@@GamingNostalgiaRemastered he might have a point, even though it probably is not the one he wants to make. To me it sounds more and more like cig is planning to call it a day at some point in the next year's and release 1.0 no matter how finished it is at that point. The writing is on the wall. They cut features left and right, manage expectations with what is going to be in 1.0 and that is less and less by the month.
you still have like 40 more years (counting on averages), more if you're fit and live a sane life out of drugs, smoke and excess of alcohol, surely you will be able to play 1.0.
No they forecasted, they predicted, but as CIG often say, ''they do not promise''. CIG have said just 3 months ago, its on the roadmap, yet a ways off yet, no one wants NPC Crew, no one wants a Starfield.
I can't comprehend why some of the games today aim to become your second life/work. Like we don't have enough work in our everyday real lives but to also work while we actually try to relax and play a game is insane... Those games become a hard pass for me.
Yeah and it's pay to win, do you think everyone who can just buy multiple thousand dollar ships won't have an advantage in this game-that-is-a-job? No possibility of me playing anything like this, as much as I love space games. It's a scam if you think it will be a fair experience without paying $$$.
@@methodermis this path has finally started making sense. In a player driven game, people like us who have no time will never be able to buy better gear or ships, leaving the option to spend moolah. But that also opens the way for the sweatiest bunch to spend a 10000$ to lay siege to the whole system.
This is why I became an instant fan of New Game Plus which allows me to play the main story and avoid the grind of most huge games the second time around. I paid the price once in personal time - can I just have some fun playing afterwards?
I mean because they are extremely popular? Which has always been the case with video games as people love their dollar to play time measurement and most people are filthy casuls who don't have time to learn a new game every 8 hours of gameplay or so much less be good enough to enjory any competive online which is how short story games get moree play time out of you normally. Also The vast majority of gamers prefore imerstion above all else hince why the high end realism 3D graphics style is so lucrative despite being the most expensive type of graphics to make at all let alone well... Also it isa extremely hard for most people to get imermersed if they are buying a new game every few hours... Not to mention it's expenisive to keep buying new games when you run out of content under 1000 hours of game time... Also the vast majority of game with insane playtimes needas can be fun even if you don't dedicate your life to them.... Like find your fun you know?
Star citizen committed the biggest carninal sin of crowdfunding. It completely changed the product vs the pitch given during KS. People paid for Freelancer 2014.
Crowdfunding works best when the product is almost fully designed, and just need money to get manufactured and maybe a few rounds of feedbacks to polish it and add a couple of features. And for a simple reason: for all the ideas you have, it's very difficult to actually implement them, and most often the best way to develop a product is to give up most of the original ideas and get new ideas that solve the issues you encountered. But this approach of "design first, crowdfund after" is not possible for videogames where most of the cost is the actual design. So crowdfunding videogames is a mess that is very prone to failure. And for the most part, Star Citizen should have failed: they should have realised that the promises were impossible for them to achieve, funding should have dried out in a couple of years, and the project should have collapsed. But somehow, they are way too good at raising money, so this dying project was instead sustained in an undead state, and slowly modified until it became something more doable (with the skills and ideas they have) than the initial promises. And even then, I'd bet on the path still being far from finished, and the game changing even more before its eventual release (or collapse).
@@MoiMagnus1er I mean if they'd stuck to their original pitched idea they wouldve released a game years ago most likely and I bet people wouldve been relatively happy with it. Stopping and restarting development for a completely different game has kinda crippled them. And now they've basically changed the plan yet again. I mean this would've been a more gradual shift and these things happen but still this 1.0 pitch isn't really what I think a lot of ppl were imagining
this is absolutely right. I pledged back in 2014 and I'me so very very dissapointed. It looks bloody awesome don't get me wrong, but its essentially just Eve Online on a far smaller scale. Wheres my freelancer 2014?
I mean that is how you can deal with feature creep... By tossing out the ones you can's fionish with ones you can... Hince why Star citizen is now core feature complete while bethasda closet game to that is Skyrim thanks to mod lists. Like I can't think of a single fereature in Skyrim with out mods that is feature complet. Even though it has hadd way more funding,dev time, resorces fans and positivity press then star citizen likely ever will given how many hate this game to death.
@@GreenBlueWalkthrough I finished Skyrim back when it was first released and there were barely any mods, and I have no idea what do you mean. I think I maybe used some UI mod and that's it. Define "feature complete"?...
@@mythicallegendary3992 I’m a Nigerian prince, and I would like to give you my whole fortune… (I mean, you defend SC so I suppose you love to get scammed, and I try my luck… 😉)
I think the problem with it being so sandbox survival focused is that a lot of Star Citizen players are of the older crowd. We don't have time to dedicate to these kinds of games to get anywhere with them.
Correct, I play Eve-online as an older player, I don't have the time to put to it and so no point joining a corp. I just play around the edges, solo mining, etc.
We weren't quite so 'older' when we started... Maybe both EVE and Star Citizen will be good retirement activities? However, I will likely be worm food before 1.0 comes out.
@@Miner-dyne I know, right? The "older crowd" now is the same crowd that got the kickstarter off the ground in the first place. We've seen dozens of other products rise, flail and flop with lofty ambitions, CIG isn't somehow immune to poor development management. Something something wisdom and age. Well anyway, at least I'll have something to play in my retirement home.
@@flywheel8541much like Eve it sounds like there will be space for freelance solo play in the higher security systems. If you want to experience the lawless areas you’ll need to be on your toes or aligned with the controlling faction.
How to destroy a good space game? Make it player driven, so that people with no life, zero social skills, and too much free time on their hands will be running the show and making the game into a toxic cesspit filled with endless internet drama. Apparently EVE Online did not taught CIG anything.
You forgot the most important element, “players who have too much money”. Some people have already bought whole fleets, essentially already ready to corner the entire market (which might might be less impactful if spread across 100 systems, but when there’s only 5 systems to fight over, the fight is over before it starts). There’s 0 incentive for the devs to fix that as it’s the entire business model.
Ahh yes, sure, eve online, the game that has been loved and is still going for almost 22 years now, still has a player base...... Is somehow seen as bad???
@@dmitryv3926 A player base that has been mostly stagnating for over a decade, which also has its numbers hugely inflated by the fact that most long-time players keep anywhere from 5 to 40 accounts logged in simultaneously all the time. So yes, EVE's player base is certainly not something a game studio should be aspiring towards to if they want a healthy community that also grows and attracts new players over time.
@@Leo3ABPgamingTV again, you are scoffing at a game that has had an active player base for 22 years. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's bad or that it's failing. According to people like you, EVE has been dying for a solid 15 years now. Maybe using a model from one of the most successful and longest running games ever isn't a mistake?
@@dmitryv3926 A game that has, lets say, 3 people playing it actively for 20 years can technically also be considered "a 20 year old game with an active player base" but that does not make it a good and healthy player base, especially if half of those players also are toxic sociopaths. If you keep pointing out the number of years then I will point you to WoW, which is just as old and has around 7 millions active players. In case of EVE we talking about roughly 1-2k more-or-less regular players, and maybe equal amount of players who joins for a bit and then leaves disappointed after realizing what EVE is. So it does not matter whether EVE has been at this state for 20, 30 or 100 years. A stagnant player base is never good for a game, and arguably was never good for EVE either. For example, at some point CCP (EVE's devs) considered to put a lid on multiboxing and multiple accounts, but that was simply impossible because of the small playerbase a lot of which was multiboxing and using multiple accounts already at that point (that was before having multiple clones went official), and CCP could not afford loosing even a couple hundred people to those changes. So in the end a small, toxic and stagnant player base was essentially dictating the game's development course, which led to further stagnation. EVE could be a great game if EVE's developers did not trapped themselves by catering to a overly vocal paying minority. A game that has potential to be played by at least tens of thousands people ends up floating at less than 5k for decades. There is nothing to be proud of. If anything, EVE is just a long-lasting failure and a story of what to avoid when making space MMO.
A sandbox massive multiplayer game HAS to be casual, it HAS to attract as many people as possible, because they are the content. The less casual friendly the game is, the less content it has, which can easily lead to a death cycle.
@@corn.3892 false. EvE is sandbox and still has a large playerbase. DayZ is a sandbox with a large playerbase. The point of Star citizen is to be the game that the hardcore players can enjoy while being large enough so those that are solo and casual can enjoy it too. You want casual only with no chance of hardcore players? Stick to elite.
@@ausername7470 A sandbox game MUST aim to include casual and hardcore players. You can't have an sandbox MMO with perma death, full loot PvP, huge travel times and forced multiplayer. It sounds cool, but in reality it dosent work.
It's very hard to make a successful PvE MMO. It's nearly impossible to make a successful PvP MMO. There are probably as many failed "hardcore full loot PvP" MMO attempts as there are players who actually enjoy that sort of game, and only a few that survived past the launch hype. SC will have an even harder time because all the edgy teens who loved the idea at the beginning are in their 30s now. "Hardcore PvP player" is just a longer way to say "griefer", and most people will drop any game after being griefed a couple times. But the whole SC experience is just an object lesson: _never_ _pre-order_ _a_ _game!_
It sounded too good to be true when announced. What has changed since then? Given the opening salvo of pay to win from the beginning, I just sit on the side watching the drama.
I ultimately wanted a more graphically elaborate, and narrative driven space game in the spirit of all the space games I grew up with. Starlancer, Wing Commander 1-4(and Prophecy), and Descent: Freespace and Freespace 2. "The Price of Freedom, is eternal vigilance." - Wing Commander 4 In this case, our vigilance wasn't worth the price of waiting all this time. It's really a shame.
Isn't Squadron 42 supposed to be that? Haven't heard much about it lately. We desperately need some new games or true remasters in new game engines of Freespace 2 or Wing Commander like has been done with Tie Fighter.
That's what Squadron 42 will be. 30-40 hrs of single-player Wing Commander-like gameplay. They also demo'd the tutorial mission which was over an hour of amazing gameplay. I'll just assume you didn't watch it.
That game already exists. It's called Elite Dangerous. If ED isn't good enough for you, I don't know what to tell you. It's a 1 to 1 simulation of our galaxy with billions of star systems. This is superior to anything SC has promised, and infinitely superior to their currently broken tech demo. Time to support devs that make actual, working games, instead of getting high off hopium.
@@FD3SA For me that's not the full truth. I have always felt exactly the same as what you said - that the 1:1 simulation of our real Milky Way Galaxy is just completely incomparable in scale, scope, and realism compared to SC or anything else ever made. And indeed, it will always be better and greater than SC in terms of the galaxy itself. Nothing can ever beat that. It's like the end game of space simulation - that one aspect. However, what SC *does* do, it does way better than Elite Dangerous. There's more than just the simulation of the galaxy. The planets, the ships, the gameplay, the details and fidelity of the game at every level in SC is vast, and much of this surpasses Elite Dangerous. Ship interiors and the gameplay that comes with that, the planetary tech and the sheer exploration and gameplay that comes with that, pretty much everything they're showing/promising is a lot more detailed and next gen compared to the equivalent of what we see in Elite Dangerous. I'd love to see the scope/fidelity of SC, within Elite's 1:1 Milky Way Galaxy - combine the two. Imagine that.
I mean no has ever complained about Minecraft doing that and being an extremely different game every few updates... Like even from 1.0m Minecraft now adays feels more like Minecraft 2 then the same game that opened to the public over a dacade ago... Which the only thing constant in all the Minecraft builds is the game engine and some code. Star citzen on the other hand is much more normal of a game like 1.0 just means offcally released and nothing else.. it has always been that way and every dev has their own defnation of it... Which games have had major game changing patches atleast since the NES came out much to the dismay of speed runners and game historians... Which the problem is so much worse today given the ease of updating a game and the fact that fans are always wanting to have more access to mod a game more... So now we have unofficial patchs for not only games but mods to... Like hating the star citizen devs for doing what they update wise is really illinformed assuming you want the bbest for all involved and not just hating the game and devs for existing in your reality or what ever the hate everything for noreason crowd true reason are...
@@GreenBlueWalkthroughbro all that typing basically just to say "You're wrong for hating the game, Minecraft was worse". Yeah well at least Minecraft actually fully released at some point. Plus they have an archive of every previous version. At this rate id be shocked if Star Citizen ever releases.
As long as people keep shoveling money into their project, why wouldn't they keep moving the goal posts? At the end of the day everything is about money. That's why small scale indie teams are able to make such good games these days, because they haven't lost their passion for making the best games they can make.
It's funny. 12 years later and many players do not even remember what was promised. Their current vision of 1.0 is a fraction of what they wanted to create. Even if you ignore the 100 systems they promised.
I can't see a solo player being able to build a quiet outpost somewhere, with the idea of being left alone to do their own thing. With so few planets, even with the huge planet surfaces, I can see dissappointment in my future, as I pick up the what is left of my humble abode ad infinitum.
you can actually without being bothered in the Stanton system and so few planets lol moons ? and im sure also asteroid base how many times have you stumbled onto someone outside the regular hubs just walking over a moon surface or planet. Look at earth 8 billion people and there are still lots of places where if you would go there you would not see a human ever.
@@nemesisone8927well, planets in SC are _much_ smaller than real players, having just 2% the surface area compared to a real planet, so that's a really bad comparison. Also, the current game severely restricts the number of players in a given "universe". So sure, you can be left alone when there's only 50 players in the entire Stanton system, but the entire pitch of SC's shared universe is that everyone will be in the same "universe", so you'll be looking at tens of thousands of players in every system...I mean, in theory because I'll highly skeptical that'll ever happen.
@andrewshandle it's actually closer to 9% when you account for the fact that only 29% of the surface of the Earth is land, whereas SC planets are have relatively small bodies of water. That's still about 14 million square kilometers on just ONE Star Citizen planet. Stanton: 4 planets Pyro: 6 planets Nyx: 4 planets Castra: 2 planets Terra: 4 planets So 20 planets at launch. Even if they each "only" had half the surface area of the planets we have now, we'd still have around 130,000,000 square Km of surface area. Even if this game had 1 million players, we'd each get 130 square km. And we haven't even included lunar surface area. If you think it's going to he crowded you are out of your mind lol.
@@MannyCalaveras "If you think it's going to he crowded you are out of your mind lol." I never said it would be crowded, I was just pointing out that the planets in SC are _way_ smaller than real planets, so the person I responded to was not being accurate when they used that as a comparison. That's all. But given players will have ships that can fly at 100s of miles an hour, and those ships are equipped with scanners designed to point out POIs, the idea that you could just grab a plot of land somewhere on a planet and never have anyone come across you is silly. If a group of players with good ships decide they want to troll or grief people who setup on a planet, they'll _easily_ be able to do so.
It's the same o' game. CIG announces a new finish line, new features, they show some sizzle reel, new ships for sale. Then this time next year the show off some new features. Suddenly two years have gone by, the PU is is degraded status, there is no mention regarding 1.0 release then sometime later they talk about beyond 1.0. Show some new features then announce that 2.0 is coming soon. Multiple announced ships will be debuted, funds raised. Wash, rinse, repeat. CR and CIG need to be investigated
As a solo non PVP gamer (and I suspect there are a lot more of us in the player base than most people think) I don't normally comment/give feedback on games (like most solo players from my experience). SC has the potential to be my main game with one main issue that stopped me playing it during alpha (even though I really enjoyed most of the game). I'd love to see if other solo players feel the same way (no need to reply as I know we don't normally like to talk to others, just like the post if you are in this group) or just add a comment on what would stop you playing (not just being annoyed at) SC when it release 1.0 For me the quickest thing to stop me playing a game is when a ganker can retard my progress (ie blowing up my ship meaning I have to re-kit out the modules costing lots of money etc). Please give me a PVP flag (or some other thing) that stops me being attacked by other players. This could reduce rewards (ie 5% less for mining when it is on etc) or stop certain areas/missions being available, I would happily be limited to non PVP activities/areas. If there is an area where NPC's do this then that is fine (it was my mistake for going there and I can avoid that in future or take a basic ship with no modules and no gear etc) I've not played in over a year, last time, just after the reset, I had just got enough cash to outfit a mining ship and got ganked on my first run. I couldn't afford to replace the modules so went back to basic mining and got ganked again by a different player in a different system. Logged off and played some other games (that don't allow other players actions to degrade my own progress) and not played since (although I might jump in again before 1.0 but the progress resets put me off playing seriously so might wait till, 1.0 comes out , if I'm still alive by then of course :P) If I still get ganked in 1.0 I will most likely end up playing something else (Like a lot of people I have talked to in games who also don't normally bother complaining on forums and just go play something else). The 'Active posting' gamers will say go play something else if you don't like it (and I will happily do so), but they don't seem to realise that a lot of money (not as much as the big backers) and the feeling of an 'alive' player base comes from the 'working 9-5' solo players (look at them as IRL NPC's I guess). Without them it could turn out like another Elite where you get less and less people in the game (although a lot of this is down to the bad implementation of the PVP flag system). This means an emptier game feeling and less money for the devs to produce the content. It also takes longer for the passive gamer to achieve stuff in game, this actually means that anything gained has a higher value to them and makes them more likely to keep playing, subsequently loss of this stuff through a ganker also has a bigger effect on the enjoyment of the game. These solo's will most likely end up finding people they enjoy playing with and maybe becoming less of a solo player. I believe this is one reason why WOW managed to get and maintain their number of players in the early years (not so much today). Solo players came, kept playing because they were catered for and eventually made friends and joined guilds and became group players/raiders. Hardly anyone starts a new game without being a solo player (unless you already have a guild in another game moving to the new one). So keeping the solo players happy should be a top priority if you want a game to continue growing as these people are the players that will eventually join the guilds and become invested in the game. You just need them to stay in the game long enough to meet other players they enjoy playing with (even if that is not what they intended to do, ie they intended to just play solo) and then they will experience the real reasons why MMO's became so popular with dedicated players, they are dedicated to their friends in the guild as much as the game itself.
