Website back up and running, let's get pledging!

  • 53 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Rohok (554 posts) -

http://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/star-citizen/

Here it is guys, time to pledge, time to get this game created. If you haven't already, come check out the trailer to this mind-blowingly awesome game.

BY THE WAY THIS TRAILER IS ENTIRELY 100% GAMEPLAY TRAILER

There are many reasons to be excited for this game, and it's not just because it's a hardcore space sim, but it's because of all the freedom to do as we please and play as we like that you should get up and answer the call to the pledge. Multi-person ships allowing players to walk around the ship, repair broken components, man battle stations and commandeer fighters to help in the defense of your friends is just one of many awesome features this game is going to boast. There's plenty for every type of gamer- from super realistic, in depth controls to the option to just use a 360 controller if that's what you want, and even room for roleplayers if that's your thing, a great, detailed single-player campaign that will also be coop online if you've got friends you want to bring with you. I mean the possibilities are just endless, and it's being made by Chris Roberts! He's the genius behind Freelancer and Wing Commander.

Give it a shot, guys, come read about it, watch the trailer, and post what you think about it here. If you like hardcore PC gaming in general and want to support such an ambitious venture, then you owe it to Chris Roberts to lend him your ear! Here's his GDC presentation if you'd like some more information, and at the very least, you can always register and post on the forums to get the rest of your questions answered.

#2 Posted by Zaccheus (1792 posts) -

I wish luck for this theoretical game.

#3 Posted by StarvingGamer (8146 posts) -

It would be great if it happens but it seems way too overambitious a project for me to back. This is a pie-in-the-sky level of dreaming that somehow manages to eclipse Molyneux.

#4 Posted by Schmollian (260 posts) -

@StarvingGamer: Yes, but I haven't heard anything yet that I didn't think was achievable. I mean look at EVE Online and all the crazy things that game has done.

Everything that Roberts wants to do in this game seems possible. He just needs the backing and funding from investors to achieve his goals. And there lies the problem. A lot of publishers in today's gaming industry don't give a rat's ass about PC space sims, a genre that, if done properly, could sell millions in my opinion.

#5 Posted by masterpaperlink (1836 posts) -

Why isnt there a post about it on the site?

the game needs the exposure

#6 Posted by Genkkaku (735 posts) -

@StarvingGamer said:

It would be great if it happens but it seems way too overambitious a project for me to back. This is a pie-in-the-sky level of dreaming that somehow manages to eclipse Molyneux.

Who knows maybe this will be that one time someone says he check out this awesome thing I'm gonna make.. and then he makes that awesome thing.. I really do hope so anyways

#7 Edited by Rohok (554 posts) -

@StarvingGamer said:

It would be great if it happens but it seems way too overambitious a project for me to back. This is a pie-in-the-sky level of dreaming that somehow manages to eclipse Molyneux.

Just about everything he says he's going to do has either been shown in the video, or done in another game. This is Chris Roberts. He practically invented the Space Sim genre, what he says he's going to do he'll do, and he'll do it well, provided he gets the funding for it. I mean, by not backing it, you're contributing to the likelihood of it not obtaining its goal, thus solidifying the theory that it's overambitious, lol. Just contribute 10 dollars and see where it goes. Even if we just get the squadron 42 game, what's to lose? He's already shown us great gameplay, and a singleplayer experience with a good coop mode allowing friends to fly on your wing would be worth it, and even if he doesn't meet the goal, your cash will be refunded. There's nothing to lose.

I mean, do you all just think this is some random guy off the street...?

It's Chris Roberts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Roberts_(game_developer)

#8 Posted by Funkydupe (3311 posts) -
RSI Facebook:
“We’re looking at both options for planets. I know we’d LOVE to include atmospheric flight, but it’s a money/time issue… so I can’t promise it just yet! Thanks for your support!”
“Everything will be bigger than Freelancer! You will certainly land on planets, visit bases, etc.”

Neat. I was wondering whether they'd forgotten about planets. Knowing we can land on bases planetside as well as stations and capital ships makes the experience more complete.

@StarvingGamer: I totally support your view. There's something off about this project, and I have my doubts it'll raise enough money, knowing the times we live in.

