Star Citizen is now using Amazon Lumberyard instead of Cryengine.

Its basically cry engine with state of the art multiplayer features

You're painting the two games like they entirely different games. The people who are MOST interested in these titles are the backers. You're 10 million sales is completely a random number you're pulling out of thin air. It doesn't make any sense. Elite dangerous is the closest thing we have to this gameplay, the only difference is the added sp story. And you can play elite SP, so we are just missing a story.

With the game funded there are no costs to recover. The backer money is not a 'loan' or a cheque from a publisher that needs to be paid back with interest. RSi. as a company should have zero debt from the games' development. Therefore all the money that comes in from further sales after release are 100% profit. That is also going on the basis that both games take 100% of the funding to develop. Developers who are ruled over by publishers though are in debt and have to pay the money back from their games sales, with additional interest/% cut before they even turn a penny in profit.

Yes it's 100% profit on further sales, but they DO have costs to recover. I don't think you understand how math or businesses work. Lets say the extreme case to illustrate my point. Two years from now, they release the games finally! Bills come in, they secured 150 million in funding and spent 160 million on the project. 10 million in debt after the release. But no they don't have to recover the project costs? How do you think businesses stay open? You spend money, you HAVE to recover that cost, or you're business is a sinking ship.

A second scenario... they release the game in a year, get 160 million and have 30 million left. But they are spending 15 million a year to operate between 400 people salaries, contracts. Which means they have 2 years to get more money or start laying people off. 15 million isn't a far stretch either. 400 People with an average of 50k a year is 20 million/year. And I would really feel bad for people that worked there if that included benefits, equipment/licenses costs not actual paid salary...

The problem is that you're not seeing... their initial sales IS a debt. Their first 1.7 million sales is not revenue for them at all, they get 0 profit from it. That is a debt they are paying. Their first 102 million in potential revenue is gone. And that is likely their primary and easiest market to sell a game for $60 to. It makes little difference why you're not getting money for a sale after a project ends, all that matters is it's not money you can put to future work.

Really step back and think of it for a second. They have 4 studios now + external contractors. If they are getting average 84$ per person they are getting significantly underpaid for 2 premium AAA games.

Every person I've seen criticise Star Citizen's crowd funding appear to believe that they are running out of money. They all claim that RSi don't show any of the costs or how much money they have left. I've yet to see anyone produce any actual figures to back up this claim. Is there any actual evidence to support it?

Thats not what I'm saying. I said they are a business and a large studio. They will eventually run into the same problems that publishers run into. They will have to find ways to recover costs of doing business. The way they got funded initially will make little difference, unless they keep selling ships to the same 3k whales that have no problem throwing their savings at this game.

For any publisher backed developer in the world today, $140,000,000 invested would mean a return of $200,000,000 (43% mark up isn't unrealistic) to the Publisher, or the equivalent of 3.3 million games sold at $60 each. To RSi $140,000,000 is $140,000,000 or the equivalent of 2.3 million games sold at $60 each. There are 1.7 million accounts on the RSi website, just how many of them are individual backers we don't know but even if we say that every single account is an individual backer, they are already up by 600,000 sales.

At the end of the day, your conjecture is no more valid than mine and that's really all it is throughout any of the topics touched on in our short conversation. We do not know how many people will ultimately buy the game, we do not know how much the game will cost to make and we do not know how much they've spent to date. Personally I'd put cost to date in the region of $100 million. That's looking at the staffing levels increasing by approximately 100 people per year and an average salary of $50,000 (some get more, some get a lot less). subcontracting studios for the early work, buying their equipment, setting up and renting the offices, setting up the business infrastructure and general running costs of the business. We can only guess at any of these figures, so I could be over, under or bang on target no one outside of RSi can confirm or deny it and they certainly will not be doing so anytime soon.

As for what comes after each of the releases, well they make money in exactly the same way as every other game developer world wide. By selling their games and likely through micro-transactions, currency and cosmetics being the most likely sale items. In game ships will be far too expensive to continue selling, they've said as much already. The Polaris destroyer, for example, has limited sales for $2000 each, that would put it at an in game currency cost of 2,000,000UEC ($1 = 1000UEC). We can expect at least a 10 fold increase for ships once the game is launched, could even be far, far more. 20,000,000 UEC for a Destroyer still sounds dirt cheap to me, especially with a $1 to 1000UEC exchange rate.

