Star Citizen Smashes $31m, Squadron 42 Enhanced

I wonder when we'll unlock the ship that's just a giant Squadron 42 logo.

As surely as the Earth keeps on spinning and the sun looms precariously, waiting for the day when our brittle atmosphere crumbles away so it can boil us all into bleeding scabs that scar the planet’s skin, Star Citizen keeps on pulling in millions of dollars. It’s now jumped all the way past the $31 million mark, which means a) Star Citizen gets an “interstellar super yacht,” b) Chris Roberts and co have enough money to buy a real interstellar super yacht, and c) single-player story-based Wing Commander successor Squadron 42 gets some serious upgrades. Details and video below.

Squadron 42 is expanding, as though someone took the universe and inflated it like an all-of-existence-spanning balloon. Roberts explained:

“The team at Foundry 42 has big plans for Squadron 42, and we’re going to provide extra funding to make it a true spiritual successor to Wing Commander! Squadron 42 can go above and beyond anything you’ve seen before. From opening with an epic battle instead of a training patrol to missions that seamlessly combine boarding and space combat, we aim to put you right into the action! Additional funding will let the team realize this, with enhanced mission design and more resources and animations to enhance fidelity.”

Bigger! Spacer! More bad spaceass!

Backers have also unlocked the Origin 890 JUMP for Star Citizen and a mining platform called the RSI Orion. In layman’s terms, the former is a really, really, really big luxury spaceship. The next stretch goal, meanwhile, will focus on an exploration-based ship.

Of course, all the usual skeptical disclaimers apply. $30 million is more money than I could ever stuff into the high-security bank under my mattress, but it’s really not much at all by triple-A game development standards. Two games for the price of half of one? Seems like a nigh-impossibly tall order. We shall see.

For more on Squadron 42, you probably ought to read my GDC Next chat with Chris Roberts. Say what you will about the man, but he can certainly talk a big game.


  1. MeestaNob says:

    I hope when they get closer to release they start talking about good stick/throttle set-ups to buy. Would consider a track IR too, if it uses it.

    • Alien426 says:

      I haven’t tried Track IR before, but I think it’s weird to turn your head right, have to counteract that with eye movement to the left (so the screen stays in view) and the virtual movement goes to the right again…

      Space combat seems a great fit for Oculus Rift, though. Inside a cockpit, you wouldn’t move around in real life. So you don’t get the disconnect from shooters where you virually move forward, but your body stays in place.

      • derbefrier says:

        I always wondered about that with trackir myself. I still need foot pedals and maybe a second joystick for my setup. Anyone ever successfully used 2 joysticks in a game like this? Is it worth it?

        • Reapy says:

          Look for facetracknoir on the googles. It uses a webcam to perform trackir like control, though it won’t be as accurate as a trackir. Bottom line, it is pretty awesome. You set it up so about 20 degrees of movement will spin you 180 degrees. I had the same thought as you guys at first too, thinking I wold be looking out the corner of my eye the whole game, but it is not the case. Really we tend to look into corners we take as we are driving or flying, so having the view respond as you do so is quite awesome.

          You will have to map a centering button for the tracking (I apparently keep my head tilted to the left all the time) and a button to turn tracking on and off.

          That said, I’m not sure if it’s something you would need in a space game, but for a flight sim, no way I could go back to not having it.

      • VelvetFistIronGlove says:

        I had the same concern before getting a TrackIR. Turns out it only took me about a minute before that head-vs-eye-movement thing felt entirely natural.

        • GuyIncognito says:

          Same here. I picked up TrackIR to play Arma III and DCS A-10. I was a bit skeptical beforehand, but it’s more natural than I ever would have thought. Apparently some people just can’t get it to feel right, but it was fine for me straight out of the box.

          It would be great if Star Citizen supported it, although I fear I may have to upgrade everything BUT my TrackIr to get full enjoyment haha.

      • Jimbo says:

        You usually only move your head a few degrees and the effect is magnified depending on your TrackIR profile settings.

