WHY BUYING THE NEW RSI GALAXY IS A REALLY BAD IDEA!

Concept ships ruin the game for both old and new players alike, I discuss why CIG is still releasing concept ships for sale, and give my opinon as a professional Game Marketer and Developer how they can do better and why!

[@santobell]

I agree that most ships sold to us should be done so in a ready to fly state (Sans gameplay or not), that was attempted a few years back where CIG tried to focus on ready to fly sales over concepts but didn't last as a sales model. There is little to no excuse for smaller ships not to release on sale, as for large ships... One of the main reasons for big ships not coming from concept to PU is the back end tech, right now large ships are not tenable in the live game environment. As the near release server tech hits shelves we may see and increase in big ship development and actual use and deployment in game. Not only backend but big ships need big spaces and larger populations to be truly useful in game, we just don't have that now. Pyro --> Nyx --> Odin (and their adjoining game loops) then larger ships as a focus. Anyone waiting on truly big ships like the endeavor should stop and take a moment to realize these will be the last in the long pipeline as so many small things need to lineup for these to become reality. There is very little in the way of positive outcomes that can rise from pining over these ships so early in comparison to tech and playable area. I know the pain, I have a Hope, Polly and the Orion just sitting there in my list waiting for the day...

[@igneelprime7894]

Literally just said something similar to a friend. I kinda like the idea of the ship and several others but the problem with the Galaxy in particular at least is it's kinda a support ship. Almost specifically a ship to support something like decent sized org operations. With little to nothing to really do with orgs rn on that scale the Galaxy's place is yet to be implemented. And in general. Large ships make the most sense as part of a larger fleet. No matter if it's the Galaxy or something else it doesn't make sense to have one large ship with some shuttles maybe. We're talking about at least several hundred people groups here where these would really shine and not even the servers support that. Even if there was some level of org gameplay and what not the servers are capped rn at the level of what such a fleet would need for crew. While this videos isn't quite wrong CIG's reasoning isn't really either

[@Auldus]

I am brand spanking new to star citizen, like by about two weeks, an org took me in and it has been crazy fun. My friend group is now also interested in joining so we can crew a multi ship and experience the game. I saw the Galaxy for sale and that they do limited sales, the galaxy checked the boxes for my friends so we all put money together to buy it thinking it was going to take less than a year to come out. And to be honest I feel very taken advantage of. I had no idea of the sheer number of backlogged concepts. I mean. We have the Carrack as a loaner. Which is arguably a better ship in many ways. But it isn't what we purchased. We are still enjoying the game. But everytime I talk about my purchase to other players that have much more tenure than me it's almost as if they're disappointed in me. Which after watching this video I understand why. Something needs to change. I've been conditioned by other game companies to believe that when I make a purchase with real fiat I recieve a product. But a piece of digital property that is the price of a car payment being literal years away just outright sucks.

[@BizzMRK]

Pretty sure there is a disclaimer when buying a concept ship that it is not done yet (only after someone from the UK successfully sued CIG over it though). Ships on the backlog are not worked on in sequence either, so nobody really knows how long the Galaxy will take, could be less than a year, 5 years or even more. Atleast from a feature standpoint the whole module swapping should be a significantly smaller blocker than with some of the other concepts in cold storage, granted CIG kept putting modularity on the backburner over and over again, with them claiming modularity coming to Star Citizen "this year" or "within the next year" for the past 6 years in a row now. The Galaxy is the 4th ship they claim to be the base for modularity "finaly coming to star citizen" after the Retaliator, Catterpillar and Carrack, which were also claimed to be the base for modularity in SC at some point but then nothing ever came of that.

[@NeonRayn]

good news they are actually working on it after they finish the Polaris which just went into production.

[@durtyred86]

@Auldus you have to read the fine print man. You're about a year in now. That's what makes SC stand out from those other games that conditioned you.. They are a crowd funded company. Ignorance is the leading cause of disdain in Star Citizen. People just don't know any better and automatically make baseless assumptions only to realize the truth afterwards, and get mad about it. You have to do your research. Never go in blind bud.

[@RoroYaKnow]

Good news is that all RSI ships should be done by end of 2024

[@RoroYaKnow]

Look on the bright side. You get to fly a Carrack for a year at half price.

[@Libertas_P77]

I didn’t buy it, but the very fact that you get a half price Carrack as loaner for potentially years is THE single great reason to pick one up. No brainer for fans of the Carrack on a budget, and enjoy for those that did.

[@whap_s]

literally the only reason i bught it haha

[@vulcan4d]

This has an Endeavor vibe to it. Still waiting after 7years.

[@Infinityxero]

And you're gonna be waiting about 10-15 years at the rate they're building ships.

[@Literata]

Oh, there was another point I wanted to make: I like your idea of releasing the ship in an intermediate state -- anything that reduces the wait time on an expensive purchase. The only problem is, I can think of two counter-examples: The Drake Herald (released in 2014) and the Anvil Terrapin (released in 2016). Both of those ships are flyable; but as both of their singular functionalities are unsupported, the most you can do with these ships is as a daily driver (and maybe box missions).

[@DedLeader]

Absolutely agree with the Herald and Terrapin, for ships that hit that sort of odd level of uselessness you'd hope that they would tweak the stats to be a bit more favorable in other areas to at least keep them usable to some level. The Terrapin could use a boost with shields and you could increase the Heralds onboard storage so that it's more of a speedy equipment hauler instead of a data runner until the time that's in game. Simple gameplay balances like that to help make them more viable daily drivers would certainly add a lot of value!

[@KjllShot]

@@DedLeader or just don't do ships that are so obviously going to be pointless until full release and actually focus on the friggen game for one... cig pledging in general just needs to be boycotted to put the urgency back into their step!!!

[@rivit7615]

@@KjllShot Yeah! Because we all know that there is no actual development happening right? Oh wait.... Not to mention that they are not forcing ANYONE to buy ANYTHING other than a starter pack. O, and lets not forget that you can buy some thing now then melt it for full credit and use the creds to buy some thing else until your ship is in game. Its so shady of them to actually give loaner ships as well. Bad CIG!

[@darthschumy]

There is no intention to build a game. CIG's business model is to sell jpeg concept ships instead. Even if a game was at all possible, CIG have no interest in finishing it, because there's little money in the PU, especially when they've stated ships are free in-game. By buying more jpeg ships, you only postpone your realization, that you will NEVER get your game (as described). You will NEVER see either SQ2042, SC PU or any of the iconic capital ships (that are 8-10 years in limbo already). Why? Because this is a feature creep scam & it was always intended to be that and only that. What breadcrumb progress you do see, is simply enough to look like CIG are trying, even though it's obvious they're NOT. This is what 10 years of breadcrumbs looks like: nothing is significantly done, not even the so-called priority, SQ2042 (see below). The most critical detail is this however: it's not remotely possible to build the game on a 13 year old, originally 32bit, inappropriate FPS game engine, that is no longer supported by Crytek (or Amazon) and is massively inefficient with computer resources. There are far too larger hurdles in the way, to allow this backbreaking engine, any hope of building such a large universe, with numerous enormous capital ships (>1000 metres), with crazy player # requirements, as well as the countless game features that have been promised like damage, repairs, mining, cargo, towing, racing, salvage, exploration, medical, FPS, bounty hunting, NPC's, ship hacking, game economics, the vast universe environment, farming, parts maintenance, PES, passenger transportation, server meshing, media reporting, data running, quantum interdiction, etc., none of which are close to ready and many haven't even been started. Both CPU/GPU loads, with near zero feature creep implemented, have been seen on ISC (28 Oct 22) to just manage 16 fps doing nothing fancy (with high end gear). With 100% feature creep implemented, the processing demands would rise exponentially and we would need computer hardware so advanced, it will not exist literally this century, if ever. It's that bad! So why was this engine chosen then? Well, it looks good and is ideal bait to lure backers in with. That's why! The engine also allowed CIG to make rendered movies of what falsely looks like in-game footage of interactive gameplay, where what was rendered instead was just a movie only. The perfect example, is the infamous Kickstarter video pitched to backers in 2012, where CIG lied that "actual game assets rendered in real time in engine" were clearly not the case. The video shows a Bengal Carrier, stated to be 1km long, that has never been seen used in-game once (in 10 years), but we've seen countless rendered movies of it however. They didn't have any game content in 2012, much less a Bengal Carrier. You have various scenes with CR holding a console controller, lying that he was playing the rendered movies we were viewing. There is no interactive game footage, or game, that those movies were captured from. Recent tours of inside the Idris are also false - they too are just collections of independent videos made into a montage, with no actual interactive game behind them. The legal hassles involving SQ42 are relevant as well. CIG had a license to make 1 game with Crytek's engine, but being the crooks that they are, they made two games instead (the PU & SQ42) and that means Crytek sued them for breach of contract/theft. CIG claimed they used Lumberyard to continue work on SQ42, but it's not that easy to switch. CIG have since settled out of court, meaning they had indeed made an illegal game. This means SQ42 has been in utter limbo since: all work would have to be scrapped entirely and Crytek would have to be paid everything CIG earnt as well. You'll find Crytek owns CIG because of it. Settling tells backers everything right there: no work has been completed on SQ42 whatsoever. Seven years, where CIG said SQ42 was the priority (over the PU) are now for nothing. They really fracked up, when splitting the single player intro from the PU, but if you're a crook, it's tough to go against your nature and so it happened! They created a second game, when they only had a license to make one. The irony is, CIG cannot make SQ42 anyway, for the same reasons it can't make the PU. Also consider Chris Roberts: sacked from Microsoft, for the same vaporware issues with Freelancer ~20 years ago. He was blacklisted after that by the industry and that is why he showed up a decade later on Kickstarter scamming! It's been 10 years since and little has been worked on. We haven't seen any evidence that SQ42 exists, because it's not even been worked on. If they had indeed something to show, we'd be seeing it all the time. The income generated from such a demo, would be unimaginable. Clearly, it's all a charade.

