@MSZSNeoBahamut19 I got banned a few days ago because I drew like 2 dots together regarding the recent nerfs, and then oh looky! The Starlancer! Then asked if they thought we was blind/stupid and said they were shady and..... 10 year ban.
hey, they just deleted a post of mine the other day which contained a link to one of their earlier statements due to conflicting rule 9a, which literally states that I post false arguments and sell them as truth, while citing straight from a post they made in 2013. Thereby I interpret that, that any information given probably before 2018 is not accurate anymore and therefore can't be used to present a given CIG statement as prove or intended plan for future development. That also aligns with a recent statement given by John Crewe that when something isn't either in the pledge store or in the game, it is speculative. As of such, what is our trust in CIG really built on? Are any of the 1.0 goals, even when they are now on the "roadmap" now their honest intentions or are these just means to calm us donw? They destroyed any trust in a matter of weeks themselves.
16:30 I think most people aren't upset that the Corsair got nerfed, I think most people are upset at the _way_ it got nerfed - it's the same type of insulting, disrespectful stance toward player time and engagement that they thought and somehow still think is acceptable with the Antares.
If the project hangs on a knife's edge to such a degree where you're compelled to silence descenters for fear that their criticisms will end the project, then the project might be too fragile, and you might be backing the wrong horse.
@@DIckbricky Really because they went from 100 systems down to 40 and now down to 5. NPC crew where supposed to be waiting for us at launch and now its find a player or screw you and your multicrew ship. SC is not fine and the fact that they are now looking to release it with a ton of features/content out of it, is evidence of that.
Literally got banned for calling out what was going on on the official forums (regarding the RSI Galaxy removal of base building), completely oblivious to the CIG's backtracking at that time, and for calling out the overcensorship of those who were upset. Nightrider and the rest of the CIG Gestapo do nothing but hurt the reputation by throwing out bans and silencing critics left and right. It's high time CIG starts answering for their failings instead of pretending everything is okay.
@@dgc2540 The Galaxy scandal of descoping sold features was actually way smaller than the revelation that CIG won't be able to deliver on NPC crew until maybe sometime after launch. The galaxy bait and switch would impact galaxy owners while NPC crew slaps everyone who trusted CIG to buy a ship that needs 2 or 3 people for themselves, and is a gut punch to anyone who gave them money for an extra game package on the promise they'd get NPC crew members.
@@dgc2540 The 100 systems was suppose to be barren systems with 2-3 landing POI´s landing spots. Now the plan is to make every system fully fledged out systems full of biological life/ruins/pirate strongholds and bases and Capitals. So the 5 systems is a good choice until the procedural generation can kick of. Just saw they now can auto place rocks and trees according to moist height etc so it looks like natural biomes on Earth. I want realistic predictions, not 100 dead Starfield systems just because they said they would do that 5 years ago.
Wow Mike I really appreciate the kind words man, it honestly made my day! It's crazy that someone so prominent in the Star Citizen community that I've followed for years even knows who I am lol I enjoy your vids too man, thanks for keeping things real in a sea of polarized opinions!
Fund mismanagement? CIG has freakin on site coffee barista's, game interiors and corridors lining their actual offices. Staff work from home on Fridays, get company provided breakfasts and lunches. Turbulent, a separate acquisition took over an entire year to make a single ship, (Zeus MkII) and it's still missing the new UI updates and not complete.
@@Kyle-sr6jm Yeah, CIG has a 10-20 year backlog of ships which would cost 1-2 Billion USD, but they can't raise money any other way. They are literally building up ship liabilities faster than they are able to deliver the sold ships which is literally a ship ponzi.
@@Kyle-sr6jm they most def are not rolling in cash, thats the weird part about this dumb spending because you can see from their financial reports (i dont mean funding, i mean the yearly reports which every company is forced to publish) that they basically spend all the money that comes in
No. I am convinced that the galaxy statement was not a mistake. They fully intended to not do base building on it and instead have the BLD as the initial building ship. The only reason they changed their mind was because the community got loud about it. I fully believe that if the community didn't press it like they did, it would have stayed that way.
The BLD is still going to be the initial building ship, they said a drone module will come for the galaxy down the line. When? Idk, and they probably don't either. The Carrak and Reclaimer [should] get their drone bays working first, since those were sold and released a while ago.
They are still having the BLD be the first Large base building ship, the only thing they caved on (and rightfully so) was putting a base building module back on the list for the Galaxy.
I guarantee they'll make the combined Galaxy module cost almost as much as current pioneer pricing by the time it's released, this is CIG testing the water folks.
As if they were still testing... Check ATLS sales, forget the testing... Also CSV-SM same price as Drake Mule (so no upgrade option) and ATLS still not popping up in upgrades... We are so far beyond testing stage...
I forgot about the AJS show. I used to be subscribed for over 10 years. It was these news shows that finally got me to unsubscribe. They are so often off base or miss half a story.
yeah that's every news YT channel. its less about actually delivering news or giving any good insights, its there just to affirm whatever most people are feeling or thinking about any given topic. its best to just ignore them.
16:38 that's personally a dumb take, except the buying stuff. Nerfing all ships for balance is what ruined all games like Helldiver etc, it makes it unfun, balanced means all ships are carbon copies of another but just with a different skins. We should have OP ships but you only need to work for it.
to further your point there should be meta pvp, meta pve etc. and let's be real the forced multi crew ships are a dumb play right now with no blades no ai crew etc. by default when you solo fly those ships they are already nerfed.
CR has said SQ42 was 'content complete' when they let loose the 'Squadron Slice' video forever ago. But they were 'reserving the hype' with follow on videos until they had a date. Difference being subtle of 'content' vs 'feature.' So technical features were still being worked on? The story was complete? As you can see the definitions are nebulous and intentionally confusing so should we be shocked that people are confused?
Its not nebulous it is a well known thing about game development. Polishing and Bugfixing are 2 seperate stages and they take place after content complete. This is a well known thing.
@@PH03NIX96 Usually its done behind closed doors. Lots of normal AAA games have taken 5-6+ years to go from starting development to release, with the announcement of the game happening somewhere a year or two before actual release. Star Citizen was announced a year BEFORE it even started development, is a "AAAA" game (whatever that means), and has been open about their development where normal developers wouldn't say a thing. If SC and SQ42 were invested normally like most games, the games would probably be out already but they most likely wouldn't be nearly as expansive as they are now. Now that CIG has announced what 1.0 of the game is gonna look like, hopefully they focus their production onto that instead of announcing more new things.
Content means they have the story and assets. Feature complete means that have written the code that will run the npcs and missle and ships and Eva and elevators and food and animals and levels
There's a semantics issue that the feature was never actually sold. The ship was not "sold" under the premise, but it was bought under the premise. People knee-jerk whipped out their wallets based on a concept slide, while no information about the ship changed and no building feature was sold or available. So there is interpretive room to say that people simply acted out of impulse during conceptual presentations. CIG players do be impulsive.
Nerfing is kind of ok, if the ship keeps all the promised functionalities. Like nerfing hull hp, shields or weapon fps. But taking away promised features like Base building module for the Galaxy... or the pilot controlled guns of the corsair... is not ok
@@QuinnTheTailor And what if they realize having so many pilot controlled guns is a terrible idea for combat balance? They can't change that? All changes that are done for balance purposes should be valid. And before you talk about dps or weapon size, remember that those might have different effects when armor is in. The building module wouldn't affect balance whatsoever, but it was never sold or promoted because it never existed or was planned. Todd just added the Galaxy in an early concept presentation and people just rushed to pay without looking into what they were buying.