To me SC is looking more and more like Foxhole, which is not a good thing. That game has the whole production area for both factions plagued by guilds, elitism and toxicity. Everywhere you go is signs telling people to stay away, "private property", "don't steal our stuff". I once tried to build something to help finishing a production chain, and next day I found a sign saying "dismantle this as it's our territory". And when you manage to somehow craft something on your own to send to the frontlines, after spending literal hours crafting it? It's all gone in seconds thanks to "partisans" (No. They're griefers. A*****es who find funny to ruin people's efforts. Period.) camping in map borders, to blow up your vehicle. Star citizen is looking more and more like that. And despite being a backer, I'm really despising the direction it is taking. This game will be a grief-fest.
Yeah I'm a solo player myself and I see that solo play is getting slowly pushed away from the game. Hell, they just said yesterday that NPC crews is going to be a post 1.0 launch. So yeah, by the time 1.0 comes out and I'm thinking in 2030s, they will change their stance on NPC crew and probably get rid of it all together.
@@madmaveric sorry it’s the wrong game for you. CIG and Chris personally have said more than once that this is a game where everyone will have to PVP. With 100 person servers and small pre-release player base it was totally possible for people to avoid pvp. But that is not their plan. Much like eve, pvp is unavoidable - once game is closer to vision. Solo or private group mode in Elite is for players like you but no such thing in SC. BTW the Elite player base has grow a lot in the last year so you may not have been on since odyssey if you think it’s shrinking.
one of my favorite thing when I want to enjoy a cool flight model is to boot elite dangerous in Solo/Mobius session, put a podcast on (galaxy radio I call it, eh) and enjoy the ship and flying around 🙂
@@AtlasRandGaming So what is the point of lawless or high security systems? non pvp pilots will stay in high sec sectors where pvp should be extremely risky this always boils down to pvp players want a target rich environment and pve players want to be left alone this circle cannot be squared pvp players will be forced into high security systems as that is where the majority of players will be
Pfft... I gave up on SC after they missed their first release date with the flimsy excuse that they're going to make it "so much better" with nothing concrete to show for it. Every year they use the most see-through excuses; it's just social engineering turned cult. I see stupid shit in the notes like "improved liquid physics for the bartender when he is pouring a drink" and somehow there's still people cheering for over 10 years all without a game anywhere near what they were originally promised.
but look closely tho, the 3 new star systems that launch with 1.0 has less poi combined than Staton along, I guess its doable, just with minimum effort
@@jasonz2736 With minimum effort, yes. But you have to account for when Chris Roberts decides to create a new font for the in-game personalized mugs and stuff like that. 😁
My problem with player controlled sandbox is that they seemed to quickly become deadlocked by a few large player groups and everyone else has less oportunity and an inferior experience. In the end no new generation of player can enter the game because the current one hold everything. Player generated content still depends of what the devs put in the game so there is a limit of what can be done and what is accessible and that limit will be reached.
So excited to get bullied and extorted by massive clans every time I log in!! Thank you Star Citizen! Switching to the Eve route after 12 years will DEFINITELY not alienate thousands of solo players!
Welp, guess SC is not a game for people like me who wants to play on my own or with 1-2 friends, any longer. Clan-focused games have some of the most toxic tryhards of the entire gaming market. "Nice" to see that we're back to this kind of game again. I'll go back playing Avorion I suppose...
the ones throwing money at them are the whales in these big orgs buying 20 copies of every insanely expensive ship. it makes sense that CIG will start catering more and more to these kinds of players because those are the ones paying the bills. i suspect development will shift more and more to them and less about solo players, sadly.
As someone with very little stake in the game (a gifted key from years and years ago), I think this company bit off more than they can chew. Making a first impression is important. What I've gotten from them is they think they can just tease features and take in money, and do the entire development backwards. Conventions, features, sizzle reels, celebrity actors, but no full release after over a decade. People are rightly perturbed by their approach because it's atypical of a development cycle for even the biggest games releasing today. I'm sure with three quarters of a billion in funding they can both develop and create production value through their conventions and tech spotlights, but it rubs me the wrong way. I just see more promised features beautifully rendered in advance of a show, and not a realized product with said features in it. There's a reason people are able to contain excitement for a game like GTA 6, because it has the prestige and proven success of its franchise to support it. This is a company putting out their first product and it feels like they're building their 20th after decades of envelope-pushing success. I just don't understand it. All I can say is I feel for the people who feel duped, and I hope the ones who have given and continue to give money get the product they're promised, in a timely manner consistent with their evolving expectations.
@@YouLikeBosch over a decade development without release it not too rare for big gaming projects, but I still have to agree. Doing the crowd funding way, or backwards as you call it, created mayor problems. Promising stuff they might or might not be able to pull off to draw in funds became their marketing model. This includes creating and selling ships for game loops that are far from done or final. This has become some sort of death spiral for the game development progression.
Problem is that Chris had issues releasing games in the past as well. Freelancer got delayed and delayed cause he always wanted to keep adding stuff. That is great right? Someone with passion and want to have all these amazing things in a game. Yeah, but making those things take time and then new technology arrives so he wants that included, and then he wants that and then and then. Freelancer went the same direction. Their first publisher was giving him time, but Microsoft bought that publisher and they had enough of it and kicked him off the project and let another team finish the game cause there was no end to the development if they let him create the game. Now he has no publisher, there is no one telling him "Dude, release the freaking game already! It's been long enough now!". Yes making games can take a long time, especially ambitious open world/galaxy ones. Problem is, most games that took so long to make were never revealed till they were in a much further state of development so gamers only had to wait 2 or so years. They also didn't do early access so no one bought into it when they were 20something and now being 40something and still don't have the game they bought into. Don't forget, the original release date was set for 2014. Yeah I rather have a proper working game with enough content, but at this point I really begin to believe the scam theories, seeing how much money they make with the pledge store and have ships on "in stock" for digital products what do you mean "in stock", that is just a scummy tactic to create FOMO and have people rush to buy it, and now the news of the pledge store being a thing that will be there in the final game, like WTF, pay to win to the extreme?
@@Jorendo Not sure what they've said exactly, but I expect the Pledge Store to continue after 1.0. What I DON'T expect is for them to continue to sell ships and LTI after release. I expect that at release, the bought ships and the LTI to simply be the tip of the iceberg, otherwise, it is P2W. That all said, they can sell skins on the Pledge Store until the end of time, and its fine.
I'm so glad we've got to the point of not pretending Scam Citizen is more than it is. Until a system is effective and working out should not exist in our minds. Star Citizen is full of concepts-of-systems, none of them interact without oodles of jank both in the technical aspect and the UX aspect. Star Citizen is space-themed VRChat.
The problem is Star Citizen has always been that it’s a game that exists predominately in the imagination of backers and developers alike. Some of it was (and will) likely never be possible. Some of it would never realistically work in a MMO. It had to evolve, and in doing so it would naturally leave some backers expectations wanting. But at the end of the day, they needed to fix the goalposts for 1.0. It’s also clear to me that everything they showed will require modification along the way, so there’s no reason to feel like the sky is falling. We should also remember that CIG hasn’t delivered on time or as advertised… ever… so no reason to think this will be exactely like they showed anyway! 😅
@@saintjames1995 It has always had survival in the PU, which is why it has food and drink, and why so many exploration ships have showers and toilets and why habs have shower gel on display (but not for sale yet). Plus, base building only makes sense for people who do not have exploration ships.
@@saintjames1995 what’s wrong with either of those things? I always assumed crafting and base building were natural extensions of resource gathering gameplay loops (even if not explicitly stated as goal until last year). And the survival aspects of SC are greatly exaggerated and could be assumed to be present in a universe where you are a person and not a ship.
Not only Solo players will be at a disadvantage but also, small ORGS. There are massive orgs with thousands of players. Each one of those players will also be able to settle personal bases but also benefit from being part of massive orgs. Their land claims will not count towards their Orgs claims and as there seems to be no claim limitations, then, the very large ORGS might very well own the Solar systems where Resources are more valuable, but also, all of their members will also be able to have claims and use them for extra input for their orgs... and all of this in lawful systems. So basicly, extra large orgs will have tentacles everywhere and that's a massive disadvantage versus small orgs. Lastly, I don't see why massive orgs would allow solo players or small orgs to settle down anywhere in the systems they own. They will have thousands of Orgs members do the tasks they need to gather all resources, 24/7. Good luck to anyone that wants a small plot of land try to settle a base there without the massive Orgs permission (Probably under taxes).
@@SwissCowboy87 in real life if i build a cabin in lapland on land i own i dont expect a b-52 stratofortress to carpet bomb it for shits and giggles cause the pilots belong to a huge org (the us air force) and have nothing else to do
LoL... SC wasn't the game anyone pledged for.... it's basically a parking lot/trial area for pay-to-win ships with some systems built around it to encourage PVPers to have a reason to buy those ships. Did I miss anything?
The first time the player base does something that the developers haven't expected (as have happened many times in EVE), and they then have to do a retcon, the whole thing is gonna blow up. Difference here being that the player base is not prepared for such things as they are in EVE.
I remember several years ago when I said there would never be 100 systems at launch when it's taken them years to make just two some deranged fanboy told me I had no idea what I was talking about, because it would just be so fast to build them now the tools had been made. Uh huh.
Back when the 100 star systems were talked about being added the game was in its original idea being a modernized freelancer. When you couldn't land anywhere just the main landing zone and it was done through a cutscene. I think they even talk about this in the 1.0 segment of this years citcon. There is no realistic way of them getting that many systems out for 1.0 or maybe at all
The cult will come up with anything to defend it, even in the face of reality. Once again, all they've done is move the goalposts and made more empty promises and plans.
@@uhavekrabs A lot of us old fuddy-duddies who backed it in those days just wanted that, and in many ways still just want that. It's no longer remotely the game I backed, and realistically never will be.
@@JohnMichaelson I think many games have proven that 100 systems for the sake of 100 systems is kinda a dumb metric to chase. NMS and ED have essentially infinite systems and other than for some segment of the player base it doesn’t actually enrich gameplay. Those games are also designed with “inch deep, mile wide” in mind. SC kicked that idea with seamless transitions and fully explorable planets and moons, anyone who thought otherwise was just foolish. A moon in Star citizen today is more area for gameplay than entire systems as envisioned in the kickstarter. CIG’s explanation of why they are aiming for 5 systems at launch vs 100 at this years citizen con is perfectly logical as well.
I think focusing on end-game guild cooperation stuff is a mistake for 1.0. Most players will probably want to start solo or with small groups of friends and build relationships with player guilds over time. They should put more focus into missions and exploration gameplay and a few more star systems as well as NPCs/a.i. to buff out smaller group gameplay so we can build up to more guild level stuff and have the true rags to riches experience and not feel like the big guilds have all the power...building Dyson Spheres around all the planets and pushing us little guys around.
I'm not really surprised it is leaning more towards survival Base building type of gameplay. Because we've had for a long time, the need for players to eat and drink to live. It's looking like Star Wars Galaxies with a survival mechanic
The thing is it's not JUST that. In true SC fashion that whole aspect of the game's totally optional basically. This seems to be what a lot of people are missing.
This literally just sounds like they realised scripting and crafting the single player experience was too much hassle for the time and money it would cost, based on the time and money already spent. Not surprised. That's what happens when you spend 11 years crafting one world and system and backing technology for simulating more, suddenly you run out of money and 90% of the filler work isn't done and has to be scoped out.
No sympathy for the situation. It came in like the second coming of Christ and now, years later - still coming. I learned my lesson long ago with preordering anything. You want my cash, what are you offering? Promises? No. Thank you.
this is what happens when you build a game from the outside in. most developers will make a game from the ground up. but CIG was too busy selling how pretty their game would be, so they started developing the opposite way.
I glad they've reigned in the feature creep, but the move from solo play has killed it for me. I want a game I can dip into for an hour or two. I used to be competitive in Eve, and that was practically a 2nd job.
What was the move away from solo play? was it the ai crew delays? or do you mean the station building and stuff? it seems like a solo player will still be able to build them selves a little base somewhere. But the ai crew thing, honestly they should just implement repair nanites to keep your ship running but would be much slower then a real engineer and computer controlled turrets to place on your turret hard points that would have smaller size weapons but not require crew. would be much easier then having AI crew do the jobs that have gotten much more complicated in the last few years then just flying and shooting.
@@Sleek110both of those, but it also sounds like a big move away from sp-friendly game play in general. I think it will be an awesome game for people with the free time to put into multi-player. However I don't have that and I suspect neither do a lot of SC backers.
Wait....so they BACKED out of the 65 million dollar stretch goal of 100 star systems on launch? And after that I remember some of the additional milestones were for additional star systems. What a scam.
What happened to the Quanta system? 9:1 NPC to player ratio? NPCs that have their own priorities? Is that all gone? Is Tony Z still with the project? I'm confused. I'm ok with the changes over all but the Quanta system really looked like a leap forward for NPCs in gaming.
I don’t play Star Citizen, but I was considering it until now. I hate sand box games. The rich dudes rule them, and solo players get screwed. I don’t want to see another Eve Online game. If I wanted that style, then I would just play Eve Online which is already available. This new version of Star Citizen won’t be ready for another five years, so I will just watch countless reviews of frustrated players who are forced to use a buggy game that is incomplete until then. But thanks for what was a great summary of the new direction and its goals.
I thought it was going this way many years ago and knew the online was going to suck for solo players. It's for groups and griefers. Over a decade promising a new Freelancer game we could "enjoy solo" and still no S42 in our hands.
@@TheNucaKola Kinda, it was Kickstarted as a Freelancer inspired successor, and those who backed way back then is kind in their right. But that idea was left in 2013, when players Voted to go for a truly revolutionary SpaceSIM MMO. And even in an alpha state, its already one of a kind game with superior scope and space fidelity compared to any other space game on the market. When SQ42 is delivered, we see what CIG full focus on the PU will manage. Beside all the assets and gameplay they they can take from SQ42 to the PU.
As a matter of fact, and I remeber this because it was one of the Reasons to pledge in 2013, Chris Roberts said that Star Citizen is ment to be played by a single Player per ship and that crew the stations with real players is purely optional and the whole is designed to have NPC-Crew at different levels of quality and that the AI, in general, can not be differentiated from a players behavior etc. To now say that this will not be part of 1.0 or even not be the case anymore is, besides many other things, a big promise not kept. The whole Idea of even the capital ships like the Idris was to be able to run it all alone and be on par with real people on stations if youre NPC crew is of good quality. Yet another reason to really think about asking the money back. Would be a nice PC I can buy from that money, one I should buy to play the game anyway.....
HUh you didn't hear about the post on reddit today huh? Why don't you take 5 min and go read that reply from the dev and then comeback an erase this as it just makes you look foolish and uniformed.
@@IT_ODIS This is one of those things I never understood the moment I heard it. Server-meshing is treated like it is a big thing, while in reality it should have been the first thing to work on since they know they want to get MP and they want to do it big. If you do it right, and that simply means like others did it many times already, it is not expensive to the servers running the game. It also is not expensive the way they orignally planend it. But plans go bigger, and if plans go bigger, you have an excuse. There is a Page on the CGI-Website that we, the bakers, are the publisher for SC. Unfortunately, Chris Roberts never finished a game before the publisher cut the funds etc. I have the feeling they make more money by not releasing, and that is expensive :D For the bakers
Another good watch OA. Great to hear the inheritance tax comment as well 👍🏾. Whether virtually or in reality, we are always being squeezed further and further. Brings new meaning to ‘taxed from birth, till’ death and even beyond’…
@@dero985 interesting. I'm surprised to see millions raised for star citizen each year. Sometimes I wonder about marketing companies and their proficiency. Until then X4 Foundations will do
The difference is that SC is crowdfunded, unlike other companies and their games, where the money comes from private investors where the absolute basic need is to get benefits, and therefore they will never invest in dubious proposals, if you where to bring the idea of a space sim right now, to any board of investors for a next project AT ANY company you would be thrown out the window like the meme. SC is possible because the team only answers to the the numbers they have to work provided by the community, if they had to answer to a board of directors and investors we might have seen the racing stuff as a standalone game, and the same goes for any other thing like salvaging, or mining.