[@IemonIime]

@@darthschumy How can you say there is no intention to build a game? There are multiple playable game loops right now. Chris roberts in the 90's has succeeded in making games from start to finish, but i will admit, lately he tends to want to bite off more than he can chew. Their scope might exceed their grasp atm, but that shouldnt suggest they "have no intention to build a game". Star Citizen might never be completely finished in your eyes, but they will release a product and expand on that, just like WOW was released in freaking 2005 and there are still dlc's dropping for it. Still, some of your points ring true, and it stings a little bit to read. However, I dont want to believe this is a scam, and i hope you're wrong. Not because im some whale that has thousands invested in it, but because this game has such potential to be one of the greatest games ever made, and i'm all for that.

[@malloyneil40]

What I think they should do is commit to making 2 small ships per year, 1 updated ship per year, 1 medium ship per year, and one large ship per year. If that means that they pull people from SQ42, so be it. But, we are paying for SC not SQ42 and that is where their priority should be. No new concepts until they have less than 5 concept ships not yet developed.

[@DannyDovahkiin]

They see it the opposite lol to them sq42 is the main goal thats one of the reasons why the pu takes so long

[@ericlanglois3782]

@@DannyDovahkiin SQ42 is the foundation for the PU... you don't build a house before it's foundation, it's not a smart way to do things.

[@Anarxur]

Lot of good points here. I grabbed one on store credit that's going to buybacks and a couple CCUs also on store credit but I'm not spending fresh money on it. Subbed

[@DedLeader]

CCU Gamers all know the Galaxy's TRUE value lol, cheers for the sub!

[@wertacus]

Hahaha, this is so true. It's the cheapest carrack on the market right now 😂 since you get the loaner.

[@captainstarfury2949]

I was skeptical for years of star citizen. When I finnaly purchased a package to play the game... I was underwhelmed. So I left it alone for a year. Came back to it and wow... Im impressed with the progress and direction... all that being said, My biggest issue with SC is the selling of concept ships with open ended development time tables. Theres no guarantee people that purchase these will ever be able to get their moneys worth and that stinks of predatory marketing and greed. Dont get me wrong. I love Star Citizen. It has quickly moved up to be one of my favorite games, and I have the utmost respect for the devs. But I really feel selling concept ships in its current form is unethical and stains the game for alot of people.

[@AlbertoMartinez765]

It ONLY "Unethical " if they Don't plan on releasing the ship, its not any more unethical then Paying for a Tesla and having to wait a few years before you actually get it. Most of the ships that are still on the waiting List Aren't there becuase CIG is Slow or doesn't want to Work on them at the moment. Its because the Actual SERVER Tech can't handle some of these ships and their features, this should change with the relapse of PES and the Move to the Gen 12 Renderer, there still some more tech even after that but we are getting there. Every ship i have bought and after years of waiting 8 years for my Hull C about 6 or so for the Vulture have come out and they are better then advertised people see this and so are more then willing to Trust CIG and just Buy ships they want for the game that is still years away.

[@MattHarris0008]

There are few guarantees in life... I think we're all betting on this working out though, and while slow, the progress continues in a positive direction month after month, patch after patch.

[@Derzull2468]

I think the people are more angry at their poor impulse management than at CIG but admitting that is harder.

[@VictorECaplon]

I genuinely think straight to flyable or next update release are the way to go. I just can’t support buying images $500 for a ship that will likely change for the worse while adding to the long list of image ships backlogged since 2013. I love the game, I love the ships, but all concept ships, may it be the 600i or Carrack, just don’t match what was sold. It’s not always a miss, but it is frustrating…

[@th3orist]

i agree, if i would want to buy a ship i would wait until it comes out or at least when it's two quarterly patches or so to release. the reason CIG is only doing smaller, relatively low effort ships as straight to flyable is because its financially more viable to milk the long concept phase of those bigger ships. thats why we will never see a 100+m ship being announced on the same day that it becomes straight to flyable.

[@panmac8540]

I feel the same aboutthe FATrack but the thing that bothers me most is the lack of functionality in it.

[@ShathAllenson]

How many exploration ships do we have now and no gameplay loop.

[@feather9658]

i feel that it definately will still be several more years, but i also think once they are done with the server side of the situation that the recources from that (which supposedly is their main focus) will be freed up, so i feel it will still be less time than what others are making it out to be, even if it is still years out.

[@nukaman4253]

I got it just because I get a Carrack for 380 bucks and ill have it for a while. Then once I am tired of the carrack (if that is possible) I get to try a brand new ship once the Galaxy drops.

[@DedLeader]

It's actually great for this!

[@corvas667]

I did missed the section in your video where you talk about the loaners you get for the concept ships. For me when buying a concept ship i always take into consideration the loaners you get until the ship is out and see if those are worth the money and in case of the galaxy it is worth it. Also missed the section where you actually talk about the galaxy itself.

[@MrSpy13011]

But what if I want a $380 carrack for the next 10 years?

[@JagHiroshi]

As we near Invictus, I can't help but look at the backlog and this whole strategy and wonder when/whether it will all be done. By the end of this year we'll have a number of jpegs that are a decade old. Also many of the older ships are massively underperforming and in need of love. What incentive is there to fix them when there are new ships to sell? As someone with a marketing degree, you must look at this model (where digital assets can be changed from patch to patch) and wonder at the possibilities.

[@thirdworldrider6991]

what games did you work on?

[@Phantomewzick]

How about the ships that are "flyable" but have been missing half their features for years, like the caterpillar.

[@coina-dig-tion6322]

I bought it only to save money down the road as it'll certainly cost more when it's released. 2nd reason I bought it is I'm big on base building and this, although not the Pioneer, should do some pretty decent base building as it's the 2nd largest of the 4 ways to build. I've bought many a ship and sure frustrated with the delay on my Railen and motorbikes (Rangers) but I believe in the game enough to support them along the way. Was really disappointed to see a Tumbril storm tank released before finishing the Rangers. Also disappointed the Railen was bypassed for a smaller version released as a starter. Maybe the production will be quicker now that they're moving SQ42 people over. As a tester and large supporter for 6 years I have PLENTY of ships/gameplay to keep me preoccupied without worrying about a ship I don't have yet. LOVE SC. Loved going to citizencon this year (was awesome) and look forward to what's going to be released in the near future. Agree with your comments on the Reclaimer. I did box missions with it before salvage was in! lol I'd much rather have the ship I bought w/o the gameplay than not have it.

[@hectordiaz537]

A lot of people are chomping for the big capital ships to come out, but until we have stable play with a lot more players on line, they won't be playable due to crew sizes. Even in the latest patch just getting everyone online for xenothreat caused all kinds of lag and desync issues. Imagine how bad it would be if you a few big capital ships in there with 10+ crew per ship.

[@Derzull2468]

A starter pack is all you ever need. Anything more is on you, and just you.