#9 Posted by VisariLoyalist (2991 posts) -

vapor ware :D

#10 Posted by Labman (288 posts) -

Looks pretty cool, but I don't get why they didn't just go with Kickstarter. I would feel a lot more comfortable making a pledge through a trustworthy third party site like Kickstarter, rather than handing my money directly over to the developer. He may be the must honest guy in the world, but still I'm a little cautious about that stuff.

#11 Edited by Funkydupe (3311 posts) -

@Labman: They didn't want to pay a % of what people pledge for to Kickstarter.com and Amazon.com, so they made their own pledging system. AKA. They want the money, all of it, to go where its intended.

#12 Edited by TheHumanDove (2523 posts) -

I'm interested. BUT IS MY WALLET?!?

The answer is yes, yes it is.

#13 Posted by Labman (288 posts) -

@Funkydupe said:

@Labman: They didn't want to pay a % of what people pledge for to Kickstarter.com and Amazon.com, so they made their own pledging system. AKA. They want the money, all of it, to go where its intended.

Yeah, I get that. Still, I like the idea of an impartial third party providing a series of "checks and balances" that the developer must meet, before securing the funding. Of course, it is only $30 to get the game.

#14 Posted by Rohok (554 posts) -

@Labman said:

Looks pretty cool, but I don't get why they didn't just go with Kickstarter. I would feel a lot more comfortable making a pledge through a trustworthy third party site like Kickstarter, rather than handing my money directly over to the developer. He may be the must honest guy in the world, but still I'm a little cautious about that stuff.

Well, I'd like to say you're 100% safe buying from Chris Roberts. He's a movie producer and a long-time game developer. Probably one of those oldest game developers in the industry, and definitely one of the most respected among the classic PC game community. While I can't give you 100% assurance because I don't know Chris Roberts personally, and nothing is 100% safe in life, I can tell you that if you use Paypal you WILL be secured because of Paypals protections that are in place. If they don't refund your money if it fails, or if it turns out to be a scam (which it most certainly is not), you can always hassle paypal to get your money back. I understand that money is tight for a lot of people and we have to make intelligent investments. Even if you've already pledged, I'm writing this up for anyone else who's got the same concerns. I'd like to try and convince everyone who's interested to drop some money down, but ultimately, I won't be able to. If you haven't pledged yet, then you can always just drop down a small 10 bucks to play it say. I'm personally dropping down 125 dollars, and I'd hope everyone would consider at least giving 30 (you get the game out of it!).

When you work hard for your money, 10 bucks is definitely a big deal, but so is this game. So I'd say the risk is worth it, and I'd hope everyone with concerns or worries will also take a leap of faith and pledge to this project as well. At the very least, you'll be out 10 dollars, at the most, you'll gain access to a game that could help in reviving tactical games, simulators, and hardcore PC games. While this game might seem ambitious, a lot of us feel it is entirely plausible, and even if I paid 60 dollars and got access to that one single mission portrayed in the trailer I'd still be happy.

TLDR: Use paypal, and don't be afraid to take the risk. Just tiptoe and contribute 10 if you're afraid, no reason to go all in.

#15 Posted by TheHumanDove (2523 posts) -

I pledged $30. It's the most I can do atm, and yet it's the least I can do. It's too cool not to throw cash at.

#16 Posted by StarvingGamer (8146 posts) -
@Rohok I am well aware of who he is and the lineage behind this game, but this isn't a matter of a project just being just a little ambitious. All the features he's talking about have been done before, but he's trying to do aall the features of all the games all at once. The biggest, best games of this generation with budgets out the wazoo barely offer a fraction of the features he claims his game will include.

This isn't an old-school dev looking for some fan help to fund a modest passion project. This is a dev who hasn't done anything substantial for over a decade, trying to crowdfund a game more ambitious and feature-dense than projects with budgets in the hundreds of millions, in a niche/defunct genre with a content/pricing scheme that has seen limited success and is largely untested, especially at this proposed scale.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it for this game to succeed and be everything everyone hopes it to be and, if it does, you can bet I'll be there ready to throw down my money on day one, but backing it in its current form is a gamble, not an investment.
#17 Edited by Rohok (554 posts) -

@StarvingGamer said:

@Rohok I am well aware of who he is and the lineage behind this game, but this isn't a matter of a project just being just a little ambitious. All the features he's talking about have been done before, but he's trying to do aall the features of all the games all at once. The biggest, best games of this generation with budgets out the wazoo barely offer a fraction of the features he claims his game will include. This isn't an old-school dev looking for some fan help to fund a modest passion project. This is a dev who hasn't done anything substantial for over a decade, trying to crowdfund a game more ambitious and feature-dense than projects with budgets in the hundreds of millions, in a niche/defunct genre with a content/pricing scheme that has seen limited success and is largely untested, especially at this proposed scale. Don't get me wrong, I'd love it for this game to succeed and be everything everyone hopes it to be and, if it does, you can bet I'll be there ready to throw down my money on day one, but backing it in its current form is a gamble, not an investment.

