This feels like a pretty handwavey statement. For one, all shaders would need to be converted from HLSL to GLSL, which could become quite a big task depending on the amount of shaders, and testing of all changes.
Secondly as I understand it the Vulkan API is much more low level and barebones than DirectX, meaning it'll be a lot of work to shore up the differences. I may be wrong here, but it seems to be like the developer is saying that a DirectX -> OpenGL change is no big deal, but swapping out your foundations is a major big deal. The concepts may be the same but the APIs are still hugely different.
And why is this even a concern for a game started in 2011? It's mind boggling that they are making these kind of decisions 6 years into development, surely just finishing the damn gameplay should be the focus?
There are transpilers (cross-compilers?) that translate from HLSL to GLSL and back and into every other shading language out there, there's really a lot of such tools.
> Secondly as I understand it the Vulkan API is much more low level and barebones than DirectX
Vulkan is about as low-level as Direct3D 12, which has not much in common with Direct3D 11 and lower, just like Vulkan has not much in common with OpenGL. OpenGL is (very roughly) equivalent to Direct3D 11, and Vulkan is more like Direct3d 12. The thing is that switching between the similar APIs is a lot of work, but does not require large refactorings, whereas switching from OpenGL/Direct3D11 to Vulkan/D3d12 requires more fundamental work.
Ironically Microsoft have open-sourced a Clang-based HLSL compiler that could be used as a front-end for a Vulkan backend.
That would force them to show the results of the effort and the $texas-sized dollars contributed. As long as they can keep pointing to "well, we had to make a major architectural change.." they can continue pushing the idea that they'll deliver.
Dig into the criticism of them the last couple years. This one is from ~20 months ago: http://www.pcgamer.com/derek-smart-star-citizen/ or ~4 years into development.
Not to mention his even weirder obsession with Sandi Gardner, Star Citizen's community manager.
Still, star citizen is a train wreck. Wasn't the big thing last year to "rewrite all the net code".
They're just rearranging the deck chairs over and over waiting for the company to go under
I was a $20 backer on the kickstarter campaign and have since gone in for about $100 total. Obviously I wish it had come out years ago, but I'm still optimistic about the project, and fine with the drastically expanded scope. The alpha releases are far from perfect, but I've already had more fun with it than some other games that I paid much more than $20 for. That's what pushed me to back it further. There's just something incredible about the level of detail of the world, going from first person through a space station, out the airlock, walking over to the landing pad, hopping into a fully detailed spaceship (not just a disembodied camera in a cockpit), and flying off to fight space pirates.
This is a game that wouldn't be possible to make with the traditional publisher driven funding systems. Maybe it'll turn out to be impossible to make this way too, but I don't think so.
If you have a couple of hours to put videos on in the background, the last three "Around the Verse" studio updates have been pretty good:
March 2 (Frankfurt) - Hurricane and Character Customization https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGzDI2wUqf0
March 9 (Austin) - Weapons: The Game's Arsenal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_v-hMu_h5s
March 16th (Manchester) - Level Design https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c2DogQL95o (watch past the credits for in-progress ships)
Or for a quicker coverage, here's a list of short excerpts from the last video. Quality isn't great, but it gets the point across: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5zu3of/atv_gfy...
On the other hand, CryTek's financial trouble over the last several years was an enormous benefit to Star Citizen, because it let them build the Frankfurt office with a bunch of CryEngine experts who were tired of not getting paid on time. They're the folks who made the full scale and crazy detailed procedural planets possible.
When alpha 3.0 lands later this year (hopefully...) you'll be able to fly down and land on these from orbit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU0hDriMqXo (short excerpt from one of the studio updates linked above)
Not necessarily. Vulkan now supports HLSL input too, which is compiled into SPIR-V, same way GLSL is. You don't need HLSL → GLSL translation step.
GLSL is just one option to write shaders for Vulkan (the only inmportant thing is that SPIR-V code can be generated). I can even imagine quite well that one could write a compiler which generates SPIR-V code from HLSL shaders.
> Secondly as I understand it the Vulkan API is much more low level and barebones than DirectX, meaning it'll be a lot of work to shore up the differences.
