162
$600 Million And A Decade Later, Where Is Star Citizen?
(exputer.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
162 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
30500 readers
200 users here now
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I think it’s important to remember that this was pitched as a single game originally. It was announced the year Mass Effect 3 came out. Comparing it to anything else is honestly pointless. Rockstar is building a game off its success and profits of GTA V. This is a ten year saga of broken promises and scope creep so astounding that people are saying they’re building four games when they’ve yet to prove they could deliver one. That’s just wild.
It's also important to mention that the community was polled before the pivot to multiple games and increasing scope creep. The backer community itself said to keep adding features.
A prime example of FOMO and sunk cost fallacy at work.
That poll was very early on. Like 2014 or so.
It's not like this was hundreds of millions of dollars later. The community just wants it to be the best game it can be.
I mean, who would say, "You know what? This thing I bought into—I want it to be dog shit."
I get that people want their money to have been used well, but I would bet money we'll see a completed Starfield II before Star Citizen launches its first beta.
I'm largely wondering what you're basing your opinion on. It seems, like many detractors, you're just hating to hate.
I'm basing my opinion on the fact that the development cycle is completely beyond what even indie studios have. As others have said, at some point, you need a finished product. You can continue to develop after that, but the project lead doesn't seem to know how to do that and continue to build upon that foundation. Scope creep, indeed.
This might not technically be a scam, but half a billion dollars for a decade of snail's-paced development and only alpha-ware to show for it at least begins to smell like one.
Plus, technology is developing faster than the dev is able to create. As it progresses, will the dev revise the scope to match the new tech? Based on the track record, I'm betting "yes," and this will never be finished in his lifetime.
I guess we'll see. I've paid fairly close attention and so long as the single player delivers what's been promised the money won't be wasted.
People oftentimes ignore what's actually being communicated. They built a huge chunk of the Lumberyard engine and have built tons of tools around it. They've also spent a good chunk of time ramping up employees. The team growth takes a while.
Personally, I've been pretty satisfied with the progress they've made. I'm also pretty happy that Squadron 42 has been reporting moving toward primarily testing functionality. The S42 progress is the primary litmus test. Not SC.
Well, if you're a backer, and you're happy, I don't see any reason to try to take that from you (which I doubt I could anyway). You enjoy!
Personally, I'm unimpressed with what it is. The idea is cool, and I would consider buying the finished product if they do achieve everything in their stated goals, but its state and pace of development don't thrill me or make me want to invest right now.