Those AAA games with large budgets are run by publishers that just want games released that look good on a spreadsheet. I mean you do see that, right? That's why they don't have hardcore, detailed features and all of these ambitious ideas. It's not safe, it's risky. Nobody got anywhere in life playing it safe. Not even those rich publishers with their hands in everyone's pockets. By remaining "neutral" and "waiting and seeing" what will become of the product in its current state is only assisting in seeing it fail. Maybe it is a gamble, but most kickstarter games are. Take a risk and gamble. This game deserves it, and although Chris Roberts took a break from making games he's still involved in the industry, and being a film producer I believe he can bring a few innovative ideas to the financial side of things. He'll know how to rally the kind of direct participation in development he needs to get it done in a short amount of time, as he described in many of his videos. I encourage you to do as much research as you can and reconsider your stance.

As melodramatic and cheesy as it sounds, this games needs you, and every other person on the fence about it. Jump off the fence and get in the action, because we're voting with our dollars. We need ambitious games. We need games that are creative and willing to jump into the fog of war and take a risk. There is no innovation in safety and taking it slow. I think the only reason you don't think it's possible because you're looking at AAA publisher games like EA and Ubisoft as the standard. They're taking it slow because as long as they do they won't lose money or fail. It's like being too afraid to ask a girl out because you're afraid of rejection. Chris Roberts has confidence in his ideas and games, knowing he's making a game that he wants to play, and loves to play. We just need to have confidence in this model. I mean I have plenty of confidence to give, because all the other confidence I used to spare for companies like Bethesda, Bioware, Firaxis, and The Creative Assembly is all gone. This playing it safe and tip-toing around the industry has to stop. Chris Roberts isn't out to make profit, he's out to make the game he wants to play, that's why this game is ambitious, and that's why it's big. But it can succeed.

I mean my entire argument doesn't matter if you're indifferent about the game to begin with, but if it's something you're actually excited for then it's something you should consider putting money toward. If, well, it's something you could care less for but would play if it was a success, ignore me, because I understand. But it's most certainly a game I've been looking for since I was a child.

#18 Posted by PixelPrinny (1030 posts) -

@Rohok said:

@StarvingGamer said:

@Rohok I am well aware of who he is and the lineage behind this game, but this isn't a matter of a project just being just a little ambitious. All the features he's talking about have been done before, but he's trying to do aall the features of all the games all at once. The biggest, best games of this generation with budgets out the wazoo barely offer a fraction of the features he claims his game will include. This isn't an old-school dev looking for some fan help to fund a modest passion project. This is a dev who hasn't done anything substantial for over a decade, trying to crowdfund a game more ambitious and feature-dense than projects with budgets in the hundreds of millions, in a niche/defunct genre with a content/pricing scheme that has seen limited success and is largely untested, especially at this proposed scale. Don't get me wrong, I'd love it for this game to succeed and be everything everyone hopes it to be and, if it does, you can bet I'll be there ready to throw down my money on day one, but backing it in its current form is a gamble, not an investment.

Those AAA games with large budgets are run by publishers that just want games released that look good on a spreadsheet. I mean you do see that, right? That's why they don't have hardcore, detailed features and all of these ambitious ideas. It's not safe, it's risky. Nobody got anywhere in life playing it safe. Not even those rich publishers with their hands in everyone's pockets. By remaining "neutral" and "waiting and seeing" what will become of the product in its current state is only assisting in seeing it fail. Maybe it is a gamble, but most kickstarter games are. Take a risk and gamble. This game deserves it, and although Chris Roberts took a break from making games he's still involved in the industry, and being a film producer I believe he can bring a few innovative ideas to the financial side of things. He'll know how to rally the kind of direct participation in development he needs to get it done in a short amount of time, as he described in many of his videos. I encourage you to do as much research as you can and reconsider your stance.