More than anything else RSi need to make this the game they've promised and if they can do that then it will sell. If they don't then they've doomed themselves and screwed over a lot of people.

Except we aren't talking about external development studios. CIG has internal development studios which don't work like that. Publishers don't invest in owned development studios, they just outright pay the developers salaries. There is literally no difference between CIG and Ubisoft when it comes to relationships with their internal studios. The only differences is there is no board to make sure CR isn't converting all the backers money into cocaine and snorting it, and their initial investment is backers.

Yes the debt isn't likely as bad as getting it from investors but debt is debt. How do you not understand this? Their two games they are selling (most likely the 1.7 million accounts are close to backer accounts) their first 2x$60x1.5million (will take a couple million off), is still debt. How do you not understsand this? It's just a different form of payment. It's not profit they can put into future projects.

The thing is, what I'm saying is actual conjecture unlike what you are saying. It's simple math along with using real world examples to see where SC is likely going to sit. Hard core space sims (which both games they are producing are HC sims) are not wildly popular, having massive sales early in the lifespan to get the most profit per game is more of a dream scenario because its completely unfounded conclusion, has no basis in reality. Your argument is I like this so everyone else will buy it, 10 million seems legit.

As for what comes after each of the releases, well they make money in exactly the same way as every other game developer world wide. By selling their games and likely through micro-transactions, currency and cosmetics being the most likely sale items. In game ships will be far too expensive to continue selling, they've said as much already. The Polaris destroyer, for example, has limited sales for $2000 each, that would put it at an in game currency cost of 2,000,000UEC ($1 = 1000UEC). We can expect at least a 10 fold increase for ships once the game is launched, could even be far, far more. 20,000,000 UEC for a Destroyer still sounds dirt cheap to me, especially with a $1 to 1000UEC exchange rate.

Ughh.. they said they'll stop selling ships once the game is released so we can expect a 0 fold increase in this. You're still not understanding that their initial sales will largely consumed by backer debt.

More than anything else RSi need to make this the game they've promised and if they can do that then it will sell. If they don't then they've doomed themselves and screwed over a lot of people.

I've never said they are doomed or anything. I'm just pointed out they aren't free to do anything and when push comes to shove they are a publisher, with multiple in house studios, they'll have to make money on a large scale for the foreseeable future to support this game or likely shut down studios. They are going to face the same problem publishers have had for years. And the fact that you agreed with me by saying they'll solve it in similar ways... then the attempt at distinguishing CIG from other publishers is pretty baseless at this point.

@zeeshanhaider:

So if Cryengine is Lumberyard then why is this worth noting?

that's kinda what makes this news funny..its not news. Just a way to create clickbait articles about how long the game is in development

No. Lumberyard is CryEngine. It was worth noting for two reasons:

1. Just to let the fellow gamers know that they are ditching ties with Crytek and possibly improving their net code.

2. I knew, if I didn't some idiot consolite would have created the topic to mock Star Citizen.

Not been able to play it since I got it. People said that it more stable in 2.60 then 2.50. They lied and it even worse. Now people are saying but 3.0 is where it is wait for that. GREEE. lol

Cant believe its most funded game ever and not really got anything to show for it after 4 years.

Publishers have investors, their owned studios are given a budget, a timescale and a target to achieve such as budget plus 40%. Why are you not getting that?

RSi. are not in any financial debt. Their game is paid for before development is complete and right now they are very likely in a credit situation on money spent to that funded.

The thing is, what I'm saying is actual conjecture unlike what you are saying. It's simple math along with using real world examples to see where SC is likely going to sit. Hard core space sims (which both games they are producing are HC sims) are not wildly popular, having massive sales early in the lifespan to get the most profit per game is more of a dream scenario because its completely unfounded conclusion, has no basis in reality. Your argument is I like this so everyone else will buy it, 10 million seems legit.

You're picking a single game to fit your narrative. Show me a single, well known, successfully crowd funded game that has not at least tripled it's user base after release.

Ughh.. they said they'll stop selling ships once the game is released so we can expect a 0 fold increase in this. You're still not understanding that their initial sales will largely consumed by backer debt.

Expect an massive increase in the in game cost of a ship once the Star Citizen game economy is working fully.

I've never said they are doomed or anything. I'm just pointed out they aren't free to do anything and when push comes to shove they are a publisher, with multiple in house studios, they'll have to make money on a large scale for the foreseeable future to support this game or likely shut down studios. They are going to face the same problem publishers have had for years. And the fact that you agreed with me by saying they'll solve it in similar ways... then the attempt at distinguishing CIG from other publishers is pretty baseless at this point.