@@Bleinz6360 if the Corsair gets sold with the main selling point being that it has a lot of pilot controlled guns than it should stay like that. That... as i said was the main selling point, people bought it because they could solo it and get a lot of dps. Not even half the people would have bought the Corsair if it had two less pilot controlled guns. This is misleading marketing. You make it a very viable ship to get many sales and then you simply nerf it back, after you've made the money. If you afterwards think you have given it too many guns, you can adjust other stats. Mobility stats like acceleration, roll or raw etc. So that its not overpowered in combat. And realistically, it never was overpowered. Corsair was a brick, despite all the firepower it couldnt handle anything smaller than it , because all smaller ships moved much faster. And to your point about the Galaxy. Yes, if a lead game developer presents the Galaxy to do base building, than it is to assume that its the truth and it is planned. And it wasn't even a lead developer saying this on spectrum or so. It was on CitCon, the most important presentation of the game. If that was a mistake by their side, its their responsibility to correct it as soon as possible. Many people have bought the Galaxy afterwards at IAE for example, just because it was shown to build Large structures. Not 1 year later... and that was purely because of the pressure from the community. If the community hadn't asked then they would simply keep quiet, knowing they have erased the base building module. EDIT: The Starlancer BLD has NOT been sold. So following your logic, they could also simply erase the whole concept for the Starlancer BLD and stick to what they have presented AND sold, which is the Galaxy. And to further prove my point. There have been plenty Spectrum post about the Galaxy's base building module, right after it was presented at Citcon. If it was never planned to begin with ( as you argue) and a mistake by Todd. Then they could simply post a dev response that the sheet on Citcon was a yet only idea or proposal that wasn't confirmed with the production and ship teams and that people should not count on it happening. But they haven't. They have read all those spectrum posts about the Galaxy's base building module coming and have kept quiet.
@@QuinnTheTailor So what you are saying is that CIG can't do open development. That anything they say has to be set in stone and thus they have to be sure it's the way they want it in the final product. There's no way to win this debate. If they never showed the galaxy in that presentation, people would have been mad that there was nothing with which to build structures between the Anvil Atlas platform and the Pioneer. If they show the Galaxy as a concept example or potential idea, they have to stick to it. If they now show the BLD, they have to make it. If they make a ship and it has 10 torps, they can't make it have less torps. It's all a load of bullshit arguments. What we should do is ask for a channel where ALL the officially confirmed information can be seen, and sanitize the community to only buy stuff based on what they see there. Currently, that place is all over so it's confusing, but one of the places is the pledge store where at least the building module was never sold and it never mentioned the Galaxy would be able to build. It's a different story for weapon hardpoints but what the fuck is the alternative? You really are simple if you think ships can be balanced just by changing their mobility stats. And just so we're on the same page here: the Corsair definitely was OP in the purpose it was being used for. It's an exploration ship that accounted for a majority of the NPC kills in PVE combat missions. Not only should it not have the majority of kills to be balanced, it's also an exploration ship and its purpose should not be combat.
There is no way that thing remotely costed a ton of money compared to what the events raised. The convention itself made over a million on ticket sales alone. 4000 attendees at 250 a ticket. It paid for itself. And furthermore the City of Manchester is supposed to be keeping/displaying the piece so its just free publicity. Maybe you should think about it for more than a second lol
@@Bleinz6360yeah look a pro prop maker doing something for 3 months isn't cheaper than a junior coder in a western country. Though, they've sold an array of virtual ship models the junior can't buy with their 3 months salary.
The attempt to remove base building from the Galaxy was viscerally reacted to by the community because it was such an open bait and switch to present it as a base builder at citcon then try to just not deliver on it a year later. Really though the bigger bait and switch this month has been the announcement by CIG that they will fail to deliver NPC crew until maybe after release. The galaxy bait and switch affected the galaxy buyers, the corsair pilot gun bait and switch affected the owners of the corsair, but the NPC bait and switch affects everyone who bought a ship that needs a 2nd crew member (all of them with an interior now that fuse swapping and fires are a thing!) CIG also sold game packages for 11 years and to this day advertises them as coming with extra NPCs on their website, but now they don't want to deliver. This isn't like the scope reductions that only impact SQ42 like cutting out the co-op multiplayer campaign, or 404ing the webpage for the dedicated servers modding manual, it impacts all owners of anything but fighters. I am getting seriously sick of CIG baiting and switching and cutting scope and features all over the place after they've received 12x the money they said they needed to 'do it all' even after the full planetary landing scope change.
Galaxy was atrocious on so many levels! Some CIG people have no measure! CI is sliding into territory, where people will wait, how things shake out before opening their wallets! And LTI charges per module are dead. The pinnacle of greed! JPeg sales may die...
There is no gaming the system in this regard, Mike... They advertise a ship with good stats, people buy that ship - that's not on them - it's a value proposition consideration that dictates every sale. They make every new ship meta, and then nerf EVERY damned ship that came before. That your response pretends not to know that? It's bad faith and you're knighting again.
The Galexy issue was interesting as I think it would of broken trading/advertising standerd rules in the uk or if not would of been a grey area purely because they actually said at an official event that the ship would be able to build structures and still sold it with that in mind. That's why I think they changed it back so quickly that and community outrage.
It really wouldn't have. The Galaxy was never advertised as having something on release or having a release plan for said module. It was displayed in a tech demo on a system that has fundamentally changed resulting in a complete redesign of a ship.
I under stand what you are saying but it's not what the ship was originally sold as that was the problem. at the time it was sold with 3 modules and a forth slot that said more to come but no sale or information on what it could be. The minute they stepped on stage last year and told the community that the ship will now have the ability to build S-L structures and then carried on selling the ship under that pretenses for real world money they probably would fall foul of misleading information. If the new ship module was sold with in game money then it wouldn't of been a problem. CIG literally got cautioned buy TSA for selling ships that's hadn't been built but had no information regarding this for new players. Thankfully this all got sorted pretty quickly with follow up spectrum posts.
I would say they've mismanaged our money. Apart from giving themselves custom plush offices with custom artwork they can't really afford. Do you think the board are double dipping? CR and co are not just the managing directors of CIG. They're also the managing directors of RSI, the publisher.
16:17 thanks you. Exactly that. Support the game or dont but be realistic before you buy think and same was with the galaxy. They never sold a Basebuilding module. How do they get so upset about it when its suddenly not building bases...
Not to mention, while watching this video, I caught on to something I believed for the last 6 years...... Them promoting the Galaxy as a base building then , the guy that is in charge of ships, says- no plans to release the galaxy with base building ability, shows me how out of touch they are with what is being developed and how its a mismanaged mess at CIG, I cant ever trust what they say ever again.. I'm all set , I already moved on to other titles . This is a mess that's never going to happen or if its does its going to be an unpolished disastrous experience like the PU is right now. Nobody knows what the person down the hall is working on . .All they know how to do is release videos of gameplay that does not exist.
The usual SC streamers and youtubers will point out some minutia saying "it was NEVER actually on a _________ so it doesn't matter. Factcheck False! The Haters Lie!"