As melodramatic and cheesy as it sounds, this games needs you, and every other person on the fence about it. Jump off the fence and get in the action, because we're voting with our dollars. We need ambitious games. We need games that are creative and willing to jump into the fog of war and take a risk. There is no innovation in safety and taking it slow. I think the only reason you don't think it's possible because you're looking at AAA publisher games like EA and Ubisoft as the standard. They're taking it slow because as long as they do they won't lose money or fail. It's like being too afraid to ask a girl out because you're afraid of rejection. Chris Roberts has confidence in his ideas and games, knowing he's making a game that he wants to play, and loves to play. We just need to have confidence in this model. I mean I have plenty of confidence to give, because all the other confidence I used to spare for companies like Bethesda, Bioware, Firaxis, and The Creative Assembly is all gone. This playing it safe and tip-toing around the industry has to stop. Chris Roberts isn't out to make profit, he's out to make the game he wants to play, that's why this game is ambitious, and that's why it's big. But it can succeed.

YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US! PACIFISTS ARE PROMOTING WAR THROUGH THEIR NON-AGGRESSION.

Have you considered a profession in the lucrative propaganda-writing business? Seriously, this whole ramble reads more like an advertisement than a personal opinion.

#19 Posted by Rohok (554 posts) -

@PixelPrinny said:

@Rohok said:

@StarvingGamer said:

@Rohok I am well aware of who he is and the lineage behind this game, but this isn't a matter of a project just being just a little ambitious. All the features he's talking about have been done before, but he's trying to do aall the features of all the games all at once. The biggest, best games of this generation with budgets out the wazoo barely offer a fraction of the features he claims his game will include. This isn't an old-school dev looking for some fan help to fund a modest passion project. This is a dev who hasn't done anything substantial for over a decade, trying to crowdfund a game more ambitious and feature-dense than projects with budgets in the hundreds of millions, in a niche/defunct genre with a content/pricing scheme that has seen limited success and is largely untested, especially at this proposed scale. Don't get me wrong, I'd love it for this game to succeed and be everything everyone hopes it to be and, if it does, you can bet I'll be there ready to throw down my money on day one, but backing it in its current form is a gamble, not an investment.

Those AAA games with large budgets are run by publishers that just want games released that look good on a spreadsheet. I mean you do see that, right? That's why they don't have hardcore, detailed features and all of these ambitious ideas. It's not safe, it's risky. Nobody got anywhere in life playing it safe. Not even those rich publishers with their hands in everyone's pockets. By remaining "neutral" and "waiting and seeing" what will become of the product in its current state is only assisting in seeing it fail. Maybe it is a gamble, but most kickstarter games are. Take a risk and gamble. This game deserves it, and although Chris Roberts took a break from making games he's still involved in the industry, and being a film producer I believe he can bring a few innovative ideas to the financial side of things. He'll know how to rally the kind of direct participation in development he needs to get it done in a short amount of time, as he described in many of his videos. I encourage you to do as much research as you can and reconsider your stance.

As melodramatic and cheesy as it sounds, this games needs you, and every other person on the fence about it. Jump off the fence and get in the action, because we're voting with our dollars. We need ambitious games. We need games that are creative and willing to jump into the fog of war and take a risk. There is no innovation in safety and taking it slow. I think the only reason you don't think it's possible because you're looking at AAA publisher games like EA and Ubisoft as the standard. They're taking it slow because as long as they do they won't lose money or fail. It's like being too afraid to ask a girl out because you're afraid of rejection. Chris Roberts has confidence in his ideas and games, knowing he's making a game that he wants to play, and loves to play. We just need to have confidence in this model. I mean I have plenty of confidence to give, because all the other confidence I used to spare for companies like Bethesda, Bioware, Firaxis, and The Creative Assembly is all gone. This playing it safe and tip-toing around the industry has to stop. Chris Roberts isn't out to make profit, he's out to make the game he wants to play, that's why this game is ambitious, and that's why it's big. But it can succeed.

YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US! PACIFISTS ARE PROMOTING WAR THROUGH THEIR NON-AGGRESSION.

Have you considered a profession in the lucrative propaganda-writing business? Seriously, this whole ramble reads more like an advertisement than a personal opinion.

i may or may not be of the combine

maybe

#20 Posted by Silver-Streak (1346 posts) -

@masterpaperlink: I've talked with Patrick on it a little bit, he has something he's writing up.

