome was not built in a day. I am glad I got in when I did. my 40 bucks will buy both games (SQ42 and SC universe) when released and I still get to enjoy all the alpha and beta builds in the meantime. The development has been very open IMHO; when there are issues they are transparent. You don't have to buy ships, no one is forcing you to. you can buy the base package and enjoy it now.

 

Bud, I would totally love a game like this, that is why I am very serious when I say I hope that it works out.

I am also very skeptical by nature and even more so when there is so much money involved.

Sadly, money makes people do stupid things.

I am not calling it a scam, not yet anyway

I've played it (what there is of it) and I have to be honest and say that I was not really that impressed with what I saw, obviously that is totally subjective.

Again, I hope that it ends up being a great game, for now, we will just have to wait and see.

@holler

This is a public forum, it is not the 'Star Citizen Appreciation Society', go to the RSI forums if all you want to hear is praise.

When it's public money, you'd better believe that it is going to be heavily scrutinized.

 

People either hate it or love it it seems , well i will wait till is released and i will decide then but i hope it comes out great.

 

all valid points - even though i don't know when you gave it a go last time. they (the DEVs) truly worked their asses off this year to keep their scheduled release dates and to improve performance. and from a software development point of view i have to say that what they achieved with the OCS technologies so far, which is one of core backbone foundations of the game (and is only implemented/published on the client side so far - but i'm not really sure on this to be honest - so please don't quote me on that), is massive. its the first time when playing in the PU feels like fluid gamin (FPS wise).

now if i see correctly that you are running a RTX 2080TI im pretty sure that your system would rock the current build (until you crash on an asteroid, a planet, another player or the game itself crashes). before OCS not even you system was able to push frameates which we consider "playable". all i'm saying is: hopp in for free, test it and see how much it has improved. you can still remain sceptical afterwards

 

well but that seems to be true for anything in the internet nowadays. there is only black and white, good and bad, trump and democrats, and so on ...


<-- also i just noticed how outdated my specs are!

 

Correct me if im wrong but people buying ships right now are only doing that to continue backing the game and all those ships will be available in game with in game currency right? So the whole notion of it being a pay to win game is just nonsense.

 

Fibre mate you need more fibre

The hate is not so much the change of scope, the amount of money they have taken, the concept that it is or is not a scam or that it is a mis managed project with goals that constantly change and through that change will never see any form of formal release. I suspect a lot of the hate comes from the way they have done some seriously back handed shady shite with the terms and conditions. Yes they asked the community if it was okay for them to get lost looking for Pandora's gold but what about the folk that wanted the project they originally asked for the one that has turned in to SQ42 and should have been out some two years ago? Did they get offered a refund of their investment no they changed their term and conditions and did whatever they could to back pedal on giving refunds. Now yes you can argue it's an early access, a kickstarter you invest at your risk but here's the thing if you're back some nickel and dime operation who changes their goals and acts like a dick when you ask for the money back you can at least look at it from the point of view well they haven't really raked it in have they. SC has earned some £200million if someone is asking for a refund because they were not happy with the change of goals then give them their f*cking money back and stop acting like a bunch of underhanded dicks. To put it simply even EA isn't that bad (now I dunno what their current policy on refunds is so feel free to update me on weather they still act like underhanded ass hats if you ask for a refund or if they actually do give the refund now)

The other thing that annoyed me, is the payment model. This limited edition buy it now at this stupid price for a ship is plain and simple seriously dodgy in every single context. Now we aren't talking about a one off piece of work created with uber rare materials by an artist who has since died. I.e giving it a genuine rarity, we are talking about a piece of digital equipment that is rare because some guy stuck a 10 in the data base instead of a 1,000,000. The ship should be priced at a value that represents that cost to develop it, the actual resource and man power put in to it's design and implementation within the game rather than by some artificially generated scarcity.

One of the other factors that also annoys me about SC is the fanbase specifically this kind of argument

The defence that because it is trying to do something that a triple AAA publisher isn't trying to do that it deserves to be given some lee way or benefit of the doubt. No, sorry but no, yes pre orders exist but no triple AAA publisher is developing games by asking for the cash up front, they developer their games based on self investment from the cash they made on their previous releases. The way SC has been funded means that it should be held more accountable for what it is doing, for when it misses it's goals and for it's constantly changing scope and objectives BY the people that have invested. If EA takes seven years to make their next game and constantly change the goals and objectives doesn't matter to me since I am not forking out cash for it until I see the game on the shelf but if I've paid in to a project based on a kickstarter then I want them to answer why they haven't done what they have done, why they keep changing the goals and if I am not happy I should be able to take my money back especially when the scope and cash amounts have changed so significantly from the initial investment promises.

and just to rial the SC fans up

Still too expensive.

 

Yah, I'll install it again at some point, to see where it's at

 

Well, the free week gives everyone interested a chance to see what it's about that have not done so.

 

Remember duke nukem forever? DNF=did not finish. and we all joked it never would be.
Then what 10+ years later 2 studio and count engines later it got finished? and end product was something that shouldnt of been released and it showed. yah I cant help but think same thing, you might be eating that pc 15 more years down there road....

There was time I was interested in this game cause it was the guy that did the made certain space combat series back in the day. but the moment I saw "kickstarter" and found out then got 100+ mill in donations to make the game I were still asking for more? just no.

in 15 years let me know if it been finished and how long it took, which by that time there will be newer space combat game that took less time to make and look and plays better. For those that missed yes I being sarcastic. Kickstart just way for developers not you there own money.

I dont wont pay to fund a games develop, if it something I interred I will buy it when it release. providing it dont take so long that I lose interest