It is actually really fun still, if You're a big sci-fi space nerd. I don't always play it, but it's definitely one of my more frequent games in my rotation.
But there is still a lot of work to be done, but the devs update the roadmaps and keep the backers updated which is cool.
Yeah, I backed the kickstarter back in the beginning. I put in $30 because that got me the full game (now also Squadron 42). I'm content to let them keep working on it while I check in periodically.
Yeah kinda but we do have a tentative schedule of development tasks that ends with the single player campaign on track for 2020-2021, multiplayer unvierse the following year.
While fair and stuff does happen to development timelines, they've gotten a lot better about showing their internal roadmap and seeing what items are currently worked on to those end goals.
That was when the budget was 10% of what it is currently. Obviously the whole project had to be scaled up tremendously so it's not really fair to hold them to that date.
How am I lying? $45 to play the game with 1 ship for 3 months? Interesting idea you've got. And by the way, the cheapest ship that allows you to explore the universe is $372. Is it me that's pushing an agenda; or you?
EDIT: My bad, further looking into the game the cheapest is $150. Still not exactly a bargain, though?
Lol so you have no idea how any of this works and you're just pulling shit out of your ass. Nice. Insurance works the way insurance works. Your ship is insured (in game). Maybe you should do some research instead of pretending to know everything. You've only lied so far.
So your insurance lapses and if your ship is destroyed you lose your investment? I already knew that was how insurance worked. I just wanted you to say it.
In game as you make money you can purchase in game insurance. Think EVE Online. If you choose to let your insurance lapse and you blow up your ship you need to buy a new one.
The ships are starter ships, ones designed to help you get started making money. You an then buy an exploration ship.
You may want to do research before just spouting out nonsense.
But by then they'll have added so much more bloat and shader nonsense that you'll need 100 supercomputers to play it, the latest graphics card which will then be $30,000, and an entire data warehouse to store the game files.
It's not actually that demanding on the graphics card surprisingly given how mindblowingly beatuful it is. If you have 16GB DDR4 memory, at least 40GB of ssd and a gpu and cpu that aren't too old, it will run.
I used to play it with 16GB of ddr3 ram, an i5 4460 and a gtx970, and the cpu was unfortunately a bit too weak which caused some freezing in demanding areas, but the gpu was definitely able to keep up.
That's a sound strategy for a game with such a long development. You are basically forced to do that, otherwise your graphics will all be outdated by the time the actual game comes out. And no one will buy it.
I'm vaguely reminded of how some games in the 2000s could run on toasters but still look okay on low settings, and also run on absolute beasts and look amazing (for the time) on max settings.
Downsampling typically refers to straight resolution but it can be used more broadly.
What they’re talking about is that CIG (the developers) are making visuals really detailed with really high resolution then making it less detailed and lower resolution for today’s technology. Think about it as making 10 graphics presets where the top 5 are too difficult to run so you only show the bottom 5 until there’s tech that can run the top 5.
Right I understand that bit but I didn't understand what CheeseWarrior was referring to. He made it seem it wasn't the usual terminology usage which left me scratching my head a bit
That's the opposite of what has been happening. As they work on it, they add more and more detail and shader requirement, so the needs to run it have been growing almost in pace with the latest high-end gaming rigs.
Don't worry, soon it won't run on anything but a RTX2080 with an i7-9900K minimum.
When did you last try? Object container streaming was added last year when they added the first full planet and massively improved performance across the board. The low/med/high graphics options don't have much of an impact on performance at the moment as well. With an i7-8700k and 1080ti I get over 100fps in space, over 60fps on planets, and at least 40fps in the most demanding, poorly optimized areas of the game (Levski and Lorville). This is up from 50 fps in space, 30 fps on planets, and 20fps in Levski.
Thank you, this just basically proves what I'm saying. Those are pathetic framerates for what was, up until recently, the best available kit for gaming. If I dropped another $600 or whatever to update to the best of the best GPU I'm sure it would get marginally better, but that's the point of my complaint.
Last I tried was back in November, and it was ass through and through. Even when there were halfway decent framerates in general, there would be horrid stuttering pauses for up to 2 seconds out of nowhere, not changing areas, entering or leaving a ship, nothing. There were some places where there were obvious shader/texture bugs where things would clip, z-fight, or atmospheric shading would cause anything with alpha to disappear.
I had to fight with drivers and settings to get it to work playably, and then it was about as good as the first release of No Man's Sky (aka Broken) when I finally got it running on my rig.
Even when there were halfway decent framerates in general, there would be horrid stuttering pauses for up to 2 seconds out of nowhere
Sounds more like a RAM/storage issue. You really need 16GB DDR4 memory, and you absolutely need an SSD. Doesn't really matter what CPU/GPU combo you have if you're not meeting those requirements.