I never suggested that you did claim they were doomed, although you are insinuating it through your posts. There is a massive gulf between RSi and EA, Ubisoft, Activision, MS, Sony, SEGA etc. etc. You just continue to believe what you will.

if you don't think RSI has some sort of time scale and budget you're kidding yourself. I mean look at the change to the ToS + they desire to release a SC 1.0 that is not feature complete... They have a budget, it depends on their operating costs. Why don't you get that? Their budget isn't infinite. Neither is their timeline.

I don't understand what is so hard to understand that debt is debt. Even their ToS + kickstarter they are by law supposed to produce a produce a product for all backers. That is their debt. It completely translates directly to a financial debt because it is the costs of all backer sales.

Show me a game where they continued crowd funding long after the initial campaign. They are constantly picking up new backers as well as old whales that might be throwing money at them. My single game isn't "fitting a narrative". Its the only other space SIM on the market, heavy on the sim. Its a good example to use where the interest in space sim game is.

And SC already promised they wouldn't sell them after release... who cares?

No I said they are still a publisher with multiple owned studios. You're trying to make to make a distinction because it's you're beloved chris roberts. In the end my point is their behavior is going to be dictated by their operating costs. Also you heavily implied I said they were running out of money.

Every person I've seen criticise Star Citizen's crowd funding appear to believe that they are running out of money. They all claim that RSi don't show any of the costs or how much money they have left. I've yet to see anyone produce any actual figures to back up this claim. Is there any actual evidence to support it?

I didn't criticize SC for being out of money, or that they are doomed. I just said 'RSI' mistakenly... CIG is a publisher now with multiple owned dev studios. YOUR making a distinction that just isn't there. Developer owned studios at EA/Ubisoft/Activision... don't see profit from games they produce. They may get a bonus if it sells well... CIG is paying internal studios to do what they want in the exact same way EA/Ubisoft/Activision would.

Also maybe the only real distinction here is they do not have a board of directors. Which isn't necessarily a good thing for a company this size.

+ some of the numbers I gave you are actually pretty realistic. 377 employees, if they averaged cost per head was 50k... thats 19million/year. Thats paying them nearly poverty level if benefits/equipment/licenses are included in those costs per person. That doesn't even include costs for locations... external contracts...

So you're saying they'll end with a credit... thats only if they continue to get funding in the 20+ million a year range. Or they release in under 5 years. (That timeline assumes they haven't spent a dime also).

@waahahah: This discussion is going nowhere, we are never going to agree with each other. Lets just hope that regardless of the finances and what title each part of a company carries they make a great game that we can play and enjoy.

Thats because you're ignoring they are a giant company, a publisher now, and don't realize backer debt is still debt. You're making distinctions that don't exist. You're ignoring real world examples of similar games performance and pulling numbers out of you're ass. You're comparing crowd funded games that have a small window to become a backer, to a campaign that has been perpetually going since it started and saying they'll have similar sales (3x the backer numbers) after the initial release.

None of what you're saying is grounded in reality. The only thing you've mentioned is backer debt is likely less expensive then investor debt. But the numbers we are looking at... that doesn't mean much.

You've proven nothing and I don't agree with you. Have fun being angry.

The point is you haven't refuted any of my arguments in any realistic way. Thats why this is failing as a conversation. You're assertions are baseless and I I've shown that. You don't have to agree to be wrong :).

There is only a right when there is a wrong and we do not have any information, other than personal view and conjecture, to create either. That's why the conversation will continue in circles.

But we do have information, and its possible to be wrong.

10 million sales? Where did this number come from? How is elite so different that its not a good example of the primary market? You've mentioned they can sell over time, but then state $60 per game, which contradicts the time argument. You've said that SQ42 is totally different but has the same gameplay? So why would it be in a totally different market? Space sims are space sims they tend to have the same market whether it be a sandbox of a campaign style game. There's nothing to suggest otherwise.

3x backer sales? Why compare this to short window campaigns. Sales have been happening over 4 years over the entire lifespan of development can keep selling to every one involved. There crowd funding is totally different as you can still become a backer today, when the game releases, The entire market has already had the opportunity to buy the game.

CIG is a publisher... Why argue against this? They own 4 studios, have 377 employees, and are likely operating 20+ million a year, this is an incredibly INCREDIBLY low estimate.

