Over 10 Years After It Was Announced, Star Citizen’s Single-Player Squadron 42 Is ‘Feature Complete’ - IGN
ign.com
Over 10 Years After It Was Announced, Star Citizen’s Single-Player Squadron 42 Is ‘Feature Complete’ - IGN::Star Citizen developer Cloud Imperium Games has said Squadron 42, the single-player portion of its controversial space sim, is finally “feature complete”, over a decade after it was announced.
You are viewing a single comment
This game has taken so long that it's either money laundering, the devs are just incompetent, or they suffer from the inability to edit themselves down
I'm sure there have been mistakes, but calling them incompetent is a bit of a stretch. Yes, it's an absolutely eye watering amount of time and money, but they are trying to make an online universe with a high level of detail in which you can move between planets and all kinds of environments completely seamlessly. If they weren't trying to make something with such a high level of difficulty, then I suspect they would have released a finished product by now, but they are making stuff nobody has made before, at least not at this scale.
Perhaps inability to scale things back is a bit of a problem, but I think Chris Roberts realises he's not likely to get a chance to get a basically unlimited amount of money (in game dev terms) to make the ultimate dream game he and many other people always wanted, so I'd imagine that's the reason they are just going all out.
How come other ambitious early access type projects don't have this problem.
Beam.ng comes to mind, it's not complete, but the pricing is reasonable, the progress is consistent and plentiful, and the product has been in a very fun engaging state for years and years.
And beam.ng is an incredibly ambitious project aiming for very high performing and accurate solid body physics simulation.
I don't think Star citizen would get nearly the level of hate if they had a more sensical pricing scheme. $45 +$15 for the base game, ok makes sense, but then there are multiple subscription tiers, additional 1 time lifetime versions of the subscription, different shops for different subscription levels, individual ships, insurance, a mobile game like freemium/premium model (earn credits to buy real money stuff), as well as branching the single player and multiplayer experience into standalone products.
A big ambitious game is great, but no amount of tech CEO promises will make the segmented and confusing monetization scheme seem legit. The game has raised half a billion dollars. It has already made more money than 99% of games will ever make. That's enough money to pay 300 people 120k for the 13/14 years the game has been in development. They have the ability to have a large studio that rivals (or beats) large AAA studios in talent, and they have used more time than even the most notorious studios use to develop games.
Ah yes. Promotional ships that sell for $1000s of dollars irl that are only available in limited runs that you get to keep when the game launches into stable release.
Oops, forgot to mention that some of these ships might not ever be available outside of alpha besides for those that already own them. That means new players in stable will encounter ships they'll never be able to own.
Most of my friends that play it say it's a fair trade since you're paying so much for them, but it still feels largely like a scam to me. You could do so such much better for yourself with that kind of money than just owning a digital asset.
Oh and those ships? They're not tradeable to other players afaik.
Edit: This isn't really fine at all and is in fact a P2W mechanic inside a game you already have to pay for up front.
All ships (will be) earnable in-game *¹, the only difference is the insurance. Currently during special events people can buy ships with "Life Time insurance" which won't be a thing in-game.
*¹: Except special editions, which only differ in their paint job, which is totally fine IMO
How is star citizens progress not consistent and plentiful? They are pretty constantly releasing new content. Single player might be behind closed doors but the multiplayer gets all of the upgraded Tech New Missions new planet development new ships. There's a pretty steady flow of new stuff and you only need $40 to get in.
If the only thing you're interested in is the single player then that is unfortunate but it's not as if they've delivered nothing over all this time. There is a game that is playable and has a surprising amount of content that you can go play right now
I didn't say it wasn't, I also was not criticizing its content.
Infinite feature creep
It's not money laundering. It's crowdfunding as a primary business model. The point isn't to finish the game, but to keep baiting people with carrots-on-sticks until they get sick of the grift and the money dries up.
You think you can't use crowdfunding as a vehicle to launder money?
I can't imagine still thinking this after seeing that the game is actually releasing...
I was coming in here to see if the positivity actually carries over to various places as I was surprised to see all the positive YouTube comments on ign, but lemmy always seems to have a extra serving of negativity in all things... Oh well.
Don't deprive yourself of a good time, if you have the means to play it I would absolutely check out star citizen when they have their free to play events.
Oh shit it's releasing? When?
More than likely in the next year to year and a half. They specifically mentioned they are entering the polish phase in the video they released that these articles are referencing.
They don't give dates anymore because they did like twice in the early 2010s and then changed the scope of the engine completely so they got a ton of shit about it. The game is super late because they went from starfield "loading screen to surface" to a system where there are no loading screens ever and you can go wherever you want.
Just more of the same old soon™, then
Or all of the above
The devs are not incompetent. Management is.
I think devs can also be incompetent
Devs can be "incompetent" but unlike management development generally has code reviews to catch problems, maintain standards and give those "incompetent" developers feedback so the can improve. Also one incompetent developer is just one incompetent developer, there's only so much they can fuck up. Managers tend to have no oversight while essentially having at the very least one team of developers they can incompetently lead to develop shit. The higher the incompetence the more damage they can do. Just look at Twitter, the entire company is being driven straight into ground because the one guy at the very top is a moron
I don't know enough to be able to argue with you about that. You're probably right I guess.
They got the same vibe going on as the 7 days to die devs.
this is a grievance i've needed validated for a long time. tysm
If they ever release the game Chris Roberts' hookers and blow pre-release starship income dries up.