[@NeonRayn]

It may seems l a little predatory, BUT. this is they only way they make money. Games are Super expensive to make, especially if you been in active development for 10 plus year on two separate, projects. with no outside investors, no studio money. And they have 4 locations right now. I'm more than happy to support the game with concept ships. I realize it may take a white but at least they can keep the lights one, and hire more people to build ships. They have also said they are working on ways to make them faster to catch up on the back log.

[@nuclearsimian3281]

The sole voice of reason in this thread of moronic doomerism.

[@jwup3364]

I'm late to the comments on this one, but I just bought it. But not with the intent of ever flying that ship. A somewhat useless ship that I've been very interested in is now going to be very useful and lucrative and fun. The Reclaimer. Which should be around $400 when it comes back to the pledge store. So I will upgrade The Galaxy to the Reclaimer... and... have LTI...

[@Literata]

Great video -- I think you made a very reasonable argument, and I'm kind of surprised at the negative comments. My two cents: I'm perfectly fine with the use of marketing in-concept ships to raise funds -- and God knows, if you look at how quickly the larger in-concept ships sold out during IAE, it appears to be a continuing success for CIG. And I'm fine with the people who buy them, whether it's the older ships or the newer ones like the Galaxy. I'd be worried that as the queue of large, complex ships continues to grow, it'll increase the time-to-release on all of them, but I don't know enough about CIG's development process to say anything definitive about that. What triggered me about the Galaxy is its modularity: We've got a number of ships -- in the pipeline, and flyable in the game -- that were sold as being modular. The Caterpillar's just one example, and thankfully it's still useful as a heavy cargo hauler, but if you bought one in 2013 (over 8 years ago) thinking you'd have medical and manufacturing modules by now, you'd have every right to be skeptical of the Next Big Modular Vessel. But it's more than just modularity... how many people would buy the Galaxy if they knew that it wouldn't show up in the game until 2031? (How many people would have bought the Idris in 2013 knowing they'd still be waiting for it by now?) This is beginning to feel like a generational thing, lol -- today's starry-eyed Galaxy buyers versus yesterday's disillusioned Idris buyers! I've promised myself to stick to in-game, mostly-functional vessels (I'm looking at you, Terrapin, Goddamnit) until CIG makes an attempt to either clear out the backlog or give us an idea of which of those it's planning to address first. That's my plan, and I'm sticking to it... at least, until Aegis releases its version of a combat carrier. (I'm only human!)

[@Deimos_Eris]

well the loaner for it is the carrack so if you want a carrack at a lower price its a good idea to buy a galaxy but they clearly need to work on other things like developing the game itself instead of developing more ships

[@ramonebrown5704]

I bought a $5 Valk to Galaxy CCU. Because I expect it to increase in price when it is flyable. Just a piece in the CCU chain

[@DedLeader]

Not gonna lie, I did the same lol

[@davidbradford8730]

I totally agree with what he saying if these other concept ships are not being worked on and they're trying to force out new concept ships then that puts a hinder on the other ships that are placed on back burner that everyone has been looking forward to seeing being launched I'm like if I invested a ship that I want being seen in the game and then all the sudden they put on the backburner to bring out another concept ship that would make me really upset if they put my shift on back burner for some New Concept

[@ce4015]

What ship will be on loan to use I'd you do purchase the galaxy?

[@yoooskitchen858]

The carrack so its not a bad deal

[@Dazvanu]

so, despite enjoying the game i think we have little to do overall, mostly because the devs focus more on making ships than implementing mechanics promised since day 1. if they implement mechanics for ships that have already been launched in the game but are only used for hauling and launching the game with the planned mechanics would be enough to attract many new players, launching the game that despite needing to be purchased with a subscription of a maximum of 10 dollars. and yes squadron 42 can be a great success if done well because we don't have games of the genre well done for a long time. The game's biggest flaw was implementing ships with functions that don't exist and especially not having an npc that can perform some things on the ship, such as helping to defend it, for example. another big problem is the total stupidity of the enemies, they are very stupid, especially when we are outside the ship. in general the big problem of the game is to advertise for ships that if launched will mostly be used either for direct combat or for hauling even the function which was created not being these, because the mechanics are what are missing in reality not ships .

[@Symphonia1983]

That's the reason why i have been melting so many gamepackage's and it's sad. Instead of just talking about something that is not out there yet is rather likely frustrating. Thank you so much you just gave me the greatest lecture in what not to do when it comes to the concept ships. 👍

[@x5vampire5x]

100% agree with your ship sale model of no concepts for sale. Been saying that myself for years.

[@Nuttsy42]

While I agree with you that CIG needs to start evolving its funding model away from long-term concept ships and more to straight-to-flyable ship sales, I think they have already started moving that way. Most of the backlog ships are ships that not only do not have their gameplay in-game, but they also don't have the gameplay figured out yet and are from a time when Star Citizen was more of a concept of a game than it is now. There are also ships that are just too big for the current size of the game right now and shouldn't be in until there are a couple more systems to fly around in. The RSI galaxy is not as huge of a ship as people are talking about that will take years to build. It is the same size as the Catapillar and the Carrack which is the biggest ship in the game currently. The Galaxy is a ship that will be used to flush out modularity and from what they learn from building it, they should be able to adapt the older ships to have their modules work as well when they go through all the ships and bring them up to the current game standard. As for the funding model ideas, I hope, since they have limited time purchase periods for ships only a couple of times a year, they should start doing their gold passes and have sales for those ships in between the standard purchase periods along with straight-to-flyables to raise money.

[@roryv.bonaventura1296]

Here's the thing, the loaner ship is the carrack.. i paid just over 300 for a carrack, and when the ship is released or the loner changes ill just melt the ship.

[@DedLeader]

It is a good deal for that, I do stan the Carrack.

[@Oshiruko_999]

Did you just notice it? I noticed first week when I started SC around version 3.8

[@dex4308]

Can you CCU down ? I have a BMM and want to trade it for a reclaimer. Is there a way to do that . The BMM ain’t coming out til we are on Mars in IRL …

[@DedLeader]

You can't CCU down, but you can melt your BMM into store credit, buy something like a Mole and then get an upgrade chain from the grey market from Mole to Reclaimer!

[@vasilizaitsez7455]

Yeah, it’s 3-5 years away. On the other hand a flyable Carrack for $255 via warbond upgrades from an existing Dragonfly is downright cheap!

[@rivit7615]

May be sooner. Its RSI so they have a lot of premade designs to pull from and they are doubling their developers with the new office. Also it has no 'Special" game play mechanics so... maybe 2 years?

[@vasilizaitsez7455]

@@rivit7615 Work on either or any Perseus, Polaris, Galaxy or Apollo is in many cases work on all of them. Building the Galaxy and its modules likely a year or less. It's the modularity tech that is at issue. John Crew said two things 1. Modules themselves are not at issue, it's making them work once attached to the ship that is the problem. 2. The team to develop modularity tech is working on SQ42 which has no need of modularity and is more than 2 years from completion.

[@darthschumy]

@@rivit7615 Ever heard of an RSI Orion? :) You might see the Galaxy shell, much like we see the Caterpillar, but it's without it's features. The modularity however, that is decades away and a much harder task. Think the rest of the modular ships instead, like the Endeavor or Javelin. Probably never, even as a husk and definitely never with 100% feature creep implemented (because that's not possible at all).

[@Xphurrious]

i dont mind paying for ready to fly ships, i just got into SC and will def pledge for the Ares Ion next time a sale comes around(yes even after the nerfs, it looks fun to me). However the idea of buying a ship with no ETA is insane to me, i simply would never put money into that

[@romamoran1337]

More like NOT buying it is a bad idea: 1. Its loaner is a Carrack ($600 worth), which also comes with a C8 and Rover; 2. You can melt it (or the upgrade from a cheaper ship to it) immediately and use the store credits for other ships/upgrades/subscriptions, all while locking in the time limited buying option in the buy-back page. You lose literally nothing.

[@Auldus]

So in the buy back page? Do you retain the warbond and LTI?

[@SoloSaga]

I bought like 700 worh of ships like 4 ir 5 years ago. Cool think is you can always sell for in store credit. Ive upgraded my original packages to newer ships.

[@brandondownhour9569]

If want to secure the price, nust get a valkyrie to galaxy ccu for $5 without buying the ship right now

[@maxvonkrieger5043]

They can make money with Gacha ship capsules instead of concept and ship packs.