CIG has debt... The debt is structured differently but it still has debt to the original backers. This is a fact. You can't argue against this... its not an opinion.

CR has gone on record stating that 1.0 won't be feature complete. That is also a real fact that I used.

CR said they will not be selling ships once the games come out.

They are a publisher, that is factual, they have debt, that is factual, they have operating costs and even assuming everyone in the company get's paid dirt, is an expensive fact. The game won't be finished and they'll still have operating costs and backer debt once released, its in the future but those assumptions are based on CIG posting schedule and planned work, statements by CR. Some of this backer debt is in consumed sales that they cannot use for future work, some of it is in incomplete backer rewards that still have yet to be delivered (it will still cost them money to add features they owe backers).

My conjecture is actual conjecture. It's based on real facts, and examples that are actually relatable. The few things you've cited I pointed out either have no real basis, or based on unrelated circumstances. Or distinctions you're trying to make CIG publisher status is really useful or not. I've agreed with that their debts aren't going to be as costly as investors but you can't just ignore their debts like you are doing.

I stated that it "could hit 10 million sales", that is not the same as stating "it will sell 10 million copies in the first month" I believe the game has a future. Will it reach that number? Probably not but one can hope and if they make the game it's expected to be then there is no reason why it won't.

On the other hand you beleive they'll never sell another single copy of the game once it's released and you have based this assumption on a completely different game. As I have said Elite Dangerous is an online only MMO with no story what so ever. Where as Squadron 42, which will be sold first as an individual title, is an offline single player, AAA, cinematic, branching story driven game with an A list cast of Hollywood stars. The only similarity is that Space ships are involved.

You claim space games are a niche genre that no one has any interest in. No Man's Sky is in the 'Platinum' section of Steam's best selling games from 2016, yup space games are so niche and unpopular.

You call Squadron 42 and Star Citizen "hard core" space sims. This is a game that's so "hard core" that you can play all aspects of it with a Xbox controller and never have any need to touch a mouse or keyboard outside of logging in.

You stated that it requires a high end PC. That's only true if you consider a Core i5 2500 and a GTX680 as a high end PC.

Cloud Imperium Games is a new kind of independent studio dedicated to delivering AAA experiences outside the established publisher system, Founded by Chris Roberts, creator of the best selling Wing Commander and Freelancer series, Cloud Imperium is currently developing Star Citizen, a record-shattering crowd funded title that combines classic space sim gameplay with Hollywood-caliber visuals.

Cloud Imperium aims to pave new ground in game development by sharing the process with the players. Where game development was once hidden, Cloud Imperium has opted to share the process with those backing Star Citizen. Supporters come to know the team and follow them every step of the way as the game created. The community is closely engaged and their feedback Is considered in all aspects of game development, avoiding standard publicity to put Roberts’ epic vision directly in players’ hands.

Cloud Imperium Games Corporation and its subsidiary Roberts Space Industries Corp. were founded in April 2012 by renowned game developer Chris Roberts (Wing Commander, Freelancer, Privateer) and his business partner and long-time international media attorney Ortwin Freyermuth. Operating from Los Angeles and Austin under Roberts’ leadership and using his long-standing relationships in the game space, Cloud Imperium quickly assembled a top tier development team for the creation of art assets, story elements, and an extensive prototype for Star Citizen. Once UK-based Erin Roberts joined in 2013 to contribute his extensive background in game production, the Roberts and Freyermuth added CIG’s international operations in Manchester, UK to develop the mission driven Squadron 42 which is set in Star Citizen’s first person universe. Star Citizen and Squadron 42 are being marketed and launched via https://www.robertsspaceindustries.com. More information about the company, including jobs and contact information can be found at https://www.cloudimperiumgames.com.

Cloud Imperium has studios in Los Angeles, California ; Austin, Texas ; Manchester, UK and Frankfurt, Germany.

Source

No aspect of C.I.G. makes them a stand alone publisher. Believe it or not they are a self publishing developer. You really should go tell Chris Roberts how wrong he is and that the company he owns is a games Publisher and not a Developer.

Now as I said, I am done discussing this with someone who believes their opinion, supposition and conjecture is the only thing that can be correct.

I never said you said it would definitively sell that much, I just questioned where you're getting you're number from.

