Absolutely. But then again I hold the theory that most people that scoff at it are people who see something epic, can't afford a PC that can run it, and so call shenanigans and predict doom and gloom to convince themselves they don't want it.SirAroun said:It is clear that NONE of you know ANYTHING about Star Citizen. You just saw the (possible, not confirmed) 100GB file size and started freaking out, jumping to conclusions and raving about Doom.
First off, those that buy into in now or have bought into in already are going to get the game piece meal over 2 years.
Second off, do you thing CIG is so stupid that they won't have a plan for when it is out? It is 2 yeas out from release, they have time to make a plan!
Eh? I'm having a bit of a cognitive dissonance here because in other forums I peruse Star Citizen is pretty much the poster child for greed and dodgy practices in regard to ships sold.TT Kairen said:It's a developer who's ambition is driven by passion, this is the game he's making because it's the game he and his backers want to play. Not because some corporate asshole at a publisher sees dollar signs.
Perhaps you should follow development, then? It's actually progressing well and we are getting regular detailed updates about exactly what each of the involved studios is doing every month and what challenges they must overcome. I am impressed by all the information that is flowing out of Cloud Imperium Games about this and how much they are keeping us all in the loop. It's incredibly ambitious, yes, but it looks like they are going to achieve most or all of that ambition.Fieldy409 said:Everytime I hear about Star Citizen I feel like im watching a trainwreck slowly happen. This game just seems crazy, too ambitious to believe.
It's not so much that it is "inefficient", but just that it is so damn enormous. The sheer scope of this game utterly dwarfs anything we have seen before, and since there are no plans to bring it to consoles the developers don't have to hold back at all. They're able to genuinely push the limits of PC gaming to a level that we have never seen before.JaceArveduin said:Maybe I just don't know what the hell I'm talking (it's true*) but shouldn't they be able to find a way to make it not so space inefficient?
Then they're misinterpreting the point of such packages. As is obvious, the game is being developed for those with the highest echelons of hardware. Some of those people have a lot of money, and a lot of desire to see such a game come to fruition (it's been years since the last great space sim). Chris Roberts has stated these packages are not for BUYING SHIPS. Pledge money only if you wish to back the game. The ships are simply the reward and the thank you for supporting the game in such a huge way. (All of the packages in your screenshot have many ships, all with lifetime insurance so they will be replaced for free, as well.) ALL ships shown will be available for in-game money once the game launches, and ships will NO LONGER be available for real money. It is purely to show support.Frankster said:Eh? I'm having a bit of a cognitive dissonance here because in other forums I peruse Star Citizen is pretty much the poster child for greed and dodgy practices in regard to ships sold.TT Kairen said:It's a developer who's ambition is driven by passion, this is the game he's making because it's the game he and his backers want to play. Not because some corporate asshole at a publisher sees dollar signs.
Seriously, the drama surrounding this game and the ships have become quite the topic in other forums, has made for some enjoyable reading.
Not only that, but the bigger ships in those packages in the screenshot are designed for an entire organisation (guild) to operate and maintain, not a single pilot. The actual required cost to get on board with Star Citizen is $45 for a starter package, which will give you all the chapters of the single player Wing Commander style campaign as well as a small "starter" ship to begin exploring the shared persistent universe. EVERY OTHER SHIP (and weapon, clothing article, device, pet fish, and everything else) is obtainable in-game without requiring the outlay of any more real world cash. Anyone claiming you need to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on Star Citizen is either being disingenuous or literally does not know what they are talking about.TT Kairen said:Then they're misinterpreting the point of such packages. As is obvious, the game is being developed for those with the highest echelons of hardware. Some of those people have a lot of money, and a lot of desire to see such a game come to fruition (it's been years since the last great space sim). Chris Roberts has stated these packages are not for BUYING SHIPS. Pledge money only if you wish to back the game. The ships are simply the reward and the thank you for supporting the game in such a huge way. (All of the packages in your screenshot have many ships, all with lifetime insurance so they will be replaced for free, as well.) ALL ships shown will be available for in-game money once the game launches, and ships will NO LONGER be available for real money. It is purely to show support.Frankster said:Eh? I'm having a bit of a cognitive dissonance here because in other forums I peruse Star Citizen is pretty much the poster child for greed and dodgy practices in regard to ships sold.TT Kairen said:It's a developer who's ambition is driven by passion, this is the game he's making because it's the game he and his backers want to play. Not because some corporate asshole at a publisher sees dollar signs.
Seriously, the drama surrounding this game and the ships have become quite the topic in other forums, has made for some enjoyable reading.