Honestly, you should always get informed and deeply investigate whatever you spend money on. If you don't do that and they haven't actually been misleading as per the LAW, then it's not a scam, I'm sorry. Is it a bit scummy? Yes. Does the ship team have to know exactly what everyone says in any early concept presentation? No. Should people refrain from showing features that aren't planned just as a concept? Probably. I guess you'll also hold them accountable for 100 systems. After all, people bought their starter package with the wish to one day see 100 systems so not adding them must be a scam...
its called false advertising, you sell a ship that says it will do this on the tin and then say months later it won't do what it says on the tin when the whole reason you bought it was for what it said on the tin and i feel like that is 80% of what Star Citizen and honestly if you were to file claims against them for false advertising i wouldn't be surprised if you got your money back
Lmfao show any promotional material on the Galaxy. Is it in its ISC Reveal? Is it in its Q&A? Is it in the Galaxy ship brochure? The answer to all that is NO. It's not false advertising. It's people taking a tech demo of a system not in game as it's releasing with said feature thats not even materialized.
@ that is utterly mindless, ITS IN THE VIDEO WHAT DO YOU MEAN, it was on the store page for the ship WHEN IT WAS PUT UP. You can use whatever excuse you want but you know damn well if they had a feature you paid money specifically for and then they go “oh we haven’t planned that in months now” even though THEY ADVERTISED IT you are telling me that you’d be willing to accept that because it’s a “tech demo” ? If that’s the excuse you give a company like this with a ten year old tech demo I’ve actually lost 30% more faith in humanity today
lol, no. When the Galaxy was originally announced, there was no base building module nor any mention that there would for sure be one. Ya can't cry false advertisement when it was never originally advertised as having a bb module and they state it's a WIP. They specifically said they were thinking about other modules, but the bb one was never worked on or concepted for the Galaxy at that time. They showed the lineup of ships involved with bb at the con, and I agree they shouldn't have included the Galaxy, major mistake because its clear they weren't committed to it yet, as it still had no bb concepted. A con 2 YEARS after the Galaxy was announced talking about possibilities, is not false advertising. You signed the TOS when you bought the game. It specifically covers this very issue. People shouldn't have assumed the Galaxy would have bb and prematurely bought it.
They have mismanaged their cash. The Manchester office is a perfect example. You don't want an empty warehouse, but they built it up like they had all the $$$ in the world.
Your take on the corsair at 16:25 is so beyond dumb. It is not the purchaser's fault for buying a ship that op, it is THE DEVELOPERS for releasing it so unbalanced. AGAIN, the marketing team is showing and selling a product that does not exist or will not exist. You don't blame the consumer for buying a good deal.
17:50 They are totally misspending their funds. Lifesize fully kitted mannequins? HQ converted to a ship interior? 12 years an alpha? We don't have a whole lot of usable for all those funds? It looks GREAT. 5 offices? ugh...
Where you are wrong is in the terminology, is not a purchase, if you read what you are paying is not a product or a ship You are crowding a the development of the game, the only thing you are actually paying is to get the game and is the only thing in the term of conditions that you are entitling, ships are just a gift you get for funding the projects, these ships are unfinish and they will be rebalance and re-design as many time as needed before the game is out you are not entitled to the ships you think you are paying for. People just don’t pay attention even when is on their face.
They can't know if the ship will be balanced before releasing it. And it's obviously better if the ship is OP than if it's under powered. If the ship is underpowered, it's harder to balance afterwards because you can't easily add weapon slots or components. Nerfing is easier because smaller components already fit where larger components do and removing weapons is easier than adding them.
@@OneTomato Ty lawyer Bob, i understand the terms of purchase. Here’s the problem, most people when they spend money are sold a specific item that they researched. There are consumer laws that no matter how much you lawyer bullshit changes they violate the reasonable transfer of money for what i purchased. There are lots of examples where basic consumer laws trump these overly lawyered lumps of coal. On top of if your response is to say look at the terms of service, I’m pretty sure the game doesn’t deserve the funds people are paying.
@@Bleinz6360 12 years in, releasing unbalanced ships is a marketing ploy to get people to pay the game. They should have a VERY good grasp of balance in their game. Don’t be a jockstrap for the developer of a 12 yr old alpha game, of they don’t have a grasp at this point we’re in trouble. Releasing new ship/champ/item is called pay to win, CIG doesn’t have the exclusive rights on that.
@@T51B1 there would be no outcry unless a bunch of people knee-jerk bought the ship. People have to spend money for them to be able to care. It's not about the "lies" or behavior, it's about "i spent muh muneez and now i'm sad"
Honestly, I bet marketing made this decision. If they cut this ship out, they figure people will just buy the next one that will do that and it’ll be slightly more expensive…
The only way they will ever be held accountable is with their wallet. People keep buying ships that are the next best thing and then get nerfed so they can sell you another ship that's the best ship.
It not as if they cant program a console with a list of all items and when you press a button, the item appear inside a box, and then the box open, allowing the player to take the item. Its as if you buy an item from shop terminal, but with a minigame of trading resources to improve said BP or item. But, if they take all their time, efforts and money to make an animation for each item being build, you better do a testament to guive your account to your distant descendants.
I'm damn near certain that tje wider team referenced by John Krewe was the legal team lol Do these guys know that almost every ship can be bought in game though?
I personally see it as the ship is still in development so things can change. They arent tied down to a specific feature or anything. If they wanted to change the name from the galaxy to hermes and make it a dedicated data ship, they can do that because its still in development...
The problem with the Corsair Nerf isn't the fact that they nursed it but how they nerfed it. It is now an objectively worse offering than the constellation in every sense other than gold standard.
@@T51B1 Perhaps - they inexplicably buffed it. 4 S5 guns now, instead of 2s5, 2s4. They are direct competitors: Corsair vrs Aquila - Not the Andromeda. The Andromeda is a gun boat. It has NO mapping computer like the corsair does. It is and should always be; slightly better in a fight, than the Corsair.
They started selling the galaxy before Citizencon 2023. Like a couple months before iirc. I remember having purchased the galaxy because they were back on the module hype train when they announced and started selling it, and then was super excited again when they announced it would support base building a couple months later. edit: I think they specifically said it would support base building because the galaxy was not a popular ship when they first announced it.
Implementing player built space stations is much simpler than implementing base building on planets. It all works on slots, nothing has to align with the terrain, it doesn't require prospecting or any kind of terrain modification, it doesn't have to affect the fauna and flora around it, it's completely modular and the user has no choice on how the geometry interacts...
I bought the corsair because it seemed like it would be good for solo exploration because I'd have a lot of firepower to keep me alive. Now that's not going to happen.
16:30 I'm not upset that they nerf and rebalance ships, I'm mad they the consistently nerf ships that directly compete with the role of a new ship they have for sale. It's happened so many times i don't believe that it's a coincidence
Not only do I follow star citizen because of a potentially amazing futuristic world in space, but watching a project that allows "feature creep" is interesting. As an engineer myself, projects always have specs and deadlines. Watching how star citizen evolves is a great example of why most projects are done like they are, but giving someone resources and more freedom allows different ideas and maybe something great to emerge....
When something is feature complete then it has left the alpha state and has entered beta state, now it is about becoming content complete and removing any bugs that is keeping it from a playable state. As far as I remember, only Squadron 42 has been declared feature complete, not Star Citizen.
1) Expecting Sq76 to have been released is NOT biased. It is ridiculous it is not. 1A) Expecting PU to have been released is NOT biased. It is ridiculous it is not. 2) Expecting the game to be polished/bug free is NOT biased. It is ridiculous it is not. 3) Expecting the game to take far less than 700mill to develop is NOT biased. It is ridiculous it is not. People approaching from these viewpoints are called sane and level headed people. And I get as someone who plays SC it sucks to have these criticisms pointed out all the time - but they are extremely valid criticisms and if the fans should be doing anything with these attacks they should be forwarding them to CIG and closing their wallets.