[@DedLeader]

You know what... these would actually sell

[@eltreum1]

I like the idea of baking a concept in the forums with theory crafting and more collaboration with the users before making it a product. My very first pledge was the Constellation Andromeda. Let me tell you the only thing worse than waiting for your dream ship is getting it and its useless or so broken it might as well not exist. I give CIG some slack on saying they are waiting on ships that have nothing to do yet because people spent literally years on Spectrum telling them to stop doing that. Now Spectrum has people demanding the opposite. SMH The Idris, Jav, and Bengal are the stars of SQ and are nearly done for that side if not already. You can steal the Idris from a mission and fly it and land it on planets or railgun stuff. The NPCs trapped in the turrets fight hostiles but it's mostly hollow inside for performance. We saw its interior years ago for the demo gameplay teaser as well as some of the Javelin at ILW. Another SQ leak showed 2 other unknown UEE capitals never seen in engine as well as more alien ships but could be NPC shells only. When they talk about the dev resources and times for PU only content they only get 25% of the dev pool to draw from for now. If it's shared with SQ its getting done sooner than later with more devs. They will be done with ships before SQ is done and should refocus on PU and triage that backlog down aggressively. The 30 year estimates I saw thrown around on Spectrum are disingenuous at best. They need to have a better mix and each event. Deliver a backlog, a refresh, a straight to play, and flushed out concept. They technically do need some constant revenue for all the upkeep costs. Most MMOs do not have to run data center presence and buy bandwidth in multiple regions until near release and is not a trivial cost with its own upkeep demands. I was angry in the past and closed my wallet and tried to forget SC for years. I kept following it and the 3.x branch convinced me they made the right decision making a platform to make all the titles. Its hard to believe SC started from 7 peeps and a demo in a 32bit dx9 engine and became a jaw dropping 64bit eye candy machine about to get the latest APIs for future GPU tech so it can stay current. I bought the Galaxy even though I can't wait to fly my Polaris or Perseus because I think they earned it and hope they actually make the wildest idea I have ever head as a systems engineer work. The fun I have had is already worth the money. Remember the best ships are friendships, cheers.

[@nuclearsimian3281]

The Bengal is a star...for background. It will never be ownable. The Jav is the biggest player ownable ship.

[@KhairulFadzlyAKarim]

Buy one or CCU up and you get the Carrack as a loaner for USD380? 😀and the modules could be bought with store credit so you don’t have to get them now.

[@Bieblism]

Compared to the salt-fest comments sections of star citizen vids of a few years ago, I gotta admit I admire the maturity and honesty of everyone in the comments of SC vids lately.

[@kennethjensen730]

Whats the point of buying a concept ship? Is it cheaper than when it releases?

[@DedLeader]

Yeah cheaper in concept.

[@expressmangaming650]

As a Carrack owner... its a fun ship and I enjoy flyinig it, it's odd that most of it's features don't exist yet. It has an advanced star plotting deck, that does nothing. It has really cool drone operator bays, that do nothing. It has 4 modular unit spaces, that are just cargo (without a door or a ramp) for the time being. So what you're saying about gameloops is not only true of concept ships, it's true of released ships. Heck my Reclaimer can't use tractor beams, also has an empty drone room, and can't do metal scrapping yet.

[@expressmangaming650]

LOL I obviously commented before watching your full video. Yep we're tracking.

[@thomassrensen5892]

Am thinking the play amount is to low to the big ship on one sever is to easy if 50 players on one ship

[@chrisajokinen]

I am on the fence on your points. A few issues are that if you push the ships out now, then you will end up having to constantly update all the ship as new tech/loops are released. Take the Caterpillar for example. It is a great ship but is missing the air lock, the fully working side/front door (should go to the ground), and the modules. Out of all the modular ships the cat must be the easiest to design modules for as the entire segment is replaced. Now consider what will be added and will come. The power management, zoned oxygen controls, zoned gravity controls, internal fire damage, soft death, component damage, hull breaches, internal security, boarding parties, wear effects, battle damage. And that is just what I can think of right now. If CIG goes with your idea and each one of these systems can end up meaning a complete or partial rework of each ship in game. That is a huge amount of work, and this does not include any work to the rest of the game and game loops, or underlying tech needed to implement them. Adding all ships when first introduced is simply a bad, very bad, use of manhours. CIG is trying to figure out what all of these systems are going to look like in game and what the impact will be in stability, performance, scalability and also implementation. None of this is simple and should not be treated as IF it is. These ships are not a simple 3d model with interior, they are complex systems. What CIG has done is put out a lot of ships ahead of when they should have, the reclaimer, the 890j and others are missing the game loops or tech needed to properly use them for their designed purpose. It would have been smarter for CIG to have gone with a reduce the catalog of ships just so they can focus on the core systems that will be used on all ships and only released ship intended to test that. Then streamline the process and Henry Ford the catalog. As for buying concept ship sales. Be an adult and take responsibility in what you buy. You can play the game with a basic ship and work to buy a larger ship in game. Or team up with another player that needs a gunner or is running bunker missions. The point being is there are options. You do not NEED a $500 ship. Even more true if you NEED to pay for rent. Lastly for CIG. While I understand your need to keep things a surprise, you need to do a better job at presenting where you are in the progress of S42, TOW and SC. A lot of frustration can be avoided if you can state whether the Idris, the Jav, the Bengal and other S42 ships and locations are done or not. For SC and TOW do not just pull a asset from the progress tracker, show dependencies so we know beforehand that a ship or location is going to be delayed. If teams are pulled because of priority changes then show that to and explain why you had to make this change. You do this to an extend but I feel you are not detailing this well enough. My bigger concern is if you do not get things moving that the community will get to a point of just writing you off completely.

[@JayjiNZ]

No one needs another cutty black.. big true! The pure unnecessary repetition of ships is one thing I find frustrating. Couldn’t agree more.

[@John_Krone]

So true all you said. Another CIG model I'm not fond of is that they make their ships available for a limited time during events. Why this? Like when I went to buy a Carrack all they had available was the bundle. I didn't want ships I already had! Besides, I buy by compulsion meaning if I can't spend the money on something I want in that moment I get discouraged and spend my cash somewhere else... and who knows if I ever get the desire to go back to CIG to get the ship. Maybe I don't want it anymore. That sales model is stupid and doesn't fit me.

[@Alopen-xb1rb]

I think that sales model is to promote the feae of missing out with newer players (aka suckers). They probably realise majority of money comes from the first few months if an account.

[@nuclearsimian3281]

Why do they make capship hulls limited? Look at what happened to EVE Online. At first, the supercap hulls were rare...then as more, and more, and more, more, more, more and more advantages and more trivially easy ways to gather money in nullsec. You can now get the money for them in 2-4 weeks if you have three or four alts and stake out a C4 wormhole for that long. Easily. Then go join any giga alliance, and you have a literally unkillable supership that nobody can take out, and that you become harassed if you actually do lose one. That's why. To avoid so much capital proliferation that they become the only default means of combat and that all other combat exists to protect them. That ruins the game, and turns it into massive 700+ man fleets that only fly capitals and supercaps, where nothing dies and the server crashes eventually. I do not want that happening in SC. Ever. You want a Jav, fucking work a job until you have the cash, and win the F5 war. Is this system ideal? No. Do I have a better one? Also no. I have no idea how to logistically or financially limit them and their proliferation, but it must be controlled, or you end up with that many ships, packed with AI blades, barely being effective, but alongside six others, and guess who can't play in that area ever? That's right, you. That's what would happen.

[@redsamurai6586]

I agree definitely with what you said because if we’re still waiting for ships that are supposed to have modularity or just waiting for ships in general why keep adding to that list. It just doesn’t make sense because it looks like they released one concept ship a year if that……😅

[@MichaelSmith-el2dg]

One point though.....loaners....for example the carrack is the loaner for the galaxy. So buying the galaxy is way to get a carrack for cheaper price. So even if the galaxy took 10 years to complete, I got a carrack that is in game at a budget price.

[@DedLeader]

It is a bargain, I got a Odyssey CCU from my Carrack this IAE for this reason as i'd only ever relinquish my Carrack for that anyway :P

[@CopperRavenProductions]

This is kinda of dark but...sometimes I think about all the years and years people have waited to fly their ship and they are dead. Its kind of creepy to think about that, but each year that passes people died. Never once stepping into a ship they purchased 5 8 10 yeard ago. I too wonder of I will be one of those people. Id be ok with a dead line even a few years. It at leasts gives me some idea. 3 years max should sufficent. Even the older ships they have redesigned, its not as if they can not with the newer ones

[@Spike-qh2bb]

I didn't really bad CCU for me cheaper to buy a much more expensive ship instead. Nice looking ship though.

