Star Citizen should be a B-school case study about how to raise money and make a good living doing what you enjoy.

The fact that they continually raise money over years is telling that RSI is a huge success. [0]

[0] - https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2021-03-15-star-citiz...

The closest thing I can think of is Minecraft, which IMO is a 100x better game but still you can't play it forever. People loved the creativity of it, but even more they liked the idea and the story of the creativity. How many times did you see in a feed that some kid made a computer in minecraft, a display, a life size battleship or tv spaceship. I am sure people see those stories-- think I could do something like that-- and go back to the game. The dream informs the play.

That game came out in March 1999. It's so old, it's creator is dead.

You can play something forever if you're dedicated enough.

Minecraft launched into EA with a game that was still actually fun to play in itself, and asked a moderate fee for access to ongoing improvements.

Star Citizen isn't selling a dream, it's selling plots of land on the moon.

Says you.

The initial folks who figured out how to build a computer a minecraft were very creative.

Rube Goldberg machines I think do involve a fair amount of creativity. it's not because they are physical per-se, but because the physical environment tends to force individual and creative thinking to solve the problems unique to that environment. Physical environments tend to be less homogenized and predictable than digital ones.

Designing and building a replica of a Boeing 747 is less creative than a rube goldberg machine, but depending on how many decisions you made yourself while building it makes it more or less creative.

Wait, how ?

Where are exponents used in Minecraft ?

2^2 = 4

2^3 = 8

You know, as much as I see people complain about their jobs or companies they work for, Chris Roberts has been able to figure it out. His delivery isn’t the best, but many people love the work he does, and that gives him a job for life that he loves.

I think it would be great if everyone on HN would be able to crowdfund a job they love. Some will deliver better than others, but it would probably reduce the stress and frustration about companies that people have.

This has been my impression too of Star Citizen for years now.

I won't be surprised if they soon jump on the crypto bandwagon and start auctioning off ships as blockchain NFTs. Still can't use them in a working game, but you can trade them on crypto markets.

It could be interesting to see markets apply sophisticated valuation tools to the net present value of future Star Citizen cash flows. I bet clever financial engineers could figure out ways continuing the funding and delaying Star Citizen's launch indefinitely.

If you are constantly trying to push some notion of a gigantic, ever-expanding open world, then someone is still going to have to paint within those confines in order to build a meaningful experience. The bigger you make it the harder it is to do this.

If you find yourself in this position (tons of money & time), maybe double down on the idea that you might suck at building engaging creative experiences, but do have the ability to produce profoundly capable tooling & engine code. License the tech out to someone who has a more reasonable creative vision.

This resonates with me. I know from experience that being comfortable stifles your creativity. I've felt more creative and focused while uncomfortable, be it by resource constraints, heartbroken, lonely or angry. At my age I prefer comfort, but I understand why some artists deviate from the norm, and even behave as if they were deliberately seeking a tortured life.

the company has made massive investments tech just around this feedback loop and to entertain these backers. it's a core to what they're doing.

unfortunately, this is not how it was sold when they first launched but that ship has sailed.

this is like WWF of game development. it's fake.

now you get a progress tracker that's fukin versioned to further feed you packets of endorphins to build up this imaginary world that doesn't exist.

I think I see your point.

Also they do things no one asked for like limiting teleporter range.

I understand your point about there not being a lot to do. I mean you're not wrong and if that's what you're looking for, I understand it may not be for you. To me, NMS is really about just chilling out and doing stuff. That stuff is largely self-directed like finding the right kind of planet ofr a base, building that base, getting the ship you want and fully upgrading it. You don't need to do any of that but if you enjoy that you can.

Being open in this way is a key part of fostering emergent player behaviour.

It's also completely OK to play it for awhile and then decide you're done. Personally I've played >200 hours. Every major patch changes and adds to the major storyline so it can be worth starting a new game to see what that's like.

IMO the most interesting thing about NMS is their marketing story. They were able to achieve enormous hype before launch, and since then they've been able to continuously grab headlines with the redemption narrative. I would love to know who's doing their marketing/PR because I believe they are very talented.

X4 Foundations is the new release, but I haven't tried it personally yet.

Major mistake. The game was buggy, and the worlds cold and lifeless. The fanboys excused it as "well, every Egosoft game is released like this... but it gets better after a few updates...."

Haven't played X4 in a long time. I've heard its better, but I would caution people interested in purchasing the game to do their research, and only buy it on sale.

And never buy an Egosoft product within 6 months of release, at a minimum.

It's just how Egosoft works apparently.

Part of me was turned off by how long it seemed to take to travel between systems. I saw some streamers play this and taking an hour to do something like that is just way too much for me.

I was excited about the idea of the new expansion. Like being able to walk around in a world you can fly in seems like such a good addition but I've come to realize that you're really developing a completely different game with almost no crossover.

