Star Citizen Megathread v. procedurally-generated deadlines - Games

[QUOTE=archangel125;52838035]I know Star Citizen is a labour of love, and they've definitely got the right people to make the dream a reality. My fear is that they'll run out of steam (cash) before the game's properly done, so what we might end up with is a very, very pretty game that's fleshed out in some areas but horribly shallow in others. Worse yet, they may have to team up with a traditional publisher.[/QUOTE] Back-of-the-napkin math by armchair independent financial analysts on Reddit (who claim real financial experience to varying degrees of credibility) say CIG's basically fine for two years at the moment and their funding rate is roughly stable year over year. The holiday livestream is the time they've set to discuss SQ42's roadmap to release so we'll hopefully hear an approximate deadline then, but if they're able to get it out in the next year to year and a half, and it isn't a sales flop, they should be just fine. Of course, funding could suddenly stop at any time, and delays could happen, so nothing's ever a guarantee.

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;52838109]I've never seen such an in depth procgen system, they've really outdone themselves with this.[/QUOTE] I really hope we eventually get GDC talks from CIG devs on their procedural tech, its hard to find more information about procedural tech applied in-industry: the only talks I've found so far are from NMS devs, and those were underwhelming to say the least.

remember the deals with various major hardware / software partners ... that is invisible flow of cash and free-for-take hardware / software (thus more $ for development) concept / random sales bump usually some million within week(s) time those monthly subscriptions are also 'elevating' side-costs as long as the critical-sum money aren't vanishing in some black hole i think CIG is 2-5 years fine

[QUOTE=archangel125;52838035]I know Star Citizen is a labour of love, and they've definitely got the right people to make the dream a reality. My fear is that they'll run out of steam (cash) before the game's properly done, so what we might end up with is a very, very pretty game that's fleshed out in some areas but horribly shallow in others. Worse yet, they may have to team up with a traditional publisher.[/QUOTE] It's a real problem actually, so let's put things into perspective. GTA 5 cost 137 million to produce over 5 years, and they did so with an existing team, studio, and publisher. So they entire framework was already there, and they basically took apart the GTA IV Euphoria engine and made it better for 5. On top of all this, they had 128 million to market the game as well. So they had a total budget of 265 million. Cig has 141 million total to work with, and they had to build their global teams, get the offices, buy equipment, figure out their game engine, and then actually make the game. The only marketing they've had is basically word of mouth shilling and game journalists talking about it. They have no budget for actually selling the game to people outside of the internet, and that's a pretty big problem. [editline]30th October 2017[/editline] That's how I see it anyway, I'm certainly no marketing expert nor am I pretending to be.

CIG devs regularly participate in industry talks and presentations so hopefully they'll get the all-clear to talk about their procedural tech in a shop-talk sort of way sometime soon. [editline]30th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=BANNED USER;52838156]It's a real problem actually, so let's put things into perspective. GTA 5 cost 137 million to produce over 5 years, and they did so with an existing team, studio, and publisher. So they entire framework was already there, and they basically took apart the GTA IV Euphoria engine and made it better for 5. On top of all this, they had 128 million to market the game as well. So they had a total budget of 265 million. Cig has 141 million total to work with, and they had to build their global teams, get the offices, buy equipment, figure out their game engine, and then actually make the game. The only marketing they've had is basically word of mouth shilling and game journalists talking about it. They have no budget for actually selling the game to people outside of the internet, and that's a pretty big problem. [editline]30th October 2017[/editline] That's how I see it anyway, I'm certainly no marketing expert nor am I pretending to be.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals"]CIG has $163 million in the crowdfunding wallet.[/URL] Additionally, they have never publicly quantified these numbers, to my knowledge, nor would they because it's extremely confidential, but CIG has acknowledged that they have funding from sources other than the public crowdfunding pot. Private investors who want to write very large checks, not just buy a Completionist, and want to talk dividends because they're willing to move so much equity into SC, for example. There's more money in the project than just the public counter on the website, but they don't have to publicly disclose those other cashflows. CIG has also grown over time; they haven't had the same manpower costs and overhead the whole time, while Rockstar had a ton of existing employees who'd be drawing a paycheck for the duration of the project. Numbers extrapolated from the F42 UK public filings (required by UK law) point to CIG spending roughly $20mil/year on dev paychecks and overhead [I]now[/I], but CIG was far smaller before F42 was opened than they are now and could be assumed to be spending half that or less until F42's staffing really started filling up to where it is now. CIG has also finagled marketing through others. For example, last year's Gamescom booth, I [I]think[/I] this year's GC, and very definitely this year's Citizencon were sponsored by Intel so they could flog their Optane SSDs; this is a partnership CIG has cultivated with Intel since 2015. Chris Roberts and Star Citizen appeared on the back page of the business section of the LA Times this year -- because their office broadband provider, TWC or whoever, used CIG as a corporate profile for their enterprise network solutions. AMD's Never Settle Space promo got me into SC because I happened to buy a video card at the right time. I think they haven't revealed their true power level yet because, while the game is still in rough alpha, going hard on promotion would be premature. As long as pledges don't suddenly die off cold, marketing's doing its job. We'll see what marketing does once the product is about to switch from crowdfunding to retail.