[@Winterx69]

I fully agree with the backlog situation. It should also be mentioned that the Galaxy is awful with regards to how the internal floorplan gets crammed into an external, wedge shaped model, throwing away a whopping 60% of overall hull space. Calling this "industrial" only adds insult to injury...

[@colin1235421]

I want this ship so bad!!!! The main problem I have is that my currency is so weak, its madness to pay for it (South African rand).

[@killstreak08]

If they release some flagships... They need to get some of the carrier style ships in the game. The Kraken would definitely be multi role in the end... It's major function it would already have is landing. Also have the refuel option in the game. Other than the carrier style capitol and sub cap ships, I understand the wait on any other massive ship for game function and game loops. Hell, I have a Carrack. It is lame that we have to wait on certain functions. But I would prefer that, and actually having something I can throw a few ships on and play as a taxi service for other players in smaller ships. \ With all that said, I see the Galaxy as a multi role that is a master of none. Decent for a makeship flag ship, or mobile hospital. Has other functions. But I would rather just spend the in game credits when it becomes an option.

[@marcmiddleton2277]

They need to work on current things and get ships going. Get the basic structure for these game loops and add to those game loops in the future.

[@wither5673]

its getting to a point where im legitimately considering selling off all of my ships on the grey market for like 10 dollars less then i got them fore just to get most of my money back, iv been a backer since 2014.....and though the current playable ''game'' is....something, its been so long with so few actual TANGIBLE advances into it being an actual game and not a glorified tech demo. plus the in game community can be...a bit special. its getting to a point were im just tired, and i want my money back lol.

[@DedLeader]

Watch my video on if it's OK to trust Star Citizen first, there IS hope!

[@edwarddomenico9601]

I still have the feeling that CIG needs to slow down with LARGE concepts as a whole. Keep selling concepts, but make sure you have either: A) A ship in the backlog of similar size being worked on or B) The concept is actively in production with at least a 12-18 month commitment to release. I get being hyped for new ships, and I am guilty of buying on the dream of a ship plenty(Vulcan, Railen), however I can't shake the feeling that change needs to occur regarding concepts as a whole. Yeah, yeah, funding, etc, gotcha. But something has to give, I just don't know what that is, and CIG doesn't either, or isn't willing to apparently. Also, as I know that I am going to have potentially hyperbolic comments stating I am in some small minority of people upset at the Galaxy, or I don't want CIG funding the game through concepts, those people can piss up a rope. I've funded for plenty, and I don't need to justify it to anyone but myself. That Said, I am within my right to be upset at a practice CIG engages in all too often, even if the ship is amazing(which it IS btw, can't wait). I also have the opinion that if you bought the Galaxy for the loaner, rather than the ship itself, you may need to reevaluate your spending habits on pledges. I get it, it's a bonus as their aren't other ships similar to the concept, but what about when there is? What if CIG put out an 85m ship straight to flyable as the new loaner with a quarter the cargo of the Carrack, crappier stats, and less guns? Would you be upset? Would you feel let down, and bummed? Honest questions. If you are using the Carrack loaner as justification of your $300-500+ purchase, then be honest that you are coping with the fact that the ship is nowhere to being made any time soon. I know I'm going to piss off some people with that statement, but that's hard truths for ya.

[@darthschumy]

There is no intention to build a game. CIG's business model is to sell jpeg concept ships instead. Even if a game was at all possible, CIG have no interest in finishing it, because there's little money in the PU, especially when they've stated ships are free in-game. By buying more jpeg ships, you only postpone your realization, that you will NEVER get your game (as described). You will NEVER see either SQ2042, SC PU or any of the iconic capital ships (that are 8-10 years in limbo already). Why? Because this is a feature creep scam & it was always intended to be that and only that. What breadcrumb progress you do see, is simply enough to look like CIG are trying, even though it's obvious they're NOT. This is what 10 years of breadcrumbs looks like: nothing is significantly done, not even the so-called priority, SQ2042 (see below). The most critical detail is this however: it's not remotely possible to build the game on a 13 year old, originally 32bit, inappropriate FPS game engine, that is no longer supported by Crytek (or Amazon) and is massively inefficient with computer resources. There are far too larger hurdles in the way, to allow this backbreaking engine, any hope of building such a large universe, with numerous enormous capital ships (>1000 metres), with crazy player # requirements, as well as the countless game features that have been promised like damage, repairs, mining, cargo, towing, racing, salvage, exploration, medical, FPS, bounty hunting, NPC's, ship hacking, game economics, the vast universe environment, farming, parts maintenance, PES, passenger transportation, server meshing, media reporting, data running, quantum interdiction, etc., none of which are close to ready and many haven't even been started. Both CPU/GPU loads, with near zero feature creep implemented, have been seen on ISC (28 Oct 22) to just manage 16 fps doing nothing fancy (with high end gear). With 100% feature creep implemented, the processing demands would rise exponentially and we would need computer hardware so advanced, it will not exist literally this century, if ever. It's that bad! So why was this engine chosen then? Well, it looks good and is ideal bait to lure backers in with. That's why! The engine also allowed CIG to make rendered movies of what falsely looks like in-game footage of interactive gameplay, where what was rendered instead was just a movie only. The perfect example, is the infamous Kickstarter video pitched to backers in 2012, where CIG lied that "actual game assets rendered in real time in engine" were clearly not the case. The video shows a Bengal Carrier, stated to be 1km long, that has never been seen used in-game once (in 10 years), but we've seen countless rendered movies of it however. They didn't have any game content in 2012, much less a Bengal Carrier. You have various scenes with CR holding a console controller, lying that he was playing the rendered movies we were viewing. There is no interactive game footage, or game, that those movies were captured from. Recent tours of inside the Idris are also false - they too are just collections of independent videos made into a montage, with no actual interactive game behind them. The legal hassles involving SQ42 are relevant as well. CIG had a license to make 1 game with Crytek's engine, but being the crooks that they are, they made two games instead (the PU & SQ42) and that means Crytek sued them for breach of contract/theft. CIG claimed they used Lumberyard to continue work on SQ42, but it's not that easy to switch. CIG have since settled out of court, meaning they had indeed made an illegal game. This means SQ42 has been in utter limbo since: all work would have to be scrapped entirely and Crytek would have to be paid everything CIG earnt as well. You'll find Crytek owns CIG because of it. Settling tells backers everything right there: no work has been completed on SQ42 whatsoever. Seven years, where CIG said SQ42 was the priority (over the PU) are now for nothing. They really fracked up, when splitting the single player intro from the PU, but if you're a crook, it's tough to go against your nature and so it happened! They created a second game, when they only had a license to make one. The irony is, CIG cannot make SQ42 anyway, for the same reasons it can't make the PU. Also consider Chris Roberts: sacked from Microsoft, for the same vaporware issues with Freelancer ~20 years ago. He was blacklisted after that by the industry and that is why he showed up a decade later on Kickstarter scamming! It's been 10 years since and little has been worked on. We haven't seen any evidence that SQ42 exists, because it's not even been worked on. If they had indeed something to show, we'd be seeing it all the time. The income generated from such a demo, would be unimaginable. Clearly, it's all a charade.

[@edwarddomenico9601]

@@darthschumy I wasn't going to comment, but fuck it, I'll bite. Have you played the game recently? No? Didn't think so. You are entirely off base with so many of your claims it's laughable at best. First, SQ42 not being done. The vertical slice never happened huh? Monthly updates to the work they are doing for SQ42 don't happen right? CIG can hold SQ42 close to their chest and that is their right to do so. Second, Crytek settled as they would have lost their case as CIG had much better arguments that they weren't required to use Crytek's engine if it wasn't working for them, which it wasn't. Lumberyard wasn't perfect either, but CIG used it as the basis to make their own engine, which is Starengine. Both PU and SQ42 use Starengine entirely. You talk as if you know what you're talking about but only show your ignorance. So are you one of those vaunted SCrefunds redditors, who only hate the game because schadenfreude is a helluva drug? I mean you copy pasta'd your response, and then said that Ded is a paid shill, which is ludicrous. Seriously, go hate on another game, unless sucking Derek Smart's dick is your favorite activity. It's kinda pathetic there guy, kinda pathetic.