@@unlimitedslash You're talking like a salesperson. Star Citizen earning over $700m on its Beta just smells like a scam to me. The very fact that they haven't approached publishers just screams that they aren't looking to set any hard targets. It's turned out to be a carrot on the end of a stick for the fans.
@@mrpositronia You don't need a publisher to make a game, in fact, many indies get screwed over due to draconian publisher contracts. Heck i've seen some contracts for publishing that literally NEGATE any income to the studio until the publisher has gotten it's share, and even after that they keep sucking 40+% of the income. People throw shit at steam for the 30%, but having seen the shit i've seen, let me tell you, Steam IS FUCKING CHEAP accounting for all the features it adds, not only for regular users but also game devs. SC earning 700m with ONLY AN ALPHA (it's not even a Beta) running for testing purposes is fishy, and looks scammy, i get that, but look at it from the fans of scifi perspective: we are FUCKING THIRSTY of a damn good space sim game, the last good one we had was Freelancer, back in 2005, with the exception of X4, but that's certainly not an easy game to hop on, the others are either space minecraft (NMS), or crappy space fighter simulator (Elite), and then we have some rogue projects here and there like Flight of Nova, that's it. At this point we are gonna keep pushing money into the game, even if it takes 10 more years to reach the announced 1.0, because no other game company in this planet would ever risk making something like SC, no investor would be crazy enough to put money on this game, either, we pay it ourselves (at the risk of failing and loosing it all, and at the expanse that some of it will be going towards not really needed goals like those renovations they are doing in the studios where they are trying to mimic ship interiors and have a freaking bar with bartender included), or we will NEVER see something like this coming. Look at the current market of videogames, publishers only sign for 3 things: CoD, Assassin's Creed, or a mix of both, that's what's been going on for the past 15 years. You can play Cyberpunk 2077, that you will not have a need to play any assassin's creed, or CoD, or any other clone ever. The only exception to this are the ever lasting niche things like LoL, Minecraft, or if you want an FPS, Apex, which is another CoD clone. The vidiya market is stagnant AF, at the border of absolute collapse, the only one doing it's own thing is Nintendo, and just because they can keep getting away with SLIGHTLY tweaking the current "meta" and then throwing some spin offs in the middle to not let people burn out of the same damn game over and over.
Despite my love for space games as probably many of you guys, when the timeframe is so long and undetermined it doesn't make sense to me to have interest in SC. I'm human, I'm turned 40 this year and my life isnt endless. I prefer playing with something real and finished. Just my 2 cents of course. 😂
It's sad that a lot of SC fans thrive on the dream, rather than the reality. Mind you, it's the dream that made the dev team their riches. So keep selling the dream.
@@Star-bp5jjerr MSFS will never be done. They will always be releasing new content, new planes, airports scenery, textures. If you define "it's done" as in nothing more will be added, like when you get to the end of a book then it will never be done. And know what that's fine most MMO games are exactly the same Star Trek online is still releasing content, Star Wars the Old Republic is still doing that too and that game started in 2011. Not sure why people take exception to this for this game?
@@kityhawk2000that's a whole lot of bad faithed bullshitery. The game is done, as in, fully released, but is still supported and updated with bug fixes and content here and there. But the main game is released. Don't try and twist reality.
@@kityhawk2000 You are completely missing the point. Msfs is a product that is finished. Its released ! It has 99% basic core functions of a flight simulator. Its not in alpha state, Talking about extra content and updates being released is completely irrevelent. Ive Been playing sim for the last 20 years, I know what im talking about. Yes we take issue with starcitizen because its 12 years with 700+ million and not even 50% done.. so your point is errr.
Survival can be okay if you don't need to micromanage everything. It would be nice if your character didn't get hungry or thirsty if you're in a ship or a city, but if you crash land on a planet, then it becomes something to manage.
Thanks for the update, quite well done. I've given up on Star Citizen myself. The direction they have taken, even so far, is not to my liking, and it appears they intend to make it even worse (for my taste). Oh well. I did my part and supported the dream. Dreams don't always work out.
Perhaps it was a mistake for CIP to not clearly define the difference between thier base building system and the 1.0 presentation as it seem like, for Ant at least, they were absorbed as the same thing. Base building is not REPLACING anything, its just another system. They went out of thier way to announce NPC quests are going to be the main way players progress instead of the mobiglass system. It still sounds like we are just people in a living breathing universe. I don't think a solo player building a space station is very realistic.
This is also my take as well. I don't think anything shown at CitCon is coming at the expense of their original vision (mostly). It's still my understanding that players will be the minority and NPCs will still outnumber us. Just look at the Starchitect panel. They talked about having thousands of NPC POIs generated on planets. I imagine that player bases will just fill the spaces in between and likely won't grow to those numbers on a single planet. But I agree that dedicating that much time to end-game org stuff in the 1.0 panel may have skewed some viewers' expectations.
@@VLK_StaticI am actually not to sure. Numbers do not add up. It you look at the amount of players, even if everyone builds only a small base, that's 6 digits of bases between around 20 planets and let's say 80 moons. That sounds pretty crowded to me
@@TimothySnowman I hope so, economics at Elite style would be more realistic, than on EvE way. We are just few in universe, on numbers. There could still be perks to built assets.
@@dj_dojo I mean there are 7 Billion people on earth, and it doesn't feel too crowded. 100,000 player distributed between 100 planets and moons sounds like enough space.
I have a theory that this game is a retirement plan for developers that got tired of the industry. So they started their own company knowing the game would never finish. Yet they keep making money off the potential gamers see. It's a theory, likely a wrong one. But for real, how much longer are they thinking it's going to take to finish this game? Open alpha for over a decade now, that's just a BIT insane.
Im a MASSIVE space and scifi guy, I spent untold hours in games like Freelancer, Independence War 2, Dark Star One, the X series, Elite Dangerous, No Man's Sky, Starfield.. etc etc When I first saw Star Citizen crowdfund in 2012 I was so excited, it seemed like a dream come true.. and that gave me pause, it was TOO good to be true and I ultimately chose not to contribute at that stage. Needless to say I am glad I didnt. The amount of money they have consumed is obscene and to take 12 years and STILL not have a 1.0 is absolutely insane. One that will STILL be pumped full of MTX. Such a shame that this came to this point. I hope that they release a complete experience without the repugnant mtx but lets be honest, thats not going to happen (at least the 2nd part). Might give it a look when it goes F2P or is deeply discounted.
See, what they were offing in 2012 I thought was doable. The problems were bloat. They just kept adding more and more till it just became something they couldn't make. Like X4 is almost everything star citizen wanted to be. It might be better to just get x4, use it as a template and add the bits it is missing that star citizen has and you are gold.
This complete change from the game that we were sold on feels like the devs realized they NEED to release a "final product" sooner rather than later, and to do that, they have to simply or remove some of their more lofty goals. Going from Living Universe to Sandbox feels like a way for them to make it maybe simpler for them, with not having to develop as much on the AI systems for resources, trade, etc. 5 systems instead of 100 feels like a time saver as well, without going the everything is procedurally generated route, leaving everything feeling like a reskin, and instead just doing 5 systems. Obviously not having AI crew in the final product is an obvious time saver, that would be complicated and very time consuming. But I still feel like they focus way too much on cooperative systems. To the point where the only people who *really* play the game are streamers and video makers who have a horde of fans to pull from, and every normal person just wont be able do anything that matters. I dont know if I like this. I understand them reducing the scope of the game to get a "final product", and then hopefully continue to develop the game to what they promised over time. That probably is a smart move, honestly, if this means it takes them 3 more years instead of 6 more. But I don't really like the shift to "everything is player driven, not a living universe that you are a part of". I honestly think they're going to make it too hardcore, and that it will fail, no matter how good it actually is, because hardcore games like that typically don't do well over the long run.
@@fsqabr AI Blades, from my recollection, are more for turrets/systems, not things like cargo and damage control, things that are more of an interactive process within a ship, rather than done through a screen/terminal, which would be more the realm of AI Crew. The blades would help, like the head-theory we have of them, but you still need crew as well, which for 95% of people (if they're being honest), is why we need AI Crew, as well
@@hansyolo8277 They did mention they will be able to handle a bunch of stuff that crew would be able to do, just maybe slightly more limited in ability. which i kind of see what they are going for. i will hold my opinion till i see it in action.
Only by the comments of fans I can already tell this game will be toxic hell. It seems like fanboys have been sold dream and they have to defend it like if their life depends on it. Crazy. Get a life ffs.
A billion dollars later a minimal sandbox. Would have loved to see FD fully committed to Elite and tried for similar funding. Will believe 1.0 when released and based on CIG history, . . .
Starfield took 8 years and is a hot mess. Skull and Bones budget is the same if not more than Star Citizen and is a tiny game in comparison. Perspective is everything. Star Citizen with all it's bugs, delays and failures is _still_ more of a game than Starfield and Skull & Bones combined!
Why are you talking about all this stuff like it actually exists Honestly after all these years I'm sick of youtubers reacting to claims from CIG like they're real I'd say "Don't you ever learn" but obviously you're doing it for clicks
by then we will have SC integrated in our brain :) with Elons toys no need for fast computers then :) and AI will be developing games or do the biggest part of it, it will go fast and flawless then.
SC 1.0 is exactly what I wanted the game to become. I was blown away by how the gameplay loops are being tied together as it relates to progression. Crafting better and better versions of my favorite ships/weapons/armor etc? Awesome. Gathering materials for crafting and base building? Sick. Finding rare materials that affect the quality of the things I make? Wow, yes. Reputation building that rewards me with exclusive items relative to the factions I'm working with? Badass. I can focus my efforts toward my favorite ships or gameplay loop? Yep, my Arrow and Hornet will be Tier 5 crafted, and my upgraded Arrastra will be my tool of choice for gathering the materials.
Any ship that matters takes crew. Most people will have issues crewing a ship, unless it is a planned event. So, CiG just refused to make NPC crew for 1.0 forcing out many players from using their shiny ships for real money! NOT HAPPY
They announced AI Blades for 1.0 (Rich did in Spectrum after the convention), but not NPC for now. Rich said, they will never be as good as a good player and use power, like engines and shields (AI blades and NPC) - much room for speculation still. And you will be easily able to crew up a ship with the new chat and group finder etc.
So you want games like Warframe, Star Wars Galaxies, Star Trek Online, WildStar, Anarchy, Entropia, Starwars TOR, Phantasy Star, Destiny, ED, to name a few off the top of my head? Secondly where exactly did they say they were scraping the other planned content? They actually did mention the main story of SC and doing missions and jobs for NPCs and NPC organizations multiple times in the 1.0 talk. But no lol. Time to panic. They mentioned a PVP end game and suddenly the game is moving in a direction that is bad. Do you enjoy the current situation where the PVP community has zero content other than farming salt from people trying to mine? Is that the game you want lol?
I don't think SC ever advertised itself as a theme park mmo... from the start it was a sandbox mmo. But I do get what you want, I would like a freelancer type single player game along with the wing commander type single player game like SQ42
Appreciate the detailed video. Definitely reinforces the fact that the game I backed on the original campaign however-many years ago will never become a reality. I don't play EVE, and this new-new-new-new(etc) version is just EVE to my ears. When (if) I ever get notification of it finally releasing, I can just ignore it.
This has probably been the most grounded CitizenCon so far. A more realistic view of what they are able to do with the tech available after the 4.0 Update. Meshing can get them far, but there are still boundaries for what they can do with it. While they didn't say "we fucked up in this and that area", they were admitting unrealistic expectations by replacing them with a new, more structured direction. Will these 1.0 plans be more realistic? Not even CIG will be able to say at this point. But some of the lofty promises from the 2010s are gone, in doubt or have been replaced by ideas from MMOs like EVE and Star Wars Galaxies - and I'm very thankful for that. For everyone following the project more closely is probably realizing that these changes are the result of a change in leadership that seems to be happening in the background. Chris Roberts isn't out of the picture and his input about the general direction will still be needed in the future, but Richard Tyrer is now the man pushing both projects (Squadron and Star Citizen) over the finish line. He knows what is available to him and also the problems CIG is facing after so many years of bad management under CR. But only (more) time can tell if he can release a successful singleplayer title and a 1.0 for an MMO that delivers us the dream of virtually living among the stars for many years to come...
Its a total grift. They were making millions off backers and people buying cosmetics for tens of thousands of dollars through EA. Literally nobody outside of the original backers cares about the game anymore.
...and THOSE folks are like religious fundamentalists: they view every negative comment as a slight against the big fat deity who has been living large off their well-wasted shekels.
They are making it so you can't just jump in and have fun, and build your own thing. Imagine building a small home/base on a planet. Some griever flys by with a nuke, then laughs in chat about it. Then you have pirates.... ugg... people who NEED grinders in order to take from others. They don't produce anything of value. Then you have forced team play, so every payout is not divided into less and less, but you need to pay more and more for fuel, repairs, insurance, etc. The game they are pushing is pushing many people out. People who have survived many wipes, and rebuilt, will just walk away.
@@DJB10T1C " @X38277 I guess it was a lil harsh, but the person could at least know how the game works before spreading flase information. " There is not 'false information' here. We have already seen it at Jump town. We seen it at the Nine tails event 4 years ago. We have seen it at Grim Hex. We see it whenever the Coms are down. grievers are always going to be there. like the ashats who drop a grenade inside their own team during COD, or TC Wildlands. To take away accomplishment, is to take away any reason to play a game. Whaling is NOT accomplishment. SIMPS like you who keep holding on, for a kiss, after 10 years of rejections are the reason why this game never gets better. "This game is in APLHA. Don't people know what ALPHA means? If you don't like it, don't play. I can't wait for the next ship for $2000 so I can get it before everyone else. I got to 200 million UEC just before the wipe!" Bla Bla bla bla.
@aviator2252 Not a chance tbh, I get people would like to dream but the polish alone needed in the PU needs more than 2-3 years, especially as systems are incorporated into the title.
They have diffrent developing teams, if they release squadron in 2026, then they'll likely to focus on main online game and i think it will be around 2028 to release 1.0, also in 2027 we'll see RTX 60 series with 2-1.6nm chip tech.
I feel that this point reporting on Star Citizen is somewhat supportive of a scam. At least don't talk about their "future plans" and only measure them by what they have delivered. They managed to scam people out of 700 million with dreams of a game they never delivered. How is anyone still taking them serious?
Because it's the worst scam in history, if only because they actually spent the money (mostly) on what they said they would (the wonders of British companies having to share their financials publicly. And CIG is registered in the UK) Didn't do well WITH that spending 80% of the time admittedly 😂 But credit where it's due, whilst half the money was undoubtedly wasted, they HAVE actually created something that CAN be played (if only for 0.1-8 hours, varying by patch, before the server dies) which is more than can be said for a lot of the scams out there (namely, anything NFT related). More of a monkeys paw than a scam really
@@robotspartan9100 sure, but we critizie ubi, ea, bethesta and others day and night for their broken game - that they often fix to a nice state and actually deliver massive content that mostly works. Yet Star Citizen is broken in every single way, with many many promisses and even spaceships never delivered, BUT we still give Star Citizen yet another chance. why?
@@OlivioSarikas I think the difference is they have the gall to deliver a "finished product" that's often times Is as bad, if not worse of a state than SC currently is. CIG have at least been honest that it's still a work in progress, and do make tangible (if VERY slow) progress towards the promises made, and those they have kept at times massively exceeded the original scope (i.e. it was originally more akin to SWtOR with set landing sites, not a fully explorable space. Incidentally that added 10 feckin years to the project at least) What it's really going to come down to I think is what happens after this 1.0. that's what is going to set the standard of "you just another EA after all? Or you actually going to honour everything you've promised"
@@robotspartan9100 with the big difference that we can and have played the ubi and ea games and they delivered massive, really fun games they often mostly fixed in time for the goty edition. in the last 10 years ea released massive titles like BF One and V, SW Fallen Order, Apex Legends, and more. And of course Ubi with AC Origins, Odyssey, Valhalla, Rainbow Six Siege, Division one and Two, Watchdogs 2 and 3 and way way more. Most of them really good games. Some errors? Sure. But SC is broken in every single way. You can't even get out of bed in SC without glitches. The physics in the game are a joke - You can literaly park your spaceship 10 meters from the ground and it with just float there like gravity doesn't exist. SC is the broken dream of a person who can't get enough. What does the scope and promisses matter for a game that is broken, made my a team that is leaving, organized by a boss who has lost control. With a ingame shop that sells DLC for thousands of dollars a piece. And people still support it, while complaining about the Diablo 4 Season pass. That's just insane ps.: yes, you can play SC too, but it is a broken and unoptimized joke that lacks most of gameplay and most the gaming world
I don't buy into or follow this and occasionally I get a recommended about it like now. It's already history to me and now I just watch it unfold and it hasn't disappointed in it's disappointment.
