Stop Adding New Features? Star Citizen's Biggest Criticisms Can Be Silly But They Might Have a Point

[@SpaceTomato]

This comment section about to be wild, wyd?

[@anno-fw7xn]

MASTER MODE IS KILLING THE GAME!!!11111!! they need to remove it and ad the COD movment as well!!! ( i hope the irony is clear)

[@alexanderdooley5833]

@@anno-fw7xn wut?

[@Nipskie]

@@SpaceTomato 🍿🍿🍿

[@b0ssfight]

In several of your recent videos, you've been saying server-meshing wasn't part of the original game pitch, and only entered the scene in 2015/2016 to dramatically change the scope of the game. I believe you are missing some facts here. Server meshing was part of the discussion around how online gameplay in SC would work since the Idris was first introduced, back during the Kickstarter days. The topic of meshing was always around, and was essential in managing expectations around how multi-crew gameplay would work when ships like the Idris and Bengal were part of the game. Back then, there was a lot of hand-waving around the specifics of how it would work. There was no DGS, RL, NMQ/RMQ and so on. It was just "dynamic meshing", and it was described as a means to have "bubbles" of player groups with dedicated servers interconnected and seamlessly traversible. Been there from the start. What changed in 2016 was the scope of how explorable worlds would work with all of this. Also, the meshing architecture they were trying to make work at the time had some serious bottlenecks that needed a foundational refactor to work with seamless world exploration too. So the effectively, all prior work was scrapped and restarted to factor in the funding and expanded scope of the game. This, also, was something they took a vote on from the player community... to see if the backers wanted CIG to go further, or to shoot lower. It's a real challenge to dig up the old forum posts and video content that supports what I'm saying. I'm unapologetically too busy to bother, really. But, I do believe you are speaking in error here... a little. Other than that, great video. I really appreciate the balanced perspective you bring to the game.

[@polblanes]

​@@b0ssfight Even if server meshing had never been mentioned at all it's a requirement for features that were actually promised, like the ones you mentioned. This whole thing is about people not understanding what it takes to make a game and how ambitious SC has been from the very start. This ambitiousness is the whole reason nobody wanted to fund the game and they had to go for crowdfunding.

[@DarkSpaceStudios]

I dont think the problem is necessarily adding more and more features. I think its the time it takes to develop those features. The unstable state each feature is released in. It runs the question of competency on the developers part. As they keep re-making features they made a decade earlier. For instance, theyre still working out flight models 12 years in.

[@sebc8938]

And many developed features are totally useless. Refueling ? Towing ? Most collectibles on planets ? Medical gameplay ? All animated toilets and shower ?

[@loveghst]

@@sebc8938 It's a space sandbox game, it will never 100% align with how you play, some features are unneccessary, but saying refueling and medical is useless is a bit absurd, it's more things to do in the sandbox game.

[@sebc8938]

@@loveghst Refuelling has been delivered years ago and no one needs it. They already have said there will be gas station in Pyro by the way. Medical gameplay is very complex but useless as the auto-medic-gun solves all and most players kill themselves in case of tier 3 injuries especially if they have a Nursa nearby.

[@loveghst]

@@sebc8938 Now /=/ the future of the game. Just because refueling has been delivered and is not entirely viable now, doesn't mean it won't be useful later. They aren't working on it now, nor are they for medical. Refueling could be a solution to multiship long hauling. Medical could be for minifps wars in the future. You could argue the entire game has no point to it, if you're that cynical. Same argument as before, you don't play the game that way, so you find it useless.

[@G0DKILLER_]

imo the game we have today, was not possible to make 12 years ago. we had the xbox 360 back then. and honestly I don't think they could of made the game any faster or better. I mean people have ideas and ways to do stuff and then 10 years later have better ways of finishing it off. for example, I made a HTML website back when I was in school. now I'm almost 30 and went in and redesigned that website and made it better and way more functional. I mean some people expect the design of a 2024 lambo to have existed back in 1963 when lamborghini was founded. Different times different visions

[@jeffreyhernandez2239]

It's not about the game ever being "released". It's not even about the game being finished. It's that after 12 years, we want just at least ONE feature in the game to be finished and work properly. There are still bugs like not being able to move, not being able to respawn, not being able to spawn your ship, clipping through literally any surface or wall, etc... Its not unreasonable to want a few basic features to be less broken than they are right now.

[@SpaceTomato]

You are absolutely right. I'm not refuting that.

[@myminuteofangle7313]

Totally agree 12 years of a broken game seems highly unlikely that it will be fixable. NOTHING! works as it should... and I mean NOTHING! I believe the community is starting to see this as well. Just to mention one very minor stupid thing for example. My guess a very fix that has been broken for 10 years the mess hall table in the constellation. Small and stupid BUT! WTF. Are they going to go back and fix all the broken crap for the past 12 years? There are thousands of much worse examples than this too. This one is just to show the petty crap that they release and never fix.

[@Calloftheseal-s8m]

@myminuteofangle7313 yea but you're acting like they haven't fixed a ton of them already its way bigger than any game ever made currently so you guys are a bit dramatic

[@AnymMusic]

I will die on this hill, but CIG has a problem of having way too many "idea guys", and too few people who know how to handle priority and deadlines. From Chris Roberts to some of the directors, there's seemingly an endless stream of "ooo, what if we-" and too few "calm down, we have x, y, z to take care of first." (at least in the higher ranks of CIG) Like you said, what IS Star Citizen? What is the core game, the core idea, that NEEDS to be there and that can't possibly wait post a 1.0 live launch? I feel like not even CIG knows, and so the idea guys continue to run rampant without any real idea of priority because "well of course this thing is needed for a 1.0 launch".

[@Kyle-sr6jm]

Plan your work, work your plan. If CIG had a real project manager, Theaters of War would never have been more than a brainstorm around the lunch table.

[@glalih]

what IS Star Citizen? - its no more than 30 features applied in more than 100 games before its time just stringed together using fresh content. They just cant get their shit together. BTW, the "grand" feature of "no loading" is called content stream or async load and its been available to developers since unity3 afaik.... other engines may have their propriatary solutions for loading scenes but i personally created multiple planets, with planetar gravity and it had a p2p multiplayer.... i also hosted my own mmo (private server) and im quite intimate with sharding and intershard communication. Money i gave to SC was prolly the most money i ever wasted... but we all learn on our own mistakes i guess. Hopium is long gone, eyes of a published game developer (which i am) tell me this aint gonna end well.

[@AnymMusic]

@@glalih I'm just here for the ride atp. Spent about $600, most of which on the Railen like a year and a half ago. Now we just sit back, live life, and see how this pans out.

[@polblanes]

@@glalih You sound like you're living on mount Dunning-Krueger mate. "Oh yeah I made a p2p multiplayer and hosted a private mmo server, I surely know all the problems you can have with making a 2000 player server and streaming all the data they do..."

[@CitizenScott]

Been hearing this "CIG don't know what SC is" a lot lately, and that's not true at all. It's a first person space sim MMO. That's it. Under that umbrella are a ton of different things, but that's what it is. They know. We know.

[@travaughnfelix7876]

People argue a lot about adding/removing features, but the whole video missed the argument that people want a game that actually runs reliably, and less burdened by bugs and optimization issues. People will be much happier with whatever content is released for the alpha as long as they can play what’s already implemented RELIABLY.

[@El1qt]

what is the point of having stability if the game is shit?

[@travaughnfelix7876]

@@El1qt Really constructive buddy.

[@El1qt]

@@travaughnfelix7876 I’m telling you right now I would not have bought in the game if the intentions were making the content we have right now stable. This game is trash regardless of the stability issues (which arent even much of a problem tbh). Everything you can do in this game is T0, there is no progression system, there is no economy, there is no incentive behind anything. Not to mention that this ‘MMO’ feels like no man’s sky, all gameloops are isolated, there are no player interactions in the game

[@SpaceTomato]

I tried to touch on this at @03.19. People just want a solid game to play, I get that.

[@RobertTheCoder]

I like reliability, but I think a lot of people will get bored of this game quickly unless it adds more features. eg. I'm only playing this patch because of the cargo update.

[@furyiv]

I wish those ship artists would put their damn pens down and fix the servers!

[@cadmanfox]

Is this sarcasm lol? Because they are different jobs for different people

[@anno-fw7xn]

@@cadmanfox i think it is!

[@Dominus4776]

​@@cadmanfoxhopefully

[@jamescurtis8584]

I went on a CIG studio tour and one idiot custodian had the audacity to be mopping the floor! Why isn't he working on the database??!!