        Focus your eyes on a word on your screen, move your head around a few degrees while keeping your focus on the word…. it’s like that. You aren’t going to be looking out of the corner of your eye to see the monitor or anything like that (though I guess you could set it up like that if you really wanted to).

        It’s kinda weird at first, but you soon get used to it. The bigger problem for me is just having to wear the tracking thing. If TrackIR-like accuracy could be achieved with just a camera, that’d be great. I don’t know if they’ve done anything like this with the new Kinect yet, but if they could I think it would make a huge impression.

        • derbefrier says:

          Thanks for the replies I assumed there would be a setting or something but wanted to know for sure. Hmm with Black Friday and Cyber Monday coming up quickly I might treat myself to an early Christmas present.

      • Zenicetus says:

        Most people get used to it quickly. You can also scale the response, so your head motion causes slower panning when facing “forward” in your cockpit, and it’s more exaggerated at the sides and rear of your virtual cockpit. That way you don’t have to twist your neck and look sideways to check your six in combat; it’s just a fairly small movement of your head.

        TrackIR also depends on good support from the game, so I hope Star Citizen gets this right. Not just for basic tracker support, but for other options too. For example, Rise of Flight has the best TrackIR support I’ve seen (and that means the upcoming Battle for Stalingrad will probably be good too). You can set up custom fixed views for things like a zoomed-in gunsight, or looking over the side of your plane and straight down for artillery spotting or photo recon. Then you map those view commands to a joystick button. Pressing and holding the button temporarily disables TrackIR and shifts your view to any of these presets as a static view. Release the button and you’re back in normal head tracking mode.

        This is great for things like zooming in for a kill shot when you have a good firing position, because staying in TrackIR mode all the time can be a little tricky for precise shooting. The best thing about it, is that all these custom views are saved for each different plane model you fly, since the gunsights and bombsights etc. will be in different places on different planes. This is a feature Star Citizen should copy, if they’re not already thinking about it.

      • Sharlie Shaplin says:

        It’s a little weird at first but when your brain adjusts, you don’t even realise your using it. It feels much more natural than using a pov or keys to look around.

  2. AngoraFish says:

    The first crowdfunding game ever where the game is entirely about giving the company money, not any actual game. Very meta…

    • mouton says:

      I am curious about the size of the snowball effect – i.e. how many people gave money mainly because the game already got a lot of money.

  3. wodin says:

    This news means I shall back’s the single player aspect I’m interested in.

  4. razgon says:

    Its’ interesting that I have a high degree of difficulty explaining this game, and why people purchase the ships to people who aren’t hardcore gamers. They are simply baffled why anyone would purchase a spaceship for 250 dollars when its already in the game in some form.

    • DapperDirewolf says:

      It baffles me too. I backed at the Bounty Hunter level for about $60, for the game, a ship, and some other somethings I don’t remember.

      Why anyone is actually paying the amounts they are for ships alone is mind boggling. The game isn’t even guaranteed to be as awesome as it sounds (look at X-Rebirth) and people are spunking real world money away into an untried and untested (to the public) concept!


      • SanguineAngel says:

        I’m in the same position as yourself, with a tidy $60 backed which I think is a very reasonable sum for me to give provided it’s on trust. However, not one person I have spoken to views the money they have given as buying a ship. And many of those are spending hundreds of dollars, or more in some very rare cases.

        The unanimous opinion in those places where I have discussed it is that the money they are giving is absolutely to help make the game the best it can be. The ships are a thrilling gift that they enjoy collecting. Would they contribute as much without the ships? Probably not. But they are under no illusions about what they are paying for.

        Of course, this is only those people who I interact with and I am sure there are plenty of people out there who are blinding throwing money at ships and not the game. They may feel let down at the end.

      • Awesumo says:

        As the saying goes – you don’t sell the product you sell the ‘dream’.. Not having an actual product to tarnish the reputation of your sales pitch makes selling easier not harder – just ask all the people that pre-ordered that Aliens game.

      • screecwe says:

        Why is it X Rebirth is somehow an example as to why Star Citizen can be bad? Do you reference Duke Nukem Forever as to why Battlefield 4 might be bad? Do you bring up Command and Conquer 4 as to why Starcraft will be bad? Just because a game is in the same genre, does not mean they have ANY other connection.