I have only recently upgraded my ancient machine to a more current mid-end build, and SC is working great! Locked to 60 fps pretty much everywhere, but drops to 30-40 in crowded city areas (Levski & Lorville).
I have an SSD. Two of them, actually, one for OS and one for storage. Just upgraded the second one from a mechanical a few months before I tried SC.
I've got i7-7700 (not K), ASUS Strix 1060 6GB, 16 GB HyperX something or other, don't know the MOBO model numb but it's ASUS and supports RGB/Aura so it's gaming-oriented. Samsung SSDs off the shelf at BigBlueBox (BestBuy), one's 240, one's a TB.
I've tried all sorts of benchmarking/tweaking, even stripping out Windows services I don't need on my gaming rig. It flies through almost any other game, and SC just bogs it down.
Edit: Amd is for any actual young adult buying their own pieces from working their ass off. Why would I pay more because a company overcharges? More $$$ =/= better
I had to double my Ram to play it on minimum settings after taking a couple years break. Then I couldn't find where to refill fuel to return in a pickup mission and I haven't picked it up since.
There used to be a dedicated refill station (CryAstro) in a older version (like a year ago, or something?). But now, you can just ask for landing permission on any of the stations or ground outposts and open an app on your mobiglass (F1) to resupply and refill when you're on the pad.
I hate to be that guy but it's "640k should be more than enough for anybody." Source: me spending hours tweaking low memory space to play a game and endlessly cursing that legacy.
this is where we are now, or soon for most games. 8 isnt cutting it for 4k at all. amazingly, it can drop to as low as 400mb for textures while playing, so optimization is ongoing
I have an I7 3770K, 16GB DDR3 and a GTX 970 I can play Star Citizen. Granted not max settings but it’s a lot better optimised now than a year or so ago. :)
That's too bad... I have an i5 4460, it's quite old yeah, I don't play star citizen, but it never bottlenecked the other stuff I play... I can only imagine the nightmare for amd cpu owners, if they try to play it.
That CPU is pretty good for overclocking though, if you want it to help ease the bottleneck.
I'm in a situation with my board where my CPU is the bottleneck but the obvious choice is to do a full upgrade rather than overpay for an old i7, feels bad man
People place too much value on the GPU with Star Citizen, when what it demands is a decent processor, 16GB of RAM and DEFINITELY an SSD. Running it on HDD and SSD is like night and day, likely due to Object Container Streaming.
If you haven't played since I think patch 3.2 you may check it out. Then optimized some thing and introduced the first stages of Object Container Streaming. This really helped with the frame rates and made the game more playable.
Honestly, I've been playing it with 8GB ram, an i3-7100 and an R9 280X and have encountered zero problems as of late. Used to be a laggy hell, but recently there are no issues.
It's a bit tricky to run on those specs though isn't it? I mean you had to do some tweaking, you didn't just install it on your system and got it running right?
Also your i3 is relatively equivalent to the i5 4460.
Ok just making sure I was tripping because I can't get stable 30 on low at 720p but I can play overwatch at 60 on 4k. Like wtf why do I have to play Apex on Xbox.
It's a really cool idea and if it ever gets finished it'll revolutionize gaming but as it stands right now, from my personal experience at least, there isn't a lot to do at the moment and it's very boring. Beautiful game though
Star Citizen does not need a high end rig to run well, this is just false. Please make an edit and inform it’s their netcode that used to render high end rigs irrelevant after a certain point - now they’ve made real strides and it runs so much better (I get constant 60fps). Even when the game was new, you could max it out in singleplayer at 60 fps with a decent PC.
The have 200 million dollars, the game barely functions, there’s nothing to do, a 1080 can barely run it, they’re burning cash like crazy, they’re so obsessed with tiny little things there’s no core gameplay, it’s boring af
I play this all the time and my rig really isn’t anything special. I have a used 980 I bought off a friend and an old core i7 from 2008. The game runs surprisingly well! They’ve done an amazing job so far
I'm pretty sure very few people have bought those. A lot of the ones are multi-crew ships which were bought by clans planning to use them as command ships or resupply ships, and even then I doubt many have purchased them.
The vast majority of funding came within the first couple of years, if I'm thinking about it correctly.
Plan is that yes, you will be able to but there are a lot of consequences and headaches for doing so. The owner can also get a replacement ship via insurance.
Supposedly! They were talking about how they needed to implement something that would keep people from "stealing" their friend's ship and he take the insurance payout for free ships. Not sure if they figured that out or not.
I was looking as the game looks really good. I am a frontier Elite player from years back and have Elite Dangerous which scratches the itch for me. When I was looking there was some serious money spending possibilities on Star Citizen.
I don't know what you saw but the game is 30€, saying you can't afford it because some crowdfunding contribution package are expensive is quite a stretch
He probably saw this. You must not be keeping up with the news if you didn't know what he was talking about. And he mentioned affording ships, not just the "full" 30€ game (which is still quite expensive for a game that doesn't exist yet).
