Does CIG need to bring in a publisher? (video)

Montoya

Administrator
Staff member
Oct 31, 2013
10,050
55,470
3,180
RSI Handle
Montoya
This is youtuber SomeOrdinaryGamers, great channel and a big fan of Star Citizen, but he is frustrated.

The game is taking too long, its too ambitious, and he it needs a publisher like Microsoft to come in and get the game finished!

 

Freak0

Grand Admiral
Donor
Aug 31, 2019
115
411
1,200
RSI Handle
Freako_0
I have mixed feelings .... regarding an outside publisher coming into the project.

I do think CIG needs to provide a minimum viable feature list for the game to get out of Alpha. Chris does have a history of feature creep.

I think feature creep will continue. But over time, the game will get more stable and grow to the point where there is no need to call it an alpha. Basically, I have a similar perspective as you regarding it being a live product. We'll wake up one year to find the game has multiple systems to explore and most careers have zero to 50% implementation. Maybe then you'll see me ingame :b. Till then I'll just Whale and play the fleet and CCU game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vahadar

Cugino83

Space Marshal
Apr 25, 2019
1,588
5,115
2,250
RSI Handle
Cugino
Hmm I could not agree with the pubblisher onboarding idea, but CIG have a pile of features that are not thare baking but fermenting (yes that is the right term), and the pile is always growing month over month...
New ship hud, presented 2-3(?) years a go and then completed forgeted and lot in the pile.
Ship naming, launched with 3-4 ship and then shelved and no other ship (as far as i know) get that feature
Ship customization: implemented to exactly 1 ship and not touched since then.
Golden standard pass: a work pile that is fermenting form a loong time and keeps growing constantly with ships scheduled for the update but then taken down
Concept ship not yet implemented, and I'm not talking about larger capital ship, but the small ones, even byke some times, that are still shelved... but in the mean time CIG release other ship and vehicles on the same class... over and over again.
Armour and weapon skins thing that CIG discuss since years and stil not implemented.
Ship color customization... another featur fermenting in the pile
Mobiglass that is forever in development for some reason (alongside with the starmap).
....

Way to many idea and project are announced, tested, implemented in a minimal form and then forgotten...
I feel if CIG whant to progress with the project should start to finish the feature they've already testes and being consitent in keep them running, in this aspect a pubblisher can help setting a course and sticking to that: develope a new idea, research it, develope it, test a minimal implementation and then implement it across the whole game. When done, start again with a new idea.
That will also bring a sense of prograssion instead of having piles of half baked feature left to ferment under the sun.

Remember that as an MMO SC will never be "completed" untill it'll close so even in the future there will be new ship and implementation being done, if CIG already struggle to finalize and manteing the few feature they already have this is a really bad thing for the longevity of the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky Captain

Ayeteeone

Space Marshal
Donor
Oct 22, 2018
673
2,625
2,500
RSI Handle
Ayeteeone
No.
No publishers.
No opinions from minimally invested, impatient people who want it the way THEY want it, and now.

This project happened, like so many other things in life, because a handful of stubborn people pulled together to make it so.

Let the folks doing the hard work to make the dream happen DO the work, and get it to wherever they can.
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
12,236
44,979
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
Well... they were offered it before we were. They said no, we said yes.

A publisher would likely pull the plug on the spend on new tech either halting work on our new generation systems and living with the unpolished net-code, Server Meshing, Container Streaming etc we have to this point or worse scraping all that work and using current gen off-the-peg systems to just get it out the door. It's all a work in progress and it's all unpredictable and that 'aint money a Publisher is going to want to dump on the project when they are not guaranteed any return on that work outside of SC.

That is if they didn't shut it down outright. We still need millions of dollars of Dev to get to completion and the players have already spent hundreds of millions on it. What we have pledged already is hundreds of millions of dollars less in their pocket. They'd likely see any further investment as good money going after bad.


EDIT - Forget the above, it has just dawned on me:

Two words.

"Live Service"

Publishers have tried to mimic SC's model under a publishers hand and have failed miserably.
 
Last edited:

Lonewollf

Space Marshal
Mar 1, 2015
99
203
2,300
RSI Handle
Lonewollf
Though I definately would like to see this game go live before I retire, I believe that if a publisher comes in at this point in the game, we would be taking steps in the wrong direction. How many games have been shut down over the years because the publisher thought that the project would not succeed? look at what happened with "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords". Developers said it needed more time, Publisher said get it out by this deadline regardless! And the game to this day still has no proper ending, and a missing world that was 3/4 of the way being developed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ayeteeone

Dirtbag_Leader

Admiral
Nov 27, 2020
452
1,453
800
RSI Handle
Dirtbag_Leader
As with many or even MOST professions in the modern world, I see publishers as middle-man conveyor belt jobs that have no method for actually ADDING VALUE to a product; they just complicate the process and siphon off money to do so. Stick to a process which maximizes the value-added steps instead.
 

