After raising 300 million dollars, Star Citizen is running out of funds. - Sensationalist Headlines

What do you mean?

I like being sober, for one.

She's the literal human equivalent of this: https://youtu.be/13d5d6LVEpU

That doesn't really help me to know what you're getting at. I don't know anything about her personal life but she's clearly invested in the project and works hard. She always bursts into tears at Gamescom when she learns German to speak to the audience and they cheer her. Say what you want about her, but I think her heart's in the right place.

Cool, I don't care how much about her at all. What does shit she does outside of SC have to do with development SC at all?

Cool, I'm talking about the people having to work with her, several of whom have quit directly because of her, which does affect SC directly.

Did she do something morally objectionable that you're obligated to expose? Or did she just not get along with people on a personal level? cause if it's the former you should probably be specific, and if it's the latter isn't vaguely insinuating at wrongdoing a little irresponsible?

basic space ship game: select Arena Commander instead of Universe on the main menu. You now have multiple PVP modes, racing, NPC wave fights based on human and alien factions, and a few barebones maps that serve more purpose and interest than most of open space ever would Looking for FPS action? Star marine is the same but on foot in large arenas with the same fast respawn gamemodes

It's not my place to fight anyone else's battles or get around people's NDAs with snipes. Having met her on two occasions, I can say the rumors are not exaggerated, and it's matter of record of people leaving due to working with her.

You'll never guess what game name you're going to see when you click this link: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/longest-development-period-for-a-simulation-game I often see critics of SC cite Elite Dangerous as a development example to aspire to and every single time they talk as if the Kickstarter was the starting line on development and all of the work was done between 2012 and 2014 and then how come SC can't do that. Well, gee, maybe there's a REASON...

The game isn't a scam as SOMETHING is being made, but it is very much still just a glorified tech demo at this point. Some of the shit it does in regards to tech is absolutely amazing and I can see why people pay thousands of dollars into it, but there's not really a game in SC yet. If you're buying into SC in the hopes of actually having a game to play, you're gonna be disappointed. They still have a very long way to go, imo, before there's an actual game there. I say this as someone who has participated in the free fly events that have gone on (one of which is happening right now) both solo and with a friend. All we had to do was suffer massive frame rate drops in that one very impressive city, and fight AI ships that had "AI" in a very loose definition of that term. At least Squadron 42 is becoming tangible. Ngl, I'm more interested in that than SC right now, because at least Squadron 42 seems like it'll be finished before I turn 30. If SC ever really does get finished and is an enjoyable game, I'll gladly jump on board, but for now, I continue to hold my breath less and less.

For 7 years of dev time I honestly expected to have -some- gameplay at least to E:D levels of gameplay :sad:

I'm going to record some gameplay on the live build for you right now. Stand by, this'll probably take an hour or two to record, cut out the boring parts (flying across a star system for 10 minutes can be snipped down without loss), render, and upload to YT.

A money sink is still a money sink even if you have some means of keeping it running for a while longer; no matter how the story is twisted or the project is presented, people like Chris Roberts or Tim Schafer manage to embody the exact same problem with the AAA industry whilst remaining independent: hyper-inflated budgets with a gargantuan scope that never seems to find its own boundaries and that just keeps growing and stacking up expectations and features until it crashes and burns or people lose interest. The video game industry's lack of restraint in so many fields is a genuine issue and Star Citizen is endemic to that issue.

This Forbes article is a load of shit and a tabloid-tier hit piece. The dude first wrongly cites how much SC has raised (To date 224 mil plus 45 mil from investors) then goes on to dig up dirt on Chris Roberts' personal life and the dysfunction of his marriage with Gardiner (Something I'm sure we can all agree is eminently relevant to SC as a game, then starts painting backers as 'victims' who were scammed into spending thousands of dollars, despite the fact that you really don't need to spend more than $45 to buy in, and ships are currently purchaseable using in-game money. He cites a number of game developers completely unrelated to the project who say "Yeah, game development like that doesn't work", and even goes so far as to insinuate that Roberts and Gardiner are using the scheme to get rich - with no proof whatsoever. Here's an excerpt: This is not fraud—Roberts really is working on a game—but it is incompetence and mismanagement on a galactic scale. The heedless waste is fueled by easy money raised through crowdfunding, a Wild West territory nearly free of regulators and rules. Creatives are in charge here, not profit-driven bean counters or deadline-enforcing suits. Calling this drivel journalism is pretty disgusting, and I'm amazed Forbes published it. Kotaku did a better job at investigating the problems with Star Citizen a couple years ago. https://www.kotaku.co.uk/2016/09/23/inside-the-troubled-development-of-star-citizen Fucking Kotaku. Read the article I just linked, then read the one in the OP, and tell me which of them is real journalism and which is a tabloid-tier hit piece.