It's possible they've been smart with the money as they've built their studios and slowly ramped up the big spending. If they weren't spending tons for the first year or two there's a good chance the lion's share of that cash is invested somewhere and is paying significant dividends. Also the moves they were making with the low interest UK loan implies they have an investment elsewhere that exceeds what it would have been worth it for them to transfer money at the time, and that they have enough assets (investments outside cig itself) to prove that they deserved such a low interest loan. If some financial experts want to correct me go ahead though.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52838177]I think they haven't revealed their true power level yet because, while the game is still in rough alpha, going hard on promotion would be premature. As long as pledges don't suddenly die off cold, marketing's doing its job. We'll see what marketing does once the product is about to switch from crowdfunding to retail.[/QUOTE] So what you are saying is that CIG may have achieved [i]ULTRA INSTINCT[/i] and is just waiting at this point?

Just to repeat myself from when it was a current thing happening: The fact that CIG got an advance on their tax benefit from [I][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coutts"]Coutts[/URL][/I] of all places is pretty much an endorsement of CIG's entire financial situation and strategy in and of itself. Coutts is an incredibly posh and exclusive bank with stringent requirements for doing business with them let alone giving such a low-interest advance; the British royal family are clients, for one thing. If CIG was in even the slightest way likely to falter within the next two years they'd have had to leverage every damn thing in equity just to get a deal at better than payday loan rates; they actually leveraged quite a lot of collateral, but a misreported and critical fact is that the SQ42 and SC IP rights and game asset rights [I]were not[/I] put up against the loan. They put up all the devs' computers and all the physical hardware and materiel sitting around the UK studios, not the game assets, and this likely helped reduce their interest rate even further. Their largest studio is F42 UK (now two locations, Manchester and satellite studio Derby) and was sited there for two reasons: To tap into Erin Roberts and the UK game development talent pool, and to take advantage of UK tax breaks incentivizing domestic game development jobs. I'm no financial expert but people who seemed to be talking sense analyzed F42 UK's public filings and said that they're definitely saving a decent chunk of change by putting a large portion of their manpower there. This lets every backer dollar stretch that much. As for the loan and the interest rates, I don't remember the exact numbers and I doubt I could find the post again without serious digging, but someone on Reddit who claimed to be with a Fortune 100 financial firm did an analysis, with valid references, that painted a scenario where, given the live public interest rates in the US at the time and what specific rate info the person could divulge without breaking NDA/financial laws, they estimated that CIG might've made a profit of 1%-1.5% on playing the US and UK interest rates off of each other with the bank loan against the tax benefit as the float -- CIG could've saved as much as $800,000 this way, according to finance guy's guesstimates. Everything is a mushy estimation because, of course, CIG's not publishing any of these highly-confidential numbers. :v: [editline]30th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=BANNED USER;52838442]So what you are saying is that CIG may have achieved [i]ULTRA INSTINCT[/i] and is just waiting at this point?[/QUOTE] I think they have enough runway in front of them to get SQ42 out, as long as it doesn't get Duke Nukem Forevered by Roberts' patented 360 Scopeflation™ and as long as SQ42 doesn't shit the bed in sales (it'd be horrifying for the future of SC if everyone who wanted SQ42 has already pledged for it), that they'll be set pretty well. Just think of what the partnership with Amazon alone means. Amazon not only controls the global collection of Amazon web stores giving CIG an extremely wide reach for eyeballs in the gaming software and PC hardware sections, they kinda own a lil' streaming site you might've heard of called Twitch.