DirectX 12 is similarly low level.
> I may be wrong here, but it seems to be like the developer is saying that a DirectX -> OpenGL change is no big deal
DirectX 11.x is similar in "level" to OpenGL 4.x (though the difficulties are a little different - I don't want to go into details here). Similarly DirectX 12 and Vulkan are similar in level (much more low level than their predecessors). No wonder since both Vulkan and DirectX 12 are "strongly inspired" by Mantle. Additionally Vulkan was intended as the succesor of OpenGL and DirectX 12 as the succesor of DirectX 11.x.
> surely just finishing the damn gameplay should be the focus?
That is what you wish. :-)
Khronos are working on building this into the official SPIR-V compiler: https://github.com/KhronosGroup/glslang/issues/362
Star Citizen definitely appears more like an ongoing crowd-funded video game research and graphics research project at times.
DX12 is not DX11+1. It's a clone of AMD's Mantle, which was eventually given to Khronos, so they make it into Vulkan. The main advantage of Vulkan is that it runs almost everywhere. DirectX 12 doesn't.
DirectX 12 runs on XBox One, while Vulkan does not:
And for OSX/iOS, you have to use OpenGL or Metal.
And the Switch uses Vulkan; while Vulkan on top of Windows (including 7 and 8/8.1) supports Linux and Android. For iOS and macOS there's MoltenVK, but I can't speak for its quality.
So it remains to be seen which one gets the love of game developers.
That's actually a fairly interesting question, given the percentage of games that come out for Nintendo platforms which are exclusive to that platform (or at least to the Nintendo family of platforms). There are all the first party titles, and then there are all the esoteric games which don't really fit the control schemes of the other platforms (but the switch is less unique in this aspect). I imagine games targeted purely at Nintendo platforms might use their proprietary API, especially first party games, which might get the API changed based on their needs.
It doesn't run on Sony PS4, Nintendo Wii U, XBox ONE, UWP, OS X, iOS, tvOS.
Even on Android it is going to take a while until most people exchange their handsets for ones having it, because the majority will never get an upgrade for Android 7.
Only OpenGL ES 3.2 is mandatory.
This was probably made for chipset producers; if Vulkan was made mandatory, you would see exactly 0 updated devices.
Source: Android 7.1 Compatibility Definition Document
Device implementations MUST support both OpenGL ES 1.0 and 2.0, as embodied and detailed in the Android SDK documentations. Device implementations SHOULD support OpenGL ES 3.0, 3.1, or 3.2 on devices capable of supporting it.
Note that device implementations MUST include libGLESv3.so and in turn, MUST export all the OpenGL ES 3.1 and Android Extension Pack function symbols as defined in the NDK release android-24. Although all the symbols must be present, only the corresponding functions for OpenGL ES versions and extensions actually supported by the device must be fully implemented.
Device implementations, if not including support of the Vulkan APIs:
- MUST report 0 VkPhysicalDevices through the vkEnumeratePhysicalDevices call.
- MUST NOT delare any of the Vulkan feature flags PackageManager#FEATURE_VULKAN_HARDWARE_LEVEL and PackageManager#FEATURE_VULKAN_HARDWARE_VERSION .
Android handheld device implementations MUST identify the support of high performance virtual reality for longer user periods through the android.hardware.vr.high_performance feature flag and meet the following requirements.
- Device implementations MUST support OpenGL ES 3.2.
- Device implementations MUST support Vulkan Hardware Level 0 and SHOULD support Vulkan Hardware Level 1.
If the engine needs two rendering interfaces, the effort is exactly the same as OpenGL ES + whatever else.
Unless you are suggesting game developers should be happy to sell only to LG V20, Samsung S7 and Google Pixel owners.
Turnaround in the mobile hardware space is even faster than on the desktop (let alone stagnating consoles), so Vulkan availability is much less of an issue there.
It doesn't matter if the drivers are available if those GPUs aren't on the motherboard.
Currently Vulkan is constrained to 2.8% of the Android market.
> Turnaround in the mobile hardware space is even faster than on the desktop (let alone stagnating consoles), so Vulkan availability is much less of an issue there.