You do realise PCs can multitask, right? It's not like a console where you have to sit around and wait for the patch to complete, and you literally cannot do anything else while you wait. I routinely have my computer downloading truckloads of data, while it is also re-encoding video, streaming another video file to a TV in my loungeroom, while I am still using it to read articles on the internet. So if a patch comes out you can't play THIS ONE PARTICULAR GAME for half a day, so what? Let it download while you are at work, or play something else for a couple hours, or something. Honestly guys, it's hard to believe how pessimistic you people are, and how unwilling you are to think outside the box.Redryhno said:And a 100Gb download with patches close to 10Gb? That's just...not feasible for a large part of the PC audience. You can have the most kickass PC imaginable, but the game is gated by having fast internet or you'll be sitting around for three days waiting for the base game, and everytime they decide to patch it is another half day of doing nothing else. It's a waste of time as far as I'm concerned and I was somewhat interested despite all the other crap I'd heard about the game, but this is honestly the nail in the coffin for me, and for all the talk of hating, looks like it was for alot of other people too.
With this degree of ignorance about the difference in scale and scope of the two games, you really can't make any comment that can be taken seriously. Do you even realise the difference between procedurally-generated bland nothingness, and hand crafted, highly detailed game worlds?mastermerrick said:Elite: Dangerous was around 30GB, and it was a world the size of our ENTIRE GALAXY. This better be the real-life size of a galaxy super-cluster at the very least.Aeshi said:And any interest I might've had just went down the drain. Seriously, what the fuck are they doing that takes that much space?!
Games like EVE, X3 and/or WoW give entire worlds or galaxies to play with and they're only in the 15-30GB range.
Well, to be honest... What ABOUT the rest of you? You're not backers, you're declaring that you're probably not even going to be customers, and you're doing nothing but oozing negativity. Should you expect anyone to care that you would have to strain your poor connection to the limit to download the game?RedDeadFred said:Okay, good for them. What about the rest of us?SirAroun said:First off, those that buy into in now or have bought into in already are going to get the game piece meal over 2 years.
I believe I said multiple times already that if the game ends up being as good as it has promised, I will absolutely buy it, and it will probably be one of my favourite games of all time. I however am familiar with developers making promises that they don't keep.infohippie said:Well, to be honest... What ABOUT the rest of you? You're not backers, you're declaring that you're probably not even going to be customers, and you're doing nothing but oozing negativity. Should you expect anyone to care that you would have to strain your poor connection to the limit to download the game?RedDeadFred said:Okay, good for them. What about the rest of us?SirAroun said:First off, those that buy into in now or have bought into in already are going to get the game piece meal over 2 years.
If it turns out that despite all your wailing and gnashing of teeth you actually DO want the game in the end, then here's an idea - PLAN AHEAD. Put a little thought into something for once. Buy the game right near the end of your monthly connection cycle and grab half of it right away and download the rest a day or two later when your limit resets. Or consider the thought that CIG might have actually considered this issue and might offer physical media for sale. Is it really that hard to find some way to handle a large amount of data?
Eh, you're probably right, it's just I'm trying to figure out if this is the estimated file size before or after all of the little tricks to trim it down...infohippie said:It's not so much that it is "inefficient", but just that it is so damn enormous. The sheer scope of this game utterly dwarfs anything we have seen before, and since there are no plans to bring it to consoles the developers don't have to hold back at all. They're able to genuinely push the limits of PC gaming to a level that we have never seen before.JaceArveduin said:Maybe I just don't know what the hell I'm talking (it's true*) but shouldn't they be able to find a way to make it not so space inefficient?
If it were a normal developer, or even some random guy making a crowdfunded project, I might be more along your mindset. However, you must be unfamiliar with Wing Commander or Freelancer for some reason or another. This is CHRIS ROBERTS we're talking about. Along with Richard Garriot, also of Origin, one of the oldest, most respected names in the industry for being passionate about his work. They were also a couple of the first victims of EA. But there is one thing you can be sure of when it comes to Chris' name, and that is quality. Not perfection, but you can expect a great space game because he loves great space games. Now that passion and drive is being put to a project with more technology and funding than he's ever had, without the stranglehold of any publisher.RedDeadFred said:snip
They're not splitting it into multiple downloads, no. But the launcher/patcher is smart enough that you can just close it at any time, then when you next run it it will resume from where it left off.RedDeadFred said:I wasn't aware that they were splitting the game up into multiple downloads for convenience sake. That seems like something they'd want to announce along with the actual size of the game, so that people don't outright dismiss it like what is happening now. I realize that they've released individual modules of gameplay for people to demo, but have they actually said that they're splitting their game in such a way so that they can accommodate for people with lower data caps? It wouldn't surprise me if they didn't. Game developers do stupid things all the time.