They also expect a boost in income temporarily once 3.0 drops in the next 3 or so months, I wouldn't hazard a guess as to how much they might expect or get, but from the posts I've seen I could guess we've got [i]thousands[/i] of people on the sidelines waiting to buy in once 3.0 has a solid, enjoyable release. My guesses is that CIG thinks this too, hence why they're spending so much polish time on 3.0.

CIG also wants to use 3.0 as the foundation where they basically are "finished" (at least in the majority, the schedule report specifically lists shit that won't be finished for 3.0.0 because they can't hold back the build forever) with building out the baseline and can move forward on building gameplay mechanics and loops with the interaction system/etc. It's a lot easier to do that when your baseline build isn't a dumpster fire in all but flying and QT.

I think it was a Eurogamer article that stated that CR intends on quarterly releases, I remember that, but their article also stated that they will be announcing the schedule for quarterly releases next week, is this true? I can't imagine we would be looking at the next milestone schedule before we even have 3.0 live. [quote=Eurogamer]A roadmap for the quarterly releases will be published this week. A roadmap for Squadron 42, the standalone, storied, single-player game, will be shared after the Holiday Livestream later in December.[/quote] [url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-10-30-star-citizen-shows-off-cities-the-size-of-planets]Article here[/url]

[QUOTE=Lord Hayden;52843319]I think it was a Eurogamer article that stated that CR intends on quarterly releases, I remember that, but their article also stated that they will be announcing the schedule for quarterly releases next week, is this true? I can't imagine we would be looking at the next milestone schedule before we even have 3.0 live. [url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-10-30-star-citizen-shows-off-cities-the-size-of-planets]Article here[/url][/QUOTE] Eurogamer is [I]mostly[/I] summarizing info that was delivered live on-stage by CR or given in AtV. Here's my understanding of things: - On-stage at Gamescom, Chris stated that after they get 3.0 out their intention is to switch to quarterly releases based on what's ready at the time, not content-target releases which ship whenever the content is ready (and no patches ship for six to nine months) - CIG's schedule report contained an outdated summary of features intended for 3.1 and 3.2 after 3.0's out (several things actually present in 3.0 were listed as 3.1 goals for a while) until about two weeks ago, when the post-3.0 section was removed; the AtV just prior to the schedule report that removed this said to look forward to the schedule update a week after Citcon which would have the new roadmap for 3.0 release and beyond aka essentially what Eurogamer is talking about with the quarterly releases - The schedule report has always shown only up to the end of 2017 Even before CR promised on-stage at Citcon that CIG was going to be moving to quarterly releases, I have been expecting the schedule report to be overhauled with the roadmap for 2018 in some shape. If CIG is planning quarterly patches, that gives them a reasonable amount of flexibility with the roadmap because everything's a multiple of three months. The roadmap isn't necessarily even going to be a precise schedule, either. Conceivably, whenever 3.0 drops is when they start the quarterly intervals, so the roadmap doesn't need dates yet, only that 3.1 is going to contain blah blah blah, 3.2 is blah blah this and that, 3.3 is etc. etc. There's also the consideration that many people are not working on 3.0 and are working on post-3.0 tasks while 3.0's going through the final leg of unfucking for live. We could see a repeat of the 2.0-2.1 situation, where 2.0 took months to go live but 2.1 went to PTU two weeks after it finally did. We saw from Citizencon that significant effort is being made in post-3.0 by the teams not responsible for getting 3.0 out of Avocado. CIG has attempted to shift from content-based releases to calendar-based releases before. After 2.0 dropped, CIG promised they'd try monthly patches, and this [I]actually worked[/I] for a few months. 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 all came out in back to back months. Then 2.4, with server-side persistence being a huge change, spent an entire month longer in PTU than expected, and CIG abandoned the monthly patch schedule when 2.5's update schedule completely fell off the bandwagon. Quarterly patches seem a lot more feasible than monthly patches when dealing with a game with as many complex moving parts under the hood as 3.x. But we'll have to see what they say. Chris gets to say crazy shit on stage but everything that gets posted as an official site update gets approved by Legal before it goes up so it's less likely to be based on what Chris dreams will happen and more on what his production managers say is physically feasible to do.