(To me Elite Dangerous is the VR experience. Anyone who love space and have a chance to try E:D in VR absolutely should do it. I refuse to play E:D in 2D, and I'll probably give Frontier money for the new expansion even if I will not play it for many months just in hope that the game will stay around in years to come to have a chance to scratch my space itch)

Many hobbies take time to prep, do, then clean up after. EG, working on a car/boat, working with hands, or really many hobbies.

Jumping in/out isn't doable. And yes, I know this is a sadness.

But a full life is its own reward too...

But they had to develop this. The fans have been asking for it since forever. I think that what the fans actually really want, isn't just the ability to walk around their ships and look at space stations up close. The FPS game that is built around it isn't actually that interesting to most ED players, and I think the people who will be playing it is a different category of people.

I haven't done much walking around since it's giving me single digit performance on my 4k screen, so I need to get a new graphics card. The flying part is perfectly fine at 60 fps at 4k.

On its face, this seems like an obviously awful idea. Escaping from prison the first time sounds awesome. Escaping from prison the fifth time sounds super boring.

So there is nothing inherent to the topic that makes or breaks this. On an very abstract level it is something that forces you into a different kind of gameplay as a punishment. Whether that different kind of gameplay is engaging or boring is a different can of beans.

History is littered with the corpses of "WoW killers" in the MMORPG genre and nearly all of them touted PvP as their killer feature, usually some form of world PvP. And it never works. Even WoW largely moved away from world PvP in favour of sandboxed PvP (ie arena, battlegrounds).

This focus on PvP is my biggest concern with Ashes of Creation.

The reason it doesn't work is because of people. People do things in PvP because there are no consequences. You don't really die. You can communicate outside of the confines of the game. You know there are no consequences. This leads to antisocial behaviours like griefing even though the griefer gets nothing in-game for doing so.

Many have tried to make in-game consequences to deter griefing and they never work and (IMHO) never will work because in-game isn't reality. Death isn't permanent. Even the permanent death of a character isn't permanent.

Game designers spend so much effort on these systems to appeal to the minority of players and it literally kills games. But no one seems to learn this lesson. Or it's just hubris that "my game will be different".

So what Star Citizen should do is just not have open world PvP, at all. That requires no development effort whatsoever. Maybe you could have an arena or some BG like concept but those are optional and can be added later.

No system will eliminate pointless griefing and you just alienate those who don't want PvP.

Predictably, it does fuckall because the defense turrets on stations can't even hit anyone.

I think the plan is for all landing pads to eventually be replaced with hangars so at least the pad ramming greifers will have to wait until you've gotten in your ship and taken off before they can ruin your fun for cheap entertainment.

There was a bounty hunting system where killed players could put cash on the head of the killer. Groups of do-rights forming into guilds that would actively seek out people pking and griefing just for fun. Killers would also be permanently marked red in their name and banned from cities via the guard system. I think that whole aspect was more fun than the core dungeon component of the game and felt so organic.

Just my 2 cents. I miss when everything was explicitly designed from head to toe in a game design doc.

What stops a griefer from just putting cash on the head of someone they want to torment?

You cannot counter somebody's preference with another preference.

> Killers would also be permanently marked red in their name and banned from cities via the guard system.

...and you are also missing the roleplay aspect of this -- "I am an outlaw!" -- that a lot of people enjoy and get deliberately flagged in order to experience it.

What you describe hasn't been happening in most MMORPGs that tried to have a world PvP. Maybe it happened where you were -- and I'd argue it happened for a limited time. But the points of your parent commenter still stand. It's a gaming dream that just never materializes due to human nature.

Game devs assume that the players will do things that make sense or reward them, and that assumption fails every single time.

What would be your preferred way of me bringing this up with a hot take to his hot take? Apparently a counter isn't valid or you're being pedantic.

> ...and you are also missing the roleplay aspect of this -- "I am an outlaw!" -- that a lot of people enjoy and get deliberately flagged in order to experience it.

Can you elaborate on what you mean here? It was a thing that existed and you were often careful to avoid it otherwise you couldn't access resources in town easily. Also, you would be punished with a "jail" time after you died. Not a permanent death, but the time counter increased per murder. I specifically remember my friend having a player killer character that his own brother poisoned for the bounty. My buddy was quite furious and I believe even got into a fist fight with his brother about it given that character wouldn't be playable for weeks.

> What you describe hasn't been happening in most MMORPGs that tried to have a world PvP.

I mean at the time it was one of the largest MMORPGs on the market. Maybe because in the late 90's early 00's the market was smaller and there was less griefing online, which I don't believe to be true, but the system worked pretty well despite headhunters constantly being around. Perhaps no one has found a solid formula for it or the more modern MMORPG gameplay loop doesn't allow it with the constant fetch and grind.