I think the biggest problem with the polishing is the scope of squadron. We've been told 40 hours of story gameplay. That's more story than any modern FPS game. Most modern FPS games have maybe 12-18 hours of story at most (I'm not talking MMO's like Destiny,) but an actual single player FPS. Now when you think of the scope of that and just how much Star Citizen brings into the fold in terms of gameplay and complexity I can see it taking far longer than a normal game to polish.
So, the detail that keeps being somewhat conflated is that the concept sale for the galaxy was a year before the base building citizencon panel While of course there was some people that bought it at the following IAE because of that panel, it really wouldn't have been that many people, and frankly, doing so was kinda silly.
I Think they should make all of the Galaxy's modules deployable as a way around this issue with drone pathing and size. After taking a closer look at the Galaxy, it may need modification just as the Pioneer has undergone.
And this is why I refuse to pledge for a ship until the ship is flight-ready or at least announced to being flight-ready in next major patch. Things in SC tend to change a lot within a 12 month span of time (CIG has said it takes 12-18 months to build out a large ship). As much as I sometimes hate how CIG is making the game, I do love Star Citizen and I've gotten "my money's worth" playing the game and having fun with friends (and making new ones).
Bounty Hunting 2.0 was talked a good bit about at CitCon 2023. It's not even on the 1.0 feature list now. CIG is king of selling pie in the sky ideas. I love Star Citizen, I love the unmatched scope and scale, and I acknowledge their faults.
I mean, in other games where there's $150 collectors editions and other bits where people get outraged at those prices. $300 - $500 for a ship, I get it. I can understand why some people would say "Eff no! Are you crazy?" I'm not one of those people, having just spent $600 on a Polaris. But outsiders seem to have this idea that you HAVE to buy these ships with actual money and can't be earned, so you have to buy them through the store which just isn't the case. Love the stache beeteedubs
When people drop 100 - 500 - 1000 -2000 dollars on a game... They are not going to take critique very well. I have seen people flip out because somebody insulted a game they paid just 50 dollars for.
I think at a certain size of a company the discussions about how and why take more time than the actually doing it part, regarding the UI button XD and not every opinion in that discussion will be out of expertese and then you turn circles
How can you polish a game like SQ42 if you constantly have to reinvent yourself to keep your employees busy and your factory up and running. As long as Star Citizen is not finished and is constantly making changes, SQ42 cannot be completed?
The problem is the corsair was never on Pair with the other ships in class. Less HullHP No Snub Smaler turrets way less turret coverage less Cargospace way less Missile bigger and fragile Cross section And NO it is not an fu... Exploration ship its alsway presented as a piratship. guess what the only real advantage was ......right 2xS4 extra guns And now its factualy undergunned on the pilotside! this wasn´t a Balance this was a real bad Nerv.
If they say "if it takes 2 years to polish, it isn't feature complete," I can't take that seriously. When did polish become a feature? That's not even criticism.
lets put it this way. established game companies like Rockstar and Bethesda take 10+ years to make a game. to cite 2016 is either the ravings of a lunatic, or a complete and utter doorknob. doesn't matter what they said, to think a indie start up company can outpace an established AAA studio by 3+ times is diagnosable insanity. yes, 2 years to polish isn't unheard of... and yeah, looking like it will be a "free to play "game""
My worry is that CR only really cares and wants Squadron42, but he knows Squadron42 wouldnt sell on its own as well as Star Citizen would, so all the money we put in for SC instead goes into making flashy hollywood cinema to fuel his dreams of making his own star wars movies in a video game.
CIGs standard practice is to overhype every ship they sell then either change its role and or nerf it to something completely different. These guys were spot on about that and CIG can absolutely not be trusted.
I will say that I do put a bunch of the op ship blame on CIGs marketing team, and the ship devs. While yes by this point everyone should know the pattern that they will make a ship op, get a ton of sales, and then once they past the refund date nerf it. It isnt a matter of balancing since the forums have numerous posts of people saying this is going to make a ship op and they ignore it. The Ion had to be one shotting fighters on test and yet CIG ignored all that, released the ship and then nerfed it after refund dates had past. I said for years that the Redeemer would be an op ship and warned players that if they didnt nerf the guns then CIG was going to turn the ship into a brick that couldnt get out of the way of a turtle. Players have to know at this point that a nerf is coming to any good ship, just like expect some ship to come along and outdo whatever ship you currently have.
this is a comment about the mustache, hope you see it😁
The stache
Apparently, Mike can grow a stash at a flip of.a switch. Noice! A bit jealous.
@@sevilnatas he got the 70's mustang under his nose
thx brother
That thing is called "Pornobalken" in German :D Have fun while looking up the translation ;)
I agree with the 80s pornstar, CIG needs customer trust to continue to sell ships.
The caveat is that people who have a hard time understanding what's happening will struggle to trust anything.
about to say the same :D
Detective Mike on duty.
I went with firefighter. Detective is good too.
Mike Hammer Private Eye.
Magnum, P.D.
Ngl that mustache works on you
"The company is never held accountable for anything"
Provided to you by Nightrider-CIG
He's genuinely a PoS that does nothing but harm the credibility of the project by banning anyone and everyone critical of moves that CIG makes.
@MSZSNeoBahamut19 I got banned a few days ago because I drew like 2 dots together regarding the recent nerfs, and then oh looky! The Starlancer!
Then asked if they thought we was blind/stupid and said they were shady and..... 10 year ban.
hey, they just deleted a post of mine the other day which contained a link to one of their earlier statements due to conflicting rule 9a, which literally states that I post false arguments and sell them as truth, while citing straight from a post they made in 2013. Thereby I interpret that, that any information given probably before 2018 is not accurate anymore and therefore can't be used to present a given CIG statement as prove or intended plan for future development. That also aligns with a recent statement given by John Crewe that when something isn't either in the pledge store or in the game, it is speculative. As of such, what is our trust in CIG really built on? Are any of the 1.0 goals, even when they are now on the "roadmap" now their honest intentions or are these just means to calm us donw? They destroyed any trust in a matter of weeks themselves.
@@Virulent-wolfsounds like you'll be back in time for Beta LOL
16:30 I think most people aren't upset that the Corsair got nerfed, I think most people are upset at the _way_ it got nerfed - it's the same type of insulting, disrespectful stance toward player time and engagement that they thought and somehow still think is acceptable with the Antares.
The corsair is border line unplayable now... Then why is anyone surprised when ship sales drop.
If the project hangs on a knife's edge to such a degree where you're compelled to silence descenters for fear that their criticisms will end the project, then the project might be too fragile, and you might be backing the wrong horse.
What hangs on a knifes edge? star Citizen? holy fuck its fine
@@DIckbricky Really because they went from 100 systems down to 40 and now down to 5. NPC crew where supposed to be waiting for us at launch and now its find a player or screw you and your multicrew ship. SC is not fine and the fact that they are now looking to release it with a ton of features/content out of it, is evidence of that.
Literally got banned for calling out what was going on on the official forums (regarding the RSI Galaxy removal of base building), completely oblivious to the CIG's backtracking at that time, and for calling out the overcensorship of those who were upset. Nightrider and the rest of the CIG Gestapo do nothing but hurt the reputation by throwing out bans and silencing critics left and right. It's high time CIG starts answering for their failings instead of pretending everything is okay.
@@dgc2540 The Galaxy scandal of descoping sold features was actually way smaller than the revelation that CIG won't be able to deliver on NPC crew until maybe sometime after launch. The galaxy bait and switch would impact galaxy owners while NPC crew slaps everyone who trusted CIG to buy a ship that needs 2 or 3 people for themselves, and is a gut punch to anyone who gave them money for an extra game package on the promise they'd get NPC crew members.