On the other hand you beleive they'll never sell another single copy of the game once it's released and you have based this assumption on a completely different game. As I have said Elite Dangerous is an online only MMO with no story what so ever. Where as Squadron 42, which will be sold first as an individual title, is an offline single player, AAA, cinematic, branching story driven game with an A list cast of Hollywood stars. The only similarity is that Space ships are involved.

I never said they won't sell any copies, I just said they selling well beyond their 1.7 million figure isn't likely using elite dangerous's population to gauge the space sim market. I also mentioned their crowd funding has been happening for years, people have had ample opportunity to become a backer where a project that sells 3x the backer count is generally a limited time to becoming a backer.

You claim space games are a niche genre that no one has any interest in. No Man's Sky is in the 'Platinum' section of Steam's best selling games from 2016, yup space games are so niche and unpopular.

I said 'space sim' game, and if 1.7 million is niche that most games are niche. I said primary markets. People that are willing to pay full or premium prices for it. No man's sky is not a space sim. At least not mechanically, it's a laid back sight seeing tour of the universe.

You call Squadron 42 and Star Citizen "hard core" space sims. This is a game that's so "hard core" that you can play all aspects of it with a Xbox controller and never have any need to touch a mouse or keyboard outside of logging in.

You believe that the controller makes it "casual". LOL. It simulates physics much more realistically, damage to ships can leave you crippled in space, you can lose everything if you don't have LTI (and no one buying the game after would have that). It's not a jump in and jump out sort of game. No man's sky is a jump in and play type of game.

The level of complexity in the games mechanics makes it a sim, not whether or not you are using a mouse or w/e. I can play elite dangerous with a xbox controller too.

You stated that it requires a high end PC. That's only true if you consider a Core i5 2500 and a GTX680 as a high end PC.

A GTX680 is a high end video card (for its time). And minimum requirement has always been the bare minimum. Like less than console level performance.

No aspect of C.I.G. makes them a stand alone publisher. Believe it or not they are a self publishing developer. You really should go tell Chris Roberts how wrong he is and that the company he owns is a games Publisher and not a Developer.

I've already pointed this out, why make this distinction? A business is a business. They aren't just a single studio, CIG owns foundry 42 which is developing squadron 42. Foundry 42... is not self publishing. I already gave you a list of developers that were also publishers and that you can actually... be both. I've stated this so why you think I said they weren't a developer at any time is again, a thing you are pulling out of you're ass.

Now as I said, I am done discussing this with someone who believes their opinion, supposition and conjecture is the only thing that can be correct.

I didn't say my opinion was right. I just said you were blatantly wrong, and you're conjecture isn't based on any real facts. Which is why its hard to have a conversation because you don't know the difference between conjecture and pure fiction.

.... this conversation again? seriously? Whahahaha you go into way to much detail about unstoppable aspects of capatlism. Can we stop this dramatic spam in these threads?

In fact... how about banning Star Citizen Threads until

1) a New big version update comes out, e.g 3.0 ... to properly show off the game.

2) Events ... for the same reason.

Most of the SC news posted here is trivial s*it.

I wanted to post the usual troubled development shenanigans, but read that it's still the Same engine afterall

All I said was they are a publisher, and technically they are.... There is nothing good or bad implied by what I'm saying. GarGx1 is just losing his mind at the idea of what that means and literally saying they have no debt which makes them special somehow. I just proved they have debt, costs, own studios and will likely face the same problems that publishers face today, and some of his hopes are just unrealistic. Also what is 3.0 supposed to bring? I thought the big update was planent landing which can actually be done in about 5 games now. How is that going to change anything?

no more troubled development than any other game

More or less the same engine but now with better networking features.

Their engine was already modified. It's a good thing that they changed base technology too.

@zeeshanhaider: Everyone downplays this announcement.

ignoring the first bit since I don't give a damn.

Planet landing in an MMO enviroment beyond the very simplistic implementation that Elite-Dangerous has done? none? .. "oh one aspect of a feature has been done before that means its not special" yea right.

A. They aren't making an MMO, at least not the way they described it, its a persistent universe, it's heavily instanced based so you and a few other people will have you're on MP instance... you can have custom servers. I see it more as a more robust version of freelancers MP.

B. there are multiplayer games that implement planetary landing, its a streaming technology... Dual universe, space engineers, elite dangerous.

Whats so much more complex about what CIG is doing exactly?

.... for gods sake you know exactly what the difference is... the sum of the parts, the inclusion of a list of complex features that go with the planet landing tech. Yea sure, No mans sky did it, but it was all a s*it implementation.