[@blendyboi2087]

Wouldn’t buy with cash. But would get in game when possible. The style of the ship. The location of the bridge. (Not right up front) and the versatility are great selling points to me.

[@Tschenggo]

I agree with you on the part, that concept sales are a poison and that straight to flyable ships are way better for the community. However I disagree that we don't need "another cutty black". I personally like that every ingame company has their own artstyle and so I think we need more ships that do roughly the same but look differently. Is it the highest priority? Certainly not! But I personally don't fly Drake Ships, because I don't like how they look and feel. That beeing said there are some Drake ships that are very well rounded, like the cutty black or the cutter or even the corsair. So I would love to see how Crusader would build a combat heavy platform like the corsair in a sleek design. Heck I would even love to see Origin build a mining ship....maybe something that is very clean rather than industrial. And I think these differences matter in the choice of ships. And I rather see more diversity in these ships (entry to mid-size) than yet another big ship that in essence is nothing more than a jpg. Don't get me wrong, I think we also need big ships, but I see them more as a way to perform a group or raid activity. So big ships in my oppinion have a place for 5+ maybe even 10+ players that want to do something together. And for this gameplay I feel the gameplay loops need to be more developed first, and it would be unfair to present another big ship in sale that has it's gameplay loop not finished for the next 5-10 years.

[@JamestheKilljoy]

I have a Galaxy, the sex appeal got to me ;) However, I didn't spend a dime on it. Melted a free vehicle I got from a racing event and got an upgrade from a Caterpillar. Hanging onto the upgrade and using the Caterpillar in the meantime. Want to wait and see how these modules flesh out first

[@timothyds7453]

RE: more focus on selling ships that are already in the game or are about to be released instead of concepts & the pitfall of overcomplicating the game by overkill immersion mechanics I'm pleased to see how far Star Citizen has come since it's kickstarter. There is an enormous potential there that is already showcased in the current live game. As far as I'm concerned, I see a decent game being delivered eventually ... although I also see the long road still ahead. I bought several of the recent pledges and ships, all of which are in the game. Indeed it would suck hard to be pressured by FOMO into buying expensive stuff that isn't going to be in the game for years to come. The developers should indeed only start selling the stuff when it is about to be released. At the same time I find it weird that there are a lot of ships already in the game that aren't for sale in the store. In my opinion these should be made available for purchase instead of ones that are concepts. E.g. the only way to get a vulture currently is as part of a 3000 euro pack, while in my opinion it's on the same level as a prospector and thus should be available for purchase as a stand alone ship at least. --- While I love the deep level of immersion that's going to be in the game, I can see this ambition as being a pitfall as well. E.g. the drinking and eating can create situations like having to raid an enemy outpost simply because your crew is starving; like a viking. But if this concept is taken to far, it might become tedious. Having "mini-games" to improve and calibrate ships and equipment is great ... but I would not very much enjoy having to spend a significant part of my limited gaming-time doing work like chores before I get to do the fun stuff. If I want to go mining, I don't want to be spending multiple game sessions just maintaining the equipment, only to finally go out and have the bad luck of being killed by some enemy within the first hour. There should be a limit to the "realism"; it will speed up development of the game AND keep the game a game and not a second job. Apart from the most hardcore stuff, everything should remain viable to an average working adult who has to balance job and family. It would be great to have useful things to do during long quantum jumps and it would be sweet if you arrive at your destination with your ship in better condition then when you departed because of the maintenance you did during transit; same for gear. In my opinion the "mini-games" should add value AND not be a time and effort sink for the sake of it. Having to shower and use the bathroom at intervals seems to me as going a bit to far; it's good to have the facilities in the game as part of the realism ... but having to interrupt gameplay to do these activities is not that much appealing. I would absolutely hate to have to do mini-games in order to simply be able to do any quantum jump and other basic things. E.g. having to maintain your ship once every month or so is ok ... but not being able to play a few hours without spending an hour or more getting it back operational, would not be feasible to many adult gamers timewise. Rather than stuff breaking down and your effort only resulting in going back to the status quo, your effort should for a limited time improve the items. E.g. a well maintained ship takes skill and as a reward outclasses a non-maintained one, but the non-maintained one can still do the same gameplay loops, just less efficient. E.g. a maintained sniper rifle has no weapon jams and aims better and the short time it takes to maintain means there is no excuse for not doing it.

[@Lobster_Mack]

Goes back to the old saying business is business. In business you have to compare apples to apples. In order to know where we are this year, we have to compare to last year. That means we have to do the same thing we did last year only better. I'm a former Data Analyst for a big retailer now a patent lawyer so I don't expect everyone to have that level of understanding. But when you have 1,000 employees working on a common goal to put out a product, business is business. Many people got in wayyy early. Now is the right time to get in on this for the exclusivity and discounts.

[@DrFrankChibi]

I picked up the RSI Galaxy as a really cheap way to get my hands on a (loaner) Carrack. That thing is mine until whenever the Galaxy releases and at a much lower cost.

[@triot2127]

I bought my fist pack way back in 2013. I did one final melt and CCU to a well balanced hanger back in 2018. Since then I've stopped giving them money. I don't mind them selling ships but I agree they need to only sell flyable ships now.

[@mikecapson1845]

I bought one instantly, carrack loaner for super low cost

[@DedLeader]

That DOES economically make sense.. I already own a Carrack and Odessey tho which also has a Carrack as a loaner lol Carrack BIS skin tomorrow!

[@camblackwood6414]

@@DedLeader melt your carrack, buy a galaxy, get a free carrack for the entire duration of the galaxy's concept as a loaner and recieve $120 store credit instantly..

[@KjllShot]

@@camblackwood6414 all while encouraging CIG's money first, backers never attitude, 👏👏👏

[@camblackwood6414]

@@KjllShot if you dont have faith in the competence of the developers or the company, request a refund. All the complaining and whinging must be tiring

[@Cherronova]

I honestly hope they change everyone’s carrack loaner for a couple other ships, mind you they do this OFTEN, just so I can then see so many hundreds of people freak out about sometbing that’s in the fine print 😂😂😂😂

[@fuglong]

As the company grows and squadron 48 finishes they claim the ship making time will be cut down significantly. That's what I've heard at least

[@tracerfacer6234]

I swapped out a max I wasn't flying and got the carrack as a loaner for less then half of what it costs. My money, I'll throw it away if I want.

[@tracerfacer6234]

Enjoyed the video. Subbed.

[@Delphineas]

I took the plunge back in 2015. Upgraded my combo package from an Aurora to a Avenger to a Freelancer. Loved the Redeemer, but wanted to earn it ingame. I subbed for a year, using that coupon for the final upgrade. I want to start with just one ship, and I bought 3 of my friends Aurora packages. The "Answer the Call 2016" video really got me excited for Squadron42...yet that is dead. I still get the emails every week, and I bin them immediately. It's all lies. In 2022 we still don't have a single player game, still only one system to explore, and we are supposed to be EXCITED?

[@jdelos5711]

I have one of these in my "hangar" but not because I at all care to pwn or fly it. I have been purchasing and melting ships for years. I finally put enough in to be able to buy a carrack which is about 600 bucks. But it was the only thing I could have at the time besides the pisces that came with it. Not great for game play. I melted it in a week. Got a bunch of smaller ships and had way more fun. Turns out ideal size for me was star runner/Corsair. Which I owned with some other random ships to give options and variety. This came along at 380 and with it was a carrack loaner. Score! So I melted and now fly a carrack when I get the itch But also have a medical pisces, cutter and Corsair. So while I don't at all care for the galaxy. It serves a side purpose. If it releases I would obviously fly a couple times and probably melt right away. It has an elite dangerous design vibe to it which I personally don't really like.

[@SirAllanSolo]

First ship I've ever bought for the actual loaner and not the concept.

[@rivit7615]

Spend 380 and get a 600 dollar ship till your cheaper one is ready. BAD CIG! How dare they??? ;P

[@grindcorethrall8654]

I did the same lol

[@Cherronova]

Cig will eventually change this loaner, it happens way more than you think.

[@grindcorethrall8654]

@@Cherronova Ya to something else bad ass lol

[@hidez5414]

Bro why can't they make the cockpit of the capital ships like the talon's, so you can see what's happening below.

[@obiwonton369]

Agree but the Galaxy does provide new tech for modules. Yes we have waited long for Retaliator, CAT, etc. However, these are legacy ships that really were not conceptualized and designed at their foundations for modularity. The Galaxy IS the concept designed to leverage the latest tech to bring modules into game. Hopefully, it will pave the way for legacy assets to meet their goals as well. AND you get a $600 Carrack loaner for $350, so yeah there's a little marketing for sure.

