I'm convinced they would have done so much better if it hadn't been Epic exclusive. I know more than one person who won't play it on PC because of this.
It's a great game otherwise.
It also likely wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t an epic exclusive (they funded it). I do wish they could have gotten someone else to publish it of course, but I’m thankful the game exists at all, it’s really outstanding
Because Crysis looked good, Chris Roberts mandated that Star Citizen would use Cryengine 3.
To make astronomically large spaces fit in the game engine from 2009, they made everything infinitesimally small.
So now due to the inaccuracy inherent in floating point calculations, instead of invisibly nudging things a few millimeters in the wrong direction, teleports people hundreds of feet out of their ships into space if they bump into a physics object, ladder, elevator, etc.
This is what happens when an ideas guy with no technical knowledge is making technical decisions.
Jesus fucking christ, that was their fundamental approach?!
… Did they ever come anywhere close to a dynamic server model, with dynamically sized in game zones being handled by dynamically changing server clusters, dependant on player count in an area?
I remember making some comments in a thread in the main SC forums about it almost a decade ago that were basically to the effect of: that’s almost certainly impossible to pull off with enough fidelity / low lag to actually work in a real time, absurdly open world shooter game, but if they could pull it off it would basically be the greatest achievement in game networking history.
Meshing tests have gone up to 2000 and the shards that were left on overnight were 300-500. The current evocati build of 4.0 has meshing enabled, just limited to 100 for now
This is not even true, they rewrote the engine to support native 64-bit precision to let them fit large spaces, they didn’t just make everything small. They basically employ all the people that used to make Cryengine since Crytek went out of business, so the engine they are building is actually pretty good.
I am engine developer, but even to this day you can clearly see Cryengine 3.x issue in star citizen.
They simulate zero-g areas as a Cryengine underwater map. You routinely see stuff floating as if in water even on planets with gravity.
You can also witness strange bugs that confirm the size issue (that they made everything extremely small in a Frankenstein version of a Cryengine map); one example would be your footmarks suddenly becoming massive.
The completely fucked up physics in sc (e.g. tanks bouncing like beachballs) is also a legacy of Cryengine 3.0.
Classic, the person who doesn’t know what they’re talking about is SO sure that they know the truth. So much so they’re out here correcting people and handing out false info.
so the engine they are building is actually pretty good
Keep living in a false reality pal. I’m sure you k or so much more than the engine dev who replied to you.
One thing I can believe is that AAA games have gotten really expensive to make, so it’s not surprising that companies have broken that sort of soft $60 limit that we had for a while. I’m not even against paying more for a good game. When an indie game for $20 can provide over 100 hours of enjoyment, it’s just getting to be a tough sell.
You know, fundamentally, I don’t hate Gamepass as a concept. “Netflix, but for videogames” is an idea I can get behind, as it widens the audience for something I love by lowering the bar of entry. There are plenty of people out there that benefit from being able to play a few games here and there without needing to commit hundreds of hours to $100 purchases.
But Netflix has overstepped with price hikes and ads, and I’ve cancelled my service with them. That Microsoft thinks it can charge some ~$40CAD a month is pure hubris. I hope they learn quickly that, at that price point, the enthusiast market will happily cancel and just buy their games outright, and the casual market will decide it’s an expense they don’t need.
That pricing is really putting Nintendo out of its core market. The reason the Switch was an absolute smash is because it was and remained accessibly priced. The fact they’re charging $450 is really putting them out of the “hey that’s not too bad” audience. This is a wildly bad move on their part.
Yes, it is a price increase, but the inflation has been wild. For context, the Switch in 2017 for $299 is equivalent to $389 in 2025 dollars. It’s really been insane. The Nintendo 64 from 1996 was $199, or $404 in 2025 dollars.
While you’re not literally wrong adjusting for inflation, their “value proposition” is a bit out the window. It’s so close in price to comparable tech, it seems like a much more serious purchase. Nintendo hit it right with the Wii and the Switch by pricing competitively low. The Switch 2 should follow the same value quotient to be a runaway success. This is effectively what killed the Wii U. The Switch 2 could be destined to follow the same fate.
Even the mental trickery of “$399” would be more effective than “$449” for Nintendo in the long run. They have to question whether that $50 is worth losing marketshare. I think if they are keeping the game prices and (potentially) the cost of services like online higher than the entry point of buying the system should be lower.
Yes, but it doesn’t cost $389 but $450. For $389 I would’ve considered it, bot not $450. Also the bigger issue for me are the game and accessory prices.
I grew up breaking games to make them run under minimum settings. Subnautica has (or at least had) a Dev menu or some shit that you could make the game look like utter arse.
Got me like 18fps at 480p, worth it #playable for younger me.
If I get under 100fps at 4k now I’m unhappy. How times change.
Lol, same, I’ve played some games at such abysmal resolution it became a testament of how good the art direction was, making it possible to recognize things amidst that jumble of pixels.
Funny how we grow accustomed with what we have. I was hyper-aware of my disk usage when I had a tiny HDD, nowadays I’m like “Why am I low on storage???”, then I go check and find 200GB of junk I no longer need on my downloads folder. Whoops.
Yeah I have, for a looong while. I understand a stable framerate is much better than a “high” one, but like, were not talking about a “Low-end” PC here, we’re talking about the current, still marketed generation here.
How come 30’s still the target when all the marketing is talking about how powerful it is and how amazing the upscaling is? And it’s a fixed target on top of all that, like common man
Will the end result of this be panacea for the indie Dev? Essentially all the major producers end up killing off all their talent by forcing AI, and those folks now form their own indie studios and make the games we actually want.
