|
Ash1138 posted:i know that the la office is a clown car of ineptitude, but it fits my view of how they would handle it a bit too perfectly Aaah. So you mean it can't be true because CIG always finds new ways of being inept, and this seems more like a rehash of something old? I could buy that argument. 
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
imperialparadox posted:There it is again. I keep seeing citizens using this magical reasoning that SQ42 has the actual working flight model, and they just aren't showing it in the Alpha for some reason. What's the source of this revelation? Erin alluded to it when he discussed the 2.x roadmap for persistence. Brian Chambers again alluded to it in the most recent 10 for the Developers (last week). And in between, Ben/Disco along with some dev comments (a la discord and the devtracker on forums) have mentioned that the flight mechanics are to be finalized from the SQ42 side and the netcode is what needs to be adjusted to fit in PU.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:Erin alluded to it when he discussed the 2.x roadmap for persistence. Brian Chambers again alluded to it in the most recent 10 for the Developers (last week). And in between, Ben/Disco along with some dev comments (a la discord and the devtracker on forums) have mentioned that the flight mechanics are to be finalized from the SQ42 side and the netcode is what needs to be adjusted to fit in PU. So... no evidence besides a group of people who have consistently been dishonest. Especially since changing the flight mechanics shouldn't require the netcode to be adjusted. Well I'm sold. I also notice you like to use the word "alluded" which is probably a good indication that you're seeing what you hope and not whats true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:So... no evidence besides a group of people who have consistently been dishonest. So what evidence do you want? An independent firm to come in and verify? "Yep - that's what they're doing." I mean, we only have the word of each game company currently. If Bethesda says something, if IW says something, etc ... we're just going on their words. The only difference is that those are established companies with several titles under their belt and CIG is new to the scene.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:If they're able to deliver SQ42 (or at least some first iteration of it) by Q1 or Q2 of next year, I expect much of those mechanics and assets can be used to complete the PU. Despite Derek's accusations of a skeleton team working on PU, my belief is that with 300 people, they have enough people working on PU to continue it's advancement while SQ42 work is ongoing. That said, I think the majority of the PU focus is on infrastructure right now. So, while engineering lays a basework for PU currently, and as assets and more persistence mechanics are added, the finality of PU won't likely be recognized (read: proven to be ready for an advanced alpha or beta) by the end of next year. Let's pretend for a second that your expectations are reasonable (lol). Where is the money going to be coming from to keep this ship of fools afloat? Ship sales are stagnating, the overhead for 4 studios in 3 countries is absurd and the burn rate is only going to grow worse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:-Flight mechanics that aren't janky. Supposedly, the SQ42 base code has fixed this but has not been implemented yet in Alpha. TBD I guess. The, "It's already been fixed in SQ42," line seems quite popular amongst believers, but I have yet to see any evidence that it is the case. If we entertain some counter-speculation, then we should consider why it is that CIG have not made any official announcement concerning stuff that has been supposedly "fixed" outside of the baby poo. You'd think they'd love to inform backers that serious bugs are being fixed and will be rolled out soon? Open development and all that... IMO there are two options: 1) CIG have not fixed the problems and SQ42 is currently just as janky as the pre-alpha 2) CIG have fixed the problems, but announcing it would mean admitting that the pre-alpha is being de-emphasised for a FPS shooter that most backers never wanted (it would also mean that one Derek Smart was right, and we can't have that now can we?) Occam's Razor favours the simplest explanation, so I'll go with #1 for now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:So what evidence do you want? An independent firm to come in and verify? "Yep - that's what they're doing." Bethesda and IW don't usually tell as many lies as SC has and have the ability to sell a product that is actually real and doesn't require blind faith to know that if they say they are going to make a game it is a real thing. There is literally no reason that "the most open devs on the planet since they were little girls" would hide this much of the project unless it was either a lie or broken beyond belief.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Fat Shat Sings posted:Have there been any other cases similar to Star Citizen in the imagination versus reality arena? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. There are obviously loads of games that are hyped up and then fail to deliver, but for the most part everyone is in agreement on those (Duke Nukem Forever, Aliens: Colonial Marines, Haze, etc.). For a game to have so many blind devotees, whom both praise Crobberts for saving PC gaming (lol?) and having an amazing creative vision (rehashed Wing Commander with even more elements cribbed from successful games/films) is really weird, and I can't recall another game or game developer with this phenomenon. The whole thing is really more comparable to cults, like Branch Davidians, Jonestown, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:I don't have time to list specifics, but if they want to be competitive and still hold/captivate an audience, they should include: So basically, you want Elite Horizons and not a broken piece of poo poo tech demo from 2008 like SC that'll never be anything but a broken piece of poo poo with ships spinning on the pads, invisible players clipping through walls at 3000rpm and nothing but port olisar or whatever it's called where RSI/CIG or whoever can't even get the loving rings to rotate properly?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