#21 Posted by StarvingGamer (8146 posts) -

@Rohok: You're basically asking me to help fund this game because I want it to be true, despite the fact that the more I read about this game, the more implausible it sounds. Chris Roberts is probably a great guy, but making a handful of pretty good games in the early 90's did not suddenly turn him into a warlock. Games take money, and ambitious games take a lot of money, and he's not going to be able to conjure enough.

#22 Posted by Gazel_Ministry (125 posts) -

@StarvingGamer said:

@Rohok: Games take money, and ambitious games take a lot of money, and he's not going to be able to conjure enough.

It seems this is more of a fishing expedition than an actual fund raiser. He and the "real money contributors" are looking to see who is interested.

On his website he gives a little insight into this:

This game is ambitious. If we can raise between $2 to $4 million we have investors that have agreed to contribute the balance we need to complete this game as long as we can validate that there is a demand for a high end PC space game. link

So he knows it's going to take more than $2 million to fund this. He just needs to prove to his investors there is a demand for it. I suppose a contribution would cement buyers better than an online petition. Just a guess. I'm a little skeptical myself and having never played any of his games I (like yourself) am trying to view this venture objectively. It does look ambitious and I don't think I've seen enough to convince me to throw down $50 or $100 to end up with a game that in the end is a disappointment or for that matter never brought to market. So I'm considering giving him a $15 spot. That way if the game is a disaster I can walk away without any real loss. I'm also curious to see how close to the goal he gets.

#23 Posted by StarvingGamer (8146 posts) -
@Gazel_Ministry I understand that, but he's made no indications of who these investors are and how much they're actually willing to pony up. We have no idea if it's $1 million or $100 million, meaning we still have no idea how much he actually thinks this game is going to cost to make. I can't imagine a game this ambitious costing less than $15 million to make. Is $2+ million in cannibalized sales really going to convince an investor to pony up the remaining $13 million in dev costs, plus whatever extra the team needs for marketing, publicity, production, yadda yadda yadda?

This isn't someone trying to Kickstart production on their isometric tactics RPG passion project, this is someone trying to crowd fund a game broader in scope yet significantly more niche than Guild Wars 2. Based on what little information ee have to go by, the math simply doesn't check out.
#24 Posted by Funkydupe (3311 posts) -
#25 Posted by Rohok (554 posts) -

@Funkydupe said:

http://gamingbolt.com/stars-of-barathrum-open-world-space-game-from-valve-concept-art-leak

Rumors that Valve is working on a Freelancer/Privateeresque game. With Star Citizen and this: good times ahead.

I can either play a Freelancer/Privateeresque game, or a game made by the Freelancer/Privateer creator. Hmmm. :P

Hey folks, a great thread on the official forums with some compiled information. I encourage EVERYONE to go check it out and see if your questions can be answered: http://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/forums/topic/faqs-a-compilation-of-answers-from-the-devs-on-the-forums/

#26 Posted by Funkydupe (3311 posts) -

@Rohok said:

@Funkydupe said:

http://gamingbolt.com/stars-of-barathrum-open-world-space-game-from-valve-concept-art-leak

Rumors that Valve is working on a Freelancer/Privateeresque game. With Star Citizen and this: good times ahead.

I can either play a Freelancer/Privateeresque game, or a game made by the Freelancer/Privateer creator. Hmmm. :P

Hey folks, a great thread on the official forums with some compiled information. I encourage EVERYONE to go check it out and see if your questions can be answered: http://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/forums/topic/faqs-a-compilation-of-answers-from-the-devs-on-the-forums/

I usually play more than one game. Sticking to just one game if both turn out to be cool doesn't compute. Its not like Valve is incapable of making good video games.

#27 Edited by Labman (288 posts) -

Fuck it! I just pledged $40. I'm working now and I can afford it, plus I would probably just waste it on beer anyway. Fingers crossed!

Oh, BTW, does anyone know what the "White Citizens Card" bonus is? Sounds racist! LOL.

#28 Posted by Cameron (597 posts) -

This is WAY to far off to consider giving money to. I'm interested, but there is way too much that can go wrong in two years. Six months or so I could see, but two years means this is basically nothing but a concept and a few systems at this point.