@@dgc2540 The 100 systems was suppose to be barren systems with 2-3 landing POI´s landing spots. Now the plan is to make every system fully fledged out systems full of biological life/ruins/pirate strongholds and bases and Capitals. So the 5 systems is a good choice until the procedural generation can kick of. Just saw they now can auto place rocks and trees according to moist height etc so it looks like natural biomes on Earth. I want realistic predictions, not 100 dead Starfield systems just because they said they would do that 5 years ago.
Wow Mike I really appreciate the kind words man, it honestly made my day! It's crazy that someone so prominent in the Star Citizen community that I've followed for years even knows who I am lol I enjoy your vids too man, thanks for keeping things real in a sea of polarized opinions!
Yooo it’s the Captain Flynn!
I saw some of the videos earlier this month, you have entertaining content my friend. Keep it up!
Galaxy? We all know MSR is the ship with the Stache
Fund mismanagement? CIG has freakin on site coffee barista's, game interiors and corridors lining their actual offices. Staff work from home on Fridays, get company provided breakfasts and lunches. Turbulent, a separate acquisition took over an entire year to make a single ship, (Zeus MkII) and it's still missing the new UI updates and not complete.
Other people's money is easy to spend.
CIG is rolling in cash, but building an enormous work debt.
@@Kyle-sr6jm Yeah, CIG has a 10-20 year backlog of ships which would cost 1-2 Billion USD, but they can't raise money any other way. They are literally building up ship liabilities faster than they are able to deliver the sold ships which is literally a ship ponzi.
Release more subcap jpegs quickly @@RN1441
@@Kyle-sr6jm they most def are not rolling in cash, thats the weird part about this dumb spending
because you can see from their financial reports (i dont mean funding, i mean the yearly reports which every company is forced to publish) that they basically spend all the money that comes in
@@RN1441 havent they made most of the ships they promised? I checked on the website
Nice Mustache, it looks good on you. 👍
He looks like 10 years older lol
Never underestimate a man with a mustache.
Holy Moly. You can be my wing man anytime.
😂
No. I am convinced that the galaxy statement was not a mistake. They fully intended to not do base building on it and instead have the BLD as the initial building ship. The only reason they changed their mind was because the community got loud about it. I fully believe that if the community didn't press it like they did, it would have stayed that way.
The BLD is still going to be the initial building ship, they said a drone module will come for the galaxy down the line. When? Idk, and they probably don't either. The Carrak and Reclaimer [should] get their drone bays working first, since those were sold and released a while ago.
They are still having the BLD be the first Large base building ship, the only thing they caved on (and rightfully so) was putting a base building module back on the list for the Galaxy.
110% i believe they said somewhere on spectrum they couldn't anymore because the drones wouldn't fit in the galaxy.
100%, this was a shit test.
I guarantee they'll make the combined Galaxy module cost almost as much as current pioneer pricing by the time it's released, this is CIG testing the water folks.
As if they were still testing... Check ATLS sales, forget the testing...
Also CSV-SM same price as Drake Mule (so no upgrade option) and ATLS still not popping up in upgrades...
We are so far beyond testing stage...
lmao yeah. it'll end up being like $100-200 less than a Pioneer so they get tons of the 'might as well upgrade' money
I forgot about the AJS show. I used to be subscribed for over 10 years. It was these news shows that finally got me to unsubscribe. They are so often off base or miss half a story.
Their reviews are still fun
@@schlagzahne6741really turn in for the angry reviews these days
yeah that's every news YT channel. its less about actually delivering news or giving any good insights, its there just to affirm whatever most people are feeling or thinking about any given topic. its best to just ignore them.
I still watch his reviews...when he does one once a year, but I unsubbed when he decided he hated me.
Same. Once he stopped doing reviews regularly I stopped watching him.
16:38 that's personally a dumb take, except the buying stuff. Nerfing all ships for balance is what ruined all games like Helldiver etc, it makes it unfun, balanced means all ships are carbon copies of another but just with a different skins. We should have OP ships but you only need to work for it.
to further your point there should be meta pvp, meta pve etc. and let's be real the forced multi crew ships are a dumb play right now with no blades no ai crew etc. by default when you solo fly those ships they are already nerfed.
two caterpillars, one on a human, the other in a game.
CR has said SQ42 was 'content complete' when they let loose the 'Squadron Slice' video forever ago. But they were 'reserving the hype' with follow on videos until they had a date. Difference being subtle of 'content' vs 'feature.' So technical features were still being worked on? The story was complete? As you can see the definitions are nebulous and intentionally confusing so should we be shocked that people are confused?
Its not nebulous it is a well known thing about game development. Polishing and Bugfixing are 2 seperate stages and they take place after content complete. This is a well known thing.
@@Monarch_GNSG It's still weird that it's taking 4 years to polish a game 😂
Sorry 3 years and 9 months.
@@Monarch_GNSG they are nebulous when being said by CR during interviews.
@@PH03NIX96 Usually its done behind closed doors. Lots of normal AAA games have taken 5-6+ years to go from starting development to release, with the announcement of the game happening somewhere a year or two before actual release. Star Citizen was announced a year BEFORE it even started development, is a "AAAA" game (whatever that means), and has been open about their development where normal developers wouldn't say a thing.
If SC and SQ42 were invested normally like most games, the games would probably be out already but they most likely wouldn't be nearly as expansive as they are now. Now that CIG has announced what 1.0 of the game is gonna look like, hopefully they focus their production onto that instead of announcing more new things.
Content means they have the story and assets. Feature complete means that have written the code that will run the npcs and missle and ships and Eva and elevators and food and animals and levels
Imo promoting and selling features of a ship and taking it away or nerfing is unacceptable.
There's a semantics issue that the feature was never actually sold. The ship was not "sold" under the premise, but it was bought under the premise. People knee-jerk whipped out their wallets based on a concept slide, while no information about the ship changed and no building feature was sold or available. So there is interpretive room to say that people simply acted out of impulse during conceptual presentations.
CIG players do be impulsive.
Nerfing is kind of ok, if the ship keeps all the promised functionalities. Like nerfing hull hp, shields or weapon fps.
But taking away promised features like Base building module for the Galaxy... or the pilot controlled guns of the corsair... is not ok
@@QuinnTheTailor And what if they realize having so many pilot controlled guns is a terrible idea for combat balance? They can't change that? All changes that are done for balance purposes should be valid. And before you talk about dps or weapon size, remember that those might have different effects when armor is in.
The building module wouldn't affect balance whatsoever, but it was never sold or promoted because it never existed or was planned. Todd just added the Galaxy in an early concept presentation and people just rushed to pay without looking into what they were buying.
@@Bleinz6360 if the Corsair gets sold with the main selling point being that it has a lot of pilot controlled guns than it should stay like that. That... as i said was the main selling point, people bought it because they could solo it and get a lot of dps. Not even half the people would have bought the Corsair if it had two less pilot controlled guns. This is misleading marketing. You make it a very viable ship to get many sales and then you simply nerf it back, after you've made the money.
If you afterwards think you have given it too many guns, you can adjust other stats. Mobility stats like acceleration, roll or raw etc. So that its not overpowered in combat. And realistically, it never was overpowered. Corsair was a brick, despite all the firepower it couldnt handle anything smaller than it , because all smaller ships moved much faster.