[@0hwenWilsonsNose]

This is a lame argument because maybe if you hired less ship artists that release ships at a glacial pace, you’d have more budget to hire talented engineers and developers :)

[@samgau2]

i only wish CIG would stop pitching more concept ship. and work on the one already sold. am ok with a flight ready ship per year . but you need you team to fix the current ship that are getting worse in every update. i still have to confort my friend that bought the Kranken on first concept. that only see 10 years later it only been push more behind the ironclad. he got fool by the fact the kraken was the only ship with a trailer. and a ingame model at lorville.

[@TimOnTheNet]

This isn't an option.

[@SpaceTomato]

It seems they are trying to split the difference. Working on older ships like the SRV, Polaris, and Legionnaire, while also building new ships. Thet would definitely change that balance up, though.

[@rwentfordable]

*I'm OK with... English isn't that hard.

[@teslacuil1437]

Star citizen is case study in why you generally don't start implementing final art before being feature complete. Every new or reworked feature takes 100 times longer when they also have to rework all of the existing assets to account for it. Of course, they only reached the level of funding they did BECAUSE of the art. That was simply the tradeoff they made to get funding.

[@polblanes]

So what you're saying is the game would not exist at all if they hadn't implemented "final" art before being feature complete. Which is contradictory with the statement that it's a "case study" on why you should not do that... If anything it's a case study on when you Should do that, leading to 700 million dollars in funding and the most ambitious game project being made?

[@cheesesniper473]

Let me summarize for you since you seem to lack advanced reading comprehension: The reason they were able to get the funding they have is the same reason the game will never reach beta.

[@polblanes]

​@@cheesesniper473 that's an incredibly stupid statement. First of all, I guess you know what a beta is: a feature complete version of the game that is mostly bug free and only requires polish. Making a single feature a year, no matter how many features there are to make, means you will eventually reach that point. How does having a moderately stable build throughout the development process prevent you from reaching a beta version? It doesn't. Give a better argument.

[@phxbadash]

@@cheesesniper473 If they keep getting funding and keep releasing features (which they regularily do) it will inevitably reach a point where it is a fully functioning game. It makes 0 sense for them to continue developing indefinitely because that also means they are spending all the money coming in on paying devs to develop forever. They stand to make FAR more profit on a finished project that doesn't take additional resources to work on. Once SQ42 is out the money they bring in for that is pure profit because they don't have to pay the staff costs to develop it further. They can work on a sequel or other titles (even separate from SC entirely) to bring in future revenue.

[@cheesesniper473]

@@phxbadash but why not just stay in development hell if every time you release a concept ship or an "atls" people throw money at you? Makes more sense in that case to stay in alpha so you can continuosly release new game altering things to sell.

[@Zeoran]

ST, I don't think most people are begrudging CIG working on new features or even new ships. But they're upset because CIG puts so little effort into making EXISTING features/ships working properly. There needs to be a better balance between working on new features/ships & making existing ones work properly. Who the hell cares about cargo when the elevators & trams still don't even work properly. They took away internal ship inventory before the rest of the cargo features are in the game, were stuck with only 8scu boxes & the majority of ships don't have internal storage lockers. CIG keeps prioritizing & limiting working gameplay to just a few new ships & gameloops.

[@glalih]

everything is a prototype. Not a single feature in that "game" is publish ready. I got sick of "playing" the game for 2 hours so i would play the game for 15 minutes. Sinked a lot of money in it while hopium kept me going... now ill believe when i see it published and populated with enough players, so fielding 2 capital ships and a proper escort wont take 70% of server population.

[@polblanes]

I don't agree with you. You think they should make things work before they keep developing, but then judge how long it's taking. When a game is made without going into public development or early access or anything like that, it doesn't matter if it runs. Devs can have testing environments as they make the game and just have to fix and optimize most stuff once at the end of development. Nowhere in the entire process do they have an actually production ready build that they can play (or at least that doesn't happen for most games) and when they do have a running build, it's usually incredibly broken all the time anyways. The fact that CIG has to have a playable version during the entirety of the development is probably making it take twice as long and frustrating every developer in the company. But it's the only way they could have been able to make this game because it's a crazy ambitious project no company was willing to fund (and no company will fund ever). So yeah, in my opinion, be grateful we can have this, the game will be better than most games that never see interaction with a community during the development process.

[@CitizenScott]

Almost like it's an alpha huh

[@polblanes]

@@CitizenScott To be fair it's not really an alpha, but I guess that's what alpha means now after most early access dev games.

[@Kessra]

To be fair, when you are on a server that only hosts a couple of people and the server FPS is sitting at around 30 FPS, trains and elevators usually work without issues. Even Benoît Beauséjour (CTO) mentioned it in his SCL talk with Jarred that they are aware that currently the server stability isn't where they would like it to be and that to many pending connections degrade servers over time which results usually in broken elevators and trains or even with falling through planets or ship meshes and other odd behaviors. While static server meshing might not yet be the answer to these problems, as they basically limit just the area where pressure is put on the server but not the actual amount of pressure put onto servers, we still should see a slight improvement over time here. The real promised land though should be dynamic server meshing where more servers taking over work in areas where people do lots of stuff and thus divide the pressure on to multiple ones instead of basically DDOSing their one server dedicated to that region. This though is no excuse that ships like the Hull-C while being worked on several times throughout the year still can't really do its one single gameplay loop propertly, just to name one example here. At least I haven't managed to get it loading at these cubes so far even once and I know other people who experienced the same thing. Sure, from past ISC and SCL we know that each developer works on his/her own version of the game and at one point this needs to be merged back into the upcoming state and this is where things usually fail and cause problems with those loops, it is up to them to improve their environment and probably add stuff to their base branch in smaller iterations and having developers fetch changes in more frequently, as it is pretty much done in any other software development industry out there. There is a reason why SCRUM and agile programming, where usually planning and focus work on a given task is done in a 2 week cycle, gained so much popularity in the past 10-15 years. Working branches are not meant to live for years and never see a merge of the current state into it. Modern software engineering methodologies allows to add in new features rather quickly, get response in early and allow people to integrate other peoples changes into their branch more quickly to limit the complexity of pulled-in changes through merge conflicts and what not. This also ensures that DEVS do not still work on 3.22 base when the actual code base is now 4.0 preparation (most of the preparation stuff is already part of 3.24.2).

[@ricojoe8299]

They could easily fix the bugs that aren't allowing backers to play what they paid for. The Hull -C is a 500doolar ship that cant be used properly because they wont fix the bugs with shipping and stations, The lazors on mining ships for ROC's, Prospectors, and Moles dealing with unusable lazors is not allowing people to enjoy mining or trade running. But hey we got new ships and cargo guys so heres more new things to help you forget about all the simple shit that doesnt work

[@Zerkini]

The Hull C is worse off than even that. Assuming you can call the ship and get it to undock due to the nature of the docking collars in the first place, the tractor beams are busted. If you operate one of the remote tractor beams it operates all of them at the same time. Making it so that when you're trying to tractor items onto the grid you could accidentally grab something with one of the other beams either pulling it off the grid or slamming something into the ship itself. To take it a step farther, removing something from the grid causes that item to teleport to the center of the ship, making you lose the item on the tractor beam even if you're using a hand held beam. Add the inability to dock most times and even though it's possible to fly the ship, it's such a hot mess beyond just the inability to use it for it's intended purpose, that there is no reason at all to go through the effort of undocking the ship to begin with. When they changed the way mining worked, specifically the minimum laser power, it made secondary breaks near impossible to conduct with a ship like the mole as the 10% minimum per laser size (10% for S1, 20% for S2) has made mining insufferable. The long arching requirements to get a profit from mining that continues to escalate make the idea of working in industry make it less and less viable as an enjoyable game loop. Was already bad enough that you needed to spend hours to find suitable materials to mine, followed by multiple breaks, then selecting materials to extract, transport it back to a station to refine, wait a day for refining to finish, finally you had to get an alternate ship to transport materials. All the while at any point during the process you could lose ALL of your progress due to another player attacking you. Where-as combat is go shoot down a few ships, get paid directly to your account. The more they increase the complexity of an already complex system, the less desirable it is becoming in my personal opinion. It has certainly made me second guess if a purchase of an Orion was worth it. Which honestly it likely won't be due to the increased laser sizes, the lack of ability to transfer cargo in an efficient manner, and the likely hood that nothing about the ship is likely to work correctly anyway.

[@Syphirioth]

I had realy good time without much problems after last minor patches. Not in Hull-C tho. But I think people should not realy complain about that ship... Better complain about perseus or something XD. Thats still just whitebox afaik.