Only in US, not everyone around the world, specially in countries where pre-pay is the way to go, changes their mobile every two years.
My point is, this situation will be shorter than on the desktop. Because as I said, the turnaround of mobile hardware is faster.
> ly in US, not everyone around the world, specially in countries where pre-pay is the way to go, changes their mobile every two years.
In US too, not everyone is going to buy every new model. I'm talking however about manufacturers making them. That happens pretty fast. So Vulkan support on new hardware is probably already a given and this whole thing is a non issue. Any new technology has adoption period.
Well, I would say, it is not a ordinary game. And even though I don't know about their Engine, but normally it should be possible to make those changes on the engine without any effect for the gameplay, since they wanted to support OpenGL before.
No indeed. Neither was Duke Nukem Forever.
Finally they're starting to get it.
There is absolutely nothing locking multiGPU support to windows 10 other than the willingness of IHVs to support it.
Vulkan was a Camel before they introduces the new extensions road map, you know have KHR which are "official" cross vendor LTS extensions which can be still platform dependant (e.g. you can have win32 KHR extensions), then there are KHX extensions which are effectively a rapid deployment branch primarily sucking in vendor extensions that can be a good idea, then there are the vendor specific extensions.
Now not only that it's a camel, it seems to fall back into the same tarpit that OpenGL had in which you could not guarantee compatibility between hardware vendors and platforms.
I understand that it's healthy to be skeptical, especially when it comes to video games, but CIG has been accomplishing some remarkable things much sooner than anyone seemed to assume so I guess I'm optimistic about VR as sooner rather than later.
Starflight could do that back in 1986
Guess where I'm spending what precious little gaming time I have these days?
The RSI team is doing amazing work, and I keep checking in - really love how they've improved loading times, and the detail of the models etc is just amazing, however as someone who's gotten quite used to head tracking I find it very hard to play sims that don't support it.
As such, I'm also a big Elite fan and now is a really good time to be playing that especially if an immersive experience is something you consider important as I do.
- Windows 10 will automatically install games from the Windows Store which are not wanted such as Candy Crush
- Extensive and opaque 'telemetry' being sent back to MS which cannot be completely turned off
- Lack of control over windows updates
These are my own personal reasons why I will never be installing such an anti-consumer OS.
- those apps are installed at the time of installation and can be removed. If so, they are not reinstalled ever again.
- telemetry. Scary. Every application you install does this.
- MS found (via telemetry) that users don't like installing updates, and thus left themselves open to many vulnerabilities that antivirus systems don't even look for. So, MS has chosen to force users into a more secure paradigm.
These are my personal responses why I don't mind windows 10 at all, and don't feel it to be anti-consumer at all.
How about they ask users first if it is okay to do this? That is a better approach, opt in.
- those apps are installed at the time of installation and can be removed. If so, they are not reinstalled ever again.
That wasn't true for the first few years and even Microsoft admitted it in one of the release notes that they weren't retaining option to never reinstall the apps. AU update reinstalled these apps for me.
Again, they should be opt-in, not forced and found out later that they were collecting more data than they should.
If they needed telemetry to confirm what everyone has known for decades, they have a bigger problem.
If there is any single thing that I've learned during my time on Earth, it is that people, collectively, "know" a lot of things that aren't actually true. Everyone knows that pouring sugar in a car gas tank will kill the carb or fuel injectors. (This is false.) Everyone knows that you taste sweet with a different part of the tongue as sour. (This is False.) Everyone knows that waking a sleepwalker is dangerous. (It isn't.) Everyone knows that Napoleon was short. (He wasn't.) ad infinitum... I will not fault MS for taking the time to actually prove a suspicion true or false, to themselves or to anyone else. This happens far too rarely, and a lot of people believe a lot of things that aren't true as a result.
The people MS are aiming for with the ads are not the type of people who would ever opt-in to these things. Microsoft know (again, via telemetry it is proven) that clueful users will either know how to opt-out of thing they do not like, or will know how to find out how to opt-out. An opt-in preference would be preferred to myself and probably a large portion of users, of course, and would probably result in approximately 0% participation, which is very likely not what Microsoft are aiming for.