Amun Khonsu

Captain
Donor
Jan 28, 2022
125
452
200
RSI Handle
Amun-Khonsu
Yeah, I called this years ago. The project is at the point to where it needs a publisher's accountability if we are ever to see a version of the game that works and released in in our lifetime.

We shouldn't pretend that every decision a publisher makes ends in utter destruction, or stripping to bare bones for release. Most games we enjoy are released through publishers.

I do agree that CIG currently has little incentive not to perpetually be in Alpha, selling old and newly released ships and concepts. No, devs arent intentionally holding up development to do this, but devs are not privvy to nor do they make such decisions. Such financial model and marketing decisions are made ultimately by the person(s) at the very top, signed off by CR himself.

I love the game, the idea of the game, support it extensively with my money, but I want to play the finished product before I die.

Edit to add snap from today's PU Monthly Report, illustrating further my point:

 

Attachments

Last edited:

Richard Bong

Space Marshal
Jul 29, 2017
2,337
6,500
2,850
RSI Handle
McHale
I'm past the point where I truly believe Star Citizen will never get released. It's already showing its age. It will be abandoned before it gets close to finished.

Something needs to change. I doubt a publisher can get control, which rules that out.
 

Brictoria

Admiral
Apr 15, 2022
684
2,003
700
RSI Handle
Brictoria
I don't think a publisher is necessarily needed for the PU...

As I understand it, CIG are trying to ensure consistency between Squadron 42 and the PU, so that they share the same engine, controls, flight models, etc., which means that a changes made for one product need to be done in a way that will not break or unbalance the other. At the same time, they have focussed efforts primarily on getting the single player Squadron 42 completed, both because it will be easier\quicker to "complete" as well as because it is an easier product to test changes in as there is a smaller number of variables needed to be addressed, with additions for the PU able to be added on\adjusted based upon the "fixed" settings taken from Squadron 42.

What is really needed is for Squadron 42 to reach a point that the shared features can be considered "complete"\"balanced" around the limited functionality required for that game. Once this is done and there is a known "baseline", all the other "proof of concept" areas that have been tested can be added, rather than adding beforehand and then needing to constantly change to align with Squadron 42. Armor, weapons, components, ship handling, etc. can be balanced around the limited set that had been locked in for Squadron 42, and other areas of gameplay that have been teasted (either shown but not included, or included in a very limited manner) would be able to be expanded: The reason that things like Mining and Salvage are so advanced compared to those other areas in the game is likely because there is no link\shared dependencies between the PU and Squadron 42, so development on them won't require many\any changes in the future.

Another reason that Squadron 42 needs to be released is that there are likely a number of "secrets" and features of that game which may be "given away" if the technology\functionality that is shared between them is published before that game is ready: It's also one reason why certain ships which are nominally "complete" (Idris', Javelin, etc.) are not flyable in the PU.

I'd expect that once Squadron reaches a QA stage (Alpha\Beta\?) and is preparing for release, we'll see a rapid change to features in the PU as "non spoiler" elements are expanded to cover the additional ships\etc. that the PU has, with the "spoiler" related ones hitting at\soon after Squadron 42 releases... With news that Squadron 42 has been removed from the store for "price adjustment", I wouldn't be surprised if an official release date for it will be made public in the next few months.
 

Richard Bong

Space Marshal
Jul 29, 2017
2,337
6,500
2,850
RSI Handle
McHale
I don't think a publisher is necessarily needed for the PU...

As I understand it, CIG are trying to ensure consistency between Squadron 42 and the PU, so that they share the same engine, controls, flight models, etc., which means that a changes made for one product need to be done in a way that will not break or unbalance the other. At the same time, they have focussed efforts primarily on getting the single player Squadron 42 completed, both because it will be easier\quicker to "complete" as well as because it is an easier product to test changes in as there is a smaller number of variables needed to be addressed, with additions for the PU able to be added on\adjusted based upon the "fixed" settings taken from Squadron 42.

