
Star Citizen has raised $94M – where is it? - jkaljundi
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/the-most-ambitious-space-game-in-history-has-raised--94-million--so-where-is-it-213831707.html?nf=1
======
zamalek
Let's take Grand Theft Auto 5 as a comparison point as it's probably the only
game at the moment with a scope comparable to Star Citizen - out of the two
Star Citizen likely has the larger scope. GTA 5 cost $137 million to develop
and, due to the comparative scopes, it can be estimated that Star Citizen
would cost more.

People are unbelievably ignorant about how much a AAA title costs to produce.
SC is going to need much more money if it is ever going to meet Robert's
grandiose plans.

 _However,_ Chris seemingly has virtually no discipline in terms of product
management. The scope of the game is accelerating in the face of decelerating
sponsorship.

Where has the money gone? Probably to the features that he has promised -
sadly, not enough to any one single feature. $94 million simply isn't enough.
If Star Citizen doesn't get more money it might end up being a bag of half-
implemented features and is going to be a text-book example of runaway scope
creep.

~~~
thearn4
I think your comments are spot-on. I'll admit that as much as I would like to
play an amazing space sim again, I am sort of munching on popcorn while
watching SC development from the sidelines. When the project comes crashing
down, I wonder how much it is going to hurt the crowd-funding model for video
games.

~~~
zamalek
> When the project comes crashing down

Almost guaranteed at the current trajectory, however I still think that
there's time to save it: even with the current $94 million (massive scope re-
adjustment). Also in truth nobody, myself included, knows what's going on
internally at CIG (part of the reason for this drama wave) - I could be very
wrong either way.

~~~
thearn4
Not that throwing extra people on a project always helps, but $94m can buy
quite a bit of developer FTE, even over a 6 year timespan. I wonder how many
employees they currently have working on the project?

------
nolok
People often forget that this is a not a new situation for Chris Roberts, his
last game had more or less the same story: after a great but relatively
classic game in Starlancer, he set out to make Freelancer, with grandiose
claims and everything ever will be in it in a global universe. After years of
development with no game in sight his studio ran out of money, was bought by
Microsoft and the game was streamlined and released with a lot of features
cut. As a (slightly obsessed) fan of the genre Freelancer has the aura of a
"great" game, but in truth it was not top of its line, but good space game
were already very rare back then and it touched a lot more people.

> The game was initially announced by Chris Roberts in 1999, and following
> many production schedule mishaps and a buyout of Digital Anvil by Microsoft,
> it was eventually released in March 2003.

> Originally, Roberts promised features such as automated flight maneuvers,
> dynamic economies, and a multiplayer mode that could host thousands of
> players, but diminished versions of these features were implemented in the
> final release. The game's initial technical demos impressed reviewers, but
> after the Microsoft buyout and Roberts' departure from Digital Anvil,
> critics had doubts about the game. Reviewers judged the final product
> technically good but failing to fulfill their initial expectations.

Personally I hope SC will succeed, but I backed for the solo campaign
(squadron 42) with lot of nostalgia for wing commander and Starlancer, and I
have absolutely no hopes of the promises holding for the multiplayer, never
had. In the meantime Elite 4 with all its own flaws scratched my itch for
multiplayer (I would have loved for that one to be more solo like First
Encounter).

Note that the game draws extreme and usually critics are very aggressive, and
defenders of the game as well, I merely wants to point out the parallel to the
last time Roberts did this.

~~~
e12e
> In the meantime Elite 4 with all its own flaws scratched my itch for
> multiplayer (I would have loved for that one to be more solo like First
> Encounter).

Are you talking about "Elite: Dangerous"? Any particular grievances with the
"solo play"?

( _My_ grievance is that it looks like they'll never "port" to the most recent
versions of the oculus SDK/DK2 -- although I can understand why they'd want to
settle for a (solid) proof of concept for now, and then wait with porting
until APIs are finalized and consumer ready devices come out)

~~~
baldfat
Best Multiplayer game in that era was Allegiance from Microsoft of all people.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegiance_%28video_game%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegiance_%28video_game%29)

It was a multiplayer only game in 2000 with space ships and one commander who
played the RTS side of the game. It was a MOBA/DOTA in space with a commander.