Slightly late, but a recording I did of jono flying the Nox around a bit, and then we eventually found the noclip key. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFe4yxbNQ2M[/media] As I tried it after him and hit a rock at mach 10, I'm honestly impressed the stage demo didn't share a similar fate, and that it only flew up a bit.

[QUOTE=KaptonJack;52828653]That city tech was genuinely mind blowing. The work they've done on the tech is next level impressive.[/QUOTE] Just watched the city demo, and that shit blows me the fuck away. I know a lot of people are pessimistic, but demos like that show me how damned hard they're working on SC. [editline]1st November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=BANNED USER;52838109]I've never seen such an in depth procgen system, they've really outdone themselves with this.[/QUOTE] They're using procgen so right, as a system to fill in gaps while still designing the important bits rather than trying to make it do everything.

the nox (and presumably dragonfly) are ultra floaty in all the demos so far, they really shouldn't be relying on their flight-oriented thrusters for riding on land and go with a less simmy option. I'm expecting them to act more like destiny's speeder bike things, but faster

[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;52844485] They're using procgen so right, as a system to fill in gaps while still designing the important bits rather than trying to make it do everything.[/QUOTE] What's disappointing is 95% of people are missing this point entirely. I can't tell you how many posts I've seen of people going, "That's it? Where's the gameplay?" when they can open up any older video for ship or infantry combat for that. [editline]1st November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=dai;52844739]the nox (and presumably dragonfly) are ultra floaty in all the demos so far, they really shouldn't be relying on their flight-oriented thrusters for riding on land and go with a less simmy option. I'm expecting them to act more like destiny's speeder bike things, but faster[/QUOTE] It feels almost 1:1 like the speedbike thing from the original Perfect Dark.

They're finally redesigning the Mustang to be slightly less dumb! [t]https://i.imgur.com/DUmVlTo.jpg[/t] Now I'll need to find some other stupid design to complain about. :disgust:

I wonder what the redesigned ATi Omega will look like, because it's obvious the original texture isn't going to work on the new model.

[QUOTE=Saber15;52845289]They're finally redesigning the Mustang to be slightly less dumb! [t]https://i.imgur.com/DUmVlTo.jpg[/t] Now I'll need to find some other stupid design to complain about. :disgust:[/QUOTE] Man, if that's so I might have to get one.

[QUOTE=Saber15;52845289]They're finally redesigning the Mustang to be slightly less dumb! [t]https://i.imgur.com/DUmVlTo.jpg[/t] Now I'll need to find some other stupid design to complain about. :disgust:[/QUOTE] Consolidated Outland went from joke tier on my list of ship aesthetics to [i]gotta have[/i], I'm really upset. In the least the aurora is still its goofy old self after the update

Waiting to see it in game, personally. It may look nice in profile, but there's still time for them to utterly botch the silhouette from above or in front.

[QUOTE=Saber15;52845289]They're finally redesigning the Mustang to be slightly less dumb! [t]https://i.imgur.com/DUmVlTo.jpg[/t] Now I'll need to find some other stupid design to complain about. :disgust:[/QUOTE] I hope this is what it looks like in game, jesus, I love it.

I like the old design but I really like the new one.