What is really needed is for Squadron 42 to reach a point that the shared features can be considered "complete"\"balanced" around the limited functionality required for that game. Once this is done and there is a known "baseline", all the other "proof of concept" areas that have been tested can be added, rather than adding beforehand and then needing to constantly change to align with Squadron 42. Armor, weapons, components, ship handling, etc. can be balanced around the limited set that had been locked in for Squadron 42, and other areas of gameplay that have been teasted (either shown but not included, or included in a very limited manner) would be able to be expanded: The reason that things like Mining and Salvage are so advanced compared to those other areas in the game is likely because there is no link\shared dependencies between the PU and Squadron 42, so development on them won't require many\any changes in the future.

Another reason that Squadron 42 needs to be released is that there are likely a number of "secrets" and features of that game which may be "given away" if the technology\functionality that is shared between them is published before that game is ready: It's also one reason why certain ships which are nominally "complete" (Idris', Javelin, etc.) are not flyable in the PU.

I'd expect that once Squadron reaches a QA stage (Alpha\Beta\?) and is preparing for release, we'll see a rapid change to features in the PU as "non spoiler" elements are expanded to cover the additional ships\etc. that the PU has, with the "spoiler" related ones hitting at\soon after Squadron 42 releases... With news that Squadron 42 has been removed from the store for "price adjustment", I wouldn't be surprised if an official release date for it will be made public in the next few months.
Last word from Erin Roberts, (last fall) is Squadron 42 is more than 2 years away. Note that Squadron 42 has been two years away for almost the entire project.

I don't see that changing any time in the foreseeable future.

There is no incentive for CIG to finish anything as long as the money keeps flowing, especially given the lack of a funding model once the game is released.
 

BUTUZ

Space Marshal
Donor
Apr 8, 2016
3,602
12,197
2,850
RSI Handle
BUTUZ
I don't know about a publisher but I think something drastic needs to be done as currently every 5 tasks that get ticked off they add 10 more so we're clearly never gonna get out of alpha.
 

Shadow Reaper

Space Marshal
Jun 3, 2016
5,413
15,020
2,975
RSI Handle
Shadow Reaper
Forgive me if I missed something here, but I was forced to skim a bit. I only see two issues here.

First is whether CIG can bring Beta in before other engines like Unreal V make it obsolete. Sooner or later the day will come when the game looks so old it can't survive. There seems to be no discussion of this here, and I think that is the only hard line for scheduling. Certainly scheduling is not contingent upon Gen X patience.

More noteworthy, the fact we're having this discussion YET AGAIN just says we're growing comfortable pretending we're stakeholders when we are not. We don't get a say as to what CIG "should do", so discussion of this is just narcissistic venting. Waste of air, and deeply embarrassing. Best is delete this thread and forget it ever happened. This is futile on the level of decrying that Congress "should" have term limits. Okay so how do you get Congress to vote to limit their own terms? You can't, so all talk of this is a stupid waste of energy. There are no national ballots in America so there is no way to leverage Congress into a term limit scenario. All discussion of this is wasted air. Same with this. In what universe does it matter what players think about what Chris Roberts "should" do as regards handing power over to someone else?
 

Thalstan

Space Marshal
Jun 5, 2016
2,082
7,392
2,850
RSI Handle
Thalstan
here is the thing...once money slows down, they are screwed. No one will touch them as a declining revenue game without SIGNIFICANT interest in the game....meaning, CR would lose control.

That said, what needs to happen is for them to hire someone to actually manage the game with the FULL authority to tell Chris NO, and with the ability for them and their team to greenlight stuff without Chris giving final approval. This would be a job that the person would take a full time contract for. Two years minimum contract and a penalty clause of if they are fired, they are paid for the entirety of the contract. The contract must have options that need to be picked up 1 year prior to the contract expiring. So if they want them a third year, they need to pick it up by the end of the first year. This way the manager knows when their contract ends and they don't have to worry if they are getting renewed in the next two weeks for the next year of the contract.

From what I have been hearing, CR is the single biggest blocker of this game. Everything needs to go through him for final approval. This results in significant time delays and it suffers from inattention when he mind goes to the new shiny he just saw in a Star Trek TV show or Star Wars movie.

Someone who can define what they see the game needing before moving to beta and then live. Someone who can say...great idea Chris, we will put that in the expansion Pack StarCitizen Tears of the Tevarins, which will be our first scheduled expansion. Someone who can define the key MVP items/tech that need to happen for the move to beta.

