Star Citizen Megathread v. procedurally-generated deadlines - Games

[QUOTE=Mattk50;52108969]PU is usually unplayable framerate wise because of the netcode. arena commander is better but still caps out your fps in larger games because of the netcode. we're hoping this will be fixed in 3.0. if not there will be a riot.[/QUOTE] I have heard someone mention the devs said they plan to eventually create a nettcode similar to the way elite dangerous does things, but more smooth.

[QUOTE=ulvemann43;52108994]I have heard someone mention the devs said they plan to eventually create a nettcode similar to the way elite dangerous does things, but more smooth.[/QUOTE] elite dangerous is shitty P2P that absolutely nobody likes and if starnetwork's like that i'm gonna flip

[QUOTE=Dwarden;52107396]StarCitizen, procedural delays continued {it sounds cruel but it's like nonstop delays on everything} but because i expect only delays on project of this magnitude, it's not surprising anymore[/QUOTE] They do delays so that we don't wind up with a botched mess like Mass Effect Andromeda or NMS.

[QUOTE=Forumaster;52109034]They do delays so that we don't wind up with a botched mess like Mass Effect Andromeda or NMS.[/QUOTE] Or a case of Elite Dangerous where we get a base mechanics release, but the content is insufficient to continue profitable demand without having to sell season passes to keep paying for the update work. In Star Citizen's case, this is at least rendered optional via the pledge ships, which fund the content for everyone.

[QUOTE=Useful Dave;52109311]Or a case of [B]Elite Dangerous[/B] where we get a base mechanics release, but the content is insufficient to continue profitable demand without having to sell season passes to keep paying for the update work. In Star Citizen's case, this is at least rendered optional via the pledge ships, which fund the content for everyone.[/QUOTE] I still feel a little burned by my ED purchase (as I also bought the lifetime pass the first time when it was supposed to be the last time). I haven't played since Commanders came out, been too busy on ME:A and replaying Dead Space 3.

So I downloaded the game, it installed all the way, but the Launch Game button is greyed out, and clicking it doesn't do anything. Help? Tried running as admin, but that didn't do anything.

First thing I'd try is just leave the launcher open and then manually run (install path)\StarCitizen\Public\Bin64\StarCitizen.exe and it should work or at least give you a more informative error message. You can also click the gear menu button and verify your install, in case something's become corrupt in the download and the launcher knows it but doesn't want to automatically fix it.

I play with a GTX660 :v:

I play with 86% 37 days remaining

I just saw an article about 3.0 being released. Wasn't it supposed to come out late last year with a lot more features? How come it was delayed and is releasing a lot less?

[QUOTE=Hezzy;52110348]I just saw an article about 3.0 being released. Wasn't it supposed to come out late last year with a lot more features? How come it was delayed and is releasing a lot less?[/QUOTE] Because everything's a scam and Derek Smart was right all along, duh. Also, Chris said they [I]hoped[/I] to get 3.0 out by the end of last year. That is not the same as promising a specific deadline. Only one person is claiming that 3.0 was due out by December 19, 2016, and I'll give you one guess. Is it the end of the world if there are only three procgen planets to explore instead of eight or nine in the first release? I'd much rather the experience be playable sooner than it be delayed even longer to deal with whatever inefficiencies in the content pipeline are holding the other planets back. They had previous contemplated moving some 3.1 features into 3.0 and then moved them back out again with this schedule. [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1496153&p=51179081&viewfull=1#post51179081"]There's also intentional disinformation going around that mining was planned for 3.0 all along, yet that was never the case in the CitCon slides.[/URL] The bulk of the work is still going to go live with 3.0 when it hits, unless they cut even more features out of this release between now and then. The Origin 85X was a 3.1 ship that became a 2.6 ship, too.

Go figure all this stuff kicks off when I'm slated to be in the sandbox

I just took a glance at the schedule, and I didn't see anything mentioned about the 300i series updates. The only thing I saw Origin-related was the 890 Jump - is it just buried in the information somewhere or did I imagine that announcement even happening?

[QUOTE=Links;52111160]I just took a glance at the schedule, and I didn't see anything mentioned about the 300i series updates. The only thing I saw Origin-related was the 890 Jump - is it just buried in the information somewhere or did I imagine that announcement even happening?[/QUOTE] [t]http://i.imgur.com/ge7xNno.png[/t] Citizencon slide

[QUOTE=Dwarden;52107396]StarCitizen, procedural delays continued {it sounds cruel but it's like nonstop delays on everything} but because i expect only delays on project of this magnitude, it's not surprising anymore[/QUOTE] Don't you work for Bohemia Interactive whom have had DayZ in early access for how long now lol