And to your point about the Galaxy. Yes, if a lead game developer presents the Galaxy to do base building, than it is to assume that its the truth and it is planned. And it wasn't even a lead developer saying this on spectrum or so. It was on CitCon, the most important presentation of the game. If that was a mistake by their side, its their responsibility to correct it as soon as possible. Many people have bought the Galaxy afterwards at IAE for example, just because it was shown to build Large structures.
Not 1 year later... and that was purely because of the pressure from the community. If the community hadn't asked then they would simply keep quiet, knowing they have erased the base building module.
EDIT: The Starlancer BLD has NOT been sold. So following your logic, they could also simply erase the whole concept for the Starlancer BLD and stick to what they have presented AND sold, which is the Galaxy.
And to further prove my point. There have been plenty Spectrum post about the Galaxy's base building module, right after it was presented at Citcon. If it was never planned to begin with ( as you argue) and a mistake by Todd. Then they could simply post a dev response that the sheet on Citcon was a yet only idea or proposal that wasn't confirmed with the production and ship teams and that people should not count on it happening. But they haven't. They have read all those spectrum posts about the Galaxy's base building module coming and have kept quiet.
@@QuinnTheTailor So what you are saying is that CIG can't do open development. That anything they say has to be set in stone and thus they have to be sure it's the way they want it in the final product.
There's no way to win this debate. If they never showed the galaxy in that presentation, people would have been mad that there was nothing with which to build structures between the Anvil Atlas platform and the Pioneer. If they show the Galaxy as a concept example or potential idea, they have to stick to it. If they now show the BLD, they have to make it. If they make a ship and it has 10 torps, they can't make it have less torps.
It's all a load of bullshit arguments. What we should do is ask for a channel where ALL the officially confirmed information can be seen, and sanitize the community to only buy stuff based on what they see there. Currently, that place is all over so it's confusing, but one of the places is the pledge store where at least the building module was never sold and it never mentioned the Galaxy would be able to build. It's a different story for weapon hardpoints but what the fuck is the alternative? You really are simple if you think ships can be balanced just by changing their mobility stats.
And just so we're on the same page here: the Corsair definitely was OP in the purpose it was being used for. It's an exploration ship that accounted for a majority of the NPC kills in PVE combat missions. Not only should it not have the majority of kills to be balanced, it's also an exploration ship and its purpose should not be combat.
Mike the moustache guy at it again, classic
We are not supposed to talk about his moustache lol.
Own it Salty, own it!
MUSTACHE!!!!! 😂 🙌
Wasting backers monetary gifts; ...They built a life size hornet to sit and do nothing. Think about that.
That might literally have cost less than 3 months of a single junior salary. Delusional take.
@@Bleinz6360 LOL...If it cost as much as 3 months salary then as a backer I'm not just upset; I'm furious.
There is no way that thing remotely costed a ton of money compared to what the events raised. The convention itself made over a million on ticket sales alone. 4000 attendees at 250 a ticket. It paid for itself. And furthermore the City of Manchester is supposed to be keeping/displaying the piece so its just free publicity. Maybe you should think about it for more than a second lol
Citizencon props are paid for by ticket sales from previous and current years.
@@Bleinz6360yeah look a pro prop maker doing something for 3 months isn't cheaper than a junior coder in a western country. Though, they've sold an array of virtual ship models the junior can't buy with their 3 months salary.
You got that 1990s Porn Stash
This bait and switch from CIG is EXACTLY why you shouldn't give these clowns another penny.
That spectrum post was the moment we found out John Crewe's middle initial was S.
The attempt to remove base building from the Galaxy was viscerally reacted to by the community because it was such an open bait and switch to present it as a base builder at citcon then try to just not deliver on it a year later. Really though the bigger bait and switch this month has been the announcement by CIG that they will fail to deliver NPC crew until maybe after release. The galaxy bait and switch affected the galaxy buyers, the corsair pilot gun bait and switch affected the owners of the corsair, but the NPC bait and switch affects everyone who bought a ship that needs a 2nd crew member (all of them with an interior now that fuse swapping and fires are a thing!) CIG also sold game packages for 11 years and to this day advertises them as coming with extra NPCs on their website, but now they don't want to deliver. This isn't like the scope reductions that only impact SQ42 like cutting out the co-op multiplayer campaign, or 404ing the webpage for the dedicated servers modding manual, it impacts all owners of anything but fighters. I am getting seriously sick of CIG baiting and switching and cutting scope and features all over the place after they've received 12x the money they said they needed to 'do it all' even after the full planetary landing scope change.
Galaxy was atrocious on so many levels!
Some CIG people have no measure!
CI is sliding into territory, where people will wait, how things shake out before opening their wallets!
And LTI charges per module are dead. The pinnacle of greed! JPeg sales may die...
The teams he went back and talked to were the legal teams XD
absolute right and it was not him talking to them, they where coming after him.
There is no gaming the system in this regard, Mike... They advertise a ship with good stats, people buy that ship - that's not on them - it's a value proposition consideration that dictates every sale. They make every new ship meta, and then nerf EVERY damned ship that came before. That your response pretends not to know that? It's bad faith and you're knighting again.
buying an office in new york city and firing 150 employee's in austin, tx is mismanaging funds.
MUSTACHE !
The Galexy issue was interesting as I think it would of broken trading/advertising standerd rules in the uk or if not would of been a grey area purely because they actually said at an official event that the ship would be able to build structures and still sold it with that in mind. That's why I think they changed it back so quickly that and community outrage.
It really wouldn't have. The Galaxy was never advertised as having something on release or having a release plan for said module. It was displayed in a tech demo on a system that has fundamentally changed resulting in a complete redesign of a ship.
I under stand what you are saying but it's not what the ship was originally sold as that was the problem. at the time it was sold with 3 modules and a forth slot that said more to come but no sale or information on what it could be. The minute they stepped on stage last year and told the community that the ship will now have the ability to build S-L structures and then carried on selling the ship under that pretenses for real world money they probably would fall foul of misleading information. If the new ship module was sold with in game money then it wouldn't of been a problem. CIG literally got cautioned buy TSA for selling ships that's hadn't been built but had no information regarding this for new players. Thankfully this all got sorted pretty quickly with follow up spectrum posts.
That's called false advertising
I would say they've mismanaged our money. Apart from giving themselves custom plush offices with custom artwork they can't really afford. Do you think the board are double dipping? CR and co are not just the managing directors of CIG. They're also the managing directors of RSI, the publisher.
16:17 thanks you. Exactly that. Support the game or dont but be realistic before you buy think and same was with the galaxy. They never sold a Basebuilding module. How do they get so upset about it when its suddenly not building bases...
Not to mention, while watching this video, I caught on to something I believed for the last 6 years...... Them promoting the Galaxy as a base building then , the guy that is in charge of ships, says- no plans to release the galaxy with base building ability, shows me how out of touch they are with what is being developed and how its a mismanaged mess at CIG, I cant ever trust what they say ever again.. I'm all set , I already moved on to other titles . This is a mess that's never going to happen or if its does its going to be an unpolished disastrous experience like the PU is right now. Nobody knows what the person down the hall is working on . .All they know how to do is release videos of gameplay that does not exist.
The usual SC streamers and youtubers will point out some minutia saying "it was NEVER actually on a _________ so it doesn't matter. Factcheck False! The Haters Lie!"
Honestly, you should always get informed and deeply investigate whatever you spend money on. If you don't do that and they haven't actually been misleading as per the LAW, then it's not a scam, I'm sorry. Is it a bit scummy? Yes. Does the ship team have to know exactly what everyone says in any early concept presentation? No. Should people refrain from showing features that aren't planned just as a concept? Probably.
