Yeah. And that was after they ignored the fact that croberts pitched this as a $7m, 2 yr project.
Yeah, I could’ve written a blog, but even 35 Tweet thread would be a wasted effort. Plus, a blog takes longer because I would be tempted to add a whole lotta crap as filler. I could have used Twitlonger too, and which I do from time to time, but I forgot it even existed :)
It seems like this thing has come to a head. Like @dsmart said, investors like this don’t give away $46M without protecting themselves with significant concessions. It seems like Chris Roberts has a window to release his game with a certain revenue expectation. Otherwise, he is going to lose his company.
Lose what?
Yeah, that is the interesting unknown. Outside money brings outside expectations. This is only getting more interesting.
Bruce is right. Even Vulture Capitalists would not have allowed this to go on. They would have fired Chris awhile back.
Based on the little I’ve watched in his videos, Chris is like a rich orphan kid in a candy story… picking every candy or bauble that catches his eye.
I have heard it somewhere jokingly mentioned that some IT field or another (I can’t remember) is harder than rocket science. Failure in software development is rarely lethal though. (Though sometimes it is.)
When it can be lethal, you pay for it upfront, like anything else. There’s very expensive standards to follow so that plains and trains don’t crash, which includes the software not failing. Regular software, however, is a joke with regards to reliability because no one wants to pay for it, as evidenced by the Internet of Things.
Comparing the difficulties of making a game with making a space rocket is ridiculous, there’s no rigorous compliance with anything and no promises either, as it says right there in the EULA (validity of which varies).
I recently upgraded my display to 4k. Now I see a decrease in FPS that I assume is due to the limitations of my graphics card (1060) in several SC settings. It drops down to 30 in more locations and still into the upper 20’s from time to time. I have also not been to Loreville which I believe is the most tasking on the vid card AFAIK.
So I was thinking there are three scenarios for realized visual performance in SC (and any other game, I imagine):
-
If your computer hardware is of a low tech spec and therefore not able to run the game code to full visual potential for any reason, you may experience less than a “smooth” gaming experience.
-
If your computer hardware and/or game settings are balanced to stay within the limits of acceptable “smooth gaming” (via lower monitor res, lower game video settings/options), you may experience a “smooth” gaming experience.
-
If your computer hardware is of a high tech spec and the actual game code is not able to provide the visuals that your hardware could otherwise produce, again, you could experience less than a “smooth” gaming experience.
Thoughts?
The reasons for the low fps in SC is they are too busy selling JPEGs that only need to run at 1 frame.
FTFY
Yes - it’s all rubbish; as none of that is true. Spend some more time in the game, visit Lorville, then report back.
FYRE Star Citizen!
Doesn’t sound like they have much cash left given their burn rate…
What exactly are they spending all this money on if the game barely functions?
Executive pay. Video commercials of ships that don’t exist in the game. Streamers to play the game.
You know, the usual.
I’m guessing Mark Hamill is not as cheap as he was 4 or 5 years ago… and Gary Oldman has won an Oscar during all of this.
They’e also built a mo-cap studio, and had to redo all the mo-cap at some point. Plus they keep tearing down and rebuilding assets.
I think you understand @dsmart’s focus here. :-)
I don’t have anything invested in this, but find it such a fascinating situation that I have to follow this thread.
Same here.
The one appreciation I have for SC is that it strengthens the general market for space sims (which are the most approachable sims) and some of their peeps make great HOTAS reviews.