[@TheKaluNaama]

what the hell is a lazor?

[@seveneternal7988]

the more bugs they fix, the more time they will spend developing the game. I backed this 10 years ago, i want it to finish development some day.

[@Raums]

My daughter was a toddler when I backed, she's now well into her high school years. Whether you think the feature creep is a problem or not - the AGE of backers is the issue, many of those backers are losing interest in the game. As that happens, money is inevitably going ot start drying up. I've a feeling next financial year will see a small contraction of backing funds if they can't turn things around towards the end of the year, my feelings as a very early backer are very much moving to "I give up". I'm Evocati I'm an MVP back in 2016 I've a 4 digit citizen number If I'm giving up, SC has a problem.

[@StayFrostyOfficial]

Well said o7

[@RobertTheCoder]

I think you are discounting newer backers that are only looking at SC due to the new features being introduced, like me. And as they introduce other features, like base building, you will see even more. And not to mention the hordes of new players that will become PU backers when SQ42 is released.

[@Dracounguis]

I've said this for a while. Get what we have working correctly, and then worry about new stuff. I'd rather have five working game loops than 50 broken ones.

[@SpaceTomato]

Those features will likely just break again when they add other things. Imagine if they got the mission system working, then they added server meshing and had to remake it all over again.

[@Dracounguis]

@@SpaceTomato might be true. Or might be an excuse to not fix anything. 🤷

[@Roboticus_Prime_RC]

I'd settle for not nerfing thing just to sell the new better thing. *cough, ATLS... *cough, Starlancer...

[@alexanderdooley5833]

they were always planning on nerfing those things. the tractor beams will also take batteries nerfing them even more. Too many players think the game is how they want it, but tis not, its a messy ball of clay they keep molding while we play with it.

[@Roboticus_Prime_RC]

@alexanderdooley5833 they never said a thing about making them slow, then selling a $40 point and click solution.

[@mayoluck]

​@@alexanderdooley5833when did they ever say we are about to nerf this item to sell this other item. Bc thats what you are claiming. You wanna adjust thats fine but dont roll out the new adjustment as a cash item even if it does come to the game in 6 months. Its not a ship its a tool needed to complete missions.

[@CitizenScott]

@@alexanderdooley5833 based

[@wraith511802003]

ZERO nerf in a development. You are missing using a term while latching on to a bandwagon mindset you agree with.

[@CitizenScott]

No matter what CIG work on, backers will complain they're not working on everything else.

[@polblanes]

And they will complain that the current release it's buggy and it has to be fixed, and they will complain they implement features in a basic stage that they have to remake later. And all of that while they complain it's taking so long. Huge irony all of it.

[@LucidStrike]

[this tbh Spectrum emoji]

[@ChrisT-pv7nk]

That is not true.

[@LuluGamingDK]

yep, in the end player will ALWAYS fine something new to complain about.

[@sicitydonmo3016]

thats why i love them for giving just a little damn about it.

[@robmccormick8155]

I can wait. I have no real emotional investment in this game. I backed back in 2015 and gave them almost $1000 in 2 separate installments. Knew full well I might never see a finished product. I've played it twice since then playing a total of maybe10 hours combined. I was happy with what I saw. I never understood the outrage but then I had no illusions about what I getting into when I backed.

[@toyahinata]

the "i have no illusions" is the biggest cope i have ever heard to justify lack of ethic in work

[@CitizenScott]

Yup. Financial, emotional, etc., many backers lack the ability to manage their own expectations once they become invested.

[@Rogun987]

I'm with you though I'm only a couple hundred bucks in. I started about 5 years ago and play every now and then when there's some good updates. I reallt don't care how long it takes and ultimately will be bummed but not devastated if the game never makes it. I'm too busy to sit around and raise a fuss over a game

[@pxkqd]

I think one can be illusioned for the future, without being butthurt by the current state or speed. Patience is key. But I wouldn't have pledged without the hope that at some point it would rock.

[@NinjaFresh]

@pxkqd Agreed I didn't back until what i saw looked pretty good. That was back in 2019. I did the same thing with the Forest and 7 Days to Die. I know what to expect with an alpha or beta. At least they are doing more than Diablo 4.

[@TreyCarr]

What actually changed the vision of Star Citizen was vote posed to the backers. Did we want the original vision or did we want to go big with the vision we have now. The backers chose this.

[@SpaceTomato]

Indeed! You can find this mention at 07:09. An important point.

[@gangalo68]

I just glitched through the floor of my Mole. After over a decade of development. Perhaps it’s time to look at the backlog of bugs a tiny bit?

[@hustleculturegrindmedia8079]

me and my friend both fell out of the reclaimers elevator in quantum

[@ironwarr]

@@hustleculturegrindmedia8079 elevators are a no go in quantum, just because of how they're designed, at the moment at least. It was a choice, won't be on their priority list for a while and that decision making is correct

[@gangalo68]

My glitch was when hovering over Lyria at perhaps 50m and I climbed down the stairs to the middle mininglaser. Halfway through I jumped off the ladder and fell through 😵‍💫

[@steellegacy555]

I’ve played thousands of hours and haven’t glitched through a floor in years… simply don’t jump around, climb ladders, or use elevators. Yes I want it to get fixed but there’s hundreds of other worse bugs, and it’s completely avoidable.

[@ironwarr]

@@steellegacy555 this!

[@XxTheodasxX]

CIG dev timeline is extremely long, but mirroring your discussion with ten pound recently, without the increased scope Star Citizen would have been a game we all stopped playing five years ago.

[@captainharlock3998]

SC was like EVE with space legs in the kickstarter. EVE is still going strong after almost 20 years.

[@XxTheodasxX]

@@captainharlock3998 I don’t think that’s an accurate portrayal of what SC was in the kickstarter. EVE is a large scale PvP game. SC in kickstarter was pitched as the “spiritual successor to Freelancer” by Chris. It’s nothing like EVE.

[@timeflex]

Yes, the lack of competition is the only thing that allows CIG to push the release date further and further again and again.

[@SpaceTomato]

It's a hard kinda game to make, but I'm interested in seeing something else come up some day!

[@JollygreenFullSteam]

Stop adding STUPID features.....

[@HavocStylesJoe]

Yup feature creep is real, I quit participation all together even in the community like this. Only poke my head in like now. Just to see.... Same ol shit and drama... See you in another 6 months.

[@trashdoktor]

Or ten years. lol.

[@GameJunky513]

Fr. It's been 2 years since I logged on. I do still watch videos on the game from time to time, because if they game ever does actually get finished it might be the greatest game ever. But here I am 2 years after my last log in seeing shit is still a disaster and no closer to a polished product. 😢

[@SpaceTomato]

That's a good way to do it!

[@Archmage9885]

Remember, Frontier made a very basic game in Elite Dangerous and added to it later. And look how that turned out, a generic game with half-assed new features that felt tacked on. And it was one of Star Citizen's best advertisements.

[@rwentfordable]

Many ED players like myself have thousands of hours and the average player count is higher than SC. The one with no accountability and is more concerned selling jpegs. Look at the number of competed gameplay loops compared to this forever Alpha.

[@Archmage9885]

@@rwentfordable "Completed game-play loops" that are all much simpler than what CIG is trying to make. So that makes sense that they're "completed". "More concerned with selling jpegs". That's why CIG updates Star Citizen much more often and with more features than Elite Dangerous. Also Frontier promised ship interiors and a bunch of other stuff that they now admitted that they can't be bothered to add. After taking players' money. So you know, a scam.

[@asheliagaming]

I am glad someone brings this to light. Rule #1 on building something: start with a good and stable foundation. And THEN expand on it. People are happy to pay for quality. If the base isn't stable and it keeps growing, things only get harder to fix and become more spaghetti coded "patches", never becoming as stable as it should have been from the beginning. I pledged to the game, and I absolutely love what this game could be. I see massive potential and it's been amazing. But after seeing all the hype videos, when I started playing it, it's been constant frustration. Lag and massive desync leading to items disappearing, missions failing, randomly dying for no apparent reason, and much more. I love the cargo update. I love the engineering stuff that's coming. I love the new ships I've seen. But can I enjoy all of it if the basic functionality keeps failing on me? Probably not. The game needs "the right features" as you say... But what it needs above all is stability and reliability of its features. I know it's in alpha, and they have big plans. And I know they actually do work on things and it's not a complete scam. But they surely found a business model to exploit and we all fell for it, as proven by the number how much they've made. It's still in alpha, with a premium shop as if it were released (without the obligations to paying customers bc alpha), and there seem to be no laws forbidding or putting a time limit on such practices. Only good thing is that we can trade half broken ships for store credits to get another instead. But that shouldn't happen in a testing stage. I want to love this game... and if it were stable, I'd pledge more and would even be happy to pay a subscription fee. But with the main focus being on adding, I wonder if we'll ever see a release. My guess is probably not. Because why should they? The motivation to release is to start making money with your product, but since they are already doing that... FTR I'm not complaining about every ship or little feat they add. More about the sheer amount of it, not to mention the soon to come new solar system said to be 3 times bigger than Stanton. That is a lot of content to add to a shaky foundation. Sorry for being negative here. I love the potential I see, but the state and constant bugs making it insanely hard to enjoy playing it.