Your definition of an MMO is flawed, Most MMO's have instance limits including World of Warcraft - hell that game uses megaserver concepts now, which is what Star Citizen is doing as well.

OFcourse, the constraints might be heavier than the forementioned game... due to the complexity and data requirements at any given time.

But it is still an MMO by every definition. 1000s can be in the same solar system, but only 100 or so can be streamed in, and those will prioritised based on relation/balance that effects the play. Megaserver MMO trends are the same. E.G you see your friends/guilds/parties from other servers prioritised over random people.

FFXIV is heavily instanced... and is still an MMO.

@waahahah: lol, you proved nothing, for that you need actual proof not your opinion

Meh. I feel all the hype surrounding this has kinda vanished. Their modular system, while allowing backers to play small portions of the game, has kinda slowly drained the mass hype surrounding it's first announcements and demos. Not necessarily due to quality, just because the project is taking super duper long to come out in it's entirety.

Though I take it from this that Crytek are in really big trouble, no? If their licensed projects are jumping ship...that can't be good. Even though Amazon's engine is similar (if not literally the same with some added tweaks) as what the devs have right now, this probably means they don't expect more updates/support from Crytek? Otherwise the move doesn't make that much sense (unless this is also a publishing deal with Amazon too).

I'm going to chime in here (and probably immediately regret it) but here it goes.

If I were to estimate future sales on a product that isn't released yet, I would be looking at the pre-orders of other high profile games and the comparison of quantity of pre-orders vs post release sales numbers.

I am willing to bet that most games that offered pre-release purchases had many times the number of pre-release sales, post release.

Therefore I would argue that SC will likely have a large increase in sales post release.

@waahahah

Just talking about the whole, debt, cost, credit jargon going on earlier.

I guess i could agree that the CiG have "debt" to backers to produce the game they helped fund.
What @GarGx1 is trying to point out, is that the "Cost" of that debt is already accounted for. Assuming they can produce the game with the amount of backing and future backing coming in. Therefore post release they may have 0 debt and all future sales will help to cover running cost and be profit.

Assuming of course no cocaine binges, etc. etc.

First off I'm able to tell the difference between facts, conjecture, and exclusively opinion.

facts:

1. CIG is a publisher, not sure why you're arguing against this. They are a company self publishing one title and have at least 1 second studio making a game publishing under the CIG label. I gave you multiple examples of developers that literally started out self publishing and now make up almost all the publishers we have today... Good or bad, developer or not, they are a publisher.
2. They have multiple development studios and spend a lot of money.
3. Elite Dangerous, literally the only other prominent space simulator has sold under 2 million. (oh and x which I'm pretty sure has done a lot worse.)
4. Crowd funding has existed for the entire duration of the project, its a situation unlike any other crowd funded project.
5. They owe all the backers the games and pledge items. It's not directly financial debt as the payout is in development time.
6. Based on CR's words in their development timeline being open, we easily see that not all pledge items will be ready day 1. CR has explained they want to update the game
7. They have over 1.7 million accounts, we aren't exactly how many are backers.
8. They've stated that it can take months to produce a single ship in the game.
9. They have stated they do not want subscriptions or a pay to win model in the release, you will not be able to purchase ships in SC 1.0
10. It will not have all the features promised in SC 1.0

My conjecture:

• CIG has created a much higher risk situation than whats normal.
• 20 million / year while estimated is a stupidly low estimate for CIG's costs. So stupid in fact most people wouldn't take me seriously since they are more likely in the 3-4 million a month range (36 million / year minimum).
• Because the crowd funding has lasted so long they likely have gotten the vast majority the primary sales they'll likely see once the game is released, people have had plenty of opportunity to become a backer.
• They will not be finished with the initial iteration of the game.
• They will have accumulated a lot of debt from the complexity of the game, unfinished features and pledge items... (lots of development debt that is directly a financial debt)
• If this game is anything but wildly successful it will be hard for CIG to stay open long enough to finish it. They'll likely have to make some hard decisions to be able to support the game and it will be at the cost of the community.

You're conjecture:

• They'll sell a lot because most crowd funded games do once they release. (this does not take into account the length of the crowd funding or how much attention most projects get, SC is in a much different situation)
• Their debt isn't as expensive as most normal developers (except there

You're opinions and to be clear, this is not conjecture:

• you feel like they might sell 10 million over time.
• You think they'll end up with money left over.
• Controller support makes the mechanics casual.
• They'll be fine.