I've been playing a good bit of it, I know what it has to offer as well as I know how unstable the servers are and how clunky some of the gameplay is (hi let's die while walking around on an unmoving ship, or fall through a planet, or wait exorbitant time to travel across the single solar system the game has to offer)

After that trash hit piece on TotalBiscuit they published after he died I'm not surprised at all. Forbes will publish any bullshit these days.

I don't think Star Citizen will ever be a finished or complete product, and I think it'll always be rough as shit even if it does. It's hard enough for a Triple A dev team with a big ass budget to get one mechanic that feels and plays well. When you focus on just a first person shooter, all you have to get right is the feel and fluidity of a first person shooter, and it takes a lot of dev time, trial and error, and tweaking. Just that one mechanic. Star Citizen is trying to stuff multiple mechanics from multiple genres like first person shooting, space flight, surface driving, into one game. Not many games do this, because the more you have, the more lacking each one gets. Until eventually they're all janky and never feel good (Arma for an example) It's trying to do too much. I applaud the ambition and no compromise approach but I don't think it works without a realistic goal that you aim for, then use the rest of your time to surpass

I FUCKING CALLED IT How long until they announce they are going bankrupt? F to all those who were scammed by RSI.

I dunno why Star Citizen is reviled enough to get dunked on by Forbes (although ruling on news quality by media outlets instead of individual journalists is kinda foolish nowadays). If it really turns out that bad, you can always crucify Chris Roberts after the fact. At the time of the pitch, I was on-board with this idea of a huge Space MMO but nowadays, I'd rather have a singleplayer military space combat game because I feel like that respects my irl circumstances more than Star Citizen is implied to. Well, there's always Freespace and I-War.

You can make a serious real deal movie with the kind of money. Hell Tarantino made Reservoir Dogs with less than 100k, and these assholes literally pissed every dime away with a faulty buggy alpha and ships that cost 900 real dollars to buy on top of no refunds, they should be investigated at this point for fraud.

I've played the free week (mostly the first person shooter module) and while it's very jank the biggest issue to me was simply a lack of polish. All the game systems are there and functional, they now just need to add content and stabilize everything. To me it seems absurd to see someone claim everything I've seen wouldn't amount to something in the end. The scope is so insane that even from someone like me that just keeps up with development very casually there's basically nothing else to compare it to. They're not doing like other companies and making a smaller "Star Citizen 1" and then iterating on that to make a "Star Citizen 2" a few years later. They want to make the end all be all of space sim games and get it right the first time. I hope it succeeds. That said, I'm probably only going to invest once it's out proper.

Not to mention people who don't read past the headline and act as if it's confirmed that CIG ran out of money, despite there being nothing of substance in the "article" to back that up.

its a really expensive model spaceship sim where you can look at really expensive spaceship models in engine and maybe even fly some.

Here's a very recent video about someone looking in to the game from the outside: https://youtu.be/hhzU806jxnY