[@DedLeader]

The loaner Carrack is honestly a bargain, but remember the Carrack is supposed to be modular also! I'd much rather get the modularity working on that so I can finally stuff those cargo hold with vehicles lol

[@whalescience8831]

Modularity is literally the primary design feature of the caterpillar. Same with the retaliator. Further, why 4 different cutlass variants when you could have 1, with modules? If CIG were to produce base model ships, ensure functionality while developing the game, and then roll out modules for those ships (with modularity) as each gameplay loop is built out and added wouldn't that be a better approach? Their current model of sell a concept built on unproven models and whole ship variants with those same unproven models only exist to maximize profit in order to fund development. This was excusable 8-10 years ago when they were starting from 0, but half a billion dollars and a decade later we haven't seen development keep pace with profit.

[@Archeon38]

I don't believe all the ships need to be done before the game should release. I believe that the gameplay, economy, the professions all that. And have some ships done. Then use the updates to release new ships and new concept ships to come out.

[@joshuanissen8803]

This was the first ship bigger than a fighter I wanted to buy. SO sad to find out its not real yet.

[@joshuanissen8803]

I bought it

[@MikeS-iy7kb]

I bought a Galaxy, melted it, melted a couple of skins, and bought my reclaimer back from my buy backs. Galaxy will always be in my buy backs, we'll see if they raise the price for me when it comes out.

[@brandonchat]

I have to agree with the previous comments that its funny to see all youtubes now talk about the same subject, blowing up one sentence of John Crew, totally out of proportion in my opinion. I also understand that backers would like to see and fly the ships that they pledged for, i just dont get it why they want to have them right away at this moment. In my opinion, for a lot of ships that r still in the backlog, there is no reason to add these to the current game, if Server Meshing isn't in yet, because those bigger ships need more space. Looking at the Starfarer. Big ship with nice multi player potential. Refueling gameplay is in the game right now.... I never see any Starfarers fly around. I see no ship getting refueled by a Starfarer, i also see no players requesting a refuel from a Starfarer. Great that it is in the game, totally useless in the current build. Will be phenominal once more systems have been added. What will happen if CIG adds all the bigger ships to the game that everybody is asking for. Hand out all the Javelins, Idrisses, Krakens, Merchantmans, etc. Personally i think the servers would either melt or it would die out, as 50 players will be on Javelin A and the other 50 would be on Javelin B and thats it. After a few nice flights around Stanton ppl have seen the ships, know it all, hype is over, get bored with it and they get stored in the hangars as there is no use for them in the current build. After that backers have nothing to look out for anymore, as they all have their ships in the Stanton system with 100 player cap, and all have to wait for server meshing and more star systems. I also have 13 ships that still haven't been added to the game, one of which is the Endeavor that i am waiting for. But im perfectly fine if they get added when we have some more space to move around in. Even if it takes 4 or 5 more years. If i get myself a nice ship i want to sail it on an open sea and not on a small lake. To be honest im more concerened with the progress of S42 as that is demanding a big portion of all the developers and time. I would say, put more presure on that, instead of the ships in backlog. And please keep selling the concept ships, as it keeps generating money for the development and prevents this high potential game to be taken over (and f*cked over) by a big ass studio like for exmaple EA. I still have good faith in this.

[@DedLeader]

Server Meshing and PES are absolutely technologies that need to be live and working well before adding those types of ships you're right. Not only for the space to have them in, but for the basic on ship gameplay storing things in lockers, gunracks and around the ships more reliably and so the servers are stable and reliable enough to run the gameplay consistantly. I honestly think we're going to see a much quicker turnover of updates once PES and SM is in since it's really the core technology that is holding back so much of the SC dream gameplay we've all been wanting in game! Yeah S42 does feel like a drain especially for those who didn't pledge to have that made and have no interest in a single player game like myself. But it's great to see how they've streamlined their pipeline from S42 development over the past couple years and brought on entire teams specifically to work on S42. Hopefully that allows ships teams to stay on track for longer periods of time.

[@darthschumy]

There is no intention to build a game. CIG's business model is to sell jpeg concept ships instead. Even if a game was at all possible, CIG have no interest in finishing it, because there's little money in the PU, especially when they've stated ships are free in-game. By buying more jpeg ships, you only postpone your realization, that you will NEVER get your game (as described). You will NEVER see either SQ2042, SC PU or any of the iconic capital ships (that are 8-10 years in limbo already). Why? Because this is a feature creep scam & it was always intended to be that and only that. What breadcrumb progress you do see, is simply enough to look like CIG are trying, even though it's obvious they're NOT. This is what 10 years of breadcrumbs looks like: nothing is significantly done, not even the so-called priority, SQ2042 (see below). The most critical detail is this however: it's not remotely possible to build the game on a 13 year old, originally 32bit, inappropriate FPS game engine, that is no longer supported by Crytek (or Amazon) and is massively inefficient with computer resources. There are far too larger hurdles in the way, to allow this backbreaking engine, any hope of building such a large universe, with numerous enormous capital ships (>1000 metres), with crazy player # requirements, as well as the countless game features that have been promised like damage, repairs, mining, cargo, towing, racing, salvage, exploration, medical, FPS, bounty hunting, NPC's, ship hacking, game economics, the vast universe environment, farming, parts maintenance, PES, passenger transportation, server meshing, media reporting, data running, quantum interdiction, etc., none of which are close to ready and many haven't even been started. Both CPU/GPU loads, with near zero feature creep implemented, have been seen on ISC (28 Oct 22) to just manage 16 fps doing nothing fancy (with high end gear). With 100% feature creep implemented, the processing demands would rise exponentially and we would need computer hardware so advanced, it will not exist literally this century, if ever. It's that bad! So why was this engine chosen then? Well, it looks good and is ideal bait to lure backers in with. That's why! The engine also allowed CIG to make rendered movies of what falsely looks like in-game footage of interactive gameplay, where what was rendered instead was just a movie only. The perfect example, is the infamous Kickstarter video pitched to backers in 2012, where CIG lied that "actual game assets rendered in real time in engine" were clearly not the case. The video shows a Bengal Carrier, stated to be 1km long, that has never been seen used in-game once (in 10 years), but we've seen countless rendered movies of it however. They didn't have any game content in 2012, much less a Bengal Carrier. You have various scenes with CR holding a console controller, lying that he was playing the rendered movies we were viewing. There is no interactive game footage, or game, that those movies were captured from. Recent tours of inside the Idris are also false - they too are just collections of independent videos made into a montage, with no actual interactive game behind them. The legal hassles involving SQ42 are relevant as well. CIG had a license to make 1 game with Crytek's engine, but being the crooks that they are, they made two games instead (the PU & SQ42) and that means Crytek sued them for breach of contract/theft. CIG claimed they used Lumberyard to continue work on SQ42, but it's not that easy to switch. CIG have since settled out of court, meaning they had indeed made an illegal game. This means SQ42 has been in utter limbo since: all work would have to be scrapped entirely and Crytek would have to be paid everything CIG earnt as well. You'll find Crytek owns CIG because of it. Settling tells backers everything right there: no work has been completed on SQ42 whatsoever. Seven years, where CIG said SQ42 was the priority (over the PU) are now for nothing. They really fracked up, when splitting the single player intro from the PU, but if you're a crook, it's tough to go against your nature and so it happened! They created a second game, when they only had a license to make one. The irony is, CIG cannot make SQ42 anyway, for the same reasons it can't make the PU. Also consider Chris Roberts: sacked from Microsoft, for the same vaporware issues with Freelancer ~20 years ago. He was blacklisted after that by the industry and that is why he showed up a decade later on Kickstarter scamming! It's been 10 years since and little has been worked on. We haven't seen any evidence that SQ42 exists, because it's not even been worked on. If they had indeed something to show, we'd be seeing it all the time. The income generated from such a demo, would be unimaginable. Clearly, it's all a charade.

[@nuclearsimian3281]

@@darthschumy Holy shit, this has to be willful stupidity.

[@SergiulGaming]

I can have carrack for years for 380 bucks rather than 600. Why shouldnt I want it lol.