Well, I don't know English idioms so saying "hot take" to me is netting you a blank stare. I suppose you are simply saying "my opinion differs from yours when it comes to..."? If so, then sorry for my remark, apparently it was misguided.

> It was a thing that existed and you were often careful to avoid it otherwise you couldn't access resources in town easily.

There are people who don't play for resources as a goal or, in general, follow the path that the game creators have outlined for the players. A role-playing "outlaw" experience is basically being a good citizen in the game until you farm enough gear and resources and then turn around and start griefing other players without caring you're denied access to towns because again, you want to roleplay an outlaw. Live in the open, be in constant danger of being killed by a bounty hunter, and not being allowed in the main hubs. Some people are into that.

Time and again, game creators have tried to discourage such behaviours but the thing they keep missing is that some people do things regardless of partially punishing mechanics. Game creators optimize the game flow for people who want to gain stuff with minimum (or reasonable) resistance. And there is no small amount of people whose motivation doesn't fall within those parameters at all.

> but the system worked pretty well despite headhunters constantly being around

I cannot prove it but I'd wager this was due to smaller amount of players and gaming not being as mainstream as it is today. These limiting mechanics simply don't scale after more people start pouring in due to the huge diversity of needs and priorities of the players who joined.

The punishing mechanics are meant to discourage players of a certain state of mind and/or priorities and/or needs. But I've known people who sit at their PCs for 10 hours a day looking for whom to grief (in WoW) with a huge grin on their face during ALL of it. Bored people with comfy lives who had nothing better to do and they were happy to grief all day long. What can you do. Nothing, except leave the game (which I did).

My only conclusion or a fix is: make the punishments much more severe or if even that doesn't work, simply disallow certain behaviours to begin with, e.g. like with WoW's PvP and PvE servers. If you are on the latter, nobody can attack you no matter what (although they do still allow enemy players to kill your friendly NPCs so there griefing can take the form of them denying you quest givers or vendors which is still nasty).

> Perhaps no one has found a solid formula for it or the more modern MMORPG gameplay loop doesn't allow it with the constant fetch and grind.

Yeah, I think so too (agreed with both your points). Most companies are too scared to change anything; the normal [MMO]RPGs make certain amounts of money and they are extremely risk-averse to try anything even slightly new, lest even this revenue dries up (and I'd argue the revenue is less than they want).

It's not like games can't be made to accommodate for all kinds of human nature IMO (and where they can't you can simply use opt-in mechanics, again like PvP or PvE servers). We simply have gotten to the very logical point in time where the market is cornered by several giants and several dozen hard-working smaller studios and it doesn't make financial sense for any company to experiment and look for a better formula.

The reason so many games want "as open as possible" PvP as possible is because of people, too. There are plenty of people who's most fun in any multiplayer comes from acting upon other players and making other players miserable is a very "rewarding" action to them.

That's an entire quadrant of players (Killers) in Bartle's now classic diagram and of the studies that have been done in the past there's a pretty equal distribution of how people self-describe themselves to the four quadrants (and how their stats seem to align in MUDs that used to track such things). Assuming that hypothesis to hold, that's a fourth of the potential audience they lose if they don't have PvP at all, and within that quadrant it always seems like the most vocal in what they play is based on how "open" the PvP is and the raw statistics of the number of people they can act upon ("grief").

I get the impression that many of those vocal "Killer" players that strongly prefer open world PvP are possibly over-represented in MMO design efforts. Two of the quadrants ("Achiever" and "Explorer") are often pleased enough with single player games (and single player game design) to not even see a need for multiplayer games in their lives, and the final "Socializer" quadrant these days is just as often left by game designs to fall through the cracks to "non-games" like Second Life or Discord.

That's precisely correct. I've been in WoW from 2007 to 2012 and you could tell that the people who loved ruining the fun for everybody else were the most vocal in the forums. They also became quite good in painting it with innocent colors: "think of the roleplaying aspect, are you not an RPG anymore?", "the world feels more vibrant and live", "fights for resources happen in the real world, let's have a realistic game" etc.

While in reality they simply enjoy obstructing other people's gaming. And this has been evident for so many years, and it has been known that these people are the minority -- it's truly puzzling why they haven't been shut down, hard, at least a decade ago.

The only good explanation that I have ever found was: part of the game devs are those griefers, and they defend the open-world PvP on internal meetings.

---

The other kinds of players are indeed much more quiet. I personally started playing WoW because I wanted an RPG and I didn't care about the MMO aspect for a long time. But it's what the market had available as the best game in the genre at the time. My regret from back then is that I didn't aggressively scan the market in more details. I surely would have found a single-player RPG to my liking.

The game treats you like an adult that can accept risk and thus the rewards from playing the game are higher for me.

I wish more games took a similar mature approach.