I don't know if anyone cares about this video but I wanted to prove that I'm a man of my word, but it's going to take longer to edit because it took longer than I anticipated to capture the footage I wanted on account of this patch suffering a little problem called fuck your legs, that's right, you died randomly because fuck legs. I respawned five times just because the game decided to break my legs and kill me, even when I was standing still or I dared brush past a desk chair in my own spawn room. https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/2304/229fcaa2-e65a-4a0d-95da-550bf806a0c6/image.png Just look at those immersive ~future~ contrails while I'm boosting straight upwards out of my landing hangar. The engine trail system is pretty good but it doesn't handle certain edge cases like this yet. Part of the skill of playing the alpha right now is getting a "feel" for the game's bugs and playing defensively so as to not trigger them, and this is really hard to comunicate or teach because it's something you develop as second nature by trial and error and reading patch notes/forum threads warning about known issues and/or critical bugs. Right now, 3.5's biggest problem, in my experience, is that the server really, really wants to break your legs and kill you and it'll do it even if you're standing still. Not exactly the best time to do a free-fly week where they throw open access to the game to the public, but you can define Star Citizen by the phrase "that's probably not exactly the best time to do that" so I'm not surprised. That being said, are you still receiving those 10008 errors now? Because server stability has, broadly, improved a lot with the last patch, but I know that a week or two back some people found a gun that, if interacted with, crashes the entire instance for everyone, so everything's not great and people could theoretically be trying to troll. In 3.4.x, server stability was pretty bad, but the devs kept the 3.5 patch on the test server for several weeks longer than the planned release date (the date they foolishly sent out in a press release that they then quietly pushed under the rug after missing the deadline) and one of the most prominent features of the test server patches every day or two were server and client crash fixes. TL;DR if you're complaining about recent experiences before the 3.5 patch maybe give things another chance because stability's improved fairly substantially, but if you're talking about after 3.5 launched well that's really weird and my experience has been very different. Do you want to know what happened three years ago to change the development timeline, but what wasn't feature creep? https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/2304/568d1a43-fb18-47fe-81f3-5bfc7e164bc5/ScreenShot1480.jpg Around the end of 2014, beginning of 2015, Crytek laid off about half their staff, including many people who originally wrote CryEngine, and CIG founded a studio in Frankfurt to hire most of them. Not too long after, one of those ex-Crytek wizards discovered that with one line of code, CryEngine could be made to generate spherical procedural terrain on the GPU. This breakthrough occurred two years earlier than CIG had previously planned to devote efforts into the technology. Prior to the discovery, CIG devs were starting to make off-the-cuff casual remarks pointing towards internal plans to shape the roadmap towards a beta maybe three years out (which would put it about now). This surprise invention of planet gen capability iInstantly redefined the game's minimum viable product (the baseline feature set of the game that can stand alone as playable) to include procedural planets and a fundamental set of tools and features with them, such as procedural cities, the biome-painting tools for planet sculpting, and land vehicles to drive on them. They could have ignored the procedural planets technology until they had originally planned, but they would've released a limited game to beta without landable planets and then immediately gone about shoving major overhauls into it, rewriting lots of stuff to accomodate procgen planets. That's not really logical when they can get it all in the box before beta locks things down. I said it's not feature creep: The $41 million stretch goal was procedural gen R&D. That's right, this has been the confirmed plan since 2014. That's not feature creep, that's feature sleep -- when you promise so many things it takes you sixty years just to work through the to-do list. Another symptom of feature sleep is people forgeting the original plan and yelling at you to stop adding "new" things and get on with doing the things you already promised. Refunds within 14 days of purchase: Required by EU law, extended to the rest of the planet for uniformity (don't quote me on this, I'm not a CS rep) Refunds for a dozen-plus separate transactions over a span of five years after zero complaints and frequent participation in testing builds throughout that time: please ask yourself what other business is expected to honour a scenario like this And, yes, I'm paraphrasing a real controversy where someone's refund for a few grand was denied; he tried to go backsies on five years of pledges after playing the game a ton. It's like playing The Sims 3 for five years but they finally You are going to need to articulate a stronger case than "they received tons of money and an article by some random blogger tells me they wasted it all" if you want to investigate a business for fraud. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet, especially if it's overly sensationalized. The script for the single-player campaign Squadron 42, including the multiple possible paths and endings, is over 1200 pages long. It has a mocapped and facial-performance-capped A-list celebrity cast that you will interact with in realtime "cutscenes" (that you maintain full personal control over while the NPCs act out their lines in 3D space around you). Just as Wing Commander 3 more or less set the bar for live-action FMV cutscenes in the 90s gaming generation, Squadron 42 is an interactive movie that makes you play a game between Mark Hamill coming in to steal the show. And they're not even spending all of the money on just the single-player, they're making two games sharing assets and code using the money. We don't see much of SQ42 due to spoilers, since it's the single-player campaign companion to the online component, but it shares assets with the MMO side and they do give unspoilerish progress peeks now and then. At the end of 2017, they live demoed over an hour of SQ42 mission gameplay and while it is out of date and rougher it's a good idea of where they're going. Don't listen to me, judge for yourself. Multiple early crowdfunding stretch goals promised celebrity voice acting, mocap, and finally performance cap, so once again this was always the plan.

Avengers 2 had a budget of $365mi Spider-Man Spiderverse had a budget of $90mi Zombieland had a budget of $23.6mi and featured celebrities Ant-Man had a budget of $130mi The Arrival had a $47mi budget what those figures mean? you don't need absurd amounts of money to make something good. they are probably using the majority of that money to pay their employees, which include Chris Roberts' family members.

Wow how terrible, these scamming monster bastards are paying their employees for working. The nerve

This argument is completely asinine.

You're implying that no video games with a large budget should exist, because there's movies that costed less? If you want your points to be taken seriously at least don't make basic false equivalences. Games and movies aren't the same products. "You don't need absurd amounts of money to make something good" and for each low budget movie that turn out great, 50 fail and fall into obscurity, that's survivor biais for you. Making good shit costs a lot, having a low budget very rarely works out, budget varies completely depending on what you're trying to make, your point is terrible.