        If you want to try and guess at the likelyhood of a developer’s game being good or not, try looking at their past projects. Considering the core of the team is from Origin and Digital Anvil, their track record speaks for itself.

      • Sharlie Shaplin says:

        I backed at the same level right at the start, before it was on Kickstarter. I mean it was Chris Roberts asking for money to make a new space game, I couldn’t resist. Some people though, the questions they ask it’s like they have no idea what this kind of game is, almost like they just backed it because everyone is doing it.

    • DarkFenix says:

      Well, speaking for myself, I’m not buying spaceships. I’m backing a crowd funded game I really want to see succeed and in return at release the developers will give me some goodies. As for the people going in with a mindset of buying spaceships, God only knows, I think I’ll savour their tears when they realise how easily they can acquire a ship for imaginary money after release.

      • Matt_W says:

        Feels like deliberate misdirection on the developer’s part. The site gives you every indication that you are purchasing ships, not crowd-funding the game. It’s hard to find a straight statement by the devs that the ships available for pre-purchase as part of pledge packages will be available to purchase in game using in-game credits.

  5. The Dark One says:

    The scope of this thing is so mind-boggling big that I have trouble understanding when, even with the best development practices, this thing could be released in a recognizable state.

    • mouton says:

      Yeah, I do not wish them ill, but at this point it looks like quite a bubble. The potential for it being a spectacular train wreck is enormous. I suppose people who keep throwing money at them think it is “too big too fail” lol

  6. LionsPhil says:

    They’re starting to approach the budget of a real game!

    • MobileAssaultDuck says:

      They already are at the budget of a real game.

      Remember, games made “in the system” are bloated. Millions of dollars get spent on totally unnecessary crap that publishers believe are necessary, like big name voice talent, ludicrous TV advertisement campaigns, and development teams 3 times larger than necessary.

      Chris Roberts said that a game budget made “outside the system” should be looked at as though it is 50% to 100% larger than the number itself, as the teams are lean, trim, and they don’t waste money on stupid TV commercials and famous voice actors.

      So if they’re at 31, that’s effectively 46 to 60 million of “in system” budget.

      • Blackcompany says:

        You know…I would never have stopped to think about this, but its a fair point. I bet he’s right. Case in point: The Assassin’s Creed games still feature clipping, some rough animations and controls that, now and then, get wonky during the free running.

        But that’s ok. Those 40+ trailers cost money. That wouldn’t have been better spent on a game everyone knew was coming. Because…they had to let people know it was coming. Somehow.

        So yeah…publishers inflating the budgets of their games…I can believe that. now I stop to think it over in light of this comment. Boy, can I believe it.

    • Fox89 says:

      Well, according to research from the middle of this generation (2009-2010), an average AAA game budget is less than $30 million dollars, more like $10 million when you’re on a single platform, with only a few high profile exceptions like Gran Turismo, CoD and GTA breaking that trend.

      When you bear in mind it’s also cheaper to develop on PC than on console and most of their marketing so far is of the extremely cheap word of mouth variety, $31 million seems pretty hefty. Even if it were to stop right there. Which it definitely wont.

      • Bahlof says:

        It’s funny you mention that cause its already at 32 million and climbing rapidly to 33. They’re earning a million within days now cause of their “LIMITED TIME ONLY!” virtual spaceship sales at half price! Which means some ships only cost a measly $125 compared to $250! The value.

  7. GamesInquirer says:

    30 million is the crowd funds, they had private funding as well iirc, claiming the crowd fund is to prove interest, though it’s gone beyond that. Star Citizen is also designed to have potentially questionable continuous money sinking potential in order to return that kind of investment. I don’t think there’s much they will make for Squadron 42 that they wouldn’t make for Star Citizen either. It’s just gonna be a tightly controlled campaign rather than a sandbox universe but outside the custom story cut scenes all the work they put into Squadron 42 will be utilized by Star Citizen as well so it’s not resources going just to one of the two games. Plus, even though they have a story and FPS elements it’s still primarily a space combat game, that’s surely gonna require less money to look and play good than an Assassin’s Creed or GTA or token cinematic action adventures. Anyway, I already put too much money in a game of unknown quality by buying an Advanced Hunter pack (LTI Avenger), hopefully I won’t regret it but if this fails like X: Rebirth there’s always Elite to look forward to which also looks great despite the far lower budget. Not to mention the various smaller yet promising space games like Enemy Starfighter.

