Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Star Citizen Raised $148M from Fans, and Now It’s Raising Concerns

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 185 posts

Re: Star Citizen Raised $148M from Fans, and Now It’s Raising Concerns

#61

Post by pinum »

mabbo wrote: post #4

I feel like crowdfunding sites ought to force each campaign to have a 'maximum funding' value they have to choose. That would both force the people building whatever it is they want to build to consider just how much money is too much, and also signal to those funding the project the kind of ambition the builder has.

A sibling comment pointed out that they did their own fundraising, but this is still a good point. The limit could be set to the highest defined stretch goal + n% to compensate for non-payers.

Re: Star Citizen Raised $148M from Fans, and Now It’s Raising Concerns

#62

Post by giobox »

ryandrake wrote: post #60
tracker1 wrote: post #18

I'm not sure why they didn't just "Build the $10m game" and release that, then spend the rest on expansions to that game. Would have been a much more predictable approach (assuming the original game is setup to be appropriately expandable.

Or build the $10M game and return the remaining $130M to the backers, proportionally? My question is: What would he do if he got an extra $300M? Increase the scope even more? At what point do you stop increasing scope and concentrate on shipping a product?

How big a 'cut' does Roberts himself take as well? Given this endeavor is built entirely on the charity of the backers, I would really hope he isn't taking a percentage, but sadly wouldn't be surprised either if he is.

Re: Star Citizen Raised $148M from Fans, and Now It’s Raising Concerns

#63

Post by schmich »

arikr wrote: post #16

Oh dear. Reminds me of: https://twitter.com/mcgd/status/850347746452099072 "When the kleenex box is full, you take two. When it's almost empty, you might use one twice. That's why oversized financings are bad." It seems like the better route would be for them to make the $10 million game, and then to ramp up from there.

I've found this to be true not just of financing and money but of scheduling and time as well [1]. I wouldn't be surprised if this applies to many other resources, like employees in a company.

For example, given the task of building a complex system under a time constraint, it's easy to exhaust the time granted, be it a week, a month, or a year. A complex system can always be more perfect, so you can always spend more time on making it better. A limited resource (e.g. a week) can force you to focus on the essential solution whereas an abundance (e.g. a month) can lead to frivolous design and overengineering.

The antidote seems to be organizational restraint, concrete milestones, and constant readjustment to keep in line with greater goals. Scope creep, perfect-as-enemy-of-good, and bike shedding are all aspects of this behavior.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law

Re: Star Citizen Raised $148M from Fans, and Now It’s Raising Concerns

#64

Post by AlwaysRock »

I ended up with a free copy of Star Citizen when I bought a graphic card. At the point when I got it there wasnt much to do. I somehow still get weekly email updates from them but I've been expecting them to stop over the last 9 months or so because it seems the full game will never be finished.

Re: Star Citizen Raised $148M from Fans, and Now It’s Raising Concerns

#66

Post by wang_li »

manarth wrote: post #58
sbov wrote: post #20

It seems like a safer use of extra funding is for free expansions. It may seem unfair to take $140 million and build a $10 million game, but people funded you with your $10 million game, deadlines included, in mind.

It may seem unfair to take $140 million and build a $10 million game If a film spent $10M, and turned $140M at the box office, it would be seen as a success, rather than a con. Should a game be any different?

It shouldn't be any different, however, this situation is:

    If a film spent $140M and turned $10M at the box office, it would be seen as an utter failure. Should a game be any different?

Re: Star Citizen Raised $148M from Fans, and Now It’s Raising Concerns

#67

Post by Karunamon »

theandrewbailey wrote: post #12
ungzd wrote: post #2

"Space exploration" games have strange tendency for hyper-hype and scams, for example recently released No Man's Sky.

Any other examples? On the contrary, Elite Dangerous was received quite well. There is hype and scams all around in crowdfunded games, not just space ones, like Yogscast and Godus.

I'd challenge the "received quite well". Profitable maybe, but the developers infamously walked back a promise to have single-player gameplay (after taking money on the kickstarter where that was stated) available.

There's a litany of bugs and brokenness that have been around for months, even years, but in the meantime, development effort is expended on Shiny Stuff to sell in the cash shop, and half-baked Shiny Stuff to release in expansions. Game-breaking bugs are fixed in weeks and months, rather than the traditional hours and days of any other MMO.

Communication with the devs is spotty and increasingly infrequent.

Sadly, it has no real competition either. And Frontier Developments knows this. E:D is a phenomenal and unique game, but it could be so much more if the devs would actually act like they gave a toss.

Re: Star Citizen Raised $148M from Fans, and Now It’s Raising Concerns

#68

Post by kevinmchugh »

manarth wrote: post #58
sbov wrote: post #20

It seems like a safer use of extra funding is for free expansions. It may seem unfair to take $140 million and build a $10 million game, but people funded you with your $10 million game, deadlines included, in mind.

It may seem unfair to take $140 million and build a $10 million game If a film spent $10M, and turned $140M at the box office, it would be seen as a success, rather than a con. Should a game be any different?

Given that games have different funding models and expectations w/r/t release dates, yes.

Re: Star Citizen Raised $148M from Fans, and Now It’s Raising Concerns

#69

Post by fapjacks »

I'm a High Admiral backer from November of 2012, and I feel like I've got my money's worth, and I'm not really concerned about the opinions of people that haven't put skin in the game. "This game is taking forever to be developed!" I suppose if your frame of reference is every blockbuster made by every enormous shitty studio conglomerate, sure. But saddle up or shut up as far as I'm concerned. Play what's available, read the development timeline so you actually know what's going on with development and what's happened so far, and then I'll take any of these criticisms seriously. It's pretty stupid the number of people saying things like "I paid my thirty dollars a couple of years ago and I still can't play!" Well that's your fault for not looking before you leap. You have known two things if you've read the packaging before you bought the beans: 1) Development is ongoing and the final game is not released, 2) Development timeline is not rigid and inflexible like it is for giant studios cranking out titles. This is Chris Roberts being given ample time and money to create a magnum opus. That is what it's been the whole time, and what it's been advertised as since the beginning. Outsider opinion is worth nothing.

Re: Star Citizen Raised $148M from Fans, and Now It’s Raising Concerns

#70

Post by fgonzag »

ryandrake wrote: post #60
tracker1 wrote: post #18

I'm not sure why they didn't just "Build the $10m game" and release that, then spend the rest on expansions to that game. Would have been a much more predictable approach (assuming the original game is setup to be appropriately expandable.

Or build the $10M game and return the remaining $130M to the backers, proportionally? My question is: What would he do if he got an extra $300M? Increase the scope even more? At what point do you stop increasing scope and concentrate on shipping a product?

Why would they return it? Backing something is like an early purchase with risk and discount built into it. You are not an investor. All you are ethically​ owed (and not even legally) is the game with the stretch goals you backed. If they blow past the stretch goals they can keep the money if they wish.
Post reply on HN