χλαπάτσα!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
mr_jolly posted:So basically, you want Elite Horizons and not a broken piece of poo poo tech demo from 2008 like SC that'll never be anything but a broken piece of poo poo with ships spinning on the pads, invisible players clipping through walls at 3000rpm and nothing but port olisar or whatever it's called where RSI/CIG or whoever can't even get the loving rings to rotate properly?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Barn Folk posted:Let's pretend for a second that your expectations are reasonable (lol). Where is the money going to be coming from to keep this ship of fools afloat? Ship sales are stagnating, the overhead for 4 studios in 3 countries is absurd and the burn rate is only going to grow worse. What do you mean come from? 115 million raised from crowdfunding. Likely a similar (ok - let's say even half that) amount of private investment; any number of grants for small businesses (hence some of the smaller entities still in existence) and tax incentives in different states and countries. Do you think the money coming in is spent immediately? Ok - there are four studios and the bulk of the employees are located in Europe. Even guessing (LOL no access to financials!) that the monthly burn rate is approx 3 mil/mo and speculating that this was the case for the past 18 months ( I say 18 because the ramp up to 300 employees occurred during this time), that's $54 million. Given my other variables, they then should have (or utilized) up to $150mil more. I'm confident that they're doing fine for the time being.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
imperialparadox posted:There it is again. I keep seeing citizens using this magical reasoning that SQ42 has the actual working flight model, and they just aren't showing it in the Alpha for some reason. What's the source of this revelation? I'm wondering the same thing. First, why the gently caress would you ever fork the codebase such that you cannot easily merge the SQ42 and PU code lines? The longer you wait to merge, the worst it gets. If the reason is because the PU's "network optimizations" don't play nice with SQ42s "flight model fixes", you're still totally hosed when you try to merge them together later. Especially considering the entire point of the PU is to test and fix these kinds of issues. I think what's really happening is citizens have pinned all their hopes on SQ42 being a big reveal, everything is functional and perfect, then CIG "throws a switch" and all the SQ42 improvements show up in the PU.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:What do you mean come from? 115 million raised from crowdfunding. Likely a similar (ok - let's say even half that) amount of private investment; any number of grants for small businesses (hence some of the smaller entities still in existence) and tax incentives in different states and countries. Do you think the money coming in is spent immediately? Ok - there are four studios and the bulk of the employees are located in Europe. Even guessing (LOL no access to financials!) that the monthly burn rate is approx 3 mil/mo and speculating that this was the case for the past 18 months ( I say 18 because the ramp up to 300 employees occurred during this time), that's $54 million. Given my other variables, they then should have (or utilized) up to $150mil more. I'm confident that they're doing fine for the time being. How are you stupid enough to believe that the game is actually good they're just trying to surprise people and still manage to write this many words?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:How are you stupid enough to believe that the game is actually good they're just trying to surprise people and still manage to write this many words? That is EXACTLY what I think. But, time will judge right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:What do you mean come from? 115 million raised from crowdfunding. Likely a similar (ok - let's say even half that) amount of private investment; any number of grants for small businesses (hence some of the smaller entities still in existence) and tax incentives in different states and countries. Do you think the money coming in is spent immediately? Ok - there are four studios and the bulk of the employees are located in Europe. Even guessing (LOL no access to financials!) that the monthly burn rate is approx 3 mil/mo and speculating that this was the case for the past 18 months ( I say 18 because the ramp up to 300 employees occurred during this time), that's $54 million. Given my other variables, they then should have (or utilized) up to $150mil more. I'm confident that they're doing fine for the time being. Doing fine in that every alpha release they've released so far hasn't included anything of substance but just bug fixes from the previous bug-ridden poo poo-fest? It's just different variations of ships spinning on a pad with extra bugs in, a few extra visual changes, doodads and textures (which may or may not disappear as you approach them) Where is the gameplay? Where are the missions? Where is the fun? For 115 million I'd have expected a bit more than what is currently out there after all this time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:Erin alluded to it when he discussed the 2.x roadmap for persistence. Brian Chambers again alluded to it in the most recent 10 for the Developers (last week). And in between, Ben/Disco along with some dev comments (a la discord and the devtracker on forums) have mentioned that the flight mechanics are to be finalized from the SQ42 side and the netcode is what needs to be adjusted to fit in PU. I just like to point out that Ben and Lando do not have the best drat track record while talking about SC development. Though I do not have actual knowledge of the state of S42 development. But since their code base was the same (once upon a time - correct me if I am wrong). It would make a lot of sense to keep the interfaces between netcode / flight mechanics identical between both branches. Thus there'd be no need to keep the S42 flight mechanics hidden, at least as soon as they're working. Which they should by now. The flight mechanics are one of the most important pillars of a space flight sim. ( I guess we can agree on that).