#29 Posted by nasseh (83 posts) -

I can understand some of the skepticism that surrounds this, but I still pledged the minimum amount, just to show that I am one who is definitely interested in a high pc space sim.

#30 Posted by Silver-Streak (1346 posts) -

My excitement is slightly dampened. The Freelancer/Privateer style campaign is only if they hit their highest stretch goal.

"Star Citizens will receive access to the Wing Commander/Star Citizen universe for on-line persistent play (30 months)

  • Privateer-like gameplay
  • Multiple Star Systems to Explore"

Is only under the 5+ million stretch goal. :(

#31 Posted by onarum (2066 posts) -
@Eujin said:

My excitement is slightly dampened. The Freelancer/Privateer style campaign is only if they hit their highest stretch goal.

"Star Citizens will receive access to the Wing Commander/Star Citizen universe for on-line persistent play (30 months)

  • Privateer-like gameplay
  • Multiple Star Systems to Explore"

Is only under the 5+ million stretch goal. :(

same here, that should be one of the top priorities yet it's in the last stretch goal.... plus the pledges seem to have slowed down considerably, they need to do some serious media campaign if they want to reach 5 mil.
#32 Posted by selbie (1884 posts) -

@Labman said:

Fuck it! I just pledged $40. I'm working now and I can afford it, plus I would probably just waste it on beer anyway. Fingers crossed!

Oh, BTW, does anyone know what the "White Citizens Card" bonus is? Sounds racist! LOL.

The citizens card is just a physical version of the "ID card" you will get in the game.

#33 Posted by Funkydupe (3311 posts) -

@Eujin: That's a really good observation. I'm negatively surprised. 5 million is a huge sum of money to ask from players. There's big chance it'll reach 2 million in 24 days, but 5 million looks to too steep within the allotted time. Multiple star systems is a must, I hope it can be done somehow.

#34 Posted by Labman (288 posts) -

@selbie: Ah okay. Thanks for clearing that up.

#35 Posted by BirdkeeperDan (400 posts) -

No risk no reward, I really hope someone makes a good multiplayer space sim so I gave $30.

#36 Posted by Funkydupe (3311 posts) -
#37 Posted by selbie (1884 posts) -

They are projected to reach the target within the pledge period so I doubt they will need to, unless they really want to achieve the stretch goals. I don't see why they couldn't do a kickstarter after they've released the alpha.

#38 Posted by emem (1965 posts) -

@onarum said:

@Eujin said:

My excitement is slightly dampened. The Freelancer/Privateer style campaign is only if they hit their highest stretch goal.

"Star Citizens will receive access to the Wing Commander/Star Citizen universe for on-line persistent play (30 months)

  • Privateer-like gameplay
  • Multiple Star Systems to Explore"

Is only under the 5+ million stretch goal. :(

same here, that should be one of the top priorities yet it's in the last stretch goal.... plus the pledges seem to have slowed down considerably, they need to do some serious media campaign if they want to reach 5 mil.

Media campaigns cost a lot of money, I really don't think that's going to happen.

I would really love to play through a good single-player space (combat) sim campaign again, just thinking about it brings back so many great memories... someone get a random sheikh to back it or something. :|

#39 Posted by Rohok (554 posts) -

@selbie said:

They are projected to reach the target within the pledge period so I doubt they will need to, unless they really want to achieve the stretch goals. I don't see why they couldn't do a kickstarter after they've released the alpha.

Absolutely, in fact if they don't reach the stretch goals I could see it entirely possible they'll do a kickstarter just to achieve those goals.

#40 Posted by commonoutlier (136 posts) -

I have a feeling I’ll need a better computer to play this game, but I am pretty excited about it and rather tempted to fund it anyway. I enjoyed playing EVE, but I have a feeling Star Citizen may be more up my alley as far as a sprawling space game goes. I hope this game allows for a greater focus on exploration and just cruising through space rather than using probes to do most of the exploration for you. I get paid on Friday, so we’ll see...

#41 Posted by selbie (1884 posts) -

10,000 pledges and counting!

#42 Posted by Rohok (554 posts) -

@commonoutlier said:

I have a feeling I’ll need a better computer to play this game, but I am pretty excited about it and rather tempted to fund it anyway. I enjoyed playing EVE, but I have a feeling Star Citizen may be more up my alley as far as a sprawling space game goes. I hope this game allows for a greater focus on exploration and just cruising through space rather than using probes to do most of the exploration for you. I get paid on Friday, so we’ll see...