[@DaimyoSexy]

It's odd you mention "start with a good stable foundation." That is what CIG has been developing... They are literally creating their own engine (StarEngine) which is the stable foundation for everything else. Satisfactory for example started on Unreal Engine (which released in 1998). Rockstar's Rage Engine released in 2006. So given that they are building their own engine (originally migrating to Amazon Lumberyard created in 2016), they aren't actually doing that bad given many big AAA games take 8-10 years to make with a mature engine.

[@subklueless]

I just feel like the core experience should be stable first before a bunch of shit keeps getting added that just keeps breaking the playing expwrience

[@Zeoran]

All of CIG's problems are tied to one word: PRIORITIES

[@anno-fw7xn]

Question waht shuld be the Priorits? building tools to build the game faster? or?

[@AnymMusic]

@@anno-fw7xn That's the thing. We don't know, and CIG seemingly doesn't know either. Like there is no real core idea of what SC is meant to be, even in a rough state.

[@anno-fw7xn]

@@AnymMusic Ther is a core idear, the documents to be faire are over 8 years old but ther are core idear for the game. But again what could be piroty? i hope its just dev tool to make a game faster and better like buildings blocks for the UI. CIG can get a first verison of a UI ingame in less than 2 day ( we had this in some PTU patches) for exmapel the 343 game dev need over 12 month to change ther UI.

[@Zeoran]

@@anno-fw7xn You're missing the point. No ONE thing should be a priority. But clearly what's upsetting most players is that CIG doesn't give ENOUGH priority to existing features/ships, or adding QoL features, BASIC MMO features, etc.

[@AnymMusic]

@@anno-fw7xn There's not 1 thing that I would say needs priority. But if we use engineering for example, afaik that idea has been here for quite a while, yet atp we have so many ships that need to be overhauled for engineering that the backlog of ships just increases even more than it already has. An analogy I saw somewhere sums it up fairly well where CIG tries to build a house, but they constantly overhaul the foundation whilst simultaneously putting down the walls and the 2nd floor of the whole thing. But then once they've re-done the foundation, suddenly the walls don't really fit anymore, rinse and repeat CIG builds and thinks of stuff as they go, causing a big dip in overall productivity cause there's nobody to be able to tell them that no, we need to finish up X first before we can go to Y and fit Y into X instead of overhauling X to fit into Y

[@spacecadet-zero]

I’ve got a ton of enjoyable hours out of SC, more than most released games. That said, I do think they need to focus on stabilizing and fleshing-out existing gameloops and systems after 4.0 instead of just releasing more - for now. I think there’s enough content for a while…if it all works. There’s a lot of existing content people can’t actually access because it’s essentially nonfunctional. For example, I like industry and hauling and the new physical cargo essentially is good with some QoL tweaks. In theory. However, 1. Can’t do ground-based hauling missions where you deliver to planetside salvage yards, factories etc. because the terminals on many don’t work reliably so the cargo is undeliverable. Was advised to only do station-to-station. That’s a lot of content “in” but not available because it’s half-built. 2. Can’t do space freight elevator content with big ships like Hull-C because space loading doesn’t work. More theoretical content not available and therefore not really tested by users. 3. Ran an investigation mission. Couldn’t complete it because it’s bugged and the corpse of the ‘captain’ doesn’t spawn the quest item. Another piece of content in but not available. 4. Personal Hangars and freight elevators unstable, meaning often boxes spawn but the system ignores them and they are uninteractable. Ships have intermittent persistence etc. 5. Distribution Centers - big setpieces with no quests. Fell through the planet. Twitch on A18 and other NPCs don’t give quests And of course all the random ‘suffocate with helmet on’, ‘elevator despawns around you’, ‘ship spontaneously explodes’ etc. that are well known with SC. If just the 5 issues I mentioned above were fixed or finished (and the reputation system balancing), haulers would have like 300% more content to do without them adding new features. I imagine it’s the same with a ton of other loops. I’m not saying that would bring it to release and they shouldn’t add new features or finish the undone gameloops like exploration. But they definitely need to make sure the foundations and walls they’ve already built are structurally sound before trying to put in carpet and appliances.

[@EnergizerCat206]

I don’t mind new features, but I do mind when CIG adds more features on top of half-implemented underlying dependencies. CIG has a problem where they implement a feature badly, try to supplement the bad feature with something objectively worse, then they leave both versions of the feature in game and move on. Now devs have two half-assed versions of the same thing to maintain, test, and support moving forward. That’s bad!! This is some software development lifecycle 101 kinda shit

[@Dorm_]

I would not mind if they did some more polish on the "features" before they release them to the public. Right now it is a chore doing anything in the game, looting is hard even!

[@LucidStrike]

They do plenty of polish. You're literally just not used to alpha software. The level of polish you're used to happens in the last months of a game's development, not YEARS ahead. But 1.0 is where CIG is setting its expectations to meet yours. It's not months away.

[@americahater2]

Downloaded the 'game' again after 2 years because i remembered having fun flying around and mining. Only thing is this time for the last 2 days i never even got off the planet. Spawned on Lorville, couldn't get my equipment from the terminal, elevator wasn't there, train went nuts and didn't even let me out. I'd rather go back those 2 years to random ship explosion and weird glitches, at least i could do something

[@aguspuig6615]

Okay hear me out, they spend a whole year polishing the current game, and make it so its fun and playable, then they start developing new stuff, but only update the game once a year or so, they let us see what they are cooking trough YT so we can give feedback. That way tehy dont have to spend half their effort making quarterly updates work, wich is the main reason tehy are slower than other developers.

[@gk.4102]

People will play the polished version for a week then complain there's nothing else to do and most will not wait for a year for content. Worse if CIG tries to sell ships during that waiting time, most will say CIG is not releasing content only ships hence nobody will buy and CIG will quickly run out of funds and shuts down.

[@kishkin8743]

How about, "stop adding unnecessary tech-debt related to combat and start the rest of the 3/5 of gameplay features not even at yier 0." For example, Data Running is not locked behind back-end tech and low hanging fruit, but they keep revising the combat system for the XX time and won't look at it or work toward the features 70% of the backers want.

[@SpaceTomato]

I agree with that. But I do think data running is locked behind tech. They need a proper coordinate system that can save player-made waypoints in the map in order for us to transfer them. They also need a place for us to view those waypoints. I think the map rework was needed for that latter part.

[@alexanderdooley5833]

If they listen to the backers we get shit like the Carrack.... for years people screamed "GIB CARRACK!!!!" and they got with nothing to do with it... "WTF CIG WHY YOU DO THIS!" foreheads.... people need to shut up.

[@Pixelthekid]

More fanboy drivel.

[@mayoluck]

That ship has almost all of its features missing, thats cig fault. They even said they could do them but chose to make a new ship instead. The Fury.

[@loadingerror9975]

@@Pixelthekid you are overweight. why do you dedicate so much time scouring the internet and keeping up with SC if you dont think its going to turn out good?