1.0 seems like you'll be able to be in a universe that is "alive and real" like you say. The main concerns I'm seeing online is that people wont be able to solo space stations. Every time I look at the game, nothing about it says "solo". All I got is me and like 16 mates, I'm considering just going to big ORG and requesting we manage a space station of theirs.
make an org of 16 no problem at all join an alliance and bam you can do what you like EVE example :) perhaps good idea to play eve no joke its a good learning school for SC later
My concern is not soloing space stations but the whole endgame loop around them this will be locked down by few big orgs giving them the only access to rare resources needed for Tier 5 ships and Tier 3 FPS gear which in turn will pretty much secure they hold onto those planets forever, sure they may sell those resources on the market for extremely high prices but again that only secures their hold on the resources as nobody will be able to afford to fight against the org with cheap unlimited access to the highest tier ships and gear.
I'm excited, but not holding my breath in anticipation. I'll keep Star Citizen on my radar, occasionally play the game - but won't really invest more energy into it until all these promises actually get delivered, which is like 3 to 4 years from now, assuming Roberts doesn't run out of money before then - which from many rumours, appears could happen. I have played both solo and co-op in MMOs for decades. Both game play styles have their advantages and disadvantages. As I've gotten older, I've preferred to be able to solo most of the time, with the occasional foray into group play. But I don't think I'm going to want to play an MMO for long that forces me into group play - so I do hope Star Citizen, if it survives to 1.0 release, does keep in mind solo play styles.
I honestly understand the frustration people have with backing 12 years ago and now it's ballooned into so much more that it seems like the development will never end. It's completely normal to feel that way. That being said, I'm 38 now and have grown up with video games since the super nintendo and sega genesis and we haven't had a real push to the next evolution of what games can do since probably the ps1>Ps2 or N64>Gamecube jumps. Do you really still want to keep playing the yearly shit EA and Activision are pushing out or do you want to see someone not run by corporate agendas change the game. I'm not saying CIG will succeed with any of this, but I'm at least rooting for someone to try, ESPECIALLY if they're outside of the usual players.
@@walawala-fo7ds Player driven instead of NPC... Danny76334: "Hi stranger, could you help me get a cooling system I left on Vladnar 1? I'd make it worth your while." Yeah, not going to happen.
Star Citizen's development has taken so long and we've seen promises come and go, so I'm going to continue to wait and not exclaim disappointment until I'm actually playing whatever 1.0 ends up being at release. That said, I think what will really make me happy is to see this project in a polished state, whatever becomes the game's core.
Its a good point that its unknown how the balance will be between players enjoying resources gathering and crafting vs those who need to output of crafting. That being said, I do believe that CIG will consider this, so it becomes a enjoyable experience for all. Personally, I am planning to go down the Industry path of resources exploration, gathering and some crafting. I will earn credits by selling what I craft.
the change to pure player-driven is just a shortcut to NOT having to make/create the actual content of the game, pretty transparently. Problem is that it turns the game into an even more niche product and it is REALLY damn hard to balance and control.
12:00 to address your concerns, i think the nice thing about a sandbox with the scale SC 1.0 is shooting for is that you don't have to participate in the big org/stations/thing. You can build a shipping empire and never get directly involved with any other orgs. Just pick your goal and go do it. You could run pve missions forever and just buy the things you need. I like that it looks like they are trying to keep a very flexible playing style in the game. I'll be upset if the basically force you to play the PU "story line" to unlock certain things.
You'll be forced to play the story line to unlock "citizenship". StarCitizen originally required to play SQ42 to become a citizen but that now is an independent game. Without Citizenship you'll be a civillian and you won't have the privileges of citizens, like buying land wherever you want in the UEE. This was announced in the CItizenCon few days ago.
@@Haegemon S42 has always been an independent game, and they always said that there would be multiple ways (Inc completing S42) to obtain citizenship. They haven't said those things no longer grants citizenship, so I'd cautiously say that's still a valid alternative route
@@Haegemon yeah, I'm just hoping the place I want to build (wherever that the up) isn't restricted by that, or that anything I personally care about in the game isn't negatively affected by me not playing the "sandbox storyline".
@@hajkie I'm actually okay with that, for two reasons. First is that's just for release, not forever. Second is the 100 systems was originally SWTOR style, with just a few landing zones, whereas what we have now, even 5 is probably far more than we would have had
Instead of these insane star bases... can we please get NPC crew in the game for 1.0 instead.... One is a feature they have been selling for 12 years and the other is something they dreamed up in the last 12 months.... Which do you think peopled pledged $700 million dollars for...
With single player games “you” are the hero. You get to leave your real life and adventure through stories, build empires, and save galaxies. This sort of multiplayer thing seems like it will be the first, the luckiest, and those with the most free time, that get to experience the full range of options, while everyone else just lives off their scraps. Eve online was apparently like this, it was almost impossible for new players to compete with those that started when the game was launched.
so CIG realised they really cant make star citizen the game it was meant to be and just abandon the whole thing for players to "make their own content" lmao. thats not why people wanna play space games. people play space games to experience space, something that is vastly unknown... unlike social relationships, which are played out.
You got it !!! They wont be able to deliver in the next 5 years the dream we all funded. So on release they need something to show for, so all the work to make a living universe is on the players.. aitn that a spit in face. "Sorry folks, I know u wanted a freelancer story like PU, but because Chris Roberts mismanged our funds, re hashed projects countless times, feature creep this game into oblivion and gave most funding to SQ42, well we dont have anything of real playable substance to show for. Sooo we have created a new vision for the game, craft, build and survive. Its your job now, make it a story out of it, use your imagination. Build our world for us.. the world we failed to deliever. At least now we have an excuse for a release. Have fun.. - This is the BS we get.
@@Star-bp5jj Making a Freelancer successor, was abandoned long ago, infact in 2014. When backers voted to carry on. If they didnt you would have gooten a Freelancer story, 100 solar systems with a depth of less than Starfield... You would have played and forgot the game, for long by now. Instead backers went to make something truly revolutionary and groundbreaking, thats what Star Citizen is going for. And since 2014, many hundred of thousands of players has backed for exactly this, so your a minority that just wanted a Freelancer asap..
@@Paisa231 WRONG again ! It still carried the spirit of the Freelancer vision. The diffrence in 2014 was scope of project that being seamless world transion and no loading screens! The New planet tech was the revolution but the dream promised was still a explorable lore filled living universe NOT base building and crafting like some space minecraft. Been here over a decade, I know what im talking about, your not going to gaslight me on this subject just becuase you like to craft and base build.
@@Star-bp5jj The new planet tech wasnt discovered possible before 2016.. so get it right. 54% voted to add stretch goals past 46M$.. so by this point it was up to CIG, to decide what these should be. And CIG have not said you wont get your Freelancer experience, that was left back in 2014. Even if Star Citizen has evolved into something greater. This year they talked about a Star Citizen Main Story, that likely is your "Freelancer" experience. Base building and crafting, is more of Star Citizen adjusting to modern gaming. You can call it another stretch goal, but it makes sense. And is way way less amibitous than Dynamic Server Meshing, that will make Star Citizen a "single" Persistent Universe. Its just a way to give us End Game goal, combining it with the Kickstarer 19M goal. Quote from the Letter of the Chairman 31 December 2014: The number one priority for team in building the Persistent Universe is how players themselves can affect the universe. We’re building a game that will be just as community driven once the game is “finished”' For me, that just show how Basebuilding and crafting make sense in a player influenced economy. With StarSIM controlling it in the background.
@@Star-bp5jj think you need to read LFC, from 31 of December 2014 again. Your correct that the initial Kickstarter stretch goals didn't contain crafting and base building. But as I said, that was abandoned by the vote in 2014. And in this letter C.R says number one priority is to make players affect the universe.. That is in 2024 gaming, base building, crafting and more. This year they talked about a Star Citizen Main story, that might perhaps be your Freelancer, beside SQ42. And a player driven experiences, doesn't excluded a NPC driven world and story. We still need to hear more details from CIG.
I am a solo player, and while I am of course a little bummed NPC crew wont make launch, it wouldn't be so much different than right now, if anything it might be slightly better if ai blades can automate a little bit of stuff for me. SC never seemed to me like it was trying to be space WoW, it has a setting, lore, and NPC driven content of course, but it was always sandbox-y. Even if it did have tons of story content and all hand crafted missions and stuff i wouldn't play them, and i play every game this way. I just log in, and go get in some kind of trouble, or go explore someplace i haven't been, or go build something; I have little adventures, and entirely on my own terms, on my own time. For me, and I would think any other folks who once loved EVE or Elite, this direction for SC is just fine.
The gameplay loops and NPC led intro campaign to introduce players to everything is a great idea, and I loved that part. I feel like I really could have skipped the huge dedicated part to the player org stations. It was a huge part of the presentation that I feel will seriously only apply to like 12 out of 5 million+ players at the end of the day. Almost nobody will be the CEOs of some gigantic 1000 person org. This clearly will only really apply to a couple no-life whales (which this game is notorious for), or to people in these select clans. Most of us will probably be playing alone, or with maybe one or two other people. So making an experience tailored to that and including NPC crews we can use as we progress is going to be critical in this game.
Yeah, fvkk it. It is always the Solo Players. Damn :( I am not a social gamer mainly. I want to get immersed, not having a 9 to 5 Job in Space just to get robbed by real people in Space. Of course thats a bit exaggerated by me, but thats how it feels so often. 10 years ago, they clearly thought the Gaming Universe will be further than it is now. With Base building and Player driven Sandbox, it just gets in Line with all the other Games. Sad. I once loved Base building. But Survival Craft Games destroyed it for me. Everything is a Job now. I am fed up with SC. Feels like the Friend that always lets you down but you still get back to him, because you already invested emotional time into the relationship and got used to him. And he feeds on your Energy, Money, Time and Hopes.
It does look like they're taking the player-driven path with all the community and org talks which wasn't the case 10 years ago, but I always knew they would focus on this when their main focus have been combat for many years now, it was bond to happen and this will never work in an MMO like SC and hopefully CIG understand it.
@@ioritenshi Yeah it is just a load of frustration overall, thats because i said i am exaggerating. But we'll see. At this point it is just Information. 1.xx will show what it is all about. It still sounds different from what was in my head regarding SC over the years.
Player driven content vs Curated content. It's probably best to err on player driven content, as you can always intervene to add your curated content. You can't do it the other way around. The most fun / emotional investment I've had in games is where it was player driven. There is nothing like having an online nemesis / guild, having to negotiate with players. Players tend to min / max though. I think solo players would be more suited to high security systems with more curated content they can login / logoff. If you want more player driven, high risk, high reward gameplay, then you could go into low security systems. I do hope CIG can add more content for other playstyles. Maybe unique rewards, statuses, or ships for those players who are master crafters, renowned explorers, published scientists, etc.
Perfectly sums up my feelings I signed up for a living breathing universe full of npc's, politics and their story's and us being people living in that universe taking part or trying to put our stamp on the universe and effect what happens, but now SC is just a mix of Rust and eve online a space survival sandbox which may at some point have the fleshed out interwoven story's and interactive/reactive npc's promised. The crafting system is a big worry too get to the higher tiers you need to the rare resources that will within a week be controlled by the big orgs and good luck fighting against them with their Tier5 ships and tier 3 fps gear so unless your in a big org that gameplay and gear is off limits. This direction explains why for years all the events have been pvp focussed.
Anyone who was paying attention knew this was always the direction. EvE 2.0 but with actually flying the ship is exactly what i wanted and expected when i backed in 2012. It was ALWAYS stated to be a risk vs reward sandbox MMO, that means pvp/ "survival"
People thinking NPCs are gone because they weren't explicitly talked about are so stupid. Do they think the panel that spoke about all the new bases and bunkers being spread around with the architecture tool are just gonna be completely empty. And they also said about new NPCs and having to talk to them in person for some missions.
It's almost like they forgot about all the work that's going into SQ42's NPCs and that the same behaviors will be transferred to the PTU. But honestly wouldn't blame anyone for getting the wrong idea since a lot of CIGs decisions always feels like a slap to the face of what they promised earlier.
![An Architect Reviews the RSI Polaris Capital Ship [Star Citizen]](/img/n.gif)
Sounds like they've got a lot planed for 1.0, but a lot of things could change in the next 30 years so I guess we won't know till it gets here.
I sometimes wonder if we will have ww3 and a economic or environmental collapse before star citizen will be done.
why 30 years? 1.0 is not thaat far away. Not anymore.
@@deineMutter9019 How's Lala-land this time of year?
@@GamingNostalgiaRemastered he might have a point, even though it probably is not the one he wants to make. To me it sounds more and more like cig is planning to call it a day at some point in the next year's and release 1.0 no matter how finished it is at that point. The writing is on the wall. They cut features left and right, manage expectations with what is going to be in 1.0 and that is less and less by the month.
@@deineMutter9019 Did you hear that from the same people that told you to "answer the call" for SQ 42 back in 2016?
CIG did in fact promise NPC assistance with multiplayer ships. I was 37 years old when I backed, 49 now. I am running out of time to play.
you still have like 40 more years (counting on averages), more if you're fit and live a sane life out of drugs, smoke and excess of alcohol, surely you will be able to play 1.0.
@@unlimitedslash ...let's not do this.
@@unlimitedslash But how sain it is to wait decades for a game ? ^^
No they forecasted, they predicted, but as CIG often say, ''they do not promise''. CIG have said just 3 months ago, its on the roadmap, yet a ways off yet, no one wants NPC Crew, no one wants a Starfield.
@@davewills6121 No one wants NPC Crew really? I rather think that no one wants to end up in the co-pilot seat of a scorpius ^^
I can't comprehend why some of the games today aim to become your second life/work. Like we don't have enough work in our everyday real lives but to also work while we actually try to relax and play a game is insane... Those games become a hard pass for me.
Same for me, but I think most players who want games like this have enough time.
Yeah and it's pay to win, do you think everyone who can just buy multiple thousand dollar ships won't have an advantage in this game-that-is-a-job? No possibility of me playing anything like this, as much as I love space games. It's a scam if you think it will be a fair experience without paying $$$.
@@methodermis this path has finally started making sense. In a player driven game, people like us who have no time will never be able to buy better gear or ships, leaving the option to spend moolah. But that also opens the way for the sweatiest bunch to spend a 10000$ to lay siege to the whole system.
This is why I became an instant fan of New Game Plus which allows me to play the main story and avoid the grind of most huge games the second time around. I paid the price once in personal time - can I just have some fun playing afterwards?
I mean because they are extremely popular? Which has always been the case with video games as people love their dollar to play time measurement and most people are filthy casuls who don't have time to learn a new game every 8 hours of gameplay or so much less be good enough to enjory any competive online which is how short story games get moree play time out of you normally. Also The vast majority of gamers prefore imerstion above all else hince why the high end realism 3D graphics style is so lucrative despite being the most expensive type of graphics to make at all let alone well... Also it isa extremely hard for most people to get imermersed if they are buying a new game every few hours... Not to mention it's expenisive to keep buying new games when you run out of content under 1000 hours of game time... Also the vast majority of game with insane playtimes needas can be fun even if you don't dedicate your life to them.... Like find your fun you know?
Star citizen committed the biggest carninal sin of crowdfunding.
It completely changed the product vs the pitch given during KS. People paid for Freelancer 2014.
Excellent point.
Why is anyone surprised. It's a refection of life over promise, under deliver. The problem is we accept that from everyone including our politicians.
Crowdfunding works best when the product is almost fully designed, and just need money to get manufactured and maybe a few rounds of feedbacks to polish it and add a couple of features. And for a simple reason: for all the ideas you have, it's very difficult to actually implement them, and most often the best way to develop a product is to give up most of the original ideas and get new ideas that solve the issues you encountered.
But this approach of "design first, crowdfund after" is not possible for videogames where most of the cost is the actual design. So crowdfunding videogames is a mess that is very prone to failure. And for the most part, Star Citizen should have failed: they should have realised that the promises were impossible for them to achieve, funding should have dried out in a couple of years, and the project should have collapsed.
But somehow, they are way too good at raising money, so this dying project was instead sustained in an undead state, and slowly modified until it became something more doable (with the skills and ideas they have) than the initial promises. And even then, I'd bet on the path still being far from finished, and the game changing even more before its eventual release (or collapse).
@@MoiMagnus1er I mean if they'd stuck to their original pitched idea they wouldve released a game years ago most likely and I bet people wouldve been relatively happy with it. Stopping and restarting development for a completely different game has kinda crippled them. And now they've basically changed the plan yet again. I mean this would've been a more gradual shift and these things happen but still this 1.0 pitch isn't really what I think a lot of ppl were imagining
this is absolutely right. I pledged back in 2014 and I'me so very very dissapointed. It looks bloody awesome don't get me wrong, but its essentially just Eve Online on a far smaller scale. Wheres my freelancer 2014?
"Here at SC we reigned in feature creep... here are some new features." How anyone cant see the mind-numbing ironic stupidity of that is hilarious.