I used to be a pretty hardcore PvPer when I was young then got tired of griefing, being griefed, fixing and getting better gear, spending hours to craft stuff that would be gone in minutes.

Basically, wasting a ton of time.

That may be fine when you're in school, but not when you have a job and a life.

EVE was an outlier probably because they could afford to be with what looked like zero competition in their heyday. Now they sold the game to Pearl Abyss, must have been doing pretty poorly.

It's one of the reasons I left WoW. I don't want to be at the mercy of somebody like you who creatively invents a beautiful justification for stopping me to have my gaming fun.

I am sure whatever it is you are telling to yourself makes sense. But not to me.

You don't need to be flippant about it, if you are so worried about others "ruining" your gaming fun, when why TF are you playing an MMO? That's just like setting yourself up for disappointment.

Much happier on the Switch these days.

I mean you start most TES games in prison.

If it's the former, maybe you tank the stat loss and deal with it. If it's the former, how many times are you actually going to tolerate going to prison rather than loading your save file from before you got caught? In a multiplayer game that's probably not an option. Breaking out of prison multiple times is both annoying and immersion breaking, especially if its the same prison over a short period.

Obviously the concept of a prison break is fine for gameplay. There are whole games dedicated to it. But implementing it as a punishment is by default going to be viewed as either not a punishment, due to it being rewarding, or tedious, because the player doesn't want to do it. Generally speaking, there's intrinsic loss to being put in prison already because you're forced to stop what you were actually trying to do already. Ocarina of Time had the gerudo sequence where you could get thrown into prison if caught, but then hookshot yourself out immediately. That's probably the better choice for most games because having to deal with consequences of prison are very boring. If the system to escape is easy, it should be very short. If it's not easy, you have to question how annoying it is to the player and whether it actually makes the game better.

Yeah, going to prison in video games can be quite fun and dynamic to the point where the scenario is replayable. Helps that there's a different jail in each major city in Skyrim as well.

Don't get caught. And yeah, that's an option, if you're leet enough ;)

PS: I've bought Elite but not Star Citizen ;-)

PPS: I've also bought Elite in 1984 and was blown away.

I've done some ambitious things in my engineering career... nothing like Star Citizen in absolute scope but relative to the resources I had they were ambitious. But I always made sure there was some core I could show off before the project was complete.

If nothing else, Agile (by which I mean more the orginal manifesto rather than any specific thing like "scrum") recommends this sort of approach for a reason. The more parts you develop in isolation in your "ambitious" project, the higher the odds are that when it comes time to put them all together, they won't go together. Games have the extra problem that they can both technically fail to go together as expected, but they can also artistically fail to go together as well, making it even riskier to do this in gaming. Many is the game where the obvious fault lines between the various pieces are plainly visible in the final product. (Heck, The Ubisoft Game™ that they keep remaking and just slapping new skins on is all but a game structure designed to make this approach possible, which is basically why they keep remaking it over and over; it's not that they're artistically committed to it, it's that they've probably structured their entire game making organization around it and the rest is just Conway's Law.)

I still see little reason to expect Star Citizen to ever be anything like the hopes and dreams. I still expect that whatever finally comes out of this process will be profoundly disappointing. The process just can't work.

PS: I've introduced Agile in several companies as CTO, no need to convince me ;-)

Excatly, and it will exactly produce the games we currently have.

Even if they keep going to 10 years, they're doomed. To be relevant 10 years from now, SC is probably going to have to switch engines. That will probably mean starting from scratch on many game systems and assets.

There's a reason you don't see many (or any?) successful games that have a 10+ year development time.

Game engines went through a period where they evolved very quickly, and they are still evolving. But the rate of change is slower, like word processors. It starts to make more sense to evolve them rather than replace them.

Without someone to constrain him he tends to constantly expand the scope of his projects. If people knew about his involvement in the debacle that was Starlancer/Freelancer then they would've seen this coming.

So no, it's not a matter of being 'too ambitious'. It's a matter of shifting the goalposts and expanding the scope of your project to the point that it never actually ships. When he had someone to stop him from doing that he delivered. Without that, he just keeps soaking up money as long as people will enable that behavior.

Still, making everything required for a regular mmorpg takes a lot of time and effort and most doesn't deliver a quality product, so it is still very likely it wont be great.

Elite Dangerous took the more release and then add updates to maintain momentum. A more common approach and how many investors would hang on for all these years, yet for Star Citizen, when the investors are users and the extra's the offer sure do tap into that Whale momentum income and really does seem like a whole new approach to business the way it is panning. Though Kickstarter seem to of coined that.

I love that there's this spectrum of space games in the last few years. Starlink is a fun little game, with a bad rep due to the toys-to-life aspect. (Though also, if you like the toys, they're cheap/clearance nowadays).