[@Kessra]

By that definition we should only have pure combat ships in game as none of the other "professions" is fully integrated. And even with the uproar on all these MM and flight model changes we might claim that even space flight isn't working properly (yet) and thus no ships should be in game, right? It would also not have been a big problem to focus on giving ships like a Herald or an 890J some purpose in a T0/T1 implementation in those past 10 years but CIG obviously had very different plans. The real bummer is though, while people realized that there is a huge backlog of ships to get done and some ships are in that backlog for over 10 years by now, I feel the feature gameplay backlog is even bigger with less people working on these features in general than ship designers and modelers can implement those shiny $$$-cows. Where is the uproar there? I'd rather see fake-it-till-you-make-it done here and at least give an estimation on how a core gamplay loop should look and feel like and iterate on that design to allow people to give feedback on that general design. While Thorsten and his team clearly do their best to get things in to be entertaining and challenging for a long, long time while also factor in the other gameplay loops and human interaction, I feel there is a certain lack of progress here in general. We still miss core gameplay loops like: - insurange gameplay - refining - data hauling - data hacking - data gathering and selling (through scanning or hacking) - ship repair (not the component replacement coming with resource network) - people and vehicle transportation including VIP transportation, drop ship action and "legal" tug-boating missions - science gameplay - agriculture/drug labs - first aid and rescue V2+ - bounty hunting V2 - reputation with meaningful consequences V2+ (like blocking access to various stations and/or services, dynamic (counter) missions, allowing access to various items exclusively, ...) - dynamic environments and economy with NPC haulers, miners ,... through Quanta/StarSim - base building (worked on) - resource network (almost done) Just take the agriculture/drug lab case as example here. CIG could easily use the current existing science and research outposts where people can haul various cargo to that outpost, playing some more or less skill based mini-game at that outpost to convert/refine the input materials to some other output and allow the people to haul/trade that refined products than with other stations/people this way. This will automatically attract other people who may want to snatch some drugs for free and add some natural points to fight control over and thus create organic PvP with also a clear PvE aspect in it, something that CIG is trying really hard to establish. Implementing such a gameplay loop should take ages but has the potential to allow players of various gameplay areas come together and do stuff. This alone affects loops like hauling and (efficient) un/loading services, protection service, piracy and the actual science/agriculture/drug-lab gameplay loop and could be a reason for organizations to fight for the dominance of a particular outpost for quite some time. Of course, it should take some time to convert meaningful quantities to stay in line with the actual value of the input and output goods. Meaning that food and medicine might get produced faster than drugs and based on the precission of the minigame execution either the quality of the output and/or the amount of converted items may vary to reward players for being good at that mini-game loop. Of course, cretain outposts should only allow the legal creation of items while others might allow for the creation of drugs and to make things a bit more interesting these might change over time or require additional steps to "unlock" that feature or bypass some "safty and security regulations", i.e. through hacking. This is just a small example where quick and easy tweaks to gameplay loops can be introduced, even with T1/T2 implementations that get refined over time, to provide players with lots and lots more gameplay activities and stuff to work in a team effort for. No real server meshing needed, plenty of stuff already is in the game and even missing activities can simply be faked for a T0/T1 starter to allow players to have "organic fun" and some natural challenges and team coordination efforts to overcome. Isn't that what a MMO should be in the end?

[@jamieford9391]

"Working" would be nice👍🏼

[@typeaname1]

Peak thumbnail! 😂👌🏻

[@Njwanta]

Planet tech was mentioned about how a cut scene and landing could have been in place but this feature pushed boundaries. I feel that a cut scene jump to pyro is perfect. Flying in the space butwhole is not necessary when it’s pushing out the release of other systems. Build other star systems and use a cut scene between them until meshing gets worked out.

[@Jewifer333x2]

I mean, its pretty simple. They add features but the game is so fucking unstable 90% of the time its impossible to test them in any sensible fashion with the server issues.

[@SpaceTomato]

You mean to say there shouldn't be any new features because the game is unstable?

[@Jewifer333x2]

@@SpaceTomato Im saying their focus needs a definite shift as new features don't really matter if you can't test them in a fashion where they function because the servers aren't imploding.

[@SpaceTomato]

@@Jewifer333x2 The focus has basically been treading water until server meshing is functional. The hope is that does exactly what you're saying. We'll see,

[@WarriorTech_FTW]

One thing i'd love to see them do is finish ships on the pipeline, many of them will require new tech (vulcan for example, will require drone tech and player based ship repair) this would be pretty alright as far as sales go, given that new gameplay loops can be open up a new wave of funding as people want the new ship for the new gameplay loop

[@lut1ne466]

I remember 2014 to 2016 that Chris wanted to create an MMO that was a movie in which we were but extras. This was to be a vast vine scape we could play in. The detractors said cryengine is the wrong platform, the net code and internet itself couldn’t support the details. Some even argued physics itself meant the plan was unworkable. The solution it was argued was dynamic server meshing, dynamic as it was not economically feasible to support the detail with static server meshing as server cost was prohibitive. I love this project, the concept but for me it is at the moment just a tech demo that promises a stable dynamic server meshed cinema quality 60fps environment which we are still to see. Until the foundation is there everything else is just a concept castle in the sky.

[@StayFrostyOfficial]

The sad things is, me and my father love space games and he has liked star citizen for years now. I backed when I was in highschool of 2012, i am now into my 30's and the sad reality is my father will perish long before this game is remotely feature full and playable without major bugs. CIG has to understand people get old, there are already so many players well into their 50s playing this game and in a decade from now half of them probably wont live to see the day this game hit its prime 😞

[@SomethingUndone]

I like where the game is going, I've backed from the beginning and am excited for release, but I'm with you, what they're doing does drive towards a polished release. I think there's low motivation to "release" without hitting the milestones of a massive online game, additionally there's every reason in the world to make sure it's level of polish is as solid as squadron 42, which he doesn't want to be known as a failed or flawed release. This is a passion project, and he has the luxury and motivation to release it in a fully finished and clean state.

[@theadventuresofjimmycrapol8827]

I get the argument, I keep seeing this and that being added, meanwhile the cargo doors on my Carrack are still not working.

[@KildalSC]

Can't wait for Citicen Con. I'm sure there will be new and exciting features, but they've probably been talked about or been on the progress tracker at some point in some way, but just more info on what crafting will look like and potential other reasons to play will be nice.

[@Viktoria_Thaelin]

the foundation on this house of cards is cracked, on uneven ground, and made of paper mache but they keep building more and more stuff on top... it's going to collapse and they're going to slink off into the night leaving us with the rubble...

[@MrGadfly772]

I agree with you about the situation being complex. I think that most players just want to see a commercial release as soon as possible. I definitely think they can wait on releasing new ships. That seems to me to be something that should be added AFTER the game is up and running. They need to develop a new revenue stream other than people buying ships. Server meshing and similar features are nice to see, and I understand their purpose, but it seems frustratingly unbalanced right now. I'm 65, and I want to be able to enjoy this game as a commercial release before I die.

[@Chafarm-n3i]

Both are true, we do need more, but... they concentrate on aspects like increasing volumetric clouds, water effects, fog layers, sun beams, revitalizing city scapes. Very high level, server taxing, things that are pretty but have no practical use. They're doing great work, but I think alot of us prefer fixing ships we already have, adding gameplay, and new solar systems much more than new ships and pretty water effects.

[@SpartanFlyboy]

I don't think they need to stop altogether, but there is such a huge backlog of ancient bugs and glaring failures in design that need to be addressed for the game to be playable now. Instead of fixing those things they just keep adding new stuff... meanwhile I can't move around in my MSR without being ejected into space. Makes it very hard to play the game let alone support the devs.

[@wakirk]

1:40 Wrong. Case in Point: No Man's Sky. When No Man's Sky released, it had no features to speak of except it's most basic game loop of gathering. People still played it. No MP, No Freighters, No Nothing, save for gathering. People still played it. People still defended it, and People still railed on how bad it was. And today, it's the best 'redemption story' out there save for FFXIV. No Man's Sky did what Star Citizen is not doing, and that's the point. No Man's Sky was patched into a 'playable state', not a 'perfect state'. At each major patch, there were a few show stopper bugs that did things like crash the game, corrupt save files etc, and Hello Games would fix these major bugs and then go radio silence anywhere from a few months to a year at times. Some things still had issues, and many features still needed, but it was playable for what it was supposed to be. There are so many 'Show Stopper' bugs right now in Star Citizen, just using the inventory is a pain, or getting in and out of a hanger, or even trying to survive an elevator or tram ride. I am more worried about a game bug killing me then a ganker or pirate. (most likely because the game has already murdered them twice over.) Do we need the features you speak of? Yes. Do we need them now however? No. Right now, We need the game to be in a playable state, and as it is currently, and for a long time now, has not been. Edit: you address some of this just differently then I articulate here. Edit: 14:08 THIS! I have been playing on a $45 only account, trying to work up enough cash to buy my first in game ship, and doing this without combat. Talk about GRIND and an argument for pay to win.

[@Keksuchen1297]

No man Sky was a fully realesed Game with all its bugs and no features. Star Citizen is an ALPHA Game an still in delevompent. And i know it takes them decades but it is still an Alpha.