They said that as a joke, how that skipped over your mind is numbing…
@@mythicallegendary3992 They may have said it as a joke but its not
I mean that is how you can deal with feature creep... By tossing out the ones you can's fionish with ones you can... Hince why Star citizen is now core feature complete while bethasda closet game to that is Skyrim thanks to mod lists. Like I can't think of a single fereature in Skyrim with out mods that is feature complet. Even though it has hadd way more funding,dev time, resorces fans and positivity press then star citizen likely ever will given how many hate this game to death.
@@GreenBlueWalkthrough I finished Skyrim back when it was first released and there were barely any mods, and I have no idea what do you mean. I think I maybe used some UI mod and that's it.
Define "feature complete"?...
@@mythicallegendary3992
I’m a Nigerian prince, and I would like to give you my whole fortune…
(I mean, you defend SC so I suppose you love to get scammed, and I try my luck… 😉)
I think the problem with it being so sandbox survival focused is that a lot of Star Citizen players are of the older crowd. We don't have time to dedicate to these kinds of games to get anywhere with them.
Correct, I play Eve-online as an older player, I don't have the time to put to it and so no point joining a corp. I just play around the edges, solo mining, etc.
We weren't quite so 'older' when we started... Maybe both EVE and Star Citizen will be good retirement activities? However, I will likely be worm food before 1.0 comes out.
@@Miner-dyne I know, right? The "older crowd" now is the same crowd that got the kickstarter off the ground in the first place. We've seen dozens of other products rise, flail and flop with lofty ambitions, CIG isn't somehow immune to poor development management. Something something wisdom and age. Well anyway, at least I'll have something to play in my retirement home.
Then...play a different game?
@@flywheel8541much like Eve it sounds like there will be space for freelance solo play in the higher security systems. If you want to experience the lawless areas you’ll need to be on your toes or aligned with the controlling faction.
How to destroy a good space game? Make it player driven, so that people with no life, zero social skills, and too much free time on their hands will be running the show and making the game into a toxic cesspit filled with endless internet drama. Apparently EVE Online did not taught CIG anything.
You forgot the most important element, “players who have too much money”. Some people have already bought whole fleets, essentially already ready to corner the entire market (which might might be less impactful if spread across 100 systems, but when there’s only 5 systems to fight over, the fight is over before it starts). There’s 0 incentive for the devs to fix that as it’s the entire business model.
Ahh yes, sure, eve online, the game that has been loved and is still going for almost 22 years now, still has a player base...... Is somehow seen as bad???
@@dmitryv3926 A player base that has been mostly stagnating for over a decade, which also has its numbers hugely inflated by the fact that most long-time players keep anywhere from 5 to 40 accounts logged in simultaneously all the time.
So yes, EVE's player base is certainly not something a game studio should be aspiring towards to if they want a healthy community that also grows and attracts new players over time.
@@Leo3ABPgamingTV again, you are scoffing at a game that has had an active player base for 22 years. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's bad or that it's failing. According to people like you, EVE has been dying for a solid 15 years now. Maybe using a model from one of the most successful and longest running games ever isn't a mistake?
@@dmitryv3926 A game that has, lets say, 3 people playing it actively for 20 years can technically also be considered "a 20 year old game with an active player base" but that does not make it a good and healthy player base, especially if half of those players also are toxic sociopaths. If you keep pointing out the number of years then I will point you to WoW, which is just as old and has around 7 millions active players.
In case of EVE we talking about roughly 1-2k more-or-less regular players, and maybe equal amount of players who joins for a bit and then leaves disappointed after realizing what EVE is. So it does not matter whether EVE has been at this state for 20, 30 or 100 years. A stagnant player base is never good for a game, and arguably was never good for EVE either. For example, at some point CCP (EVE's devs) considered to put a lid on multiboxing and multiple accounts, but that was simply impossible because of the small playerbase a lot of which was multiboxing and using multiple accounts already at that point (that was before having multiple clones went official), and CCP could not afford loosing even a couple hundred people to those changes. So in the end a small, toxic and stagnant player base was essentially dictating the game's development course, which led to further stagnation. EVE could be a great game if EVE's developers did not trapped themselves by catering to a overly vocal paying minority. A game that has potential to be played by at least tens of thousands people ends up floating at less than 5k for decades. There is nothing to be proud of. If anything, EVE is just a long-lasting failure and a story of what to avoid when making space MMO.
A sandbox massive multiplayer game HAS to be casual, it HAS to attract as many people as possible, because they are the content. The less casual friendly the game is, the less content it has, which can easily lead to a death cycle.
@@corn.3892 false. EvE is sandbox and still has a large playerbase. DayZ is a sandbox with a large playerbase. The point of Star citizen is to be the game that the hardcore players can enjoy while being large enough so those that are solo and casual can enjoy it too.
You want casual only with no chance of hardcore players? Stick to elite.
@@ausername7470 A sandbox game MUST aim to include casual and hardcore players. You can't have an sandbox MMO with perma death, full loot PvP, huge travel times and forced multiplayer. It sounds cool, but in reality it dosent work.
It's very hard to make a successful PvE MMO. It's nearly impossible to make a successful PvP MMO. There are probably as many failed "hardcore full loot PvP" MMO attempts as there are players who actually enjoy that sort of game, and only a few that survived past the launch hype. SC will have an even harder time because all the edgy teens who loved the idea at the beginning are in their 30s now.
"Hardcore PvP player" is just a longer way to say "griefer", and most people will drop any game after being griefed a couple times. But the whole SC experience is just an object lesson: _never_ _pre-order_ _a_ _game!_
It sounded too good to be true when announced. What has changed since then? Given the opening salvo of pay to win from the beginning, I just sit on the side watching the drama.
@@corn.3892 Yet here EVE is +20 years later still going somewhat strong.
I ultimately wanted a more graphically elaborate, and narrative driven space game in the spirit of all the space games I grew up with. Starlancer, Wing Commander 1-4(and Prophecy), and Descent: Freespace and Freespace 2. "The Price of Freedom, is eternal vigilance." - Wing Commander 4 In this case, our vigilance wasn't worth the price of waiting all this time. It's really a shame.
Isn't Squadron 42 supposed to be that? Haven't heard much about it lately. We desperately need some new games or true remasters in new game engines of Freespace 2 or Wing Commander like has been done with Tie Fighter.
You wanted a single player game?
That's what Squadron 42 will be. 30-40 hrs of single-player Wing Commander-like gameplay. They also demo'd the tutorial mission which was over an hour of amazing gameplay. I'll just assume you didn't watch it.
That game already exists. It's called Elite Dangerous.
If ED isn't good enough for you, I don't know what to tell you. It's a 1 to 1 simulation of our galaxy with billions of star systems. This is superior to anything SC has promised, and infinitely superior to their currently broken tech demo.
Time to support devs that make actual, working games, instead of getting high off hopium.
@@FD3SA For me that's not the full truth.
I have always felt exactly the same as what you said - that the 1:1 simulation of our real Milky Way Galaxy is just completely incomparable in scale, scope, and realism compared to SC or anything else ever made.
And indeed, it will always be better and greater than SC in terms of the galaxy itself. Nothing can ever beat that. It's like the end game of space simulation - that one aspect.
However, what SC *does* do, it does way better than Elite Dangerous. There's more than just the simulation of the galaxy. The planets, the ships, the gameplay, the details and fidelity of the game at every level in SC is vast, and much of this surpasses Elite Dangerous.
Ship interiors and the gameplay that comes with that, the planetary tech and the sheer exploration and gameplay that comes with that, pretty much everything they're showing/promising is a lot more detailed and next gen compared to the equivalent of what we see in Elite Dangerous.
I'd love to see the scope/fidelity of SC, within Elite's 1:1 Milky Way Galaxy - combine the two. Imagine that.
Don't worry about what "1.0" says it's going to be, they'll just move the goal posts again, just as they are doing now, again.
This what happens when you actually planned on having AI finish what you start but the AI isn't ready yet, so you stall.....
I mean no has ever complained about Minecraft doing that and being an extremely different game every few updates... Like even from 1.0m Minecraft now adays feels more like Minecraft 2 then the same game that opened to the public over a dacade ago... Which the only thing constant in all the Minecraft builds is the game engine and some code. Star citzen on the other hand is much more normal of a game like 1.0 just means offcally released and nothing else.. it has always been that way and every dev has their own defnation of it... Which games have had major game changing patches atleast since the NES came out much to the dismay of speed runners and game historians... Which the problem is so much worse today given the ease of updating a game and the fact that fans are always wanting to have more access to mod a game more... So now we have unofficial patchs for not only games but mods to... Like hating the star citizen devs for doing what they update wise is really illinformed assuming you want the bbest for all involved and not just hating the game and devs for existing in your reality or what ever the hate everything for noreason crowd true reason are...
@@GreenBlueWalkthroughbro all that typing basically just to say "You're wrong for hating the game, Minecraft was worse".
Yeah well at least Minecraft actually fully released at some point. Plus they have an archive of every previous version. At this rate id be shocked if Star Citizen ever releases.
As long as people keep shoveling money into their project, why wouldn't they keep moving the goal posts? At the end of the day everything is about money. That's why small scale indie teams are able to make such good games these days, because they haven't lost their passion for making the best games they can make.
"As it approaches full release" - Gave me a good laugh that.
why?
It's always approaching full release. 😁
@@sdrkrmit’s been approaching release for years
@@sdrkrm if you really need to ask at this stage ...
Release date: 2XXX + X
I am 38 now and Honestly I started to think that I will rather experience visiting space myself than getting all promised content in my lifetime XD
that's still the case since everything here is still only about 10% of what was initially promised.
I'm 57 I feel your pain ... lol
It's funny. 12 years later and many players do not even remember what was promised. Their current vision of 1.0 is a fraction of what they wanted to create. Even if you ignore the 100 systems they promised.
Treat it like trucking simulator. Get off shift on your generation ship, log into starcitizen and take out your exploration ship
I was about 38 when I first heard about this title.
I can't see a solo player being able to build a quiet outpost somewhere, with the idea of being left alone to do their own thing. With so few planets, even with the huge planet surfaces, I can see dissappointment in my future, as I pick up the what is left of my humble abode ad infinitum.
you can actually without being bothered in the Stanton system and so few planets lol moons ? and im sure also asteroid base how many times have you stumbled onto someone outside the regular hubs just walking over a moon surface or planet. Look at earth 8 billion people and there are still lots of places where if you would go there you would not see a human ever.
@@nemesisone8927well, planets in SC are _much_ smaller than real players, having just 2% the surface area compared to a real planet, so that's a really bad comparison.
Also, the current game severely restricts the number of players in a given "universe". So sure, you can be left alone when there's only 50 players in the entire Stanton system, but the entire pitch of SC's shared universe is that everyone will be in the same "universe", so you'll be looking at tens of thousands of players in every system...I mean, in theory because I'll highly skeptical that'll ever happen.
@andrewshandle it's actually closer to 9% when you account for the fact that only 29% of the surface of the Earth is land, whereas SC planets are have relatively small bodies of water.
That's still about 14 million square kilometers on just ONE Star Citizen planet.
Stanton: 4 planets
Pyro: 6 planets
Nyx: 4 planets
Castra: 2 planets
Terra: 4 planets
So 20 planets at launch. Even if they each "only" had half the surface area of the planets we have now, we'd still have around 130,000,000 square Km of surface area.
Even if this game had 1 million players, we'd each get 130 square km.
And we haven't even included lunar surface area.
If you think it's going to he crowded you are out of your mind lol.
@@MannyCalaveras "If you think it's going to he crowded you are out of your mind lol."
I never said it would be crowded, I was just pointing out that the planets in SC are _way_ smaller than real planets, so the person I responded to was not being accurate when they used that as a comparison. That's all.
But given players will have ships that can fly at 100s of miles an hour, and those ships are equipped with scanners designed to point out POIs, the idea that you could just grab a plot of land somewhere on a planet and never have anyone come across you is silly.
If a group of players with good ships decide they want to troll or grief people who setup on a planet, they'll _easily_ be able to do so.
Plus you can already do that in SO many games out there...
Like a generational colony ship, we are seeing the birth of generational game dev. It takes multiple generations to complete making the game.
Like building a pyramid
It's the same o' game. CIG announces a new finish line, new features, they show some sizzle reel, new ships for sale. Then this time next year the show off some new features. Suddenly two years have gone by, the PU is is degraded status, there is no mention regarding 1.0 release then sometime later they talk about beyond 1.0. Show some new features then announce that 2.0 is coming soon. Multiple announced ships will be debuted, funds raised. Wash, rinse, repeat. CR and CIG need to be investigated
As a solo non PVP gamer (and I suspect there are a lot more of us in the player base than most people think) I don't normally comment/give feedback on games (like most solo players from my experience).
SC has the potential to be my main game with one main issue that stopped me playing it during alpha (even though I really enjoyed most of the game). I'd love to see if other solo players feel the same way (no need to reply as I know we don't normally like to talk to others, just like the post if you are in this group) or just add a comment on what would stop you playing (not just being annoyed at) SC when it release 1.0
For me the quickest thing to stop me playing a game is when a ganker can retard my progress (ie blowing up my ship meaning I have to re-kit out the modules costing lots of money etc).
Please give me a PVP flag (or some other thing) that stops me being attacked by other players.
This could reduce rewards (ie 5% less for mining when it is on etc) or stop certain areas/missions being available, I would happily be limited to non PVP activities/areas. If there is an area where NPC's do this then that is fine (it was my mistake for going there and I can avoid that in future or take a basic ship with no modules and no gear etc)
I've not played in over a year, last time, just after the reset, I had just got enough cash to outfit a mining ship and got ganked on my first run. I couldn't afford to replace the modules so went back to basic mining and got ganked again by a different player in a different system.
Logged off and played some other games (that don't allow other players actions to degrade my own progress) and not played since (although I might jump in again before 1.0 but the progress resets put me off playing seriously so might wait till, 1.0 comes out , if I'm still alive by then of course :P)
If I still get ganked in 1.0 I will most likely end up playing something else (Like a lot of people I have talked to in games who also don't normally bother complaining on forums and just go play something else).
The 'Active posting' gamers will say go play something else if you don't like it (and I will happily do so), but they don't seem to realise that a lot of money (not as much as the big backers) and the feeling of an 'alive' player base comes from the 'working 9-5' solo players (look at them as IRL NPC's I guess).
Without them it could turn out like another Elite where you get less and less people in the game (although a lot of this is down to the bad implementation of the PVP flag system). This means an emptier game feeling and less money for the devs to produce the content.
It also takes longer for the passive gamer to achieve stuff in game, this actually means that anything gained has a higher value to them and makes them more likely to keep playing, subsequently loss of this stuff through a ganker also has a bigger effect on the enjoyment of the game. These solo's will most likely end up finding people they enjoy playing with and maybe becoming less of a solo player.
I believe this is one reason why WOW managed to get and maintain their number of players in the early years (not so much today). Solo players came, kept playing because they were catered for and eventually made friends and joined guilds and became group players/raiders.
Hardly anyone starts a new game without being a solo player (unless you already have a guild in another game moving to the new one). So keeping the solo players happy should be a top priority if you want a game to continue growing as these people are the players that will eventually join the guilds and become invested in the game. You just need them to stay in the game long enough to meet other players they enjoy playing with (even if that is not what they intended to do, ie they intended to just play solo) and then they will experience the real reasons why MMO's became so popular with dedicated players, they are dedicated to their friends in the guild as much as the game itself.
To me SC is looking more and more like Foxhole, which is not a good thing.
That game has the whole production area for both factions plagued by guilds, elitism and toxicity. Everywhere you go is signs telling people to stay away, "private property", "don't steal our stuff". I once tried to build something to help finishing a production chain, and next day I found a sign saying "dismantle this as it's our territory".
And when you manage to somehow craft something on your own to send to the frontlines, after spending literal hours crafting it? It's all gone in seconds thanks to "partisans" (No. They're griefers. A*****es who find funny to ruin people's efforts. Period.) camping in map borders, to blow up your vehicle.
Star citizen is looking more and more like that. And despite being a backer, I'm really despising the direction it is taking. This game will be a grief-fest.
Yeah I'm a solo player myself and I see that solo play is getting slowly pushed away from the game. Hell, they just said yesterday that NPC crews is going to be a post 1.0 launch. So yeah, by the time 1.0 comes out and I'm thinking in 2030s, they will change their stance on NPC crew and probably get rid of it all together.
@@madmaveric sorry it’s the wrong game for you. CIG and Chris personally have said more than once that this is a game where everyone will have to PVP. With 100 person servers and small pre-release player base it was totally possible for people to avoid pvp. But that is not their plan. Much like eve, pvp is unavoidable - once game is closer to vision. Solo or private group mode in Elite is for players like you but no such thing in SC. BTW the Elite player base has grow a lot in the last year so you may not have been on since odyssey if you think it’s shrinking.
one of my favorite thing when I want to enjoy a cool flight model is to boot elite dangerous in Solo/Mobius session, put a podcast on (galaxy radio I call it, eh) and enjoy the ship and flying around 🙂
@@AtlasRandGaming So what is the point of lawless or high security systems? non pvp pilots will stay in high sec sectors where pvp should be extremely risky
this always boils down to pvp players want a target rich environment and pve players want to be left alone this circle cannot be squared
pvp players will be forced into high security systems as that is where the majority of players will be
Pfft... I gave up on SC after they missed their first release date with the flimsy excuse that they're going to make it "so much better" with nothing concrete to show for it. Every year they use the most see-through excuses; it's just social engineering turned cult. I see stupid shit in the notes like "improved liquid physics for the bartender when he is pouring a drink" and somehow there's still people cheering for over 10 years all without a game anywhere near what they were originally promised.