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
If CIG was my dogge, I'd have no choice in good conscience right now but to do the decent thing and "ol yeller" it. Honestly, this whole debacle coundn't be any more pitiful and painful to watch if it tried. It's just been bluster and showboating the whole time, now the big dogges are back in town and they are going to bite on CIG hard if it even tries to sniff their butts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
mr_jolly posted:Doing fine in that every alpha release they've released so far hasn't included anything of substance but just bug fixes from the previous bug-ridden poo poo-fest? It's just different variations of ships spinning on a pad with extra bugs in, a few extra visual changes, doodads and textures (which may or may not disappear as you approach them) I don't disagree. For that amount, I'd expect a bit more too. After all, I'm anxious to play all that has been said so far. But, if they're taking the time to develop out something on the SQ42 that will be dropped en masse in PU, I guess I have to wait for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
This game is never coming out
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:That is EXACTLY what I think. But, time will judge right? This is quite literally the narrative that has been put forth by the cult. You would HAVE to agree with it for your point (that actually the flight mechanics are fine in SQ42 they just can't use them on the PU for reasons) to make ansy sense. Or they could literally just show five minutes of a mission to prove that yes this thing is in fact real. They will show janky barely believable procedurally generated planets but they won't show any actual progress on the game apparently. So either they want to surprise everyone or it's more lies and stalling. Or they're so incompetent they never thought of demoing some actual SQ42 footage. Sedisp fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:That is EXACTLY what I think. But, time will judge right? I see reading comprehension is your strong point
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Tank Boy Ken posted:I just like to point out that Ben and Lando do not have the best drat track record while talking about SC development. Though I do not have actual knowledge of the state of S42 development. But since their code base was the same (once upon a time - correct me if I am wrong). It would make a lot of sense to keep the interfaces between netcode / flight mechanics identical between both branches. I don't know what the reasoning is, but I do now that there are a ton of resources on SQ42 and until they adjust to allow more development on PU related items, we won't know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
I'd also like to remind everyone that CIG talked up "persistence" as major milestone. Which is also needed for S42. And yes creating a good database schema isn't done in a single hour. But the fact that they did claim it was a major "milestone" is just  .
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:So what evidence do you want? An independent firm to come in and verify? "Yep - that's what they're doing." I don't know man. When they put Battlefield 1 on the E3 floor and had a bunch of celebs playing it live on air, it seemed to me to have more weight than a guy sitting behind a desk in front of a paper wall painted like bricks in a garage reading off a script.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
peter gabriel posted:Imagine being a multi million dollar company that makes GPUs and you're getting stuff off the CoD guys, Mass Effect guys etc to show off your cards capabilities at your big press event of the year. Don't blame this mess on orcinus!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:Erin alluded to it when he discussed the 2.x roadmap for persistence. Brian Chambers again alluded to it in the most recent 10 for the Developers (last week). And in between, Ben/Disco along with some dev comments (a la discord and the devtracker on forums) have mentioned that the flight mechanics are to be finalized from the SQ42 side and the netcode is what needs to be adjusted to fit in PU. lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:I don't know what the reasoning is, but I do now that there are a ton of resources on SQ42 and until they adjust to allow more development on PU related items, we won't know. I'm not following every nugget of SC. Was there any more footage (S42) in the last year? Or has the last thing we've seen of S42 been the "Morrow tour"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:So what evidence do you want? An independent firm to come in and verify? "Yep - that's what they're doing." That's not the only difference. Let us not forget the Big Bad Publishers that require the developers to be financially responsible and accountable. Not only is CIG new to the scene, but they are trying to do things 'their way' (or CR's way) as opposed to the way that the industry has established works, and doing it with absolutely zero accountability or oversight. Huge, huge difference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:I don't disagree. For that amount, I'd expect a bit more too. After all, I'm anxious to play all that has been said so far. But, if they're taking the time to develop out something on the SQ42 that will be dropped en masse in PU, I guess I have to wait for that. They just need to throw a switch to make this work? Just merge the two branches and everything is fine and dandy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Tank Boy Ken posted:I'm not following every nugget of SC. Was there any more footage (S42) in the last year? Or has the last thing we've seen of S42 been the "Morrow tour"? The latter. They're not showing anymore because they don't want to spoil anything. I'm not kidding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
If they had a 'good' flight model ready for SQ42 then surely they would be using that same model in the PU for fine tuning. Even CIG are not dumb enough to have a perfectly good, working flight model hidden away while the PU users languish with the rubbish that the current model currently has. In other words, I think they are full of poo poo and are doing their usual "we've nailed it down and it's great, but we can't show you" like they always do. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Eldragon posted:They just need to throw a switch to make this work? Just merge the two branches and everything is fine and dandy? /merge +SC +S42 +ignoreConflicts What could possibly go wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
CIGbrella: deployment sccseful
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
its kinda funny that after the whole AMD thing I posted earlier, MoMA steps up his posting again makes u think
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
I'm way late on tbe Ben pooptalk, butorcinus posted:He needs help with both. Sounds like they should... ...refactor the shits and rear end-ets wipeline 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Skellybones posted:I like how the captain of a fleet carrier is personally going around ripping people's faces off and so forth. Maybe they wanted to make a Stimpire-game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:The latter. They're not showing anymore because they don't want to spoil anything. I'm not kidding. Even though the script has done the rounds more times than a lady of the night in a dockyard, if they show us so much as a rendered rock we might hit spoilers  Yeah, they've got nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
TheAgent posted:its kinda funny that after the whole AMD thing I posted earlier, MoMA steps up his posting again You mean this:  ?AMD dude who is part the AMD game promo thing posted: posted:
I wonder MomA; If this would be found out to be true, what would you make of that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
Doublepost. Catte: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 22:02
|
|