spacegg

@gundato:

So they haven't had to scrap anything but they have had to remove things and reimplement it or add different stuff because they don't have a foundation after 11 years.

They will add the location back once they have needed core techs integrated and when they integrate a star system the location belongs to.

Yes, some core techs are still missing and some of them has been integrated. These core tech "pillars" makes the foundation. Without them SQ42 and SC PU can't happen as they have planned.
It is long time to wait but no other developer has made a game like SQ42 and SC PU either during this time. Fortunately many backers has good time with test versions / iterations while waiting the projects get finished.
If some other developer will make a games like those meanwhile, even better. I definitely would like to have many more games like these.

@gundato:

Aside from that: You keep saying the development is working for them when it clearly isn't. It has taken 11 years to STILL not deliver on what they promised and you yourself acknowledge they need to repeatedly scrap things and can't even integrate all the things they are working on. That is not "working".

There has been no need to repeatedly scrap things but they recently needed to remove a location (which didn't even belong there in the first place) to give room to another location. They had to do it because the foundation is not ready yet, but they would have done that later anyway.
I don't see how having "a modern Wing Commander" would have helped the situation because that game wouldn't have been the foundation / vertical slice they need.

So, instead of modern WC they concentrated to make a first version of foundation what they need. After first iteration they have kept iterating it. Soon, the next iteration will be released to wider amount of backers for testing. Since they have been able to do this, in my opinion shows that the current way of development works for them.

@kemuri07:

Has it though? It's a game that hasn't been released. And despite all of the money being poured into it, clearly doesn't look finished. You need a foundation first and make sure that foundation is solid before adding in a bunch of stuff. Like GTA V online had a solid foundation, and from that foundation they were able to grow it into the mega successful game it is now.

GTA series has a long history and the foundation has been built all that time. CIG doesn't have that luxury and they have to built the foundation first which is exactly what they have been doing. Of course they are not just waiting for those core features/foundation to get ready and to be integrated but they are working on all other aspects of the game meanwhile. Unfortunately because of mentioned limitations they are not able to integrate all their work in test versions yet. Sometimes they have needed to remove things so they can put something new stuff for testing instead.
Monthly Reports are interesting read and Roadmap shows team by team what they are currently working on.

I don't know what they should do differently ...

If this were any other game, this would have been cancelled years ago. The only reason why it continues to stay alive is because are still willing to drop money on the promises of "what it could be" rather than what it is.

That's how crowdfunded projects works although I'm sure there are already many backers/supporters who likes the game already since they are testing/playing the game daily. Why not to support project which you like. I'm testing it almost daily and enjoy doing it - bug reports etc. is one way of support the project as well.

like socrates said, the problem isn't that fans like the game; it's that they seem to operate in a completely different reality in which SC is this ambitious, successful game that is making all the right moves and that anyone who says otherwise either don't anything about game development or are just haters.

In my experience the backers and community behaves very differently. They are testing alpha versions and they experience from tiny to game breaking issues pretty much every single game session (for example so called "30k" problem). There are plenty of debates going on every single day about all aspects of the project. Lots of feedback is being given to CIG by playing, bug reports, sending them messages and by discussing with developers directly. This is exactly the behavior how it should be and how it fortunately is.

It can be also being said that as we have seen there are people "outside" of the community/backers who are writing about the project or calling the project as "Scam Citizen" and calls developers as incompetent, crooks or attack them in very personal level. This has been continuing for years.

The project needs critical and constructive feedback which is fortunately gets a lot from backers/supporters and from testers during free flight times. The "open development" has worked for them although it has many negative side effects.

@bigsocrates: I'm one of those who likes that they abandoned an original idea and grew up the scope much larger. As we know they have had big growing pains and not met many goals they have set. Still, I rather wait and play the game they have envisioned than play the game they originally planned.

The current version is not all what they have done so far but what they have included on that particular test version. They are not able to include many features and content before certain core features are being integrated.

CIG did release an alpha version of a very bare bone version with very limited features first. After that they have integrated more and more features and content into it. Yes, I think this model has worked well so far. They have solid support, they are able to develop two huge projects at the same time and backers has got test versions to test. To me it looks like it has worked well for CIG and it has worked well for me personally.

Once Squadron 42 episode 1 is released then it is easier to make comparisons to other games like GTA V Online. Then CIG has already went though growing pains, they have development teams, infrastucture, technologies, tools and solid base to make a new game (episode 2) just like GTA V Online had.