If you can run Crysis or Crysis 2 at all, you'll most likely be able to run this. The CryEngine is a very, very optimized game engine. Not to mention this game will take place in space, allowing for more detail on the things that matter without intrusive things like trees and grass to bog our systems down! To put it into perspective, I could run Crysis 1 on my old 7600 GT AGP card with a 2.4 GHZ single core processor on medium settings with 30 FPS. Every PC is different but the CryEngine just keeps getting more and more optimized and they update it. Crysis 2 I can max out on my M11X R2 laptop effortlessly, and that laptop can't even run Sid Meier's Pirates without overheating, lol.

#43 Posted by selbie (1884 posts) -

From their draft FAQ

Can you estimate the system requirements for Star Citizen?

There will be a lot of optimization in the next 24-months, plus the usual fast pace of technology, so it is hard to say absolutely. At the moment you will be able to play it on a 4GB dual core PC with a GTX 460 or greater, but not with full fidelity. If you’re running an i7 2500, 2600, 2700 or better with a GTX 670 or greater you will get the full experience and we will only scale up from there. You will need a dedicated GPU. Since the game is built on CryEngine, their system requirements will stay roughly the same as ours.

http://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/draft-faq/

#44 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7615 posts) -

I'm intrigued by the idea, but the scope of the project leaves me with pretty serious doubts. I'd feel more comfortable if they went through Kickstarter and I feel a lot of the rewards are just poorly explained. Is there only difference between the $30 and $40 pledges the title you get? And what exactly are those ships I'm getting? Weekly/bi-weekly updates also sounds completely preposterous (even if it were possible, I'd prefer content came in bigger chunks anyway). I'll probably pledge at least $30, but only if we get to the point where it looks like they're going to hit that goal.

At the moment, I'm more interested in what Notch is doing with 0x10c, which is a similar sort of idea, without the need for a ridiculously huge budget or top of the range graphics.

#45 Posted by masterpaperlink (1836 posts) -

I was gonna wait and see how it goes before throwing my hat in but i felt like a fat hippo, this man is making my dream game so of course he gets $30 (which is literally all i have)

#46 Posted by Funkydupe (3311 posts) -

@WinterSnowblind: But, I like graphics? Two years from now I guess most gamers have seen an upgrade of their system or at least they're considering one at that point. :) Ultimately we donate to have the game made, and not for the rewards. The ships you receive obviously get more exclusive as you progress up the tiers. It'll be a ship that you can start out in if you want, instead of the vanilla starter ship. No doubt there'll be more information on them. Maybe they'll do things more informative-like if they do decide to use Kickstarter.

#47 Posted by masterpaperlink (1836 posts) -

Also i just realized while making my order that some tiers are limited (i think), if you want the game for less than $40 then keep an eye out.

#48 Posted by commonoutlier (136 posts) -

@Rohok: I haven't played Crysis yet (on my list of "buy during the winter Steam Sale if I have enough money," lol), but you definitely have some good points there, and I think my laptop might be able to handle it (even if I have to keep the settings low, but I am WAY used to that for the sake of getting rid of lag)...well, come my payday, I'll definitely be considering it. I do love me some space. And if worse comes to worse, probably by the time the game comes out I'll have invested in a better computer.

#49 Posted by selbie (1884 posts) -

@WinterSnowblind: The $30 and $35 tiers are limited discounted pledges for early backers. Also there are many different crowdfunding sites out there and Chris Roberts is using ignitiondeck for his own site. Kickstarter only became popular because of major projects and media attention. They all function the same way.

#50 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7615 posts) -

@selbie: It's specifically the $30 and $40 tiers I'm having trouble understanding. The only difference seems to be the title "scout" for the $30 and "mercenary" for $40. I'm not sure I understand why something like that would be worth an extra $10 and without any idea of what the backer ships we get are, it's hard to put a value on most of the higher tiers either.

I usually am in favour of crowd funding projects like these, I just find it hard to see this one as anything more than a pipe dream. There's a lot of hefty promises with little to back anything up (although the tech demo was rather impressive, it's still just a tech demo). But like I said, I'll probably fund it if it gets closer to the goal, just because I would really like to play something like this.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.