[@AnymMusic]

@@Keksuchen1297 stop hiding behind the alpha excuse PLEASE

[@sebc8938]

The issues is that usually they describe new features only on papers without concrete preparation of their execution. So when they begin the real design and implementation, they discover many technical difficulties leading to downgrade features. Worst, they usually not finish the features and let them in "temporary" Tier 0 or 1 state with regression bugs accumulating.

[@akiodono]

Sorry @SpaceTomato if I missed the point you was trying to convey, but I think its not that people don't want new features and for all current features to be completed but to see the current features progress with a slow addition of new features. I think it would be rewarding to see out of all the features we currently have, what features are still T0 according to CIG last update (either monthly report, roadmap, RSI website post, etc), what features are finished and are in game (may need some visual polishing but works as intended, and what features are in between. Maybe also showing when these features came out and, might be asking a lot here, when where they last updated since their release. I think the community is upset with new features not because we don't appreciate them but also fear that we get another unfinished product that doesn't truly help the game but add another frustration on what we currently have.

[@dspartridge84]

Your videos always seem to renew my hope ☺️

[@SpaceTomato]

😊

[@absentminded02]

The most fun I've ever had in sc, was during SoO, before people learned you could race to the boss, the emergent groups, the tension, it was amazing. Sure there were issues, mostly server or npc issues, which were frustrating, but even with those, I loved every minute. Since then nothing they have implemented has compelled me to play longer than about an hour every few weeks.

[@thorns]

I was going to list some simple features that would add tons of gameplay, but nothing really matters until the game runs smooth, probably in 4 years when they move from server meshing to dynamic server meshing. Those simple features that wouldn't matter: 1. Player to player bounties 2. Org infrastructure 3. TOW That's it. Those 3 things would do wonders. Anybody else have some simple ones that just need UI and use mechanics already in game?

[@burningphoneix]

The problem is that if it was the opposite, the complaints would still be the same. Players want "stability" but will complain if features slip in the roadmap. If Chris Roberts came up at the next CitizenCon and said "The next year will not have any new features, ships or gameplay loops. We're just working on bug fixes" There won't be a CitizenCon in 2025, the project will sell maybe 20 ships total the next year.

[@donnytheflow]

I think a big part of what CIG get's wrong is outlining what's happening with the funding and development outside of the few folks we've come to know on the dev team. With a handful of ship teams, game designers, etc. we're left to believe that SQ42 is using up the lion share of what remains or there is some wave of location/gameplay/feature reveals incoming that never actually comes (at least until October).

[@MoonHowlerGaming]

This is one of my biggest issues with CIG. They seem unfocused, they keep adding and adding, milking and milking. They don't have a clear vision and target. Coffee Stain had the good sense to wrap up adding new features to Satisfactory, polish the game and release it. CIG should do the same. Polish the bloody thing, fix the 7 million bugs and finish the backlog of sold concept ships, release the game and add new features over time after a thorough testing in the PTU. Coffee stain had a Testing Branch "Experimental" and Stable Branch "Early Access" running side by side permanently. None of this Evocati and ego stroking bull of who get to test. I love SC and I want to play it, but after 8 years and no end in sight, the way they are handling it, is ticking me off.

[@TheAngriestGamer.]

yeah id rather them focus on stability and finishing the features they have now, before working on adding more

[@SpaceTomato]

What if that meant redoing the features again later? If they had finished everything only to realize engineering changed the way components would have to work, they'd have to go back to change it all over again.

[@SpaceTomato]

What if that meant redoing the features again later? If they had finished everything only to realize engineering changed the way components would have to work, they'd have to go back to change it all over again.

[@ShadowOfMachines]

Personally I want more features done. So many ships are either in need or are going to need a ton of work done to accommodate future features that the more get done now the better. Stability and playability are awesome, and I won't complain about that being improved, I just wish it felt like more was happening. I guess we'll see how it feels by the end of the year, might be cool for all I know.

[@pigskinrode0]

@Space Tomato, using GTA as a comparison was well thought out. Very nicely done.

[@CaptainPoldork69]

Game stability should not be a long promised feature that takes an unprecedented timeline. There are many Alpha and Early Access games now that are at least 99% playable still. The conspiracy is how much they spend on toys, props, masks (0:53), sliding doors & backdrops in on the videos. Master Modes still sucks!

[@TruthIsKey369]

This is why I LOVE CIG! Add everything under the sun, that's why they are developing the core tech to support whatever comes next. SQ42 sales alone will make CIG viable for years without backers money, but they will certainly make sure to make money off of supporters regardless. That's their right and if worthy it is worth it

[@wuskers]

PES must take priority but after that. 1. They need to be adding all gameplay loops, science, repair, crafting, bounty hunting capture, etc. then give us the ships that entail that career as you release. 2. Release new worlds, or locations.

[@mortalkombatfight-clubsofi9637]

Im really unhappy with how i can't properly play the Gameplay loops i already have access to. Mining is buggy pretty much every patch, with a few in betweens of course. Buggy missions that dont track. NPCs that 1 shot kill you through multiple walls. I truly hope the stability / servers get better soon..... I never really had a "honeymoon" phase after i started playing more often than years ago. There was a point when everything that was already in-game w

[@CosmicD]

strange they'd ask for less feature, because the game loops aren't properly tied up yet. The thing that puts the desired features on hold is server meshing, which I hope will now go into a final home stretch, after that will be fully working 6 months from now (that's the time I have in my head), they'll be able to add the features that will cause star citizen to be a full fledged game that naturally flows from one gameplay loop into the other.

[@cheesesniper473]

This game looks more like starfield every month. Lots of features and mechanics, with nothing tying it together in any meaningful way. I dont understand how you think any technology fixes a design issue. A bigger engine doesnt fix a car with no undercarriage.

[@neonsamurai2575]

Honestly, i wouldnt mind a full stop for a while in development and they do a like a half year long check on the backlog and then communicate respectfully with us, their backers, or should i say investors , whats priority, whats obsolete by now and what they need to take on next. Its like when someone is at a restaurant, adds more and more to their plate but wont finish anything . . .

[@kennyb5537]

To finish what you start! To stop starting, to start finishing. To underpromise but over deliver, rather than to over promise and under deliver. That's IT project 101, i don't why they don't follow these basic project management principles.

[@RavenStorm332]

I want them to finish the backlog of things but if they can add minor features that would be fleshed out by the big features like engineering and exploration as well as data-running but as long as CIG continues working on the game I'm happy. Also whenever engineering is implemented I'm buying a game package

[@playakoz]

CIG is incompetent and doesn't understand the flow of game development. The game has terrible stability, the combat, "game loops" and everything else has been half baked at best and then put on the back burner for multiple years. Like mentioned in the video the new player experience is atrocious and will turn off most people immediately. Master modes is also an absolute fail, who wants to pilot a spaceship that fly's like ww2 airplane. CIG does not listen to the backers and haven't for some time now. Guess what always work though.....ship sales.

[@El1qt]

everything is bad, stability is saving nothing, doesnt hide the fact that the gameplay is shit. T0 experiences, all gameloops isolated, no economy, no progression system, auec is valueless etc

[@playakoz]

I am an original backer and have watched this game stumble multiple times but this seems like a nose dive to the floor. CIG is nothing but a marketing cash cow now.

[@ephalanx1]

The game was pitched as Star Wars like.. Wing Commander.. it is WW2 in space. They said so from the beginning. What game did you think you were playing?

[@playakoz]

@@ephalanx1 I was there for the original pitch and this was not it.

[@brood_of_vipers]

I enjoy Tomato Talks more than I enjoy playing Star Citizen

[@TairnKA]

I don't mind them adding feature if one; their features that have been promised or hinted at and two; their features that "Players" want (if practical), ie: movable walls for hangers, vertical display cases (armor), etc...? How many Devs does it take and how much time to create a new ship, versus a refit (Gold Star?) of an existing ship, ie: 600i? I'd like to see every "existing" ship being refitted (Gold Star?), or promised ship completed before any "new" ships are added. I had worked 31 years for Boeing (before the recent B.S.) and I'm presuming there's separate groups, ie: "ships", "stations", "UI", "MFDs", etc... so why does it take so long to get things done, haven't they developed processes to produce quality results in a timely manner, ie: "Kaizen"?

[@AnthonySatter]

Good job on this video. Glad to see some positivity in the recent drama.

[@Jarvice]

I do think that CIG has accomplished some impressive stuff like building their own engine and server meshing. It's not uncommon for things like that to take decades. But I do wish they would start to polish the current experience. I can have fun jumping into the game every once in a while and seeing the new developments but it tends to get stale pretty quickly.