~~~
FranOntanaya
There are still servers running for Allegiance (search freeallegiance) and
some development, since MS open sourced it and allowed the community to
maintain it, but you have to check on weekends to get a game going. It was a
pretty good teamwork exercise, it actually required players to think
tactically and stay coordinated to overpower the other team.

~~~
baldfat
I am afraid of the learning curve and being married with kids I usually only
play when I am not with any of them (AKA "Can't sleep" after wife goes to
sleep) I love being with my family but playing > sleep is an easy decision.

------
usrusr
Roberts has, accidentally i assume, found a unique niche of selling the game
utopia of their youth to people who now absolutely would not have the time and
dedication to really dive into a game world as they did.

The product is the dream of reliving a memorable part of the customer's youth,
but now in 4k instead of VGA. Obviously, bumping the resolution won't make
anybody young again, but that very profitable dream can be kept alive for as
long as they can keep the "coming soon" signs standing. A finished game
however, no matter how good it would be, will bring the reality shock that
people who spend hundreds on virtual goods from a producer who peaked in the
1990ies just are not 14 anymore. Until then it it's the perfect simulation of
actually waiting to be allowed to play. Kind of like World of Warcraft, but
without the side effects.

~~~
scrollaway
That is a ridiculous assertion. The game has over a million backers. That is
neither a niche, nor is it fair to say the majority of backers fit the
demographic you just gave.

And would downvoters actually provide any reasoning to such a senseless
assertion? Or is this just supposed to be the cool new thing to say?

------
Guthur
In my opinion SC has suffered from extreme feature creep. They should have
stayed focused on a core of space sim functionality (whatever was in the
initial KS promise). Talk of FPS functionality, for example, was a needless
distraction.

~~~
jagermo
Disclaimer: SC backer here.

As I see it, the FPS always was part of the original promise
([https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-
citizen/descri...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-
citizen/description)) and I think it will be good.

To be honest, I'm tired of space games like Eve or Elite:Dangerous where you
basically play as the ship.

From the beginning I had hoped, that it would be possible to EVA and fight
onboard of a ship - and what was a little hope turned into a solid part of the
game.

Do I think my money is wasted because there is nothing to play yet? No, not at
all. The goal of crowdfunding is to give the developers the time and money
they need and safe them from cutting corners.

Elite, for example. Its great flying, but there is no story and nothing to do
besides grinding for the next ship. They rushed the game out of the door and
its "nice", nothing more.

Even if everything fails, even if SC is crap or vaporware, I won't be
disappointed. Roberts and the others tried and, to be honest, if they pull it
off, they might give the industry the kick it needs to get back from yearly
updates to FIFA, Battlefield or CoD.

Oh, and BTW: Nobody complains when Blizzard runs late with their games :)

~~~
lentil_soup
"Oh, and BTW: Nobody complains when Blizzard runs late with their games :)"

To be fair, they're not charging you years before the game is actually
released

~~~
jon377
That's not really fair because CIG is not charging you, but rather you are
pledging for it.

~~~
gootdude
Blizzard makes the game on their dime, and then charges us to actually play
it. CIG is not making the game unless you pay for it, so it really is a fair
comparison.

~~~
jon377
Blizzard doesn't make the game that YOU want to play. You play on their terms,
you have no power over the development of the game. Once you bought and played
the game and you think it is crap, you cannot get a refund.

Your input is truly valuable in the development of Star Citizen since they are
creating the game YOU want. They listen and change features once they get
feedback (e.g flight model 2.0). If you don't think it is what you want you
WILL get a refund.

~~~
sleepybrett
CIG is not making the game YOU want, they are doing exactly what Blizzard
does. Making the game THEY THINK YOU WANT. Sure there was a list of stretch
goals and what not up on the kickstarter site, but they are not obligated to
check all the boxes. I haven't been following closely, but I'm sure there are
some boxes that have already been written off (at least internally).

------
jug
The Chris Roberts + Kickstarter combo has worried me from day one... But he
can still raise more money since a majority of backers still seem to believe
in him, quite aggressively so, too. Even if this ends up being a great game,
I'm sure many will be sorely disappointed (and the higher the stakes are
raised, the more will be) when they learn it is still just a computer game. A
piece of software in an artificially constrained sandbox, necessary shortcuts
taken during game design, etc., something with a period of excitement, peak,
and lifetime.

------
rurounijones
Seems like a very long article based on very little substance and a lot of
faux-pondering.