I'll judge in 2068, when the public beta launches.
Hoooowee. That's optimistic.
Very original broski, it'll surely take them a million years to make 5 star systems
@@Namaka420 you're right, I'm being way too optimistic.
but look closely tho, the 3 new star systems that launch with 1.0 has less poi combined than Staton along, I guess its doable, just with minimum effort
@@jasonz2736 With minimum effort, yes. But you have to account for when Chris Roberts decides to create a new font for the in-game personalized mugs and stuff like that. 😁
My problem with player controlled sandbox is that they seemed to quickly become deadlocked by a few large player groups and everyone else has less oportunity and an inferior experience. In the end no new generation of player can enter the game because the current one hold everything. Player generated content still depends of what the devs put in the game so there is a limit of what can be done and what is accessible and that limit will be reached.
“Shape the galaxy”. Ah yes, the galaxy, well known for only being 5 star systems large.
So excited to get bullied and extorted by massive clans every time I log in!! Thank you Star Citizen! Switching to the Eve route after 12 years will DEFINITELY not alienate thousands of solo players!
Welp, guess SC is not a game for people like me who wants to play on my own or with 1-2 friends, any longer.
Clan-focused games have some of the most toxic tryhards of the entire gaming market. "Nice" to see that we're back to this kind of game again.
I'll go back playing Avorion I suppose...
the ones throwing money at them are the whales in these big orgs buying 20 copies of every insanely expensive ship. it makes sense that CIG will start catering more and more to these kinds of players because those are the ones paying the bills. i suspect development will shift more and more to them and less about solo players, sadly.
This has a very simple solution, don't set up shop in lawless systems and you'll be fine.
@@Dexter01992 You guys are so damn dramatic. There is still plenty of content planned for solos and small groups.
They didn't switch, this has been their game plan for the past 10 years. Deal with it.
"Won't contain all the features that CIG promised." Of course not. 🤨
As someone with very little stake in the game (a gifted key from years and years ago), I think this company bit off more than they can chew. Making a first impression is important. What I've gotten from them is they think they can just tease features and take in money, and do the entire development backwards. Conventions, features, sizzle reels, celebrity actors, but no full release after over a decade. People are rightly perturbed by their approach because it's atypical of a development cycle for even the biggest games releasing today. I'm sure with three quarters of a billion in funding they can both develop and create production value through their conventions and tech spotlights, but it rubs me the wrong way. I just see more promised features beautifully rendered in advance of a show, and not a realized product with said features in it. There's a reason people are able to contain excitement for a game like GTA 6, because it has the prestige and proven success of its franchise to support it. This is a company putting out their first product and it feels like they're building their 20th after decades of envelope-pushing success. I just don't understand it. All I can say is I feel for the people who feel duped, and I hope the ones who have given and continue to give money get the product they're promised, in a timely manner consistent with their evolving expectations.
@@YouLikeBosch over a decade development without release it not too rare for big gaming projects, but I still have to agree. Doing the crowd funding way, or backwards as you call it, created mayor problems. Promising stuff they might or might not be able to pull off to draw in funds became their marketing model. This includes creating and selling ships for game loops that are far from done or final. This has become some sort of death spiral for the game development progression.
Problem is that Chris had issues releasing games in the past as well. Freelancer got delayed and delayed cause he always wanted to keep adding stuff. That is great right? Someone with passion and want to have all these amazing things in a game. Yeah, but making those things take time and then new technology arrives so he wants that included, and then he wants that and then and then. Freelancer went the same direction. Their first publisher was giving him time, but Microsoft bought that publisher and they had enough of it and kicked him off the project and let another team finish the game cause there was no end to the development if they let him create the game. Now he has no publisher, there is no one telling him "Dude, release the freaking game already! It's been long enough now!".
Yes making games can take a long time, especially ambitious open world/galaxy ones. Problem is, most games that took so long to make were never revealed till they were in a much further state of development so gamers only had to wait 2 or so years. They also didn't do early access so no one bought into it when they were 20something and now being 40something and still don't have the game they bought into. Don't forget, the original release date was set for 2014. Yeah I rather have a proper working game with enough content, but at this point I really begin to believe the scam theories, seeing how much money they make with the pledge store and have ships on "in stock" for digital products what do you mean "in stock", that is just a scummy tactic to create FOMO and have people rush to buy it, and now the news of the pledge store being a thing that will be there in the final game, like WTF, pay to win to the extreme?
@@Jorendo Not sure what they've said exactly, but I expect the Pledge Store to continue after 1.0. What I DON'T expect is for them to continue to sell ships and LTI after release. I expect that at release, the bought ships and the LTI to simply be the tip of the iceberg, otherwise, it is P2W. That all said, they can sell skins on the Pledge Store until the end of time, and its fine.
@@DAClarkism My guess, and what they should do, is after 1.0 the store should turn to selling ship paints and decorations, clothes.
@@dj_dojo It's super rare
CIG promised conflicting things from the start. It was obvious that eventually CIG would have to resolve the conflicts and disappoint a players.
I'm so glad we've got to the point of not pretending Scam Citizen is more than it is.
Until a system is effective and working out should not exist in our minds.
Star Citizen is full of concepts-of-systems, none of them interact without oodles of jank both in the technical aspect and the UX aspect.
Star Citizen is space-themed VRChat.
Endgame space stations are for big Orgs, not classic solo player or even little orgs.
true same like in eve just like big end game ships are in SC like the Orion etc
Yup, so orgs like test get to control Pyro which you need to travel through to get to nyx and castra
Considering that the game has entirely catered to solo experiences for the past 10 years, this was a breath of fresh air for many.
So we end up with countless player run stations that then become meaningless?
They’re also for alliances of several small orgs.
The problem is Star Citizen has always been that it’s a game that exists predominately in the imagination of backers and developers alike. Some of it was (and will) likely never be possible. Some of it would never realistically work in a MMO. It had to evolve, and in doing so it would naturally leave some backers expectations wanting. But at the end of the day, they needed to fix the goalposts for 1.0. It’s also clear to me that everything they showed will require modification along the way, so there’s no reason to feel like the sky is falling. We should also remember that CIG hasn’t delivered on time or as advertised… ever… so no reason to think this will be exactely like they showed anyway! 😅
I think that's a fair summary.
Yeah but base building? Survival?
@@saintjames1995 It has always had survival in the PU, which is why it has food and drink, and why so many exploration ships have showers and toilets and why habs have shower gel on display (but not for sale yet). Plus, base building only makes sense for people who do not have exploration ships.
@@saintjames1995 what’s wrong with either of those things? I always assumed crafting and base building were natural extensions of resource gathering gameplay loops (even if not explicitly stated as goal until last year). And the survival aspects of SC are greatly exaggerated and could be assumed to be present in a universe where you are a person and not a ship.
@@Billy-bc8pk maybe so but this game has no vision or soul. They only hop on what's trending
Not only Solo players will be at a disadvantage but also, small ORGS. There are massive orgs with thousands of players. Each one of those players will also be able to settle personal bases but also benefit from being part of massive orgs. Their land claims will not count towards their Orgs claims and as there seems to be no claim limitations, then, the very large ORGS might very well own the Solar systems where Resources are more valuable, but also, all of their members will also be able to have claims and use them for extra input for their orgs... and all of this in lawful systems.
So basicly, extra large orgs will have tentacles everywhere and that's a massive disadvantage versus small orgs.
Lastly, I don't see why massive orgs would allow solo players or small orgs to settle down anywhere in the systems they own. They will have thousands of Orgs members do the tasks they need to gather all resources, 24/7.
Good luck to anyone that wants a small plot of land try to settle a base there without the massive Orgs permission (Probably under taxes).
like in real life...thats how the world functions
@@SwissCowboy87 in real life if i build a cabin in lapland on land i own i dont expect a b-52 stratofortress to carpet bomb it for shits and giggles cause the pilots belong to a huge org (the us air force) and have nothing else to do
LoL... SC wasn't the game anyone pledged for.... it's basically a parking lot/trial area for pay-to-win ships with some systems built around it to encourage PVPers to have a reason to buy those ships. Did I miss anything?
Thanks for this
Your kids will have grown up and be flying to work in their hover cars by the time this fully releases 😁
Sir, you have a very optimistic view on the nearby future of our earthly world.
In 1970 that's how we envisaged 2000
We'll have that in 2026? That's awesome! (fingers crossed at least) :D
Just like they sed flying cars by 2000 never going to happen people can’t even drive on roads
The first time the player base does something that the developers haven't expected (as have happened many times in EVE), and they then have to do a retcon, the whole thing is gonna blow up. Difference here being that the player base is not prepared for such things as they are in EVE.
thats what the PTU is for :)
@@nemesisone8927 Companies have test builds of their software and can't prevent zero day exploits
I remember several years ago when I said there would never be 100 systems at launch when it's taken them years to make just two some deranged fanboy told me I had no idea what I was talking about, because it would just be so fast to build them now the tools had been made. Uh huh.
Back when the 100 star systems were talked about being added the game was in its original idea being a modernized freelancer. When you couldn't land anywhere just the main landing zone and it was done through a cutscene. I think they even talk about this in the 1.0 segment of this years citcon. There is no realistic way of them getting that many systems out for 1.0 or maybe at all
The cult will come up with anything to defend it, even in the face of reality. Once again, all they've done is move the goalposts and made more empty promises and plans.
@@uhavekrabs A lot of us old fuddy-duddies who backed it in those days just wanted that, and in many ways still just want that. It's no longer remotely the game I backed, and realistically never will be.
Yeah, people were desperately clinging to the idea that SC was always one magical piece of "tech" away from development speed increasing 100x over.
@@JohnMichaelson I think many games have proven that 100 systems for the sake of 100 systems is kinda a dumb metric to chase. NMS and ED have essentially infinite systems and other than for some segment of the player base it doesn’t actually enrich gameplay. Those games are also designed with “inch deep, mile wide” in mind. SC kicked that idea with seamless transitions and fully explorable planets and moons, anyone who thought otherwise was just foolish. A moon in Star citizen today is more area for gameplay than entire systems as envisioned in the kickstarter. CIG’s explanation of why they are aiming for 5 systems at launch vs 100 at this years citizen con is perfectly logical as well.
I pledged back in 2012. For Squadron 42. Still waiting.
I think focusing on end-game guild cooperation stuff is a mistake for 1.0. Most players will probably want to start solo or with small groups of friends and build relationships with player guilds over time. They should put more focus into missions and exploration gameplay and a few more star systems as well as NPCs/a.i. to buff out smaller group gameplay so we can build up to more guild level stuff and have the true rags to riches experience and not feel like the big guilds have all the power...building Dyson Spheres around all the planets and pushing us little guys around.
I'm not really surprised it is leaning more towards survival Base building type of gameplay. Because we've had for a long time, the need for players to eat and drink to live.
It's looking like Star Wars Galaxies with a survival mechanic
Rust in space. A very specific player plays those games. Casual players will drop off quickly.
The thing is it's not JUST that. In true SC fashion that whole aspect of the game's totally optional basically. This seems to be what a lot of people are missing.
@@CitizenScott I don't understand this too, it's called endgame for a reason..
Dual Universe without the ship building.
@@DeadBaron What do u mean without ship building? Like custom ones?
This literally just sounds like they realised scripting and crafting the single player experience was too much hassle for the time and money it would cost, based on the time and money already spent. Not surprised. That's what happens when you spend 11 years crafting one world and system and backing technology for simulating more, suddenly you run out of money and 90% of the filler work isn't done and has to be scoped out.
Don't forget the few hundred million Chris gives himself lol
No sympathy for the situation. It came in like the second coming of Christ and now, years later - still coming. I learned my lesson long ago with preordering anything. You want my cash, what are you offering? Promises? No. Thank you.
this is what happens when you build a game from the outside in. most developers will make a game from the ground up. but CIG was too busy selling how pretty their game would be, so they started developing the opposite way.
I glad they've reigned in the feature creep, but the move from solo play has killed it for me. I want a game I can dip into for an hour or two.
I used to be competitive in Eve, and that was practically a 2nd job.
lol, they actually added feature creep like space station building and Carrier 3d printing.
What was the move away from solo play? was it the ai crew delays? or do you mean the station building and stuff? it seems like a solo player will still be able to build them selves a little base somewhere. But the ai crew thing, honestly they should just implement repair nanites to keep your ship running but would be much slower then a real engineer and computer controlled turrets to place on your turret hard points that would have smaller size weapons but not require crew. would be much easier then having AI crew do the jobs that have gotten much more complicated in the last few years then just flying and shooting.
@@Sleek110both of those, but it also sounds like a big move away from sp-friendly game play in general.
I think it will be an awesome game for people with the free time to put into multi-player. However I don't have that and I suspect neither do a lot of SC backers.
Wait....so they BACKED out of the 65 million dollar stretch goal of 100 star systems on launch? And after that I remember some of the additional milestones were for additional star systems. What a scam.
What happened to the Quanta system? 9:1 NPC to player ratio? NPCs that have their own priorities?
Is that all gone? Is Tony Z still with the project?
I'm confused. I'm ok with the changes over all but the Quanta system really looked like a leap forward for NPCs in gaming.
I don’t play Star Citizen, but I was considering it until now. I hate sand box games. The rich dudes rule them, and solo players get screwed. I don’t want to see another Eve Online game. If I wanted that style, then I would just play Eve Online which is already available. This new version of Star Citizen won’t be ready for another five years, so I will just watch countless reviews of frustrated players who are forced to use a buggy game that is incomplete until then. But thanks for what was a great summary of the new direction and its goals.
I thought it was going this way many years ago and knew the online was going to suck for solo players. It's for groups and griefers.
Over a decade promising a new Freelancer game we could "enjoy solo" and still no S42 in our hands.
This game was always meant to be a giant MMO sandbox. Since day one of its inception. How did you not know that?
@@TheNucaKola Kinda, it was Kickstarted as a Freelancer inspired successor, and those who backed way back then is kind in their right. But that idea was left in 2013, when players Voted to go for a truly revolutionary SpaceSIM MMO. And even in an alpha state, its already one of a kind game with superior scope and space fidelity compared to any other space game on the market. When SQ42 is delivered, we see what CIG full focus on the PU will manage. Beside all the assets and gameplay they they can take from SQ42 to the PU.
@@Paisa231 “do not quote the old magic to me, for I was there when it was written”
SC and eve are 2 completely different games, the only thing thats the same is that its a multiplayer space game.
As a matter of fact, and I remeber this because it was one of the Reasons to pledge in 2013, Chris Roberts said that Star Citizen is ment to be played by a single Player per ship and that crew the stations with real players is purely optional and the whole is designed to have NPC-Crew at different levels of quality and that the AI, in general, can not be differentiated from a players behavior etc.
To now say that this will not be part of 1.0 or even not be the case anymore is, besides many other things, a big promise not kept. The whole Idea of even the capital ships like the Idris was to be able to run it all alone and be on par with real people on stations if youre NPC crew is of good quality. Yet another reason to really think about asking the money back. Would be a nice PC I can buy from that money, one I should buy to play the game anyway.....
Before we even have this conversation we need to see what dynamic server meshing does for the server overhead. AI is extremely expensive.
I wouldn’t blame you for refunding though. 2013 is a long time to wait for something that has shifted what it wants to be so many times.
HUh you didn't hear about the post on reddit today huh? Why don't you take 5 min and go read that reply from the dev and then comeback an erase this as it just makes you look foolish and uniformed.
@@IT_ODIS This is one of those things I never understood the moment I heard it. Server-meshing is treated like it is a big thing, while in reality it should have been the first thing to work on since they know they want to get MP and they want to do it big. If you do it right, and that simply means like others did it many times already, it is not expensive to the servers running the game. It also is not expensive the way they orignally planend it. But plans go bigger, and if plans go bigger, you have an excuse. There is a Page on the CGI-Website that we, the bakers, are the publisher for SC. Unfortunately, Chris Roberts never finished a game before the publisher cut the funds etc. I have the feeling they make more money by not releasing, and that is expensive :D For the bakers
@@IT_ODIS I only say Banu Merchantman....
I see. I guess CIG looked at Fallout 76 and thought "that would work if it was in space".
HA! I was just thinking about how Fallout 76 had to revamp the whole thing after trying the player generated bs.
how tf are you comparing those 2 games?
@@DJB10T1C They're about the same level of dumpster fire...
I'm comparing the approach to content development by the developers, not the games.