    • Low Life says:

      They were originally planning to take private funding, but a while ago they said that if everyone gave them all their money they wouldn’t need to, and so everyone did. I think the “no private investors” goal was around $21M.

    • Moraven says:

      I see a concern of post launch sales. While they are getting the sales to get this awesome game out at such a large scope, if post launch sales are weak they will have to do KS all over again for any future game.

      Or keep doing DLC add ons like the campaign has now.

      • Surlywombat says:

        The thing about crowdfunding is that it means you don’t need post launch sales. Its moving from the dev spending money upfront and trying to recoup that, to the customer paying upfront and waiting for the product.

        There are plenty of successful kickstarters that have gone back to kickstarter for the next project (eg Read Only Memory’s Megadrive book). Its not inherently a bad thing.

        • GamesInquirer says:

          Huh? They’re claiming this is not profit, hence why more funding means more game content and features are possible. The money goes into the development, it’s not money to live off of after the release. Unless they want to shut down after said release, or risk another Kickstarter with no guarantee it will be nearly as big as this one, or successful, they most certainly want post launch sales, micro transactions from existing customers and so on.

  8. jack4cc says:

    So far I’ve only seen some pretty graphics provided by the cryengine and very little that convices me that there is indeed going to be a game I’d like to play, with all those “micro”transactions before there even is a game…

    • GamesInquirer says:

      They don’t have a finished game to show while they’re developing it? Fishy! I thought that with all that money they would have finished it by now but they claim it takes time too. Hmm.

      • jalf says:

        Well, competent investors would demand to see something tangible up front as proof that the developer is capable of completing the game. Something like a playable prototype, typically.

        With crowdfunding, that requirement is thrown out the window. All you need is a few pretty screenshots and a statement that you intend to make the best game ever. Gamers are easy to impress.

        A lot of people are in for a rude awakening… Luckily few of them have invested more than a few hundred dollars in it.

        • GamesInquirer says:

          The prototypes are their past works (and they did have prototypes not meant for gamer eyes and pre-production work of their own that they used to attract investors they have now ditched in favor of their fans). All the hardcore backers (which I’m not one, though my desires align, I bought a basic package for the price of a game or so) want is a new game, by these guys, with modern technology. And that’s what they will get. There’s no alternative for such a desire nor a better way to do it. Nor is this game developed slow or anything, if anything it’s going fast with all that money allowing them to outsource art assets left and right (which is why you see a lot of art and less progress on the actual game, which can’t be outsourced for obvious reasons). But indeed, games take time and even the upcoming dogfight alpha won’t really show such a massive game’s full potential. But I don’t think anyone expects Jesus to pop out of their monitor when they play it so I see no reason for you to be afraid for other people’s potential disappointment based on your idea of their expectations.

          • taristo says:

            “The prototypes are their past works”
            link to

            So, Doritos Crash Course 2, Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked and Naughty Bear 2 as well as several Transformers games led by a failed Hollywood producer?

          • jalf says:

            The prototypes are their past works (and they did have prototypes not meant for gamer eyes and pre-production work of their own that they used to attract investors they have now ditched in favor of their fans).

            Entirely missing the point. The issue is not “do they have a prototype”, but “did the investors who threw 31 million at the project get to *see* the prototype”, and by your own admission, they did not. So as a basis for investing, it is irrelevant. People threw 31 million at the project, not because “I’ve looked at their playable prototype and I think they can pull it off”, but because “I want this game to happen and the guy has made shiny trailers and screenshots”

            All the hardcore backers (which I’m not one, though my desires align, I bought a basic package for the price of a game or so) want is a new game, by these guys, with modern technology. And that’s what they will get.