(Disclaimer: Yes, I bought an SC ship and want to see the game, and genre,
succeed. I also regard anything Mr. Smart says with a dose of cynicism)

~~~
LoSboccacc
Yeah at least the critic on the eacapist magazin had actual sources for their
claims. Other outlets are just jumpin on the bandwagon

------
shultays

        Would you pay $15,000 for a bunch of virtual spaceships?
    

Not for a single ship but I am sure there are people in EvE that did for a
couple virtual ships

~~~
duiker101
But at least they knew what they were getting and they actually got it. This
is not just virtual, for now it's straight up imaginary.(also, I believe that
most of the value in EvE comes from the in-game credits that can be collected
just by playing rather than direct payments, but I might be wrong)

~~~
nightski
There was a long article about one of the supporters who had paid in $30k
towards SC. It was very clear he did not do so purely for the virtual ships
but rather identified closely with the project and simply wanted to support
Chris Roberts and his vision. I don't think you contribute at that level
without understanding that you aren't buying virtual ships but instead
supporting a vision that may or may not work out.

~~~
scrollaway
I've backed roughly $2k (a lot of it which I re-sold to other players, fwiw)
and I'm in the same boat - couldn't care less about the actual ships. Game-
wise, I worked on a space sim myself and was faced by a lot of challenges I
see CIG tackling correctly. Studio-wise, I've explained in my post above that
CIG's transparency is the reason I'm rooting for them so hard. I want the
model, or at least parts of it, to be successful - not just the game.

------
aikah
People give that much money because they want to feel "they are part of a
special experience of making something special happen".I get it.

The game has a budget of roughly 100M now, which is a big budget. (Metal Gear
Solid V was 80M , which also included the Fox Engine development).

I'm afraid that this episode might kill crowd funding for video games, if the
result ends up being catastrophic.

------
scrollaway
I'm a backer with extensive game development experience, maybe I can offer
some insight as to the game's state.

1\. Feature creep

Most features were announced in the kickstarter. Things such as "hollywood
voice actors" or "motion capture" were all part of the initial stretch goals.
This is CIG delivering on the promises they made, there's been a bit of
feature creep here and there certainly but not as much as people claim. I'm
certain not all of it will make it to the release, FWIW, such is life in game
development.

2\. Finances

The game is extremely ambitious but it most definitely has the money for it.
Its total budget is looking on-par with GTA5 which had a much, much more
expensive marketing campaign and added costs. SC has the advantage of being
crowdfunded and having an existing userbase, making it somewhat-riskless for
anyone who would want to invest into it. CR has a lot of money of his own as
well.

3\. FUD

The studio has been repeatedly attacked by various parties that stand to gain
if the game fails. One of those parties comes from a personal vendetta against
Chris Roberts. If you enjoy drama, I highly recommend reading into it, it's
fascinating (and quite depressing as well, you've been warned...). Quite a few
mediocre news websites just want to jump on the Star Citizen hate-train
because it's an easy shot and drives clicks, I find that appalling. Reading
starts here [1].

4\. State of development

The game is just about where you'd expect it to be. It's lacking content but
they're pushing out the tech pretty hard. Parts of it are already playable,
dogfighting/racing is a lot of fun. I don't play it myself. Most of the tech
is out or about to be released; I estimate that, from the point where they'll
start adding the actual content, maybe a year to release. I don't think
they'll meet their deadline (autumn 2016 iirc?) but they've surprised me
before.

5\. Development process

CIG has been _the_ most transparent game studio in the world. The blog [2] is
regularly updated with tech, finance, design insights, in-game news etc. This
sort of transparency and insight into the difficulties of running a game
studio is why I'm rooting for them so hard. It's a model I want other studios
to adopt. I highly recommend reading that blog even if you're not into the
game, skip to the technical articles, they're great.

[1]. [https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-
link/transmission/14...](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-
link/transmission/14979-Chairmans-Response-To-The-Escapist)

[2]. [https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-
link](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link)

PS: Someone else said in the thread, "even if it's a great game, many will be
disappointed". Quite right. I'm very concerned by that; I think SC's greatest
flaw is that it makes everybody think the world is being promised to them, and
a lot of people are not realistic about the results. I personally think that
even if they deliver on 20% of their promises, it'll be a kickass game, so I'm
excited either way... but a lot of people won't feel that way.

I don't think the game will "kill" crowdfunding. From an investment point of
view, it'll be regarded as a success no matter what happens. Maybe it'll kill
high-budget crowdfunding but, remember, the game initially, on KS, asked for
about 1% of what it has today. The crowdfunding discussion is a fascinating
one to have, but SC is an outlier in every single category so I'm not sure
it's fair to judge on that.

~~~
ilogik
> CIG has been the most transparent game studio in the world.

They even have a youtube series called "bugsmashers" where you see examples of
bugs being fixed, including seeing the code.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6md9QO4DTs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6md9QO4DTs)

~~~
scrollaway
I just saw it when I read the blog, yes. I don't follow them day to day and I
missed those. This is awesome!