Dynamic server meshing is a big one.
Modularity is another
The specific number of systems needed
Alien species
Fauna
Ship Armor systems.
NPCs actually moving all the time
T3 medical facilities/ships
etc.
Maybe death of a spaceman
maybe physicalized damage

Even if it's not a game manager, CR needs someone to keep track of everything and help shepherd him through the issues. But I still think there needs to be someone who can tell Chris NO!
 

Ltmifune

Vice Admiral
Nov 6, 2022
161
531
400
RSI Handle
ltmifune
I would like to see a real game company come in and make drastic steps to move towards completion. We all have played games in the last 5 years that have offered similar if not better version of systems that CIG is trying to make happen. You have games from the early 2000s that have the same mechanics CIG is trying to get to work. The Half-life 2 Grav-gun, Zelda TOTK God hand, No Man's Sky, The Elder Scrolls games, Morrowwinds persistent housing decoration system (yes I know it was and solo game,) Elder Scrolls Online server and housing mechanics, most MMOs todays server mechanics. Just pick any game that are similar to Star Citizen, that are either in alpha, beta, or finished and I ask myself sometimes what is CIGs problem?

What I see (and spend my money on,) When it comes time for an event or a sale, the game becomes unplayable and prices are now increasing, they are releasing "new" ships, I just want my BMM and I want to see more from this project, I agree with Richard Bong, the game will never get released because it is to much of a cash cow, and in the event that it does it will be drastically different from what we are enjoying now. I see them raising prices and on store bought items to the point that they will deter new players.

Also I want to have a server I can call home and enjoy and actually persistent universe.
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
12,236
44,979
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
I would like to see a real game company come in and make drastic steps to move towards completion.
The longer they don't make moves to complete, the longer other businesses have to develop a competitor. Not a Starfield Skyrim in space, literally SC built by an existing studio but perhaps using an existing IP.

Imagine the utter smash hit Disney would have with a Star Wars procedural built franchise game property with just like 10 star systems from the Lore with everything we have in our game, 100% landable and explorable planets and moons, ship interiors you can interact with while flying etc... It would steal the market regardless of how long and how much SC has put in to the Lore, Star Wars goes back decades and has spades of storylines to skim from/be inspired by.

Not saying I want it to happen but I can see it happening - the more time that goes by between the project showing what is possible and the technology becoming achievable without the need to dump hundreds of millions in to the development diminishes more and more and more every month that passes. Nothing sucks harder than a Unique Selling Point that is not only no longer unique, but also relatively easy to implement with off-the-shelf tools that you are not selling to the market.
 

Sky Captain

Space Marshal
Donor
Oct 13, 2018
1,837
6,223
2,750
RSI Handle
TheSkyCaptain
Chris Roberts has led games before. Some were masterpieces. Others got panned.

Given that experience in the gaming industry, he knows how reviews and player retention will go if he launches too small of a game with too few features.

So he's gotta be thinking that its in his interest to 'build big' for as long as he can. The success of this game will be his legacy at this point.

Given that I want it to be a masterpiece too, I've been ok with an extended schedule ... so long as the team ultimately still delivers the game and it works.

My only gripe at the moment is feeling a need to hear more about the vision for game play. Lets hear less developer small talk and more on big things like NPC crew, economic systems, etc.

This goes for both Star Citizen and Squadron 42. I do think its time for them to rebuild community excitement by starting to reveal SQ42 features / gameplay more especially.
 

CRISS9000

Space Marshal
Jul 13, 2016
417
1,341
2,400
RSI Handle
criss9000
Sooner or later the day will come when the game looks so old it can't survive.
meanwhile, Warhammer 40,000: Boltgun has recently released, with very positive reviews. only 400 negatives out of 5.8k on steam. I don't see any substantial or even slightly noticeable complaint about its 30 year old graphics.

More noteworthy, the fact we're having this discussion YET AGAIN ... is just narcissistic venting. Waste of air ...
+1
this is pointless. being independent and without a publisher to dictate from the top down by corporate executives that care for absolutely nothing and have been mostly responsible for the absolutely disgraceful state of the shitertainment industry that spews garbage bags by the container-loads and slapping the false label of "game" on them is one of the fundamental parts of the foundation of CIG. If they had a publisher over them they would just have a deadline forced onto them and they would never be able to make the kind of simulation game that they want to make with all of their heart and soul and artistic potential put into it.

besides, I think publishers are just parasites in an age when we have the internet and any company with a single real human being can publish its own product by itself.

Down with publishers. All glory to the independents.

However I do agree with what Thalstan said - Chris Roberts needs to straighten his priorities up.
 
Last edited:
Forgot your password?