[QUOTE=Saber15;52845289]They're finally redesigning the Mustang to be slightly less dumb! [t]https://i.imgur.com/DUmVlTo.jpg[/t][/quote] I can't wait. I want to see the Beta's cabin. And, to everyone who's asking if that's what it looks like in-game, very probably. On the 2017 roadmap image at the bottom of the [URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report"]schedule report[/URL], we can see that the Mustang family have been undergoing the rework phase for a few months now. That's more than enough time to get a whitebox model of the outside, which is enough to give to a concept artist to do a paintover -- effectively mocking up what the Mustang will look like when finished on the actual WIP game asset -- and I'm pretty sure that's exactly what we're looking at with this image. [t]https://i.imgur.com/z7TLY3e.png[/t] This is a page in the Citizencon/Pioneer brochure that was posted to the web (as well as given to attendees in physical form), and the source of the above image. It's not the first time CIG have teased an upcoming ship in the promo materials for a previous ship; most recently the 600i was teased in I think the Banu Defender brochure. For the show program to have been laid out and physically printed to hand out at Citcon, the concept art image would've had to have been finalized at least 2-3 weeks out, which is a reasonable amount of time to get a whitebox and a snazzy paintover between the scheduled start of the Mustangs rework and Citcon. [QUOTE=Saber15;52845289]Now I'll need to find some other stupid design to complain about. :disgust:[/QUOTE] [t]https://i.imgur.com/XmCPW6v.jpg[/t] [sp]Redeemer rework for 2018, Jacob's Ladder curling iron engines almost guaranteed to change[/sp] [t]https://robertsspaceindustries.com/media/vh2jbjaom7ys4r/source/CO_Beauty_BioDomes.jpg[/t] [t]https://robertsspaceindustries.com/media/ikzf72nss6tkpr/source/CO_Beauty_Supercollider.jpg[/t] Also, hello how are these supposed to survive entering atmosphere? I mean I guess the answer is "thermal-resistant construction, it's the 30th century stupid" but who's looking forward to aerodynamic flight with a supercollider tutu on your 200m-long ship? [QUOTE=BANNED USER;52845299]I wonder what the redesigned ATi Omega will look like, because it's obvious the original texture isn't going to work on the new model.[/QUOTE] I'm hoping it won't have the big stupid racing numbers, or that they'll be a toggle in the skinning system, but I'm pretty sure they'll be there since it's a racing ship. It's a really snazzy red and black, I just want the racing decals scrubbed off. And while I'm here, [video=youtube;xfNj_A8pzsQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfNj_A8pzsQ[/video] [URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/spectrum-dispatch/16220-An-Overview-Of-The-Xian-Language-For-Diplomats"]We have another Xi'An language materials post, for "diplomats".[/URL] [URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/spectrum-dispatch/16222-Spectrum-Spectator-Slice-Of-Life"]This week's lorepost is a whirlwind tour through "current" media in the lore,[/URL] touching on shows about the SynthWorld, underground armorsmithing in Spider, and soil cultivation (hinting that farming is being thought about). AtV tomorrow, Pioneer Q&A on I think Friday

The mustang concept makes me think the entrance will be a back ramp instead of the horrifying ladder thing we have now.

In 2014 people were joking by saying "Release date : 2020/2022" well, they were right

Well, if it releases in 2020 it'l be roughly 8 years of dev time won't it? It's not too bad of a dev time, it's longer than most modern games, but certainly not among the longest developed games, most of which were pretty big.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52846641] pictures Also, hello how are these supposed to survive entering atmosphere? I mean I guess the answer is "thermal-resistant construction, it's the 30th century stupid" but who's looking forward to aerodynamic flight with a supercollider tutu on your 200m-long ship? [/QUOTE] All things considered, I think the Redeemer looks cool as fuck. The engines are inconsistent with the rest of the game but I honestly like them. IIRC the interior layout is absolute insanity though. The base-model Endeavor is ugly as sin but it isn't as badly designed as the Mustang. The biodomes need to be vertically balanced though. We have artificial gravity, put upside down domes on the underside. I've accepted that aerodynamics aren't going to mean shit in this game. I think my next punching bag will be the Starfarer's interior layout. [t]http://i.imgur.com/3BJzA5A.jpg[/t] Designed by eldritch abominations, for eldritch abominations.

I've always liked the Redeemer's stupid main thrusters but I recognize they don't belong. I think the base Endeavour's just fine as a ship. It's the modules that give me pause. :v: [t]https://i.redd.it/xletqy0dwevz.jpg[/t] Classic CIG.

Am i the only person who does not mind the layout of the starfarer? I stopped gettring lost after my third time in it.