I guess you'll also hold them accountable for 100 systems. After all, people bought their starter package with the wish to one day see 100 systems so not adding them must be a scam...
its called false advertising, you sell a ship that says it will do this on the tin and then say months later it won't do what it says on the tin when the whole reason you bought it was for what it said on the tin and i feel like that is 80% of what Star Citizen and honestly if you were to file claims against them for false advertising i wouldn't be surprised if you got your money back
Lmfao show any promotional material on the Galaxy. Is it in its ISC Reveal? Is it in its Q&A? Is it in the Galaxy ship brochure? The answer to all that is NO. It's not false advertising. It's people taking a tech demo of a system not in game as it's releasing with said feature thats not even materialized.
@ that is utterly mindless, ITS IN THE VIDEO WHAT DO YOU MEAN, it was on the store page for the ship WHEN IT WAS PUT UP. You can use whatever excuse you want but you know damn well if they had a feature you paid money specifically for and then they go “oh we haven’t planned that in months now” even though THEY ADVERTISED IT you are telling me that you’d be willing to accept that because it’s a “tech demo” ? If that’s the excuse you give a company like this with a ten year old tech demo I’ve actually lost 30% more faith in humanity today
lol, no. When the Galaxy was originally announced, there was no base building module nor any mention that there would for sure be one. Ya can't cry false advertisement when it was never originally advertised as having a bb module and they state it's a WIP. They specifically said they were thinking about other modules, but the bb one was never worked on or concepted for the Galaxy at that time. They showed the lineup of ships involved with bb at the con, and I agree they shouldn't have included the Galaxy, major mistake because its clear they weren't committed to it yet, as it still had no bb concepted. A con 2 YEARS after the Galaxy was announced talking about possibilities, is not false advertising. You signed the TOS when you bought the game. It specifically covers this very issue. People shouldn't have assumed the Galaxy would have bb and prematurely bought it.
@@Synx201 LMFAO. Base building was NEVER on the store page. Only 3 modules were ever put up to be paid for. Caro, Refining, and Medical. Thats it.
@@Synx201 Yikes... making up stuff to push your own opinion...
Crafting is just a vendor with multiple currencies and a timer.
When did you become a firefighter?
They have mismanaged their cash. The Manchester office is a perfect example. You don't want an empty warehouse, but they built it up like they had all the $$$ in the world.
Your take on the corsair at 16:25 is so beyond dumb. It is not the purchaser's fault for buying a ship that op, it is THE DEVELOPERS for releasing it so unbalanced. AGAIN, the marketing team is showing and selling a product that does not exist or will not exist. You don't blame the consumer for buying a good deal.
17:50 They are totally misspending their funds. Lifesize fully kitted mannequins? HQ converted to a ship interior? 12 years an alpha? We don't have a whole lot of usable for all those funds? It looks GREAT. 5 offices? ugh...
Where you are wrong is in the terminology, is not a purchase, if you read what you are paying is not a product or a ship
You are crowding a the development of the game, the only thing you are actually paying is to get the game and is the only thing in the term of conditions that you are entitling, ships are just a gift you get for funding the projects, these ships are unfinish and they will be rebalance and re-design as many time as needed before the game is out
you are not entitled to the ships you think you are paying for. People just don’t pay attention even when is on their face.
They can't know if the ship will be balanced before releasing it. And it's obviously better if the ship is OP than if it's under powered. If the ship is underpowered, it's harder to balance afterwards because you can't easily add weapon slots or components. Nerfing is easier because smaller components already fit where larger components do and removing weapons is easier than adding them.
@@OneTomato Ty lawyer Bob, i understand the terms of purchase. Here’s the problem, most people when they spend money are sold a specific item that they researched. There are consumer laws that no matter how much you lawyer bullshit changes they violate the reasonable transfer of money for what i purchased. There are lots of examples where basic consumer laws trump these overly lawyered lumps of coal. On top of if your response is to say look at the terms of service, I’m pretty sure the game doesn’t deserve the funds people are paying.
@@Bleinz6360 12 years in, releasing unbalanced ships is a marketing ploy to get people to pay the game. They should have a VERY good grasp of balance in their game. Don’t be a jockstrap for the developer of a 12 yr old alpha game, of they don’t have a grasp at this point we’re in trouble. Releasing new ship/champ/item is called pay to win, CIG doesn’t have the exclusive rights on that.
every one of us who backed them at the start and donated in kickstarter and then more with pledge your ship are angry because CGI lied ... LIIIIIIED !
I hope I hear this same outcry when they announce the gladiator is officially no longer modular.
Nah, you guys just don't know how to listen.
@@MinionKain CIG would have to remember that ship even exists to be able to even make the announcement
@@T51B1 there would be no outcry unless a bunch of people knee-jerk bought the ship. People have to spend money for them to be able to care.
It's not about the "lies" or behavior, it's about "i spent muh muneez and now i'm sad"
People arent wise for still pledging money to this nonsense.
Honestly, I bet marketing made this decision. If they cut this ship out, they figure people will just buy the next one that will do that and it’ll be slightly more expensive…
Doesnt this make your mustache, speculative???
All mustaches are speculative from concept.
They probably talk to their lawyers and were told this could end in a legal case. That's why the rolled back.
Im a game dev at a small studio and polish actually takes alot longer than you would think especially at this scale.
The only way they will ever be held accountable is with their wallet. People keep buying ships that are the next best thing and then get nerfed so they can sell you another ship that's the best ship.
It not as if they cant program a console with a list of all items and when you press a button, the item appear inside a box, and then the box open, allowing the player to take the item.
Its as if you buy an item from shop terminal, but with a minigame of trading resources to improve said BP or item.
But, if they take all their time, efforts and money to make an animation for each item being build, you better do a testament to guive your account to your distant descendants.
9:28 I'm pretty sure there was an isc where Jared did say the galaxy was going to have a manufacturing module
I'm damn near certain that tje wider team referenced by John Krewe was the legal team lol
Do these guys know that almost every ship can be bought in game though?
Lol facts.
I personally see it as the ship is still in development so things can change. They arent tied down to a specific feature or anything. If they wanted to change the name from the galaxy to hermes and make it a dedicated data ship, they can do that because its still in development...
The problem with the Corsair Nerf isn't the fact that they nursed it but how they nerfed it. It is now an objectively worse offering than the constellation in every sense other than gold standard.
It's always been inferior to my Andromeda.
Sorry.
Connie will get a nerf too
@T51B1 possible but they're taking their sweet time, plus they JUST buffed it.
@@T51B1 Perhaps - they inexplicably buffed it.
4 S5 guns now, instead of 2s5, 2s4.
They are direct competitors: Corsair vrs Aquila - Not the Andromeda.
The Andromeda is a gun boat. It has NO mapping computer like the corsair does.
It is and should always be; slightly better in a fight, than the Corsair.
Sounds like marketing and legal teams came up with a script for him to copy and paste once CIG realized what CIG announced.
They started selling the galaxy before Citizencon 2023. Like a couple months before iirc. I remember having purchased the galaxy because they were back on the module hype train when they announced and started selling it, and then was super excited again when they announced it would support base building a couple months later.
edit: I think they specifically said it would support base building because the galaxy was not a popular ship when they first announced it.
You're not crazy, Mike. You just have a fabulous moustache.
Implementing player built space stations is much simpler than implementing base building on planets. It all works on slots, nothing has to align with the terrain, it doesn't require prospecting or any kind of terrain modification, it doesn't have to affect the fauna and flora around it, it's completely modular and the user has no choice on how the geometry interacts...