[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;52111689]Don't you work for Bohemia Interactive whom have had DayZ in early access for how long now lol[/QUOTE] He does but iirc he's only community manager for the Arma and possibly take on franchise, he can correct me if I'm wrong though.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52110376]Because everything's a scam and Derek Smart was right all along, duh. Also, Chris said they [I]hoped[/I] to get 3.0 out by the end of last year. That is not the same as promising a specific deadline. Only one person is claiming that 3.0 was due out by December 19, 2016, and I'll give you one guess. Is it the end of the world if there are only three procgen planets to explore instead of eight or nine in the first release? I'd much rather the experience be playable sooner than it be delayed even longer to deal with whatever inefficiencies in the content pipeline are holding the other planets back. They had previous contemplated moving some 3.1 features into 3.0 and then moved them back out again with this schedule. [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1496153&p=51179081&viewfull=1#post51179081"]There's also intentional disinformation going around that mining was planned for 3.0 all along, yet that was never the case in the CitCon slides.[/URL] The bulk of the work is still going to go live with 3.0 when it hits, unless they cut even more features out of this release between now and then. The Origin 85X was a 3.1 ship that became a 2.6 ship, too.[/QUOTE] What has Derek Smart got to do with anything? I remember it was widely reported that 3.0 was coming out late 2016 and had a whole bunch of features. Yet here we are a number of months down the line with very little to show. Do none of you have any cause for concern? Really? [url]https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/08/22/star-citizen-3-0-gameplay-planetary-landing/[/url]

Given that they've missed more targets than hit I don't think anyone is surprised

[QUOTE=Hezzy;52111874]What has Derek Smart got to do with anything? I remember it was widely reported that 3.0 was coming out late 2016 and had a whole bunch of features. Yet here we are a number of months down the line with very little to show. Do none of you have any cause for concern? Really? [url]https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/08/22/star-citizen-3-0-gameplay-planetary-landing/[/url][/QUOTE] I would be concerned if they pushed for a release regardless of the status of the project. There are enough half-baked releases on the market as it is. What should we be concerned about exactly? That it won't come out as soon as we'd expect? Pretty sure anybody who follows the project is aware of that already.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52111920]What should we be concerned about exactly?[/QUOTE] That funding is finite and RSI seem to think they have infinite amount of development time, adding superfluous features when they should be focusing on core gameplay. Where is their design document?

[QUOTE=Hezzy;52111923]That funding is finite and RSI seem to think they have infinite amount of development time, adding superfluous features when they should be focusing on core gameplay. Where is their design document?[/QUOTE] You have anything that indicates they're close to exhausting their budget? What superfluous features are you referring to? From what I'm seeing they're spending quite a bit of time on development tools to streamline production and reduce development time, actually. Not sure where you're getting that "taking our sweet darn time" vibe from. Also, what's up with people who keep referring to CIG as "RSI" when they're criticizing SC development? It would be easier to take those criticisms seriously if you used the actual company's name. It's like if you were referring to Ion Storm as "Versalife" when talking about Deus Ex.

Honestly I'd rather get my $180 out of this game in 2020 than have a half-done, buggy mess right now. The fact that we get a playable pre-alpha that works as well as it does is a pretty damn good sign for me.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52111937]You have anything that indicates they're close to exhausting their budget? What superfluous features are you referring to? From what I'm seeing they're spending quite a bit of time on development tools to streamline production and reduce development time, actually. Not sure where you're getting that "taking our sweet darn time" vibe from. Also, what's up with people who keep referring to CIG as "RSI" when they're criticizing SC development? It would be easier to take those criticisms seriously if you used the actual company's name. It's like if you were referring to Ion Storm as "Versalife" when talking about Deus Ex.[/QUOTE] I didn't say they were close to exhausting their budget. I'd want them to focus more on implementing more gameplay functionality, such as professions / game mechanics rather than focusing on things like planetary landings. I'd say that PL is something that would be "nice" to have, whereas professions are "essential" I thought RSI was the development company? When SC first launched the website address was robertspaceindustries.com or something like that. I was one of the first to register. [url]https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08882924[/url] So not exactly how you state it in your analogy, because RSI is a real company. I can see how it can be confusing, they have registered a lot of different companies all over the world. Not sure why.

[QUOTE=Hezzy;52112214]I didn't say they were close to exhausting their budget. I'd want them to focus more on implementing more gameplay functionality, such as professions / game mechanics rather than focusing on things like planetary landings. I'd say that PL is something that would be "nice" to have, whereas professions are "essential" I thought RSI was the development company? When SC first launched the website address was robertspaceindustries.com or something like that. I was one of the first to register. [url]https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08882924[/url] So not exactly how you state it in your analogy, because RSI is a real company. I can see how it can be confusing, they have registered a lot of different companies all over the world. Not sure why.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure RSI is what they want to call the publishing part of them, and CIG is the dev part.