With the Creator's Update, pre-installed applications, once uninstalled, will not be reinstalled when the OS is upgraded. I, personally can attest to this one. I've been installing the fast-ring builds since the Anniversary Update, and I uninstalled Candy Crush Saga exactly once. It has not returned.
I'm really quite sure the applications on my machine don't. Then again I only run things I have some way to compile myself.
I'm pretty confident that the only things I use regularly on my computer (not counting my phone here) that send telemetry are
- Firefox (opt out, but prompts you)
- Visual Studio Code (opt out, doesn't prompt you, requires re-opting out on updates)
- rustup (not sure if opt in or out, don't mind if it's recording telemetry)
Unfortunately, "that would be bad for me" does not imply "that is not happening"
Telemetry is awesome for devs but totally opaque to end users. It's very difficult to know what your applications are really doing on the backend. You have to start packet sniffing, and that's a pretty deep rabbit hole.
An application could:
* send telemetry in URL parameters when it checks for updates
* send telemetry data exactly one time after, say, an hour of use.
* send telemetry data during a time when you are already sending a lot of traffic, and send it to an amazon web service endpoint (good luck plucking that out of normal network activity based on IP data alone, when so much software communicates with most likely the same AWS endpoints.)
My point is that there is probably < 5 people on the planet who scrutinize every scheduled task, every Wireshark trace, and everything else well enough to know for certain that nothing is going on. The only people who know for sure that no telemetry is going on are those who airgap their PC from any network at all.
I mean, monetizing users by tracking their behaviour and showing them custom ads is bad enough (although somewhat understandable when the OS is free), but charging users for the privilege too (Windows 10 costs money¹)? Disgusting.
¹ — https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/get-windows-10
How do you turn off the telemetry of your smartphone apps or web sites that you use?
Do you create a fake profile every time you buy something?
If I had anything to complain about Win 10 it's that they still haven't properly unified the control panels.
German data protection acts even make it illegal to use Windows 10 in commercial environments in many cases because of the built-in telemetry and cloud functions. Not what I would call "hardly makes the entire OS bad".
Not "have been determined to be illegal".
As long as there is no court judgement, one cannot write a definite opinion. If the authors directly wrote that it is illegal, Microsoft would surely admonish [is this the correct English translation of the German verb "abmahnen", which has a very specific meaning in Germany's legal system?] the authors of the texts or the medium that publishes such a statement.
So taking ten seconds to deactivate ads in an OS isn't really the kind of outrageously onerous burden you're laying it out to be. I agree to the extent that it seems like a pointlessly minuscule revenue stream in comparison to the ill will that it generates. And it was deceitful to sneak the ads in after people had already upgraded from Windows 7 instead of making their intentions clear from the outset. Microsoft would probably generate more income with an option to permanently disable the ad experience (and telemetry) for a one-time fee the way Amazon does with their low-end Kindles.
Operating systems historically have not been like media. Perhaps this is the future (shudder), but pretending there has not been a difference doesn't get us anywhere. And it is jarring: compare it to one day, ads start appearing on your towels at home.
Personally, OS ads and invasive telemetry are way, way too invasive for me. Never used Windows as more than a utility thing for specific apps, but I'll never use Win 10 without crippling the mothership comms, and I'm moving away from OS X as well, because of the increasing cloud-everything centricity and the neglected unix subsystem.
Finally, this is probably a complaint specific to me and a not that many other people. I do systems engineering professionally. When OSes start doing things that I can't control and start communicating without explanations as to what, exactly, is going on for reasons that are not driven by my intent, I cannot trust the software. My machine, my environment, my rules.
People always jump to the phone comparison here. My phones are rather locked down too, snd I'm not happy about the direction, but can do little about that.
Operating Systems are tools, not entertainment or informational media. Does your hammer have ads you "couldn't disable"?
> it had ads - couldn't disable
Scissors can be used to disable magazine ads.
For your specific use case, sure. My Windows machine is essentially a game console to me though. Do I get upset when I see an ad on Xbox live? It's essentially the same thing to me.
Of course Windows isn't meant to be a tool for professionals. But it's great for what it is; an easy to use general OS that plays games.