@bigsocrates: What CIG has been/is working on is the foundation; 64-bit engine, (S)SOCS, iCache, server meshing, Quantum, required tools, etc.

First they released very bare bone version which has then grew up with new (core) features and content and which eventually (hopefully) becomes a game they have envisioned. Again, with Alpha 3.14 the feature set grows bigger. To me it looks like their decision of the develop model has clearly worked so far.

The community is still very small but avg. ~30,000 daily players is enough to give them valuable feedback and help on development.

I don't know what would have happened if they have chosen a different route. I'm just glad where we are now and concentrate what is coming in near future.

@bigsocrates: It is definitely possible that they are never able to release either of games, altough I think SQ42 is already financially secured.
Some articles, after careful research, has said many years ago that the project will end soon because lack of money. Fortunately, they were wrong.

I disagree that NMS way of development would have been right way for Star Citizen as well. At least as long as backers are enjoying development versions, the project goes forward as well as it has so far and the project will have such a strong support, to me it is hard to say they have done a wrong decision. Of course if the development ends or/and NMS will be a game Star Citizen is aiming for, then I have definitely being wrong.

@turtlefish:

Star Citizen will probably be partially outdated and especially graphically, but I personally think that's a minor concern. You could use UE5 and all its features in NMS and it still wouldn't be Star Citizen. One could say Dwarf Fortress looks awful but IMO it is still hard to find a better game. "Star Engine" has been and is under continuous development and I do have faith it will be good enough graphically (+physics, etc.) as well. Btw. Star Citizen will use Vulkan and switch could happen pretty soon.

I have seen amazing UE5 tech demos and I would love to see someone using it in a project similar to SQ42 and Star Citizen PU.

It is kind of easy to have a dream and faith since because we are able to keep testing development version and follow the development. Also, because there is no alternatives in sight all one can do is wait :). The worst thing what could happen is that CIG would start to cut corners and release the game before it is as they have envisioned.

@kunakai: I'm testing Star Citizen almost daily and follow its development and discussion around it relatively closely, so I know already that it will have some aspects I do/will dislike.

I do have KSP and I really like it. Fortunately there are still games made which has more steep learning curve; KSP, Dwarf Fortress, some MUDs, grand strategy genre, etc.

@gundato: I don't call them fake news but I can't take all information I read as a pure facts especially if there is no way to check the sources myself. There has been enough articles far from well researched that has definitely affected credibility of many writers and sites.
Also, I'm not interested about articles that are covering some people's personal lives either, I'm interested about the project itself. It is always interesting to read about the projects no matter if it is negative or positive information and if there is a way to know the information is based on facts.

@kunakai:

I'm not surprised that many are sceptical of Star Citizen. I'm sceptical about few things like how server meshing will eventually work but I'm not worried about them. I'm much more concerned about the fact that the game will have lots of hand holding and not going to be as "hardcore" I would like it to be; steep learning curve, very difficult to master, complex game mechanisms, etc. What they are doing is probably much better for the project but personally I would like them going different direction.

Star Citizen community is very critical but for the different reasons than "game media". While community are expressing their worries and concerns about gameplay and game mechanisms the game media is concentraiting to make "tabloid articles". I'm personally interested about the game itself and not interested to figure out which parts of these articles/writings are true and why should I even care.

Flight model is one topic that has been debated from beginning of the project. It is and will be dividing the community. Many prefers how flying was in Alpha 2.6 but I'm one of them who likes the current much better. I would like thrusters be less powerful but I acknowledge it could affect negatively to dogfighting. I like the model itself but not necessary about the used values but of course still many more features will be added and tuning/balancing made.

IFCS and Flight Physics

Community is waiting for features like iCache and server meshing so server tick rate would get higher, "fix" the AI and many other things, add other features and content, etc. It is unfortunate that there are many things they have worked a lot are broken because of some core techs are not being integrated yet. Monthly reports gives more details information about those features among many other things.

Currently there is no many games in development I'm interested much other than Star Citizen. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 and Starfield were only remotely interesting games in E3, In The Black, Mechajammer, Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous and few others.

If there would be projects which would give me an experience Star Citizen is going towards I would definitely be interested. I'm not aware about such a projects and that's why SC is the project I'm looking forward most.