Another good watch OA. Great to hear the inheritance tax comment as well 👍🏾. Whether virtually or in reality, we are always being squeezed further and further. Brings new meaning to ‘taxed from birth, till’ death and even beyond’…
Is Squadron 42 still coming, or did they give up on that? This vision of Star Eve Citizen Online is not really what I'm looking for.
Star Citizen illustrates the level of demand for open world space game. You think by now other developers would capitalize on that.
marketing research says we are niche interest - 700 million revenue in 12 years is peanuts. no one will do a game like that.
@@dero985 interesting. I'm surprised to see millions raised for star citizen each year. Sometimes I wonder about marketing companies and their proficiency. Until then X4 Foundations will do
The difference is that SC is crowdfunded, unlike other companies and their games, where the money comes from private investors where the absolute basic need is to get benefits, and therefore they will never invest in dubious proposals, if you where to bring the idea of a space sim right now, to any board of investors for a next project AT ANY company you would be thrown out the window like the meme.
SC is possible because the team only answers to the the numbers they have to work provided by the community, if they had to answer to a board of directors and investors we might have seen the racing stuff as a standalone game, and the same goes for any other thing like salvaging, or mining.
@@unlimitedslash You're talking like a salesperson. Star Citizen earning over $700m on its Beta just smells like a scam to me. The very fact that they haven't approached publishers just screams that they aren't looking to set any hard targets. It's turned out to be a carrot on the end of a stick for the fans.
@@mrpositronia You don't need a publisher to make a game, in fact, many indies get screwed over due to draconian publisher contracts.
Heck i've seen some contracts for publishing that literally NEGATE any income to the studio until the publisher has gotten it's share, and even after that they keep sucking 40+% of the income.
People throw shit at steam for the 30%, but having seen the shit i've seen, let me tell you, Steam IS FUCKING CHEAP accounting for all the features it adds, not only for regular users but also game devs.
SC earning 700m with ONLY AN ALPHA (it's not even a Beta) running for testing purposes is fishy, and looks scammy, i get that, but look at it from the fans of scifi perspective: we are FUCKING THIRSTY of a damn good space sim game, the last good one we had was Freelancer, back in 2005, with the exception of X4, but that's certainly not an easy game to hop on, the others are either space minecraft (NMS), or crappy space fighter simulator (Elite), and then we have some rogue projects here and there like Flight of Nova, that's it.
At this point we are gonna keep pushing money into the game, even if it takes 10 more years to reach the announced 1.0, because no other game company in this planet would ever risk making something like SC, no investor would be crazy enough to put money on this game, either, we pay it ourselves (at the risk of failing and loosing it all, and at the expanse that some of it will be going towards not really needed goals like those renovations they are doing in the studios where they are trying to mimic ship interiors and have a freaking bar with bartender included), or we will NEVER see something like this coming.
Look at the current market of videogames, publishers only sign for 3 things: CoD, Assassin's Creed, or a mix of both, that's what's been going on for the past 15 years.
You can play Cyberpunk 2077, that you will not have a need to play any assassin's creed, or CoD, or any other clone ever.
The only exception to this are the ever lasting niche things like LoL, Minecraft, or if you want an FPS, Apex, which is another CoD clone.
The vidiya market is stagnant AF, at the border of absolute collapse, the only one doing it's own thing is Nintendo, and just because they can keep getting away with SLIGHTLY tweaking the current "meta" and then throwing some spin offs in the middle to not let people burn out of the same damn game over and over.
Despite my love for space games as probably many of you guys, when the timeframe is so long and undetermined it doesn't make sense to me to have interest in SC. I'm human, I'm turned 40 this year and my life isnt endless. I prefer playing with something real and finished.
Just my 2 cents of course. 😂
It's sad that a lot of SC fans thrive on the dream, rather than the reality. Mind you, it's the dream that made the dev team their riches. So keep selling the dream.
Exactly, thats why I play MSFS. Its done and ready, still improving and at a more the reasoanble speed.
@@Star-bp5jjerr MSFS will never be done. They will always be releasing new content, new planes, airports scenery, textures. If you define "it's done" as in nothing more will be added, like when you get to the end of a book then it will never be done. And know what that's fine most MMO games are exactly the same Star Trek online is still releasing content, Star Wars the Old Republic is still doing that too and that game started in 2011. Not sure why people take exception to this for this game?
@@kityhawk2000that's a whole lot of bad faithed bullshitery.
The game is done, as in, fully released, but is still supported and updated with bug fixes and content here and there. But the main game is released.
Don't try and twist reality.
@@kityhawk2000 You are completely missing the point. Msfs is a product that is finished. Its released ! It has 99% basic core functions of a flight simulator. Its not in alpha state, Talking about extra content and updates being released is completely irrevelent. Ive Been playing sim for the last 20 years, I know what im talking about. Yes we take issue with starcitizen because its 12 years with 700+ million and not even 50% done.. so your point is errr.
Survival can be okay if you don't need to micromanage everything. It would be nice if your character didn't get hungry or thirsty if you're in a ship or a city, but if you crash land on a planet, then it becomes something to manage.
No Mans Sky.
Thanks for the update, quite well done. I've given up on Star Citizen myself. The direction they have taken, even so far, is not to my liking, and it appears they intend to make it even worse (for my taste). Oh well. I did my part and supported the dream. Dreams don't always work out.
So with 5 star systems whats the purpose of the "explorer" variant of ships that btw cost hundreds of dollars???
...to entice the extremely gullible into parting with more of their hard-earned.
i think my kids will love playing this game long after i die.
try grand kids!
your kids kids kids
Perhaps it was a mistake for CIP to not clearly define the difference between thier base building system and the 1.0 presentation as it seem like, for Ant at least, they were absorbed as the same thing. Base building is not REPLACING anything, its just another system. They went out of thier way to announce NPC quests are going to be the main way players progress instead of the mobiglass system. It still sounds like we are just people in a living breathing universe. I don't think a solo player building a space station is very realistic.
Yeah i doubt as a solo ill get a space station, but it seems like building a small base is pretty reasonable.
This is also my take as well. I don't think anything shown at CitCon is coming at the expense of their original vision (mostly). It's still my understanding that players will be the minority and NPCs will still outnumber us. Just look at the Starchitect panel. They talked about having thousands of NPC POIs generated on planets. I imagine that player bases will just fill the spaces in between and likely won't grow to those numbers on a single planet. But I agree that dedicating that much time to end-game org stuff in the 1.0 panel may have skewed some viewers' expectations.
@@VLK_StaticI am actually not to sure. Numbers do not add up. It you look at the amount of players, even if everyone builds only a small base, that's 6 digits of bases between around 20 planets and let's say 80 moons. That sounds pretty crowded to me
@@TimothySnowman I hope so, economics at Elite style would be more realistic, than on EvE way. We are just few in universe, on numbers. There could still be perks to built assets.
@@dj_dojo I mean there are 7 Billion people on earth, and it doesn't feel too crowded. 100,000 player distributed between 100 planets and moons sounds like enough space.
If I can feed people to giant sand works, then we have an end game. 🎉😁
Thank you for yet another well written and comprised video! 🙏🏽
16:28 @ObsidianAnt NO ! thank YOU for making such a nice and informative video as always ♥
I have a theory that this game is a retirement plan for developers that got tired of the industry. So they started their own company knowing the game would never finish. Yet they keep making money off the potential gamers see. It's a theory, likely a wrong one. But for real, how much longer are they thinking it's going to take to finish this game? Open alpha for over a decade now, that's just a BIT insane.
Same goes for Scum. Shit or get off the pot already.
They don't sell the bacon, they sell the sizzle.
"If you want to get rich, start a religion."
@@hpoonis2010 it's the new Scientology.
Im a MASSIVE space and scifi guy, I spent untold hours in games like Freelancer, Independence War 2, Dark Star One, the X series, Elite Dangerous, No Man's Sky, Starfield.. etc etc
When I first saw Star Citizen crowdfund in 2012 I was so excited, it seemed like a dream come true.. and that gave me pause, it was TOO good to be true and I ultimately chose not to contribute at that stage. Needless to say I am glad I didnt. The amount of money they have consumed is obscene and to take 12 years and STILL not have a 1.0 is absolutely insane. One that will STILL be pumped full of MTX. Such a shame that this came to this point.
I hope that they release a complete experience without the repugnant mtx but lets be honest, thats not going to happen (at least the 2nd part). Might give it a look when it goes F2P or is deeply discounted.
Same.
See, what they were offing in 2012 I thought was doable. The problems were bloat. They just kept adding more and more till it just became something they couldn't make. Like X4 is almost everything star citizen wanted to be. It might be better to just get x4, use it as a template and add the bits it is missing that star citizen has and you are gold.
Try starsector, you can sink hundreds of hours in vanilla. And then get a dozen of mods, you won't need another game in your lifetime.
@orzorzelski1142 have it, absolutely phenomenal game I love it, you're totally right i sank many many hours in and when I started modding it... oof ❤🤣
This complete change from the game that we were sold on feels like the devs realized they NEED to release a "final product" sooner rather than later, and to do that, they have to simply or remove some of their more lofty goals. Going from Living Universe to Sandbox feels like a way for them to make it maybe simpler for them, with not having to develop as much on the AI systems for resources, trade, etc. 5 systems instead of 100 feels like a time saver as well, without going the everything is procedurally generated route, leaving everything feeling like a reskin, and instead just doing 5 systems.
Obviously not having AI crew in the final product is an obvious time saver, that would be complicated and very time consuming. But I still feel like they focus way too much on cooperative systems. To the point where the only people who *really* play the game are streamers and video makers who have a horde of fans to pull from, and every normal person just wont be able do anything that matters.
I dont know if I like this. I understand them reducing the scope of the game to get a "final product", and then hopefully continue to develop the game to what they promised over time. That probably is a smart move, honestly, if this means it takes them 3 more years instead of 6 more. But I don't really like the shift to "everything is player driven, not a living universe that you are a part of". I honestly think they're going to make it too hardcore, and that it will fail, no matter how good it actually is, because hardcore games like that typically don't do well over the long run.
They will definitely keep developing after 1.0, but the game really need a 1.0 release sooner than later, for both CIG and the backers.
totally. it's a bust unless you're into org drama
CIG announced on spectrum 6 hours ago that AI blades will be in 1.0.
@@fsqabr AI Blades, from my recollection, are more for turrets/systems, not things like cargo and damage control, things that are more of an interactive process within a ship, rather than done through a screen/terminal, which would be more the realm of AI Crew. The blades would help, like the head-theory we have of them, but you still need crew as well, which for 95% of people (if they're being honest), is why we need AI Crew, as well
@@hansyolo8277 They did mention they will be able to handle a bunch of stuff that crew would be able to do, just maybe slightly more limited in ability. which i kind of see what they are going for. i will hold my opinion till i see it in action.
Always appreciate your channel since 2016, keep up the great work
Only by the comments of fans I can already tell this game will be toxic hell. It seems like fanboys have been sold dream and they have to defend it like if their life depends on it. Crazy. Get a life ffs.
A billion dollars later a minimal sandbox. Would have loved to see FD fully committed to Elite and tried for similar funding. Will believe 1.0 when released and based on CIG history, . . .
Starfield took 8 years and is a hot mess.
Skull and Bones budget is the same if not more than Star Citizen and is a tiny game in comparison.
Perspective is everything. Star Citizen with all it's bugs, delays and failures is _still_ more of a game than Starfield and Skull & Bones combined!
Why are you talking about all this stuff like it actually exists
Honestly after all these years I'm sick of youtubers reacting to claims from CIG like they're real
I'd say "Don't you ever learn" but obviously you're doing it for clicks
I would be VERY surprised if Star Citizen 1.0 gets released before 2035
It's nice that some people can still be unabashed optimists. It makes me feel like Ward Cleaver is just, walkin' 'round out there somewhere.
by then we will have SC integrated in our brain :) with Elons toys no need for fast computers then :) and AI will be developing games or do the biggest part of it, it will go fast and flawless then.
Wont happen people in here be tripping 😂
SC 1.0 is exactly what I wanted the game to become. I was blown away by how the gameplay loops are being tied together as it relates to progression. Crafting better and better versions of my favorite ships/weapons/armor etc? Awesome. Gathering materials for crafting and base building? Sick. Finding rare materials that affect the quality of the things I make? Wow, yes. Reputation building that rewards me with exclusive items relative to the factions I'm working with? Badass. I can focus my efforts toward my favorite ships or gameplay loop? Yep, my Arrow and Hornet will be Tier 5 crafted, and my upgraded Arrastra will be my tool of choice for gathering the materials.
Can’t wait to see how this game shapes up over the next 40 years
Any ship that matters takes crew. Most people will have issues crewing a ship, unless it is a planned event. So, CiG just refused to make NPC crew for 1.0 forcing out many players from using their shiny ships for real money! NOT HAPPY
They announced AI Blades for 1.0 (Rich did in Spectrum after the convention), but not NPC for now. Rich said, they will never be as good as a good player and use power, like engines and shields (AI blades and NPC) - much room for speculation still. And you will be easily able to crew up a ship with the new chat and group finder etc.
im glad im back at my Aurora lol
Didnt they say they are releasing AI blades (which are basdically simplified npcs) before 1.0 launch.
It's not what I was hoping for 2016-current!
Yeah, I’d rather have, and expected, a "theme park" MMO full of quests, colorful characters, and stories. Not really Rust in Space…
Exactly! Unfortunately a lot of the loud spectrum folks want everust.
Go play starfield
@@jmreasor10 he said MMO
So you want games like Warframe, Star Wars Galaxies, Star Trek Online, WildStar, Anarchy, Entropia, Starwars TOR, Phantasy Star, Destiny, ED, to name a few off the top of my head? Secondly where exactly did they say they were scraping the other planned content? They actually did mention the main story of SC and doing missions and jobs for NPCs and NPC organizations multiple times in the 1.0 talk.
But no lol. Time to panic. They mentioned a PVP end game and suddenly the game is moving in a direction that is bad. Do you enjoy the current situation where the PVP community has zero content other than farming salt from people trying to mine? Is that the game you want lol?
I don't think SC ever advertised itself as a theme park mmo... from the start it was a sandbox mmo. But I do get what you want, I would like a freelancer type single player game along with the wing commander type single player game like SQ42
Appreciate the detailed video. Definitely reinforces the fact that the game I backed on the original campaign however-many years ago will never become a reality. I don't play EVE, and this new-new-new-new(etc) version is just EVE to my ears. When (if) I ever get notification of it finally releasing, I can just ignore it.
This has probably been the most grounded CitizenCon so far.
A more realistic view of what they are able to do with the tech available after the 4.0 Update. Meshing can get them far, but there are still boundaries for what they can do with it.
While they didn't say "we fucked up in this and that area", they were admitting unrealistic expectations by replacing them with a new, more structured direction.
Will these 1.0 plans be more realistic? Not even CIG will be able to say at this point. But some of the lofty promises from the 2010s are gone, in doubt or have been replaced by ideas from MMOs like EVE and Star Wars Galaxies - and I'm very thankful for that.
For everyone following the project more closely is probably realizing that these changes are the result of a change in leadership that seems to be happening in the background.
Chris Roberts isn't out of the picture and his input about the general direction will still be needed in the future, but Richard Tyrer is now the man pushing both projects (Squadron and Star Citizen) over the finish line.
He knows what is available to him and also the problems CIG is facing after so many years of bad management under CR.
But only (more) time can tell if he can release a successful singleplayer title and a 1.0 for an MMO that delivers us the dream of virtually living among the stars for many years to come...
Its a total grift. They were making millions off backers and people buying cosmetics for tens of thousands of dollars through EA.
Literally nobody outside of the original backers cares about the game anymore.
...and THOSE folks are like religious fundamentalists: they view every negative comment as a slight against the big fat deity who has been living large off their well-wasted shekels.
They are making it so you can't just jump in and have fun, and build your own thing.
Imagine building a small home/base on a planet.
Some griever flys by with a nuke, then laughs in chat about it.
Then you have pirates.... ugg... people who NEED grinders in order to take from others.
They don't produce anything of value.
Then you have forced team play, so every payout is not divided into less and less, but you need to pay more and more for fuel, repairs, insurance, etc.
The game they are pushing is pushing many people out.
People who have survived many wipes, and rebuilt, will just walk away.
That's me. I'm the Enola Gay to your Japan. - I'll drop the nuke.
thats simply not how the game will work if you have been paying attention, but i dont expect much from people like you anyways.
@DJB10T1C
Their post might be cringe, but yours is mean, and that's worse.
@@X38277 I guess it was a lil harsh, but the person could at least know how the game works before spreading flase information.
@@DJB10T1C " @X38277 I guess it was a lil harsh, but the person could at least know how the game works before spreading flase information. "
There is not 'false information' here.
We have already seen it at Jump town.
We seen it at the Nine tails event 4 years ago.
We have seen it at Grim Hex.
We see it whenever the Coms are down.
grievers are always going to be there. like the ashats who drop a grenade inside their own team during COD, or TC Wildlands.
To take away accomplishment, is to take away any reason to play a game.
Whaling is NOT accomplishment.
SIMPS like you who keep holding on, for a kiss, after 10 years of rejections are the reason why this game never gets better.