I see a pattern there, don't you?
Why is this something to avoid?
Both DirectX 12 (which has nothing in common with DirectX 11) and Vulcan originate from AMD Mantel and the work of the Frostbite devs. Vulcan is the better choice nowadays, and several Triple-A games incl Doom 2016 support Vulcan.
There is no reason to use Win10 as a gamer, all games (beside the arcardy FU3) run on Win7, even the older one that stopped working with the infamous adware & spyware that Win10 is - as of today Win10 has ads in Windows Explorer, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13903519
Other than, like, having a supported version of Windows.
Let me know how Windows 7 on the latest Intel and AMD processors works out for you.
And you don’t end up with a system forcefully updating and coming up with a bluescreen after every boot (my win10 test machine atm), nor do you have ads and telemetry in the megabytes after every login.
I did contribute $30 to the original Kickstarter, and I think the vast majority of scorn and rage about Star Citizen has been coming from people who haven't. Personally, I never expect a software project to finish on time.
Whenever you make games you wish you had more resources. But at some level if you have too much, you become unbound by the practical trade-offs that are necessary to the art. The more you have to work with the more you need to promise, the less it makes sense to compromise.
I'm sure they will ship some games and I look forward to playing them. If they don't succeed they will move the art forward and train a lot of people who will do great things in their wake. More power to them.
Like Duke Nukem Forever? They wanted to keep updating to the latest technology instead of shipping... and had the resources to do it.
These aren't just Star Citizen problems, this is the entire industry. Somehow by labeling it an art they're allowed to get away with anything.
There are very few successfully developed games and this new craze of "Early Access" is just ruinining all QC and somehow making any publisher/programmer imune to criticism via the "It's only the alpha! You need to expect it to be buggy! It's not the developers fault!"
Also, as you say, having people's money already removes the need to finish -- and that push to polish and finish so you can release and get some money in my experience is what makes games good.
It's the only game that allows you to be at the forefront of participation without burning time on playing. One step beyond "idle games" (that is something that actually exists). It seems to be an arrangement that somehow clicks with a small but lucrative group of people. They probably think that they will pick up gaming again "when it's ready", but most likely won't. Until then they can live the dream of one day being as excited about gaming again as they were twenty years younger.
Then everyone begins debating the technical issues rather than the timetabling and funding issues.
This is a reply to a question that mentions, in passing, that for simplicity sake they are DROPPING ONE OF THE TWO targets they are CURRENTLY supporting. This is not "we need excuses to push deadlines", this is "we're cutting something to speed up development", with explanations accompanying it.
And that aside, HN of all communities should appreciate the level of transparency and technical insight CIG gives to their backers. Like the one in the post here. That you did not click because you were too busy coming up with "technical excuses".
I've followed the Vulkan/DX12 issue on and off over the last year for SC as I am an early backer.
Given that they only first approached the question of Vulkan in 2016, and as recently as a few months ago were still in blackout as to the level of support:
I am not persuaded that this is as simple a matter as dropping one of two equally well-developed branches.
Generally speaking, moving from a mature high-level API (especially one which the underlying game engine/architecture is heavily tied into) to a less mature low-level API tends to mean refactoring work and extra implementation work, as well as a whole new bunch of bugs and testing.
I would agree that pursuing only Vulkan or only DirectX is probably smarter than pursuing both simultaneously in terms of a faster delivery. I also think in terms of cross-platform development and performance it will be better to use Vulkan (for any game).
However, the introduction of Vulkan is a relatively recent event in the history of SC development (see above), saying 'we're only going to support it now' might actually be saying 'a rewrite (or substantial refactoring) of the game started last year, which we are now owning up to'.
As to whether it's a good decision, it's a different and very hard to tell matter. I find it a little absurd though how much input people have into this. These decisions matter only in context; you need to be familiar with a lot of the technical background on the game itself and its ongoing development to really be informed on whether it is.
For context: I work with Blizzard games a ton. I'm extremely familiar with Blizzard, their teams, the work that goes on there; nature of my job. I also frequent the subreddits where armchair programmers and game designers think they can outsmart the devs by throwing random buzzwords in the comments. Everybody thinks they know better, thinks they know how to manage a community of millions to tens of millions, thinks they know how to ship AAA games, etc.