I bought the corsair because it seemed like it would be good for solo exploration because I'd have a lot of firepower to keep me alive. Now that's not going to happen.
It's NOT about the Galaxy... its about "treat everything as speculation!!" Even though they apologized kinda, does CIG REALLY feel that way??!
there was no reason to nerf the corsair. they aren't taking 2 s5's away from connies. corsair flew like absolute garbage that was the balance.
under UK law evrn that mention of base building is grounds for a refund if it isnt actualy there
16:30 I'm not upset that they nerf and rebalance ships, I'm mad they the consistently nerf ships that directly compete with the role of a new ship they have for sale. It's happened so many times i don't believe that it's a coincidence
If you ignore the gaping content holes and that it runs like a duct taped soap box racer at times, it's an amazing tech demo.
the mismanagement from CiG is the 7 offices in 7 different parts of the world.
Not only do I follow star citizen because of a potentially amazing futuristic world in space, but watching a project that allows "feature creep" is interesting. As an engineer myself, projects always have specs and deadlines. Watching how star citizen evolves is a great example of why most projects are done like they are, but giving someone resources and more freedom allows different ideas and maybe something great to emerge....
23:53 *cough* Ray's guide *cough*
Saying that the company should pay UA-camrs is such an absurdly bad idea that I honestly don’t have words to express it.
Angry Joe and SaltEMike cross over would go crazy
When something is feature complete then it has left the alpha state and has entered beta state, now it is about becoming content complete and removing any bugs that is keeping it from a playable state.
As far as I remember, only Squadron 42 has been declared feature complete, not Star Citizen.
1) Expecting Sq76 to have been released is NOT biased. It is ridiculous it is not.
1A) Expecting PU to have been released is NOT biased. It is ridiculous it is not.
2) Expecting the game to be polished/bug free is NOT biased. It is ridiculous it is not.
3) Expecting the game to take far less than 700mill to develop is NOT biased. It is ridiculous it is not.
People approaching from these viewpoints are called sane and level headed people. And I get as someone who plays SC it sucks to have these criticisms pointed out all the time - but they are extremely valid criticisms and if the fans should be doing anything with these attacks they should be forwarding them to CIG and closing their wallets.
I think the biggest problem with the polishing is the scope of squadron. We've been told 40 hours of story gameplay. That's more story than any modern FPS game. Most modern FPS games have maybe 12-18 hours of story at most (I'm not talking MMO's like Destiny,) but an actual single player FPS. Now when you think of the scope of that and just how much Star Citizen brings into the fold in terms of gameplay and complexity I can see it taking far longer than a normal game to polish.
So, the detail that keeps being somewhat conflated is that the concept sale for the galaxy was a year before the base building citizencon panel
While of course there was some people that bought it at the following IAE because of that panel, it really wouldn't have been that many people, and frankly, doing so was kinda silly.
Its ok mike, its only speculative :)
I Think they should make all of the Galaxy's modules deployable as a way around this issue with drone pathing and size. After taking a closer look at the Galaxy, it may need modification just as the Pioneer has undergone.
Having the manscape pop up when you're talking about your mustache was entertaining
What's the 'M' on your cap Standort ng for? Mustard?
Didnt know Sam Elliott played Star Citizen
it's difficult to present a full well thought out argument in the comments because half the time, youtube just hides it.
And this is why I refuse to pledge for a ship until the ship is flight-ready or at least announced to being flight-ready in next major patch. Things in SC tend to change a lot within a 12 month span of time (CIG has said it takes 12-18 months to build out a large ship). As much as I sometimes hate how CIG is making the game, I do love Star Citizen and I've gotten "my money's worth" playing the game and having fun with friends (and making new ones).
In game development you do not use should, you rephrase with could...
License and registration please
Bounty Hunting 2.0 was talked a good bit about at CitCon 2023. It's not even on the 1.0 feature list now. CIG is king of selling pie in the sky ideas. I love Star Citizen, I love the unmatched scope and scale, and I acknowledge their faults.
I mean, in other games where there's $150 collectors editions and other bits where people get outraged at those prices. $300 - $500 for a ship, I get it. I can understand why some people would say "Eff no! Are you crazy?"
I'm not one of those people, having just spent $600 on a Polaris. But outsiders seem to have this idea that you HAVE to buy these ships with actual money and can't be earned, so you have to buy them through the store which just isn't the case.
Love the stache beeteedubs
I’m here for this saltemike sex icon moustache transformation arc.
When people drop 100 - 500 - 1000 -2000 dollars on a game...
They are not going to take critique very well.
I have seen people flip out because somebody insulted a game they paid just 50 dollars for.
I think at a certain size of a company the discussions about how and why take more time than the actually doing it part, regarding the UI button XD and not every opinion in that discussion will be out of expertese and then you turn circles
How can you polish a game like SQ42 if you constantly have to reinvent yourself to keep your employees busy and your factory up and running. As long as Star Citizen is not finished and is constantly making changes, SQ42 cannot be completed?
The problem is the corsair was never on Pair with the other ships in class.
Less HullHP
No Snub
Smaler turrets
way less turret coverage
less Cargospace
way less Missile
bigger and fragile Cross section
And NO it is not an fu... Exploration ship its alsway presented as a piratship.
guess what the only real advantage was ......right 2xS4 extra guns
And now its factualy undergunned on the pilotside!
this wasn´t a Balance this was a real bad Nerv.
Building a spaceship office for an update video series was unnecessary use of game funds.
Tom Selleck 😂 it's almost Movember
If they say "if it takes 2 years to polish, it isn't feature complete," I can't take that seriously. When did polish become a feature? That's not even criticism.
Thanks, Mike, you're always the most reasonable emissary this community has with the outside world.
lets put it this way. established game companies like Rockstar and Bethesda take 10+ years to make a game. to cite 2016 is either the ravings of a lunatic, or a complete and utter doorknob. doesn't matter what they said, to think a indie start up company can outpace an established AAA studio by 3+ times is diagnosable insanity. yes, 2 years to polish isn't unheard of... and yeah, looking like it will be a "free to play "game""
During this video, I kept getting starcitizen money commercials.
'i'm out of A-U-E-C!'
Same crap for me. Thats targeted ads i guess
👍🏼 finally I know what the „M“ on the Cap stands for,… MAGNUM. 🙃😜
My worry is that CR only really cares and wants Squadron42, but he knows Squadron42 wouldnt sell on its own as well as Star Citizen would, so all the money we put in for SC instead goes into making flashy hollywood cinema to fuel his dreams of making his own star wars movies in a video game.
CIGs standard practice is to overhype every ship they sell then either change its role and or nerf it to something completely different. These guys were spot on about that and CIG can absolutely not be trusted.
I will say that I do put a bunch of the op ship blame on CIGs marketing team, and the ship devs. While yes by this point everyone should know the pattern that they will make a ship op, get a ton of sales, and then once they past the refund date nerf it. It isnt a matter of balancing since the forums have numerous posts of people saying this is going to make a ship op and they ignore it. The Ion had to be one shotting fighters on test and yet CIG ignored all that, released the ship and then nerfed it after refund dates had past. I said for years that the Redeemer would be an op ship and warned players that if they didnt nerf the guns then CIG was going to turn the ship into a brick that couldnt get out of the way of a turtle. Players have to know at this point that a nerf is coming to any good ship, just like expect some ship to come along and outdo whatever ship you currently have.
It costs them nothing to pretend the module will be done later…