"This game is in APLHA. Don't people know what ALPHA means? If you don't like it, don't play. I can't wait for the next ship for $2000 so I can get it before everyone else. I got to 200 million UEC just before the wipe!" Bla Bla bla bla.
If SQ42 is "releasing" in 2026, the PU isn't ready before 2027.
I feel like they may be trying to sync a 1.0 and sq42 launch
@aviator2252 Not a chance tbh, I get people would like to dream but the polish alone needed in the PU needs more than 2-3 years, especially as systems are incorporated into the title.
My sweet summer child. It will be closer to 2037 than 2027.
@@aviator2252my goodness no, not even CiG would try that.
They have diffrent developing teams, if they release squadron in 2026, then they'll likely to focus on main online game and i think it will be around 2028 to release 1.0, also in 2027 we'll see RTX 60 series with 2-1.6nm chip tech.
Stupid question: Is SC an MMO or no? I can never tell and I don't play the game currently because I don't have the setup for it.
Awesome perspective and take!
I feel that this point reporting on Star Citizen is somewhat supportive of a scam. At least don't talk about their "future plans" and only measure them by what they have delivered. They managed to scam people out of 700 million with dreams of a game they never delivered. How is anyone still taking them serious?
Because it's the worst scam in history, if only because they actually spent the money (mostly) on what they said they would (the wonders of British companies having to share their financials publicly. And CIG is registered in the UK)
Didn't do well WITH that spending 80% of the time admittedly 😂 But credit where it's due, whilst half the money was undoubtedly wasted, they HAVE actually created something that CAN be played (if only for 0.1-8 hours, varying by patch, before the server dies) which is more than can be said for a lot of the scams out there (namely, anything NFT related). More of a monkeys paw than a scam really
@@robotspartan9100 sure, but we critizie ubi, ea, bethesta and others day and night for their broken game - that they often fix to a nice state and actually deliver massive content that mostly works. Yet Star Citizen is broken in every single way, with many many promisses and even spaceships never delivered, BUT we still give Star Citizen yet another chance. why?
@@OlivioSarikas I think the difference is they have the gall to deliver a "finished product" that's often times Is as bad, if not worse of a state than SC currently is. CIG have at least been honest that it's still a work in progress, and do make tangible (if VERY slow) progress towards the promises made, and those they have kept at times massively exceeded the original scope (i.e. it was originally more akin to SWtOR with set landing sites, not a fully explorable space. Incidentally that added 10 feckin years to the project at least)
What it's really going to come down to I think is what happens after this 1.0. that's what is going to set the standard of "you just another EA after all? Or you actually going to honour everything you've promised"
@@robotspartan9100 with the big difference that we can and have played the ubi and ea games and they delivered massive, really fun games they often mostly fixed in time for the goty edition. in the last 10 years ea released massive titles like BF One and V, SW Fallen Order, Apex Legends, and more. And of course Ubi with AC Origins, Odyssey, Valhalla, Rainbow Six Siege, Division one and Two, Watchdogs 2 and 3 and way way more. Most of them really good games. Some errors? Sure. But SC is broken in every single way. You can't even get out of bed in SC without glitches. The physics in the game are a joke - You can literaly park your spaceship 10 meters from the ground and it with just float there like gravity doesn't exist. SC is the broken dream of a person who can't get enough. What does the scope and promisses matter for a game that is broken, made my a team that is leaving, organized by a boss who has lost control. With a ingame shop that sells DLC for thousands of dollars a piece. And people still support it, while complaining about the Diablo 4 Season pass. That's just insane
ps.: yes, you can play SC too, but it is a broken and unoptimized joke that lacks most of gameplay and most the gaming world
I don't buy into or follow this and occasionally I get a recommended about it like now. It's already history to me and now I just watch it unfold and it hasn't disappointed in it's disappointment.
1.0 seems like you'll be able to be in a universe that is "alive and real" like you say. The main concerns I'm seeing online is that people wont be able to solo space stations. Every time I look at the game, nothing about it says "solo".
All I got is me and like 16 mates, I'm considering just going to big ORG and requesting we manage a space station of theirs.
make an org of 16 no problem at all join an alliance and bam you can do what you like EVE example :) perhaps good idea to play eve no joke its a good learning school for SC later
My concern is not soloing space stations but the whole endgame loop around them this will be locked down by few big orgs giving them the only access to rare resources needed for Tier 5 ships and Tier 3 FPS gear which in turn will pretty much secure they hold onto those planets forever, sure they may sell those resources on the market for extremely high prices but again that only secures their hold on the resources as nobody will be able to afford to fight against the org with cheap unlimited access to the highest tier ships and gear.
I'm excited, but not holding my breath in anticipation. I'll keep Star Citizen on my radar, occasionally play the game - but won't really invest more energy into it until all these promises actually get delivered, which is like 3 to 4 years from now, assuming Roberts doesn't run out of money before then - which from many rumours, appears could happen. I have played both solo and co-op in MMOs for decades. Both game play styles have their advantages and disadvantages. As I've gotten older, I've preferred to be able to solo most of the time, with the occasional foray into group play. But I don't think I'm going to want to play an MMO for long that forces me into group play - so I do hope Star Citizen, if it survives to 1.0 release, does keep in mind solo play styles.
Star Citizen changing direction again?
Inconceivable!
I honestly understand the frustration people have with backing 12 years ago and now it's ballooned into so much more that it seems like the development will never end. It's completely normal to feel that way. That being said, I'm 38 now and have grown up with video games since the super nintendo and sega genesis and we haven't had a real push to the next evolution of what games can do since probably the ps1>Ps2 or N64>Gamecube jumps. Do you really still want to keep playing the yearly shit EA and Activision are pushing out or do you want to see someone not run by corporate agendas change the game. I'm not saying CIG will succeed with any of this, but I'm at least rooting for someone to try, ESPECIALLY if they're outside of the usual players.
CIG are just lying. They can’t do what they promise.
NPC driven activity requires someone creating that. That requires manpower and creative minds, which they will skip now.
Never heard of randomly generated?
Why would they skip that?
@@beardedlonewolf7695 it's player driven now. no more NPC generation
I thought all that money was there to pay for the staff to create the NPC world. Seems they can't be bothered now.
@@walawala-fo7ds Player driven instead of NPC... Danny76334: "Hi stranger, could you help me get a cooling system I left on Vladnar 1? I'd make it worth your while."
Yeah, not going to happen.
Star Citizen's development has taken so long and we've seen promises come and go, so I'm going to continue to wait and not exclaim disappointment until I'm actually playing whatever 1.0 ends up being at release.
That said, I think what will really make me happy is to see this project in a polished state, whatever becomes the game's core.
Its a good point that its unknown how the balance will be between players enjoying resources gathering and crafting vs those who need to output of crafting. That being said, I do believe that CIG will consider this, so it becomes a enjoyable experience for all. Personally, I am planning to go down the Industry path of resources exploration, gathering and some crafting. I will earn credits by selling what I craft.
the change to pure player-driven is just a shortcut to NOT having to make/create the actual content of the game, pretty transparently. Problem is that it turns the game into an even more niche product and it is REALLY damn hard to balance and control.
@ObsidianAnt I think you forgot the Timestamps.
Just added them.
12:00 to address your concerns, i think the nice thing about a sandbox with the scale SC 1.0 is shooting for is that you don't have to participate in the big org/stations/thing. You can build a shipping empire and never get directly involved with any other orgs. Just pick your goal and go do it. You could run pve missions forever and just buy the things you need. I like that it looks like they are trying to keep a very flexible playing style in the game. I'll be upset if the basically force you to play the PU "story line" to unlock certain things.
You'll be forced to play the story line to unlock "citizenship". StarCitizen originally required to play SQ42 to become a citizen but that now is an independent game. Without Citizenship you'll be a civillian and you won't have the privileges of citizens, like buying land wherever you want in the UEE. This was announced in the CItizenCon few days ago.
@@Haegemon S42 has always been an independent game, and they always said that there would be multiple ways (Inc completing S42) to obtain citizenship.
They haven't said those things no longer grants citizenship, so I'd cautiously say that's still a valid alternative route
@@Haegemon yeah, I'm just hoping the place I want to build (wherever that the up) isn't restricted by that, or that anything I personally care about in the game isn't negatively affected by me not playing the "sandbox storyline".
To be fair, they lowered the systems from 100 to 5 tho.
@@hajkie I'm actually okay with that, for two reasons.
First is that's just for release, not forever. Second is the 100 systems was originally SWTOR style, with just a few landing zones, whereas what we have now, even 5 is probably far more than we would have had
Instead of these insane star bases... can we please get NPC crew in the game for 1.0 instead.... One is a feature they have been selling for 12 years and the other is something they dreamed up in the last 12 months.... Which do you think peopled pledged $700 million dollars for...
With single player games “you” are the hero. You get to leave your real life and adventure through stories, build empires, and save galaxies. This sort of multiplayer thing seems like it will be the first, the luckiest, and those with the most free time, that get to experience the full range of options, while everyone else just lives off their scraps.
Eve online was apparently like this, it was almost impossible for new players to compete with those that started when the game was launched.
so CIG realised they really cant make star citizen the game it was meant to be and just abandon the whole thing for players to "make their own content" lmao. thats not why people wanna play space games. people play space games to experience space, something that is vastly unknown... unlike social relationships, which are played out.
You got it !!! They wont be able to deliver in the next 5 years the dream we all funded. So on release they need something to show for, so all the work to make a living universe is on the players.. aitn that a spit in face.
"Sorry folks, I know u wanted a freelancer story like PU, but because Chris Roberts mismanged our funds, re hashed projects countless times, feature creep this game into oblivion and gave most funding to SQ42, well we dont have anything of real playable substance to show for. Sooo we have created a new vision for the game, craft, build and survive. Its your job now, make it a story out of it, use your imagination. Build our world for us.. the world we failed to deliever. At least now we have an excuse for a release. Have fun..
- This is the BS we get.
@@Star-bp5jj Making a Freelancer successor, was abandoned long ago, infact in 2014. When backers voted to carry on. If they didnt you would have gooten a Freelancer story, 100 solar systems with a depth of less than Starfield... You would have played and forgot the game, for long by now.
Instead backers went to make something truly revolutionary and groundbreaking, thats what Star Citizen is going for. And since 2014, many hundred of thousands of players has backed for exactly this, so your a minority that just wanted a Freelancer asap..
@@Paisa231 WRONG again ! It still carried the spirit of the Freelancer vision. The diffrence in 2014 was scope of project that being seamless world transion and no loading screens! The New planet tech was the revolution but the dream promised was still a explorable lore filled living universe NOT base building and crafting like some space minecraft. Been here over a decade, I know what im talking about, your not going to gaslight me on this subject just becuase you like to craft and base build.
@@Star-bp5jj The new planet tech wasnt discovered possible before 2016.. so get it right. 54% voted to add stretch goals past 46M$.. so by this point it was up to CIG, to decide what these should be.
And CIG have not said you wont get your Freelancer experience, that was left back in 2014. Even if Star Citizen has evolved into something greater. This year they talked about a Star Citizen Main Story, that likely is your "Freelancer" experience.
Base building and crafting, is more of Star Citizen adjusting to modern gaming. You can call it another stretch goal, but it makes sense. And is way way less amibitous than Dynamic Server Meshing, that will make Star Citizen a "single" Persistent Universe. Its just a way to give us End Game goal, combining it with the Kickstarer 19M goal.
Quote from the Letter of the Chairman 31 December 2014: The number one priority for team in building the Persistent Universe is how players themselves can affect the universe. We’re building a game that will be just as community driven once the game is “finished”'
For me, that just show how Basebuilding and crafting make sense in a player influenced economy. With StarSIM controlling it in the background.
@@Star-bp5jj think you need to read LFC, from 31 of December 2014 again. Your correct that the initial Kickstarter stretch goals didn't contain crafting and base building. But as I said, that was abandoned by the vote in 2014. And in this letter C.R says number one priority is to make players affect the universe..
That is in 2024 gaming, base building, crafting and more.
This year they talked about a Star Citizen Main story, that might perhaps be your Freelancer, beside SQ42. And a player driven experiences, doesn't excluded a NPC driven world and story. We still need to hear more details from CIG.
Lost hope in 2020.
I am a solo player, and while I am of course a little bummed NPC crew wont make launch, it wouldn't be so much different than right now, if anything it might be slightly better if ai blades can automate a little bit of stuff for me. SC never seemed to me like it was trying to be space WoW, it has a setting, lore, and NPC driven content of course, but it was always sandbox-y. Even if it did have tons of story content and all hand crafted missions and stuff i wouldn't play them, and i play every game this way. I just log in, and go get in some kind of trouble, or go explore someplace i haven't been, or go build something; I have little adventures, and entirely on my own terms, on my own time. For me, and I would think any other folks who once loved EVE or Elite, this direction for SC is just fine.
CIG announced on spectrum 6 hours ago that AI blades will be in 1.0.
Rich Tyrer announced that the solo player experience is part of their 1.0 vision. AI Blades will be in first, NPC players later.
The gameplay loops and NPC led intro campaign to introduce players to everything is a great idea, and I loved that part.
I feel like I really could have skipped the huge dedicated part to the player org stations. It was a huge part of the presentation that I feel will seriously only apply to like 12 out of 5 million+ players at the end of the day. Almost nobody will be the CEOs of some gigantic 1000 person org. This clearly will only really apply to a couple no-life whales (which this game is notorious for), or to people in these select clans. Most of us will probably be playing alone, or with maybe one or two other people. So making an experience tailored to that and including NPC crews we can use as we progress is going to be critical in this game.
A welcome explanation of whats going on. Cheers
The scope creep continues.
the scope will always increase overtime to the point when you can play it in VR you will be like this simulated world amongst the stars.
What did CIG present at CitizenCon 2954 that you perceive as "scope creep"?
Backers have to realize: CIG is building a game for CIG, not for any you in particular.
That will change when the backers stop backing lol
Yeah, fvkk it. It is always the Solo Players. Damn :( I am not a social gamer mainly. I want to get immersed, not having a 9 to 5 Job in Space just to get robbed by real people in Space. Of course thats a bit exaggerated by me, but thats how it feels so often. 10 years ago, they clearly thought the Gaming Universe will be further than it is now.
With Base building and Player driven Sandbox, it just gets in Line with all the other Games. Sad. I once loved Base building. But Survival Craft Games destroyed it for me. Everything is a Job now. I am fed up with SC. Feels like the Friend that always lets you down but you still get back to him, because you already invested emotional time into the relationship and got used to him. And he feeds on your Energy, Money, Time and Hopes.
Theu just announced that there will be Ai personnel just like elite.
It does look like they're taking the player-driven path with all the community and org talks which wasn't the case 10 years ago, but I always knew they would focus on this when their main focus have been combat for many years now, it was bond to happen and this will never work in an MMO like SC and hopefully CIG understand it.
they literally announced instanced contracts so you can play solo
@@ioritenshi Yeah it is just a load of frustration overall, thats because i said i am exaggerating. But we'll see. At this point it is just Information. 1.xx will show what it is all about.
It still sounds different from what was in my head regarding SC over the years.
Player driven content vs Curated content. It's probably best to err on player driven content, as you can always intervene to add your curated content. You can't do it the other way around.
The most fun / emotional investment I've had in games is where it was player driven. There is nothing like having an online nemesis / guild, having to negotiate with players. Players tend to min / max though.
I think solo players would be more suited to high security systems with more curated content they can login / logoff. If you want more player driven, high risk, high reward gameplay, then you could go into low security systems.
I do hope CIG can add more content for other playstyles. Maybe unique rewards, statuses, or ships for those players who are master crafters, renowned explorers, published scientists, etc.
Perfectly sums up my feelings I signed up for a living breathing universe full of npc's, politics and their story's and us being people living in that universe taking part or trying to put our stamp on the universe and effect what happens, but now SC is just a mix of Rust and eve online a space survival sandbox which may at some point have the fleshed out interwoven story's and interactive/reactive npc's promised.
The crafting system is a big worry too get to the higher tiers you need to the rare resources that will within a week be controlled by the big orgs and good luck fighting against them with their Tier5 ships and tier 3 fps gear so unless your in a big org that gameplay and gear is off limits.
This direction explains why for years all the events have been pvp focussed.
Anyone who was paying attention knew this was always the direction. EvE 2.0 but with actually flying the ship is exactly what i wanted and expected when i backed in 2012. It was ALWAYS stated to be a risk vs reward sandbox MMO, that means pvp/ "survival"
People thinking NPCs are gone because they weren't explicitly talked about are so stupid.
Do they think the panel that spoke about all the new bases and bunkers being spread around with the architecture tool are just gonna be completely empty.
And they also said about new NPCs and having to talk to them in person for some missions.
It's almost like they forgot about all the work that's going into SQ42's NPCs and that the same behaviors will be transferred to the PTU. But honestly wouldn't blame anyone for getting the wrong idea since a lot of CIGs decisions always feels like a slap to the face of what they promised earlier.