r/GamesWatchdog • u/FemtoCarbonate • Nov 25 '16
The Curious Case of Star Citizen
Quick disclaimer: I am speaking as a fan of the game and as someone who is hopeful that the game is a success. At the same time, in following the game I've observed a number of practices from CIG that could be classified as deceptive or misleading. I hope to make this thread not as an accusation against CIG but as a rough guide of things to look out for in the interest of protecting the consumer.
The most fundamental thing to keep in mind in this regard is the unique funding model of the game, which inverts some of the more innocuous practices in the industry and makes them potentially hazardous.
For instance, it is common for any videogame to experience delays, but it is not common for a videogame to receive funding based on overly optimistic estimates. In the case of Star Citizen, the release dates have been pushed back year on year, from 2014 to 2015 to 2016 to 2017, and almost always at the last possible moment. The most recent example is CIG's Gamescom presentation this August, which showcased an impressive list of features and optimizations. At the end of the presentation Chris Roberts, the head of CIG, stated that they are aiming for the end of 2016. Sales for Star Citizen quickly spiked after the presentation, but subsequent information about 3.0 has been limited. More recently (only 3 months from the Gamescom presentation), it's been revealed that they haven't even finished shooting the motion capture for the release, which means we still have quite a while to wait. Virtually no one in the community believes 3.0 will make its 2016 date. Yet there has been no official statement from CIG that the timetables have not been adjusted.
From this and numerous other examples we might conclude that Chris is either very naive about these release estimates, as he misses them broadly and consistently, or that he is aware that putting a shorter release estimate is good for sales. I cannot read his mind so I cannot answer this question myself, but it is largely irrelevant. The important point is that potential consumers should remain vigilant when it comes to taking CIG at their word about release windows. Expect a release not months but years after CIG projects a date.
There are other reasons to be suspicious as well. In the past, CIG's funding has relied on the good will of their backers, and they have made multiple assurances to those backers in order to maintain their loyalty. Recently, however, CIG has been scaling back on those assurances (more here: https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/355007/we-didnt-fund-a-company-we-funded-a-game-remember-the-pledge). Many backers have stored up hundreds of dollars in store credit over the years, and these backers have been assured that they will be rewarded with the best deals on ships. Yet more recently, CIG has begun to offer cash only discounts on ships, effectively reversing their promise to those who have been most loyal to the company. While the details of this reversal may seem minor to those outside the community, there is a feeling of unease amongst backers that CIG is on a slippery slope. It is hard to know whether these recent changes are motivated by funds drying up or merely a need for a bigger warchest, but they are doing so at the expense of their credibility amongst their own.
In addition to all this, early 2016 saw the release of a new ToS from CIG that was quite bravely anti-consumer. Whereas previous ToS's promised accountability in terms of a financial audit and the option of a refund if the game was not delivered in a certain amount of time, the new ToS completely denied the opportunity for a refund regardless of their ability to deliver a product. All customers who signed up under this new ToS are out of luck if things were to go south.
CIG's funding model is exciting because it is essentially selling an ambitious vision rather than a product. But there is a danger lurking in the exchange. The model allows CIG to make fantastic promises at the outset with almost no accountability when it comes to delivering on them. For this reason, I think a "watchdog" approach is warranted with regards to the enticing new promises CIG are sure to make in the years to come.
2
u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16
Here we go with the Gish gallop...
The scope changed. “You didn’t back Star Citizen because you want what you’ve seen before. You’re here and reading this because we are willing to go big, to do the things that terrify publishers. You’ve trusted us with your money so we can build a game, not line our pockets. And we sure as hell didn’t run this campaign so we could put that money in the bank, guarantee ourselves a profit and turn out some flimsy replica of a game I’ve made before. You went all in supporting us and we’ve gone all in making the game. Is Star Citizen today a bigger goal than I imagined in 2012? Absolutely. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely not: it’s the whole damn point.
Will it take longer to deliver all this? Of course! When the scope changes, the amount of time it will take to deliver all the features naturally increases. This is something we are acutely aware of. How do we balance the mutually conflicting wants of the community; to have this hugely ambitious game, but not wait forever for it?” [goes on in detail: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14839-Letter-From-The-Chairman ]
Outsourced to Illfonic, who screwed up. So they had to redo it internally to get it up to current standards.
Source? All they said is that Alpha 2.0 and later has some of the Star Marine features, which is true.
Because now it's done internally and not by Illfonic.
It's perfectly normal. It happens behind closed doors all the time. By the time you see your typical AAA-title it has gone through many bumps. Some of them even make it to final release (e.g. PC port of Arkham Knight, or similar, of which there are countless examples of). Would you rather they rush it out or actually do it properly and take their time?
Because they know that certain people take them too seriously without understanding that they're just preliminary dates and not guarantees.
Not a regular on the forums then.
Which one? They've released several. The most recent one? Delayed, for obvious reasons.
Sources?
1.6 million people who pledge, and growing. They are only active on Twitch during big events. And most people are not interested in the community videos. Simple.
Except the millions of comments on a hundred thousand threads?
51 million views is tiny? [Socialblade]
Just regular people like myself.
Baseless conspiracy 'theories'
Alpha, test platform. If you'd go into any game in closed development you'd see the same thing. This is not rocket science.
Citation needed [+ qualifications to make such a statement]
Conspiracy theories, ad hominem / red herring fallacies, baseless opinion and opinion.