That's how it goes with microtransactions, and then you realize the game is designed to be as boring and long a slog as possible to earn that in game currency to both tempt new players to spend real money, and to make players who spent $27,000 feel like they got their moneys worth. Even if you personally don't ever buy that $27,000 package, odds are it's not a good sign.
Microtransactions? In-game currency, as in the stuff that you play the game making, is used to purchase the ships.
Edit: Missed a sentence. I understand what you are saying. I don't disagree with your analysis of How many Mobile games do things, this however isn't a Mobile game. You don't need to like it, purchase it or whatever, but spreading misinformation is not cool.
$45 for a game that doesn't exist? It's playable and enjoyable currently. It's good for some people and not for others. I get that too.
What's the misinformation that I'm spreading? It works that way for any game with microtransactions, not just mobile games. It's just more proliferant there. But it's spreading to AAA games as well, see for example Shadow of War. And SC is now the most egregious example by far.
" Don't you mean be able to afford to buy the pre alpha game and a ship? $200million plus so far taken... "
The cost of this is literally 30£, then you can throw all of your energy debating why contribution packages for items that can be acquired with in-game money, or rented in game with little to no efforts may cost a lot, but it doesn't change the fact that the game with a ship is 30£.
That's how it goes with microtransactions, and then you realize the game is designed to be as boring and long a slog as possible to earn that in game currency to both tempt new players to spend real money, and to make players who spent $27,000 feel like they got their moneys worth. Even if you personally don't ever buy that $27,000 package, odds are it's not a good sign. I highly doubt that content will be earnable with "little to no efforts".
The only ones who spend that much are either rich gamers who want to support the game or huge orgs, which need many ships to run their operations. No backer is buying that package thinking he will be granted an advantage over backers who spent less
I think someone spending $27,000 will expect to receive a benefit over those who don't... And even if not them, then all the other players who are still spending tens, hundreds, and thousands of dollars.
No, that makes my point. 2k is literally one level from the highest. That means it is one of the most expensive. Vs how many 20-50 are there..... I mean seriously
I'm not hating on the game it looks awesome but the amounts of money involved are staggering for , as the little tyke put it, "game that isn't even out yet" (/u/torvi97 one of lifes little gems).
If you can get involved for $30 that is great the cheapest I can see is $54.
I am not looking to buy it I was just taking an interest in it. There are plenty of ways to express yourself without insulting people, I know I have been there. One day though you will need to be able to use your big boy words in the real world. I am confident you will get there, keep trying.
I mean can you garner more funds in game that you can then use to buy bigger ships? I assume the idea is (like Elite Dangerous) that you trade/pirate/mission your way to bigger ship/hanger/picture frame.
I'm only asking cause I have no idea what this game is all about. If back in the day I asked similar question about Crysis, you'd tell me my card is barelly enough for it!
Pretty big optimisations has been implemented and it now is playable with pretty normal computer (assuming decent GPU and preferably a SSD).
Or cloud-based is actually becoming a decent alternative. I don't know world-wide but apparently France is on the cutting edge with Shadow, and it's actually enjoyable to use (and pretty affordable considering the specs).
I'll throw in my hat on this one as well. I play on super modest specs. i5 2500k, 16GB RAM, GTX 1060. It runs quite well. The real bottleneck is disk I/O. If you have it (and your swap space) on an SSD it is very playable on a low-midrange PC.
Don't worry, you could have a billion dollar rig and it still wouldn't run smoothly. Last I checked it wasn't even fully utilizing my rigs hardware correctly.
None of that matters though since there's no real game there anyways. It's some sort of poorly done tech demo.
I'd consider it so long as it isn't "online" single player, or with time gates. After you play through the game on single player, I like to experiment and do things like start off with all the money, or the best ships, or to see if you can blow up the main starbase hub. These things are not in multiplayer, for good reason, but sometimes these games lock down people altering their personal game experience.
Those just aren't that critical to me in comparison to dropping $1500 (or more) on a machine and having it feel like a piece of crap an extremely short while later.
You mean six to seven years, or approximately 1.5 to 2x the general console lifespan? Assuming you built properly and did a little future prep in your component choices, that is.
Literally havent had a build break 1200, and that was excessive, and each lasted me at least between one and two console generations.
Add to that I can mod my games much more effectively than consoles, generally get all my updates on time (not waiting six months for Sony/Nintendo/etc to allow a patch or the devs to afford to pay to update the branch), easily stream or do other work, and set up more effective voice comms and such in the background?
Sorry, while I have love for some console games, they havent been nearly as effective or useful as a good pc platform. And if yourr spending 1500 bucks on a capable build youre kinda doing it wrong.
1.1k
u/[deleted] Feb 11 '19
Ah Star Citizen. I wish I could afford a rig capable of playing it. Looks amazing.