I see a very similar pattern on HN with CIG because CIG is (far) more transparent than your average studio. And I just wonder (this is a general statement, not only about your comment) why people adopt this "I know better" attitude when they clearly don't have al the variables and know it themselves.
I've seen this in every single thread about SC. People here see a kickstarter project taking a long time and start yelling their own startups' platitudes like "release early release often" that aren't applicable to game dev the same way. Every time I expect better and every time I'm disappointed
'a rewrite of an existing code base from language A to language B'
'Saying you will support language B as well, dropping language A after a while completely, then announcing you are going to try to complete it in language B'
Because I am not sure I perceive a large semantic difference.
I happen to agree with an earlier post suggesting that if you want to run off with the money, then this kind of thing is a pretty good way of creating noise and cover instead of results.
Also: can you please stop shitting on the HN community with your posts and keep to the topic?
I get that you want to rant for some reason, but it would be better for us all if you did it in notepad or emacs rather than here.
You're merely claiming hundreds of game developers, part of the most transparent game studio of all time, are involved in this grand conspiracy.
What does "running off with the money" even mean? Create artificial work for yourself and your company all the while pissing people off on purpose? Oh yeah that's a much better plan than just making a game.
Reminds me of people claiming the lunar landing was faked because they have it in their head that faking the thing and maintaining the charade over decades is somehow cheaper.
Regarding your question, we're talking about shading languages, most of which are autogenerated by the sources. This is more akin to dropping support for a platform than "rewriting everything".
Have you read the forum guidelines?
"You're merely claiming hundreds of game developers, part of the most transparent game studio of all time, are involved in this grand conspiracy."
I claimed no such thing and I do not enjoy your hyperbole.
In my experience when announcements are made and timetables shifted, it comes from higher up.
As for 'the most transparent game studio of all time'. Really? I think perhaps you should have followed the Numenera/Torment or Elite crowdfunded projects as a point of reference on that, you would likely have a different opinion.
"What does "running off with the money" even mean?"
I can only presume you have never funded an unsuccessful kickstarter project. I've funded several. They all followed an identical pattern of projects scope / platform changes and dozens of premature 'about to ship, just 1 more month' optimistic updates from CEOs.
Generally 'running off with the money' means taking the money and not delivering a product. In the case of kickstarter, usually using a long series of excuses along the way. It does not literally need to mean catching a flight to some far-off country with the money. Often the money is simply spent while people post misleading updates about the progress of the project. Then the final update: "Sorry, we thought we could deliver. But we can't".
I honestly can't see a difference between what's happening with this projects and the other projects that failed, nor any difference in the communication style, content and frequency. Winning projects don't usually look like this. Numenera didn't. Elite didn't.
"Reminds me of people claiming the lunar landing was faked because they have it in their head that faking the thing and maintaining the charade over decades is somehow cheaper."
Again, you're just being rude and hyperbolic. If you think a kickstarter project involving repeated delays over a period of years - which turn out to be CEO deception about project viability - is 'questioning the moon landing', then you are perhaps naive about crowd funded projects. I am not insulting you by saying this. I simply mean it literally: from what you're saying, it seems you don't know what crowdfunded projects are like. I do. I've wasted plenty of money on them.
I hope star citizen does not turn out to be pie in the sky, partly because the world needs good space sims and partly because I put my own money on the line.
However, projects that suddenly announce changes of this magnitude when they ought to have delivered something years ago, often turn out to have other underlying problems that prevent their ultimate success. Star Citizen has undergone multiple changes of project scope, changes of technology platform, never-ending delays, and it is hard to believe that this is the result of the kind of management that wants to deliver a good product on time and is capable of doing it.
I also funded Elite Dangerous as a kickstarter backer, and I consider it to be a good example of good project management. I have had the pleasure of playing it for years.
As for Elite, that is an excellent example of a project that failed to deliver what it promised. I love Elite, by the way, but the only reason you're touting it here is because it's already out, whereas SC is not. I understand that, you're a gamer, you want something you can play now, not something you can play later.