The question is who funds these theoretical new studios? Indie studios more often than not have to make deals with the devil so they can eat. Then, even if their game is a smash hit, the investors take the lion’s share of profit and still control the actual devs by the purse strings. This society is sick.
If you were to listen to the internet, it would seem that AAA studios are be on their last gasp, with indie devs dancing on their graves.
The reality is that, aside from the big indie game of the moment (think Silksong or Expedition 33, if you want to count the latter as indie), most gamers don’t care or don’t even know indie games exist in the first place.
I have a few gamer friends (each of whom spends a few hours daily on games), and only one of them plays maybe one indie game per year, and only those who manage to breach through his bubble via influencers and streamers.
Ehhh I know a lot of people that play indie games, but generally they only play one or two genres of them. Part of it is that the terminology gets confusing because people mean different things. Like, other than baldur’s gate, I couldn’t tell you the last western AAA game I played. But I played FF7 rebirth which is definitely AAA but not what people are always talking about when that talk about AAA sinking. There are also tons of studios that you probably wouldn’t call AAA but you also wouldn’t call indie. Like, I probably play more games from Falcom than any other studio. They’re not huge headcount-wise or cutting edge technology-wise but they’ve been consistently making games since the 80s. I think a lot of people don’t bucket those types of developers in their heads at all.
Indie devs don’t need to reach mainstream mindshare to become successful. An indie team that’s stays small and nimble doesn’t need to reach a million unit in sales. Like how many mainstream gamers have heard of Tiny Glade a game that made a few million dollars created by two people.
I noted the issues with gearbox near the end of the borderlands 2 cycle and put them on my ‘I’ll buy it when it drops down to under $10 for everything’ category.
I have posted a fully compiled list for 2 that put me off further first day spending posted somewhere. I’m sure I could find it if needed.
Same. I loved 2 but the DLC started to get… dicey. Pre-Sequel was fun, but then kind of a let down and made me realize how stale the gameplay was and how dev practices at Gearbox were shifting. I ended up never playing 3.
I’d be curious to see your list, and how it matches up with my own half-remembered gripes.
Instead of going to find it… I’ll just do my best to list it from memory (and it’s not going to be complete)
ammo economy in general was ruined from the first game. The entire ‘guardian’ legendary weapon set were removed, and most class mods no longer have any ammo regeneration unless certain characters. Lots of guns now shoot multiple bullets per shot, making this problem even worse.
Backpack space was lowered from the first game, while equippables was increased. Overall space was increased with the bank included… but not by much. I think the difference is 2.
The rock, paper, scissors health types first introduced in the general knoxx DLC were really leaned into really hard, which means it’s very handy to have a weapon of each element type on your person.
These three were my major issues. It’s a LOOTER SHOOTER. I need to LOOT and SHOOT. These three points made it more of a chore to do the base game loop at higher levels, especially considering that most characters had only a couple preferred weapon types. Combining all three points meant I was usually balancing 3 weapons of different types so the ammo didn’t overlap with different elements so I could effectively shoot fleshy, shielded, and armored enemies… and then sometimes slag.
There are some other gripes about the skill trees being overall worse than the first game, the DLC’s eluding to the best fights from 1 and being really disappointing (looking at you Crawmerex), and the lack of any real changes in the enemies from the first game. Sure there were plenty of new skins, but the actions didn’t change at all.
I’m sure there were more, but these points were enough to show me that the dev team was moving in a direction I wasn’t particularly excited to play. The story and most boss fights were way better than 1’s. So there was some positive growth, but in terms of overall gameplay I felt that the game was a massive downturn from where I would have liked to see the game go.
I have never purchased a game at $70 so for $80 they can be sure as shit I am hard noping out of this one. I was a day 1 3DS (ambassador club!) and Wii U buyer. Really hope this backfires, so incredibly stupid
Scroll down a good amount, 79.99$ MSRP for Mario kart world. Thats not a guarantee they’ll all be 80$. The new donkey Kong is 70$. No official word on other games, though.
In Australia we had an au$90 price tier with only 6 titles:
Breath of the Wild
Pokkén Tournament DX
Fire Emblem Warriors
Xenoblade Chronicles 2
Super Smash Bros Ultimate
Tears of the Kingdom
All their other AAA titles were au$80, for example:
Super Mario Kart 8 Deluxe
Animal Crossing: New Horizons
Super Mario Odyssey
Pokémon Sword/Shield or Scarlet/Violet
Super Mario Party / Superstars / Jamboree
New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe / Super Mario Wonder
Then smaller releases were placed at $70, for example:
1-2-Switch
Go Vacation
Fitness Boxing 2/ 3
Miitopia
WarioWare: Get It Together / Move it
You can see they used the $90 tier quite aggressively early in the piece and then scaled back significantly with almost 5 years between Smash Bros and Tears of the Kingdom.
At the same time they made sure the Marios (Kart, 3d, 2d, Party, Sports), Pokemons and other franchises with broad all-ages appeal were priced in the middle at $80.
To be honest I’m a bit worried about the pricing for Super Mario Kart World, the previous one was the beat selling Switch title and if they come out of the gate with high sales they may take the wrong lessons and try to lock in that au$120 price (a 50% increase!).
On the other hand they may just be price anchoring with the bundle. Having the standalone console priced at au$700 and the bundle at au$770 will let the consumer find ways to justify the purchase, they might say the console is worth $700 so the game is only $70, or they might argue the game is $120 so the console is really only $650. Either way will make them feel better about giving Nintendo the money.
I suppose the best outcome for the consumer would be for most people to get SMKW in the bundle and then hopefully the next title they release at that price point has lacklustre sales. If they see they sell more units at a lower price it can be a good outcome for everyone.
wccftech.com
Ważne