[@SolarWindsRider]

Why is everyone talking about capital ships that take a year to make. CIG has a lot of small and medium ships in backlog that have game loops, and they don't implement them still. Santokiay, Origin cars, Apollo, now 3 Spirit variants. They have enough capacity to make Scorpius, and Hull-A and Cutter from scratch, so why not backlog ships of the same size? The only reason they don't touch the backlog is because people already paid for it and they'd better work on smth that people haven't bought yet.

[@DedLeader]

The fact something takes a long time shouldn't be the reason you take a long time to start it, since with that logic it's only ever going to take longer. I think there's so many new players in the game now that with reworks and new focus on these old concept ships they can sell just as many as any NEW concept ship. The hype for the Corsair was real for old and new player alike!

[@heraklesfarnese960]

Well most of what you said is true for the Galaxy - but for most of the other ships aswell. If you own something bigger than a starter ship, it's all the same.

[@four8998]

One thing I want to come into the game is the Idris It's in the game It's basically ready and doesn't really introduce any new gameplay loops But they're supposedly they're waiting until they release squadron 42 which'll happen god knows when

[@nuclearsimian3281]

Its fucking feature complete. You just have no patience. Its also the chief hero ship for the whole game and will probably provide dataminers access to too many systems that will reveal information about the game before release.

[@uliseto]

I just got a $5 ccu token and keep it in the freezer for a few years while i catch the discounts building up to it

[@DedLeader]

Same hahaha

[@makoshark40]

Im sure if cig started selling uhh lti alone people would buy it also if they did a pqyment to not pay for warp gates for time after launches pay to not be taxed for time etc that can go right into world building

[@Highrollerpersa]

I see no problems with getting a carrack half price

[@Trucker4Life84]

According to SC lore majority of the ships are decades of years old and I like the idea of ships that'll be released with a more modern design time wise and yup...I bought one

[@jeremyj5932]

Don’t forget it’s the unhappy people that run to Reddit and spectrum. The happy and content people like me don’t go online to complain. So it’s only a part of the community and judging from the funding….a small part.

[@jeremyj5932]

For the record I happily purchased a galaxy and don’t mind waiting at all. I want to see more and more concepts! As many as possible.

[@nuclearsimian3281]

@@jeremyj5932 A few friends of mine picked up a Galaxy. I got a Polaris, and its going to be done next month. The Perseus and Galaxy are up next, since they want to get RSI's caps done quickly.

[@seanmobley4253]

i have been playing for 6 months and it seems like they were trying to go modular to make it easier for players to customize ships, housing and game play. but for some reason they lost track of their plan and forgot the main idea to bring the player experience to top the charts in gaming. making promises, then changing direction and then not delivering those promises turns people off to having the best player experience. so far i have enjoyed the game, but one thing i find disappointing is that one can grind away to buy their dream ship with in-game currency investing hundreds of hours to get their dream ship because not everyone can afford real currency to invest in buying the ship they want, then having all that hard earned time to disappear with a wipe. so it takes away from the time invested in the game. so why should a person grind for his dream to have it taken away?

[@dang986]

Because this is an alpha.. the point is to test the game until full release. The wipe is literally necessary to add new systems to the game. the game hasn't released yet so why would they keep everything anyway? That wouldn't be fair to people who started the game on release, while many others have every ship, armor, and weapons, from ALPHA, which will most likely have different ways to get money and ships than the main game.

[@seanmobley4253]

@@dang986 your right it would put most people on an even keel along with new pledges. However, there are a few rare bugs in this alpha version that very few know about and don't share where they get paid ungodly amounts of money in just a few minutes of game play so the disadvantage still exist whether alpha state or being a long -term player or newby. And as I tried to explain, those people who have invested large amounts of cash to buy their ships don't loose their ships in a wipe giving them an unfair advantage because they have the money to burn. (Their advantage) so the players who invest countless hours and use in-game money to buy ships should be aloud to keep them in their hanger to even out the game play of the rich...

[@snoop_lion]

Also pretty instulting that silly gokart racing is getting added before most ships...

[@nuclearsimian3281]

Gokarting wasn't as complex to add. Clearing out the entire backlog is.

[@Lestat070707]

At 11:42 you said they should be adding new ships. That's backwards game development. The PU need to be functioning first, bugs, crashes and gameplay loops need to be created before focusing on making ships. It's like selling electric cars on mass and not having an infrastructure to accommodate them in a country that's looking to be green: don't get me started on electric vs hydrogen fuel tech lol. They should have focused on a working game before diverting to S42. That should have been a side project unless it was the primary goal. If it was primary goal then make sure backers know and focus on getting the single player completed then port MMo elements to it. Like Red Dead 2 and GTA 5 were developed. If the PU was the main focus then the priorities have been shifted without consideration to leaving the game in a functional state. There's only so long you can be hopeful that you're holding onto a niche market or something pops up in the horizon. The game will definitely be dropped as Chris stated if interest in the game drops: how would you feel if you sank more than the basic package into the game if that was the case?

[@Fractal379]

"how would you feel if you sank more than the basic package into the game if that was the case?" I'd feel fine - like the majority of sane adults who read what they were contributing to before they signed up. I'd feel fine - because only a fool would pledge more than they could afford to 'lose'. I'd feel fine - because my emotional state is independent of CIG's obedience to my uninformed whims & development fanstasies. How would YOU feel?

[@quin6135]

It’s a nic sentiment… but why sell a ship when you can sell a picture of one.

[@BrainDmgBahhh]

I have pledged for Perseus, and as far as i know it has not even touched yet.

[@nuclearsimian3281]

Polaris, Galaxy, and Perseus are up for development next in that order. Polaris is expected to be done next month. Then after that, the Galaxy is next, and then the Perseus, but they may change to do the Perseus first. This shit takes a lot of time to make an ultra-high detail, high sound fidelity project like this. Be patient. That'll help with a lot of things that you have to wait for in the future.

[@niklasdahlgren7641]

It's a very cool ship but...let's look at what you need if you want a FULLY functional Galaxy Hospital ship... - Galaxy 380$ - Medical bay 90$ - C8R Pisces 65$ That's 535 bucks... Yes, it's basically a Carrack without a ground vehicle and a lot of medical bays instead of an exploration purpose. But...why such heavy turrets and not a lot more defensive weapons against fighters, why all the forward facing gun turrets and poor rear defense? It's an industrial/modular ship with a very aggressive stance.

[@redicanprime1181]

Welcome to game development. If they don't show what their working on next then people would complain. Stop shooting yourself in the foot. You want this game to succeed like everyone else. Imagine they released the game with the amount of ships they have. That's it. Their done. Then we would complain about the limited amount of ships. Ships are for us. There's 1000 more things their working on over there and all they hear from us is crying like babies about ships. All manufactures need competitors otherwise everyone would be flying the same ships.

[@Fractal379]

💯

[@nuclearsimian3281]

The second resonable person in this thread. Thank god we're out there. Weird how OP can't wrap their head around this concept.

[@DareonSky]

There is however one point why people (well those who want to and can support the development or dont care for money at all) should buy Galaxy. Its the loaner ship. That is, if you buy Galaxy, as long as it is not delivered you will get the Carrack. Means you can get at once much more expensive ship for years ;)

[@Chaos-gu3yc]

Simple concept rule change, don’t create new concepts ships were the game loops are not in the PU. Just add cargo and salvage for now. No more exploration , no more repair, etc..

[@Frank-os6gq]

You're asking CIG to waste months of their time to make a concept ship good enough to put into the game only then to have to remove it later and completely redesign it. They have said that they've already had to redesign their past concept ships because of new features that they couldn't predict. They have to fund the game in some form or fashion and this is the one if you don't want to support you don't have to buy it but your money is directly supporting them not necessarily just buying the ship. They even state that is why it's called a pledge.

[@jodell2023]

I could buy a ship that's a year out. But not more than a year out

[@spike178]

Don't buy any ship just buy a CCU to any ship you're interested in, will get it a lot cheaper by the time its flyable.

[@DedLeader]

Yeah 100% this is the way to go

[@jedi_drifter2988]

Actually U get a Carrack as the loaner ship 4 the Galaxy until it's flyable ... what's to complain about really ?

[@Agent-yc2ii]

How about maybe you like the Galaxy and not the Carrack!!!!!1

[@jedi_drifter2988]

@@Agent-yc2ii Maybe instant gratification is not always possible. Some people are Never satisfied ....

[@Cherronova]

Carrack is the loaner FOR NOW, the fine print on loaners is that that loaner isn’t guaranteed to you and is subject to change at CIGs whim