I can certainly understand your frustration, been there myself. What I did to alleviate this frustration is go check out ArcCorp.Sticking with the Test philosophy - plainly speaking your mind.
Ok... I signed on to Star Citizen in June, 2013. I have put a ton of money in a vision - not a game (not as much as some but still a lot) and in April 2019 we still have a alpha, only a couple systems to explore, and a handful of mission givers. I am all for perfection, but at what point does perfection start to work against itself. I still believe this game can be great, a world view shift in game play, but the longer it takes to get something workable the more resources CIG spends on management and development. Why have we all resigned ourselves to a 10 year production of this game? We should demand more; more efficiency, more production.
Because of this I am writing this thread. Chris has to walk the line between mismanagement and optimization. I know, that in version one it was extremely crude, in version two we started to get some traction, in version three we redesigned and corrected many of the mistakes made in version one and two. My point is, at some point you have to move forward. What was state of the art in GPUs in 2013 is not state of the art in 2019. So, technology moves forward and doesn't care about our game... it grows exponentially every year and the tech of last year is not as good as the tech of this year, the tech of 2013 is not as good as 2019 - this will always be the case. At some point Star Citizen needs to grow a pair of balls and put out content as fast as the demand. Seven years for this with a handful of planets and mission givers, the 2013 version of space invaders called (Arena Commander)... it took 3 years to build the Empire State Building and 2 years to build Hoover Dam. These were tangible objects requiring physical resources (not that computers are not physical, but a hell of a lot easier to move than concrete and steel). The Empire State Building cost in 1931 was $40,948,900 (~$676,000,000 in 2019). Star Citizen just announced they reached the $200,000,000 mark after 6 or 7 years of crowd funding and were still in Alpha with only a road map to help keep the backers at bay - not asking themselves, is this really the best the CIG can do?
Lastly, this begs the question... is CIG only interested in only selling concepts and not the game?
My goal is not to complain, but try to put this in perspective from my point of view.
Isn't that what Tesla did? ^^Go to your nearest car dealership and tell them that you want to wait 4 years for your car. My question is simple "Is the community pushing for production fast enough?".
I disagree, the materials are different but management philosophy remains. Age old question "How do I keep a project on track with the money I have?" Remember, they have some proprietary tech (applications) they are using but for the most part they use very expensive tools for rendering, etc - these are "purchased" tools that they pay huge license fees for. Jira - for development ticket tracking, Amazon Lumberyard, WWise, MotionBuilder/Maya, Photoshop, Max... and the list goes on. These are very expensive tools that CIG pays licenses for, not to mention their overhead with capital investments like hardware which typically have a life span after 4 years before the manufacturer EOLs them. For a typical 12 year engagement, the hardware should be refreshed 3 times during the span of that project... so the longer the project, the more overhead, the increase in cost. We are talking servers - blades and rack-mount, switches, security equipment and licenses, upkeep for server locations (data centers)... and the list goes on. The bigger the foot print the more cost, the more operations type people that need to be hired just keep things running. We could argue semantics all day but money and management remain steady... just different tools - trucks vs operating licenses (vehicles to move product), concrete vs hardware (physical infrastructure), steel workers vs graphic designers (labor).No, its a terrible counter-argument because the original comparison was flawed to begin with.
You can't compare software development to the construction of a building, they are very different.
Apples and oranges.
Let me try!
Elite Dangerous launched a game in 2yrs for $10M.
SpaceX has yet to launch a man in their rocket and has gotten over $1B in funding! What the hell is wrong with them?
They have covered this. If the incoming pledges drop below the level that is sustainable for developing further innovations, they have "A few levers to pull".Age old question "How do I keep a project on track with the money I have?"
Chris Roberts said:We’ve also set it up in a way that, if we’re seeing a drop-off, we’d scale back our development ambition. But we haven’t, so we’ve been planning for that and getting stuff out. We obviously anticipate that when Squadron comes out, that’s going to be a big revenue-positive event for us. We have a bunch of people who’ve backed for Star Citizen and pledged for Squadron, but that game has potential to reach millions more people than our current base.
Our approach was that we wanted to — the money we’re bringing from crowdfunding, we’re committed to spending on the game and development. If we saw a change in that velocity or trajectory of the revenue coming in, we would make an adjustment on our internal development spending. We have a few levers to pull, but we’ve been pretty steady as we’ve gone along. We felt comfortable in our planning on that.
Wait, what? That's news, when did that happen?I firmly believe after reading their financial reports and watching them sell off 10% of the company in order to get funding to finish SQ42 money is clearly an issue
It was not a sale to finish SQ42, but to provide funds to market it.Wait, what? That's news, when did that happen?
Also, link to substantiate please
GTA V cost $137M to develop, and another $128M in marketing costs.Wait, what? That's news, when did that happen?
Also, link to substantiate please