You're delusions:

CIG is a magical developer that has no one to answer to IE no costs associated with their development and no pledge items to deliver... and that even though they are self producing multiple games from different named studios under a single publisher that they are somehow not a publisher.

Am I missing anything? Basically when I say you are wrong, I mean believing that most of you're opinions are equally weighted to mine. Because like I've stated, I'm actually using several facts to base my opinions on while your's are wishful thinking.

Can't talk to you until you're not completely nuts. Please agree that being lawful does not guarantee that you're being ethical. Don't twist that into because being lawful isn't necessarily ethical that somehow all laws are now unethical? I can't speak to someone that has that train of though and every time you address me I will respond with how stupid it is. Because it's pretty stupid.

My idea of their MMO is more on the way they described it... at least originally since they tried to avoid the word MMO. Granted its not like this matters. So basically to classify an MMO as an MMO is dynamic match making (or the effective equivalent) and putting people in a single instanced server from a very large pool of people. Gone are the days of 600 people in southshore murdering each other on WoW. Good times.

I mentioned dual worlds which has planetary landings and is supposed to be 100% modifiable. Players will be able to build their own cities. Space engineers... ticks a lot of the same boxes, local physics grids, FPS elements, fully destructible. Didn't mention noman's sky (it aint multiplayer), No man's sky planetary landings were fine, it's their terrible proceduraly generated animals that were mostly deformed and empty game play.

So please, show me how streaming data of procedurally generated terrain is so different in SC than it is in other games. What makes their terrain so much more complex.

@waahahah: Haahaha still upset about that aye, well it's the internet so no, you can deal with it like everyone else hahah.

I mean you are just being unethical now *poke poke*. XDXDXD

I know you didn't mean it. It seemed more of an exit strategy. I just have to knock SC down a peg or two. If it fails its going to be from over hyped expectations and backer rage that pushes any potential buyers away. I'm super pumped for squadron 42. The only game I could think of that was a good single player campaign since freelancer is... x rebirth. "Good" being relative to the other space sims that have been put out. I spent four hours last night basically playing elite: space transportation simulator 2017 ferrying a a group of people on a sight seeing tour of a few stars... I could only ask myself... whyyyyyyyyyyyyy am I still playing this... ooh a purple sun. Shit I can't fuel scoop....

I found the X series, reaaaaally hard to get into. Heard a lot of cool things about it but just couldn't do it myself aye.

I heard elite described as a game "A mile wide and an inch deep". My hopes with SC is that it is much more depth to it other than seeing procedurally generated nothingness.

I got into it on x3, its literally just a sandbox. One that is.. glitchy and massively time consuming. There's no concept of cruise speeds so getting across a sector can literally take 30 mins, so you fast forward the gameplay only the AI goes nuts and you can lose hundreds of hours in ships crashing into things. I learned very quickly to find an empty sector and scale the time where nothing could crash. Then you have a trading system that tries to simulate "real" markets. But it was stupid. Want to restock missiles? Most stations cap less then a single ship can fire. So after 320 hours setting up missile factories and my own fleet, I finally could fly into a large scale fight...

With planet landing... I kind of can't help that SC isn't aspiring to be much more than elite at this point. It's going to be a sandbox with a few more features and a serious limit on player count because of the complexity. SQ42 makes me excited, but I'm keeping a healthy dose of skepticism with SC. Their original pitch for some of the features in SC, like PVP wouldn't necessarily be "random" as it would figure out scenarios that they could pit some players together in a random matchmaking, sounded awesome. It wasn't really pitched like a normal MMO and that more events would be orchestrated to get players together. I don't know if that idea has been carried on or was more of a bad interpretation on some discussions when I read about the concepts.

I think if they had stuck with keeping some of the technology more reasonable instead of going for the best graphics and physics simulation ever, and staying focused on take a few dozen systems and making them dense with lots of events and player interactivity... they could have easily had a game 100x better than these millions of planets, excessive 'content' with nothing worth doing in them. They still seem to be aiming at a better target but the execution really matters, its likely going to be unfinished mishmash of ideas. I hope I'm wrong though.

If it turns into an awesome re-hash of X-wing V Tie Fighter i'll be happy. Most of the other features are just gravy to me tbh.

Well thats why I'm looking forward to sq42... because its essentially supposed to be something like that.