Here's the thing: Star Citizen and CIG are both plagued with issues. Cultish behaviour from their communities, overpromising tendencies, micromanagement, etc. It's not a flawless game or studio. But game development is hard and game developers are some of the most passionate about their job, of all professions on earth. So it really pisses me off when people start claiming that all they want to do is "run with the money".
It's possible to fail. You're on a forum where people build their own companies from scratch. Most of these people fail. If after dedicating years of your life on your vision while being questioned at every corner you end up failing, that's not "running with the money", that's failing. It's hard, it sucks, it destroys you and this happens to people on here every single day. It's not some kind of goal that they're all looking forward; "oh man I can't wait until we don't have to keep up this charade anymore of pretending to work on the game every day, so that we can enjoy all the jaccuzzis we've been buying!".
You want points of reference, I invite you to look at game studios that actually "take the money and run". Start with Zynga, see how deep that rabbit hole goes.
If that's the best you've seen, I would recommend you to Riot Games excellent series of blog articles on their game design (principles, practice, front end, back end, player management etc). Or... Elite's dev blog and forums, which were excellent?
> As for Elite, that is an excellent example of a project that failed to deliver what it promised.
Uhhh.. no? I think it delivered everything I hoped for, and more? As a player of the original I've been delighted by the scope of the game. Feel welcome to disagree of course, but let's be clear that we're talking opinions not facts.
One thing is for sure: they delivered a game that has given me a lot of fun for a long time.
SC has delivered posts as you say, e.g. about deadlines - that they've missed - it's really much less useful for me in terms of my personal enjoyment.
> But game development is hard
Yes, but looking at peers with less money and grand goals, those peers actually achieved their goals, let's celebrate that maybe a bit more instead?
> So it really pisses me off ...
That's not actually an OK excuse for how you've been writing on here.
> It's possible to fail. You're on a forum where people build their own companies from scratch. Most of these people fail.
Sure, but it's not the 1970s. We should not be celebrating game companies that are in the process of possibly failing, holding them up as gems of the industry (as you appear to be doing, from my perspective), especially when many of their choices lead directly to missed deadlines and the absence of a game for me to play.
> You want points of reference, I invite you to look at game studios that actually "take the money and run". Start with Zynga, see how deep that rabbit hole goes.
Zynga delivered, over and over and over. What they delivered wasn't a game, arguably, more a skinner box, but you'd have a pretty hard time convincing me they entertained fewer people than SC has.
If I can sum up your arguments:
- Elite: a project that failed to deliver what they promised
- Zynga: a game studio that took the money and run
I simply can't see that you would get widespread agreement with those views. They are both profitable companies with hundreds of thousands more happy users of their products than SC has. Zynga in particular didn't even charge for many of their products, so it's a bit hard to claim they 'took the money and ran'.
Anyway, why don't we leave our discussion here. You can post again if you like but I won't respond to it, I don't believe either of us is presenting information that will persuade the other person of their view.
This game is never going to be completed. They've already made their money and have taken on a job that's way more more ambitious then the developers or any of their backers realize.
(I'm not backer, just interested in the game)
Anyone remember the DayZ standalone? People said the same thing about rocket. That he won't abandon his game. He cashed out years ago and the game is still a buggy piece of shit. And that's a far less ambitious game than Star Citizen.
Just because they "want" to build it, doesn't mean that they can or that they won't lose interest in a few years when the interesting bits are done and its just a long road of grinding to actually get something shippable.
The best thing to do from a business perspective is just enough "development" to keep lawsuits at bay. In the meantime you start throwing as much money as you can off the train and jump clear right before it flies off the tracks.
AFAIK, they only have a Linux one, but only for Broadwell and newer. Do you know something about the Windows driver?
FWIW, Duke also swapped graphics and engines several times during development.
Created by a completely independent studio, not the original makers.
The final product is not released, but RSI is the most transparent game studio out there. Alpha Builds of the game are constantly being released, any backer can install it, log into it, give feedback, report bugs etc.
They are releasing early and often.
And I hope if this time Microsoft comes up with a FUD campaign against Vulkan (like what happened with OpenGL) people can just uninstall Windows and try another OS.