/threadaaronexus said:The game is currently sitting at around 20Gb
uh, what? Majority? i dont know a single person in rl that has caps. In fact i was amazed to learn that there still exist caps in 2013 when i heard people complaining. caps were abolished in 2008~ here. this shows less of a problem with people willing to download and more of a problem of some ISPs being utterly incompetent.Zontar said:Looks like this won't be the Eve killer after all (not that the mechanics of the game ever made that a possibility anyway).
But seriously, who is going to download that in an age where the majority of us still have caps? I know I'm not even considering it now (I was before) and I have a 250GB cap, about as high as they get.
Its not hard to set aside 100gb when the total is infinite. the question is more about traffic time. It would definitely be an overnight download or limited speed multiday downloads and thats a lot.008Zulu said:I wonder if they will consider burning the game to multiple blu-rays? Yeah it might be expensive, but how many people would be able to set aside 100gb plus the veritable Day 1 patches? Not a lot would be my guess.
if a game is this big it will need to stream large textures very fast, and thus SSD will likely be a significant performance boost.Smilomaniac said:o-o-o-o-h-h n-o-o-o... what ever will I do with only 3TB's of harddrive space...
Not everything needs to be on an SSD folks. Well, actually for this game I'd buy a 4 or 500GB SSD and dedicate it.
Wow is over a decade old with over a decade old graphics and this is a game that is supposed to have "The best graphics ever".shrekfan246 said:WoW is also just over a decade old, with four expansion packs. And yet they've managed to keep the game from ballooning much beyond 30 GB over all of that time, despite it getting consistently larger and receiving improved assets.
If you need to wait hours for downloading of a 2gb patch something is extremely wrong with your internet connection.shrekfan246 said:And multi-GB patches are extremely obnoxious, because it means that when I get the feeling to play something that needs to update before I'm allowed to play, I have to spend hours waiting and by the time it's finished I probably won't feel like playing it anymore.
Yes, the problem is that shitty ISPs havent been laughed out of the industry yet, though thats none of Star Citizens fault.aaronexus said:Yes, but people with shitty ISPs can't be expected to download that. That's the issue at hand, here.Denamic said:100GB is a lot for a game, but not enough to require a particularly big HDD. Even my mother's 5 year old piece of shit laptop has a 500GB HDD. Any computer nowadays can fit that easily.
[/quote]Redryhno said:And a 100Gb download with patches close to 10Gb? That's just...not feasible for a large part of the PC audience. You can have the most kickass PC imaginable, but the game is gated by having fast internet or you'll be sitting around for three days waiting for the base game, and everytime they decide to patch it is another half day of doing nothing else. It's a waste of time as far as I'm concerned and I was somewhat interested despite all the other crap I'd heard about the game, but this is honestly the nail in the coffin for me, and for all the talk of hating, looks like it was for alot of other people too.
With 6gb patches... that 120gb drive would get filled up on Day 1.Strazdas said:Its not hard to set aside 100gb when the total is infinite. the question is more about traffic time. It would definitely be an overnight download or limited speed multiday downloads and thats a lot.
a more interesting question would be about peoples SSD sizes, as many people i know use the 120/128gb ones and this would mean the game would take the entire SSD.
Just because Ubisoft games dont work without 5 patches does not mean its true for everyone else.008Zulu said:With 6gb patches... that 120gb drive would get filled up on Day 1.Strazdas said:Its not hard to set aside 100gb when the total is infinite. the question is more about traffic time. It would definitely be an overnight download or limited speed multiday downloads and thats a lot.
a more interesting question would be about peoples SSD sizes, as many people i know use the 120/128gb ones and this would mean the game would take the entire SSD.
Here in North America, caps are the rule, not the exception. This applies as much to Canada as it does the United States. It has to do with a multitude of reasons (in the US it tends to be because of de-facto monopolies in place, while in Canada it's due to our internet infrastructure being unenviable due to our low population density).Strazdas said:uh, what? Majority? i dont know a single person in rl that has caps. In fact i was amazed to learn that there still exist caps in 2013 when i heard people complaining. caps were abolished in 2008~ here. this shows less of a problem with people willing to download and more of a problem of some ISPs being utterly incompetent.Zontar said:Looks like this won't be the Eve killer after all (not that the mechanics of the game ever made that a possibility anyway).
But seriously, who is going to download that in an age where the majority of us still have caps? I know I'm not even considering it now (I was before) and I have a 250GB cap, about as high as they get.
And EVE is one of the smaller ones nowadays anyway.
This entire post is literally a shining example of the first thing I was talking about. You have the most amazing internet in the world, good for you.Strazdas said:Snip
Okay, now I'm curious. How the hell are you spending a terabyte of data in a day?Strazdas said:That does not make sense. My computer is downloading and uploading traffic daily. Some days as much as 1TB of data in a day. thats 1024GB in case you didnt knew, in a day.