------
Grue3
Even if he actually completed the game, clearly at this point it's basically
pay-to-win. Who wants to play against the guys who spent thousands of dollars
on all the best ships? So the gameplay is flawed from the start.

What's sad, there are other ambitious (and actually existing) games, like
Dwarf Fortress that could've easily used all this money.

~~~
scrollaway
It's no more pay-to-win than eve online, where you can also essentially spend
$$ on virtual spaceships. I see a lot of people bringing this up but in a game
where you don't actually "win", more money doesn't actually make you win.

> What's sad, there are other ambitious (and actually existing) games, like
> Dwarf Fortress that could've easily used all this money.

I've never seen the lost sale fallacy _and_ the fallacy of relative privation
combined like that, that's fun. Anyway this is completely irrelevant - it's
also money that could have gone to cancer research.

~~~
cma
>I see a lot of people bringing this up but in a game where you don't actually
"win", more money doesn't actually make you win.

You don't the guy who spent $30,000 on ships (recent article) is going to win
encounters more often than the guy who spent the minimum?

~~~
scrollaway
Is the guy going to cruise around on an invincible $10000 spaceship? (None
exists, fwiw)

What if he bought 300 $100 spaceship, what's his advantage over the guy who
has one $100 spaceship + insurance?

Are you able to tell me what the guy's advantage is? I'm sure he has more
ships, but that's not useful for an individual. Maybe he'll hand them out to
his guild? Who knows.

The economy and ship performance layout of the game is similar to Eve:
Bigger/More luxurious ships cost more, but are not necessarily mean they're
more powerful. The Banu Merchantman is a trading ship which costs twice the
price of a Hornet, the top dogfighting ship. You can bet a Hornet would win
against five of the former.

PS: The studio is not stupid, they know they can't just go the pay2win route
if they want the game to actually be playable.

~~~
cma
> The Banu Merchantman is a trading ship which costs twice the price of a
> Hornet, the top dogfighting ship. You can bet a Hornet would win against
> five of the former.

So when going head to head against another guild to deliver cargo, which guild
is going deliver more cargo, the one where everyone bought the bigger more
luxurious Banu, or the one where lots of people have the early starter cargo
ship?

------
clavalle
Spent on development. They'll probably need about $40m more.

Funny thing is that I know of at least one guy they fired for telling them
they'd need $100m to release a product anything like Roberts vision. I hope
they send him an apology.

------
chkuendig
relevant: [http://www.reaxxion.com/10195/why-star-citizen-is-likely-
goi...](http://www.reaxxion.com/10195/why-star-citizen-is-likely-going-to-be-
a-complete-disaster)

(previous discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9840425](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9840425)
)

------
jlebrech
perfectionism, you can play it as it is now tho.

~~~
jessaustin
TFA indicated that only a "dogfighting" portion is currently playable.

~~~
toliman
> only a "dogfighting" portion is currently playable.

for most kickstarters/buyers, it's alpha 1.3 which has the hangar (ship
previews/ weapons testing), combat (pew pew), flight (racing) and the social
module (running around a small city level and emoting to other players).

1.3 is threadbare, but it's not designed for content, but to test server
infrastructure and design choices. The UI is horrendous, combat is confusing,
but you can get the sense of the art and an outline of how the game would
work, if/when it were finished.

Realistically, it's going to be 3 more years before the MMO aspect comes
along, just to handle the scope creep of being a kickstarter project. (There
will always be a new feature to test/design/fund, thus the time will get
pushed back, sic.)

Alpha 2.0 is being touted as the multi-crew module, but it's also integrating
a lot of in development features to flesh out each of the segments in 1.3. The
belief is, there'll be a "Persistent Universe" P.U. test solar system with
ship movement, open combat areas, travel/navigation, AI crew on ships, trade
and quests, before 2016. featuring most of the citizencon demo features from
the video.

A FPS combat module which will be a lot less polished, is coming out after
that, sometime between january 2016 and the Squadron 42 game.

Realistically, here's some videos of the current state of the game.

i.e. The social Module in 1.3
[https://youtu.be/38gofAbkilE?t=60](https://youtu.be/38gofAbkilE?t=60)

MultiCrew, as demo'd for the con, is not ready. The press demo
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrpeLpQWzTk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrpeLpQWzTk)
covers some FPS, travel, and landing / takeoff.

only recently have they refactored the UI i.e.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSNZ6oWAjZ8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSNZ6oWAjZ8)

~~~
darklajid
Press demo for 2.0 (the CitizenCon content mentioned in the article):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrpeLpQWzTk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrpeLpQWzTk)