[@ShadowGirl-]

I think mostly its actually fleshing out committed features from even the kick-starter days. For example engineering is basically a funding goal that was hit 10+ years ago.

[@bystander85]

I think the main features that are needed to tie all the mechanics cohesively into a game are the missions and economy and I'm surprised these haven't been iterated on more aggressively. From day 1, these are the two most important features that should have evolved the most and be the most polished to tie together all the separate tech demos into an actual cohesive game. The new player experience is also something that should have been iterated on from day one (basically present to the user all the features and mechanics of the game and what they actually can do to interact with all the nodes of the economy). Basically, there should always been some sort of high level "game" presented to the users as they are piecing everything together. Right now it's purely a sandbox. Things can stay a sandbox, but to make the sandbox work, I still think the Economy needs to be the most fleshed out and polished to tie everything together.

[@reptilespantoso]

Bugfixes > (bigger than) new features. Allocate (more) resources to bugfixes? THEN add new features. It's not that difficult a concept. Of course, some people will disagree. But I'm of the opinion that your ship exploding because of some glitch is gamebreaking. Yeah yeah, it's in alpha. If players are fine with that, it will be in alpha for a long time. I still believe in it.

[@Lenartowy]

Tbh i wish they could take a year or at least 6 months to focus on bug fixing. making all ships "gold standard" and polishing features we already have in game, basically to have game more stable, build a solid foundation on what we have on its basics and then add new stuff to make the game more user friendly, a lot of people are loosing cargo due to random explosions, salvage panels appear within few meters so if you are too fast you explode from "nothing", people leave the game because of those things as theres no progression towards new ship after spending hours in game. I absolutely dont mind them taking time to create the game etc, but the entry point is too high for anyone who wanted be considered player and not tester.

[@Wakish0069]

I've been onboard since the day 1 trailer and support CIG taking as much time as they need. I've been pleased with their development from the beginning

[@cheemsdoge]

I feel like CIG’s mindset is “get everything out and work on it later.” The problem with this is when we have way too many features that don’t work consistently, then the game we can play now is unbearable. I have a pretty big group that play together, the problem is we always stop the night after some big mess up happens. (our cargo doesn’t work, we get randomly arrested, our ships don’t store correctly, the mission we wanna do doesn’t work, i can keep going on.) Even if the game isn’t good enough in CIG’s eyes, players would appreciate what they are doing and be way more patient with them if what we have now was a stable gameplay loop.

[@colintate]

Really good vid. I'm happy with the development and approach, but I can understand why others may not be. I hope that a path to 1.0 will help assuage this.

[@Dncmaster]

The people who said 'stop adding new features' will be the same people crying and bitching if they actually did stop adding them, as then they will say 'hur dur CIG no longer cares as they are no longer adding features'

[@anno-fw7xn]

CIG need to be more open about that the dont build a game at the moment, they build tools to build a game, like the AI systeme or the UI buildings blocks stysme.

[@polblanes]

@@anno-fw7xn No. They are building a game too. That means the game isn't finished. And no matter what CIG says, people will always complain because nobody understands game development. We live in a world where the people that don't know anything give their opinion about everything and think they should be listened to.

[@LuluGamingDK]

100% Human Nature

[@Maurice2]

Thanks for the easy code and it’s always a pleasure to watch your vids

[@y2kboy]

Whenever I say I wish they would stop adding features, I really mean I wish CIG would prioritize better. Bed sheet deformation tech is cool and it was critical for capes and other cloth Sim, however, that teams time might have been better spent making hacking gameplay or maybe work on the blueprint crafting system that was announced at Citizencon. I'm waiting as patiently as possible 😅

[@Noflex77]

Good content, GTA 6 should not be compared to SC, SC is crowdfunded so CIG is legally bound to communicate on the développement. The problem with feature is that they are implemented as T0 and have to be sometime completely redone, because the techno is not here yet

[@sebc8938]

I think features developed in the future will be more interesting because they will appear in a now more developed "ecosystem" of other feature. So new gameplay will be more deep and linke3d to existing gameplays. For instance, base building and crafting will instantly be associated to cargo, container handling, mining, engineering and salvaging. Existing feature will also become more interesting as they interact with new feature. For the moment, mining, refining, salvaging, hunting and collecting vegetal is only for selling while in the future they can be precursors of crafing and base building.

[@markdlehane]

After many years following the game, im impressed with it's current state but I think one thing that would give them huge PR boost would be if they occasionally took a few months when they just bug hunt.

[@Captain-Bandolero]

I think Star Citizen’s development should never completely stop. CIG should first focus on finishing the Star Engine, which is the technology that powers the game. By finalizing this engine, they can create a more flexible system where adding new features, ships, and mechanics becomes much smoother and faster. Instead of having to redesign or adjust large parts of the game for every new addition, the game would be set up so that new content can be added easily, almost like plugging in new pieces without breaking or slowing down other parts of the game. This would speed up future development and allow the game to grow more efficiently. They also need to complete the basic gameplay systems so that everything works smoothly and feels natural to the players. After that, the focus should be on finishing server meshing, which will help improve performance, stability, and allow for more players in the universe. Alongside this, they need to focus on polishing the game by fixing bugs and improving the overall experience. Once those key parts are done, they can release version 1.0, but the development shouldn't end there. CIG should keep improving the game over time. They could run a open test version like the Persistent Test Universe (PTU) alongside the main game, where they try out new updates and features. Once everything in the test version is stable, they could move it to the main game and release it as version 1.1, and keep growing the game from there for ever.

[@TheCrab90000]

I'd go ham for Theaters of War again. It is precisely the experience my friends and I would love when we just want to jump in for a bit

[@Zerkini]

I wouldn't care that they made new ships, if they worked on ships that they sold 10 years ago that are currently still just a PNG. I'm talking about ships like the Orion. Sure, I see that there are systems that need to be put in place prior to the ship being a fully functioning version of the Orion depicted, but that has never stopped them in the past from creating and fielding ships that aren't going to be able to conduct their individual role in the past (Starfarer/Reclaimer). To my knowledge the Orion hasn't been worked on at all. At one point they did have it listed on the roadmap, but then later removed it (as well as the apollo). They could also make it a point to correct issues with existing ships that don't function as intended. Also, I'm all for features. But when you still have broken systems like docking (not landing) which haven't worked correctly for years, it makes it hard to support the creation of new features which are also usually bug filled messes. Ships like the latest Hull series ships which you cannot call in without them spawning inside the station. When they do, the outer airlock door doesn't open preventing you access to the ship in a conventional manner. Which (if it didn't phase into the inside of the station) causes you to need to jump through hoops just to go pilot the ship. There have been updates to the way cargo is handled that are counter productive to the enjoyment of the players during the alpha phase. While I understand there is a need to test out systems that they want to implement into the game, it feels like the choice to implement them is out of order. An example would be creating a limited amount of stock that is shared across all shards (because there wouldn't be shards once server meshing is complete) but then we've all been stuck in Stanton since the release of the Persistent universe. So while it makes sense to have some limited stock to make it more realistic, being limited to a single system when that system is in place prevents the game loop from being realized anyway due to the exceptional demand for those goods and no ability to go elsewhere to gather those resources. They've been claiming Pyro was due to come out to the general playerbase for years, and despite multiple times letting us finally access another system to play in (Pyro) they've continued to keep it from the players for a reason I can't understand. They could try and claim it's because it's not done, but it's an alpha and half or more of the things players can do in the game are also not done. So I don't see the purpose. There comes a point from a backers perspective where we'd like to start seeing some meaningful progress that doesn't result in undoing the previous progress. I find that they will go out of their way to immediately address issues with the in-game economy when an error is made in a patch that results in players having unintended easy income. Or miscalculation in the amount players should be rewarded for participating in events. But when it comes to ships with completely and 100% game breaking functionality caused by a patch you end up waiting until they get around to it. Which may not even be the following quarters patch, but potentially a year or more down the road before it's addressed.