[QUOTE=Hezzy;52112214]I didn't say they were close to exhausting their budget. I'd want them to focus more on implementing more gameplay functionality, such as professions / game mechanics rather than focusing on things like planetary landings. I'd say that PL is something that would be "nice" to have, whereas professions are "essential"[/QUOTE] Those professions aren't going to be played in a vacuum, and in that sense planetary locations have just as much importance as asteroid fields and space stations. I'd much rather they take every type of location into account early on than design the whole game without some and then tack on planets afterwards Elite:Dangerous style. Every part of a game interacts with each other, if you make a fully functional game and then bring in a completely game-altering system you have to rethink everything else, and that's lost dev time, especially if you haven't spent any time beforehand designing the production pipeline for that new concept.

[QUOTE=Hezzy;52112214]I didn't say they were close to exhausting their budget. I'd want them to focus more on implementing more gameplay functionality, such as professions / game mechanics rather than focusing on things like planetary landings. I'd say that PL is something that would be "nice" to have, whereas professions are "essential" [/QUOTE] Professions are dynamic in Star Citizen, which means that implementing gameplay functionality is essentially creating professions as you go. You mention planetary landings--that's basically the start of the explorer's profession. Dogfighting, and by extension security/military jobs, have been a big part of the game since the start, and by far the one that needs the most balancing work. They have the basics of the job system in the game right now, but CIG seems to believe that players would rather experience the gameplay before they get their virtual bucks for it, and I'm inclined to agree.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52111648][t]http://i.imgur.com/ge7xNno.png[/t] Citizencon slide[/QUOTE] Yeah, but again that only says the 890 Jump - didn't they say that they were updating and reworking the 300i, 315p and 325a? Or is it implied that their rework will be done around the same time as the 890 Jump?

[QUOTE=Alsojames;52112253]Professions are dynamic in Star Citizen, which means that implementing gameplay functionality is essentially creating professions as you go. You mention planetary landings--that's basically the start of the explorer's profession. Dogfighting, and by extension security/military jobs, have been a big part of the game since the start, and by far the one that needs the most balancing work. They have the basics of the job system in the game right now, but CIG seems to believe that players would rather experience the gameplay before they get their virtual bucks for it, and I'm inclined to agree.[/QUOTE] One of the reasons i have faith in the game is the way the devs have absolutely nothing against letting even people who haven't paid yet, try their game. They have extremely frequent free flight weekends and it gives me a good feeling. The reason i pledged to begin with was due to one of those. They don't want to hide away their game and how it plays right now.

Who needs things like spaceships honestly? They should first focus on having the game tell me I'm a trader. That's more important than travelling.

It'd a bit disingenuous to use blog reporting to decide release dates for Star Citizen, because their wording may put promises in Chris Roberts' mouth that he never made. And Roberts has enough problems managing his own mouth without blog writers putting words into it. [URL="http://www.polygon.com/2016/8/19/12559536/star-citizen-version-30"]Polygon accurately captures[/URL] a responsible take on it with their comment that 3.0 is "expected" by the end of 2016 - which is what Chris offered on stage at Gamescom 2016: That they would like to release 3.0 by the end of 2016, but no promises. They missed that deadline and none of us in this thread are surprised, because we follow CIG's progress week by week and while they have shown steady progress, end of 2016 was hopelessly optimistic as are most of Chris' public predictions. There's also this to consider, from Friday's newsletter: [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/qDWAZOZ.png[/IMG] 2.6 is basically nine months behind the dev build, so when 3.0 comes out we're going to see a landmark jump forward. Or, as Hez defines it, "not a lot to show". From the production schedule: [QUOTE]V.This schedule doesn’t cover everything being worked on across Cloud Imperium Games, but is meant to highlight our aims for the remainder of the year on the Persistent Universe. VI.This schedule doesn’t include every audio, vfx, tech art, etc. task. Those are detailed in our departmental sub-schedules.[/QUOTE] As always, they aren't showing us absolutely every single exaustive thing. I'd like Hezzy to tell me what [U]features[/U] are being dropped from 3.0, because exploring procgen planets, taking basic quests from NPCs, cargo, trading, bounty hunting, those are all still slated for the release. What isn't included is [I]content[/I], namely the Stanton planets, and they're slated for the followup releases. [QUOTE=Links;52112298]Yeah, but again that only says the 890 Jump - didn't they say that they were updating and reworking the 300i, 315p and 325a? Or is it implied that their rework will be done around the same time as the 890 Jump?[/QUOTE] They are reworking the Origin 3xx series and the 890J [I]does not[/I] imply the 3xx reworks are coming at the same time. [QUOTE=ulvemann43;52112322]One of the reasons i have faith in the game is the way the devs have absolutely nothing against letting even people who haven't paid yet, try their game. They have extremely frequent free flight weekends and it gives me a good feeling. The reason i pledged to begin with was due to one of those. They don't want to hide away their game and how it plays right now.[/QUOTE] This is a critical difference between SC and most of the flops it's compared to, especially NMS. [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPKGXilvxUU&t=7323"]TotalBiscuit makes a good point about the openness of the SC project and why that inspires confidence even if their progress stumbles often enough.[/URL]