[@marcvwest]

Tomato, took your recommendation and decide to post my pet peeve.... Que Music...... One of the most frustrating and counterproductive features for players in this game is cargo hauling. Overall, cargo hauling feels broken and hasn't work for months-whether it's due to the cargo grid, the Cargo Services, the inability to pick up cargo directly from the grid, or the frustrating issue of large ships not being able to dock to access the Trading console for selling wares. However, my biggest frustration lies with the workflow. Let’s set the scene: I want to ship Helium from Seraphim to the Pyro Jump Gate using the Hull C. Seems simple, right? Not quite. First, I have to navigate to a trading console and jump through hoops to get things to work. Once it does, I must select the ship and the cargo grid for picking up my cargo. Why can’t cargo simply be transferred to my warehouse, allowing me to load it onto the cargo grid for large ships or an elevator for smaller ships? This unnecessary complexity disrupts the workflow and feels counterintuitive compared to real-world logistics. Next Steps: After overcoming the hurdle of not being able to send cargo to the warehouse, I need to call my ship. For small ships, the expectation is that it arrives in my hangar. However, if I want to spawn a larger ship at the docking collar, that option isn’t available. So, I call my Hull C, and it arrives in the hangar. I take off and fly to the cargo grid. When it finally works, I load my cargo, but this process is riddled with bugs. Any movement-or sometimes even no movement-can cause issues, requiring me to fidget with the ship and repeatedly enter and exit the cargo grid just to load a few containers. Often, I’m met with the frustrating message that I can’t load my cargo. Once I’ve loaded my ship’s cargo grid, I’m usually told to leave the grid or risk impoundment. If I don’t exit within what feels like an absurdly short time, my ship is impounded, leaving me stranded in space near a station with no external doors to re-enter. After exiting the menu and re-entering the game, I call my ship, and that’s when the real fun begins. No matter what I do, my ship spawns in the hangar instead of at the docking collar, fully loaded with cargo. Even in an XL hangar, this is a chaotic sight. I end up with a bugged-out ship in the hangar, containers flying everywhere, and the ship stuck on the pad, leading to a loss of valuable cargo. Now, let’s assume my ship didn’t get impounded. I finally fly to Pyro. Instead of transferring my cargo directly to the warehouse, I must dock-though, given the frequently malfunctioning docking reticle, this doesn’t always work. Let’s say I manage to dock; I then run to the trading console to sell my wares, only to have to backtrack to the docking collar, fly to the cargo grid, and unload my containers. After navigating through these frustrating scenarios multiple times, the last thing I want to do is go to a trading console to sell my stuff and then return to my ship to unload. This process feels utterly backward, suggesting it was designed by someone with little understanding of supply chain management and distribution. Despite these frustrations, I genuinely love the concept of cargo hauling and enjoy large container hauls. However, the current seven-box missions hold little appeal for me. Here are a few suggestions to enhance the experience and make gameplay more enjoyable: Provide options for ship destinations when calling them (e.g., Hangar or Docking Collar). Enable access to the trading console via the mobi, eliminating the need for constant back-and-forth trips. Prevent fully loaded Hull Cs or larger ships from spawning in the hangar. Always spawn fully loaded ships at the docking port. Fix the docking reticle, which has been buggy for months despite numerous reports. Improve the cargo grid and service announcements to minimize the frustrating cargo loss that occurs frequently. Change the cargo distribution process to move purchased cargo directly to your warehouse inventory instead of a random location. Allow containers to be moved to inventory rather than requiring transfer to ships; when docked at the cargo grid, recognize that cargo is available for transfer. Finally, streamline the sale process: if the mobi trading console were accessible upon arrival at the destination, players could easily sell from their cockpit before transferring cargo. These changes could significantly improve the cargo hauling experience and overall gameplay enjoyment.

[@BigBobBlazer]

Like, creating the MISC Fortune, a competitor to the Vulture when no competitor to the Vulture was needed or asked for. Players DID ask for a ship in between the Vulture and Reclaimer, but apparently that wouldn't yield as much profit for CIG as making another small, pointless ship. Kind of like the Cutter Scout, a shameless variant solely aimed and generating more revenue with minimal effort. Especially since CIG said they wouldn't add ships without their intended gameplay anymore.

[@malikthebarbarian6815]

Idk man. I don't think we have a game at all without these features. Without server meshing or at least 5 systems. Or ways to get to those systems. Without Hull Es and Ironclads. Without Krakens. No Idris or Javelins flying around. What are we even doing? A giant shopping mall system and 1 or 2 adventure zones? Is that really the game we were hoping for?

[@Chooie6]

There's a fine line between too much and not enough. There is a big need of certain core features and in a sense less of a need of more ships. Honestly it all hinges server meshing imo as long as that works out and becomes stable I think they'll be able to deliver on everything.

[@mrscsi6472]

the thing is that cig aren’t really adding features. the catch is they already promised a ton of features back in the stretch goal days. so they’re sort of playing catch up with themselves, trying to build the game they were trying to make before. the single biggest bit of scope creep was the planet tech. sure, implementing it by itself was challenging, and it’s more or less ready, but all the features in the game were designed around hangers, cities, settlements, space stations, fps combat areas, and derelicts being self contained areas with no gameplay between aside from space battles. picture starfield, but replacing the loading screen with a scripted sequence where your ship flies down through the planet’s atmosphere on autopilot, and you’re pretty close to what star citizen was supposed to be. but now everything in a star system is part of the same environment, complicating everything. take server meshing. before, it would be relatively straightforward, with each instanced area being a separate server stitched together via quantum travel which served as a diagetic loading screen. this means everything you can see is on the same server as you, because it’s all part of the same instanced area. leaving one area requires quantum travel, and anything on the traveling ship leaves together, sort of like a matchmaking lobby in games like CoD but with a single game space for the entire solar system, it’s now this involved process that dynamically partitions sections of a single level where some entities on the server interact with entities on potentially different servers, and everything needs to transition between them seamlessly. there also needs to be an intermediate layer that needs to be constantly monitoring every single server and replicating the data each individual entity needs.

[@swtblake]

I definitely believe there's some core gameplay features we need to see for a full release, including the "level up" system they've talked about and is present in most MMOs. But it sucks to see ships worked on and released with their game loop being non existent, that's just poor planning all around. I'm sure they have tons of things they can bring over from Squadron and are planning to do just that, however the implementation of it is just hot garbage. Everything about what the game COULD be, has me more excited than any other game I've played/seen. That being said, the way that they do marketing, PR, and general updates, makes it hard for ANYONE not to be frustrated. I haven't been able to play the game in nearly a month because of the bug where I can't get to my hanger or call any ships up. These things can't exist in the game with no work around, it's straight up broken.

[@RespiteofChampions]

Thank you. Thank you for bringing up the best counterargument for the dumb "Just stop adding new stuff already" whining.

[@randomuserame]

They can add new features once the backlog of stuff they already promised is in and working without serious bugs. I get that certain back-end things need to happen for some of it... in which case EA was ludicrously too early... given that 12 years later, they still haven't happened.

[@Cursethedawn]

I think the players that bought the game 10 years ago have different expectations than the new players that join it today. New players come into Star Citizen expecting a higher level of play ability and stability from current early access titles such as Satisfactory as you mentioned. Of the 3 referrals I've been able to sign up, 2 got a refunds due to stability issues and inability to even finish a basic mission. In contrast players that joined years ago are living on the promises of features new players never even heard about. Ten years is a huge expanse of time for game development. New players joining the game will never see the big picture or even care frankly. They just want a fun game to play, then if they have fun and stick around that's when they'll dig deeper and get excited about what's coming. You're not going to impress players with future promises if your current implementations are failing. CIG needs to really focus on a stable core game play loop that players can reliably fall back on when new features fail. As the name say the PTU is for testing new features, the PU is for stable game play that brings in new players. Everyone says there aren't enough people in the PTU for proper testing, but I believe there would be if CIG "paid" their testers with in game bonuses, unique paints, etc. People aren't going to work for you if they're working for free. Keep the bugs out of the PTU until they're worked out. It might take longer to get new safe features into the PU but player retention would greatly benefit. Having a stable PU is the key to recruiting new people and keeping them. So basically don't stop new features, just keep them out of the PU until they're properly tested. I don't think people mind new features, they mind the bugs and instability that comes with them.

[@paulvarn4712]

So easy to ignore this feature glut was demanded by the community year after year. Alpha by CIG's definition is "feature complete." All present features are place holders for iteration and refinement. Beta is optimization and bug fixing THEN release in the most playable state possible.

[@4tonmike]

I think it's understandable and reasonable that people who paid for the game get assurance that stability and playability get tangible assurances that those things are getting prioritized instead of what is essentially more broken monetized DLC for a half-baked tech demo.

[@Oh_Foe_Sho]

I have slowly upgraded from my Aurora pledge and now I am waiting on the Zeus MK2. I think to go higher than this I will expect more from the game. but until them please spend your money other people.

[@sebc8938]

The game is clearly lacking many feature it needs though. We currently have no social interactions with most NPCs except a few manually developed one. The only interaction with most NPC is killing them. This game needs that to have more varied and interesting missions not using only the mobi-app. Investigation and real bounty hunting missions at least.