            No, that is what they hope they’ll get. That’s my point. They have very little evidence that the game will (a) ship at all, (b) ship anywhere near the expected release date, and (c) in a form that at all resembles what was initially promised.

            Sure, that might all happen, everything might go entirely according to plan. I have no way to gauge the likelihood of that. I am just observing that the game’s “investors” are effectively basing their investments on good faith, optimism and hope, and that “traditional” investors (aka. publishers) would have demanded to see something much more concrete before throwing so much money at the game.

          • GamesInquirer says:

            Entirely missing the point, indeed. There’s plenty evidence a game will ship, because it’s in development and we’re getting constant updates and it’s by industry veterans and tons of people have been hired and contracted for it and there’s no evidence it’s a scam or likely to fail to ship since everything so far is going great, especially the fairly big part of acquiring the funding needed for such a game to be developed, funding they haven’t taken and run with it to the Bahamas. You seem to ignore other people’s posts that also show points you have missed in favor of cherry picking sentences to reply to and attempt to insult them for being emotional or whatever you project on them, not to mention you forget private investors were in fact interested and were ditched on the part of the developers because they weren’t needed any more and therefor there was no reason to be indebted to them and offer part of the eventual profits in return. You seem to be claiming a publisher or investor would wish to see an essentially complete game before investing anything which would defeat the whole point of the investment for the developer since if they had the means to develop something to such a stage, beyond tech demos, concept videos and pre-production work, they wouldn’t need outside funding anyway, in this day and age they’d just sell it in that stage to acquire the rest of the needed funds to finish it. Do you really think every time a new game is greenlit by a publisher a sufficiently long demo has been provided? Someone would have to first greenlight the funds needed for the demo you know, the developers wouldn’t make it on their day off. So yes, you’d be surprised how often games get greenlit based on concept videos even though even a publisher has no 100% guarantee a game worth selling will in fact be completed, which is why you see tons of failures release and tons of games get cancelled after a lot of funds have been put into them. So yes, investors need to and do take risks just as the fans of such games took a risk by funding this one. Otherwise by now we’d only have COD and GTA sequels greenlit (both of which also aren’t entirely guaranteed to work past their funding stage, but an educated guess tells them they will, just as people make an educated guess that Star Citizen will in fact be shipped). As common as that is, it’s far from the entire industry. But hey I guess you have one retort left, that is to tell us to wait a couple years and see if a game will REALLY release, lol.

        • derbefrier says:

          have you just completely ignored the countless videos and the hangar module? There is plenty to show as “proof of concept” This thing has been going on over a year now you know..

        • screecwe says:

          Seriously! You’d think investors would have wanted some sort of tech demo or proof of concept or something!

          Oh wait…

          They got one
          link to

          Any other brilliant opinions?

          • jalf says:

            Why, yes, I do.

            For one, it is ridiculous to get *offended* over something like this. Maybe you should try to go outside a bit more? Take a few deep breaths?

            You’ll note, if you read my comment carefully, that I did not, in fact, insult your mother or kick your puppy. I commented that compared to “traditional” methods of funding, this game has gotten a lot of money out of its “investors”, while showing them very little to actually ensure them that the developer will deliver.

            It may surprise you, but producing a trailer would not convince most investors that “investing 31 million in this game would be a great idea”.

            I’m sorry that such a radical opinion apparently hurt your feelings, and I’m glad to see that you’ve at least got your snark to hide behind while you nurse your wounds. Hopefully, you will be okay. As they say, time heals all wounds. Perhaps even the one where some guy on the internet expresses an opinion about the fundraising methods of a (hopefully) upcoming game.

  9. Tichinde says:

    It’ll be passed $32 million by tonight, it’s pulled in over $750K this morning off the back of two new ships released for sale.

  10. Seafort says:

    This crowdfunding is great and all but only high end PCs will be able to play it as intended in 2015/16. We haven’t seen any gameplay yet and it’s been months since kickstarter ended.

    I don’t like the fact that they are selling ships to play in game so anyone that has bought one is way ahead of people less well off or possesses any common sense. What will be the point to the game if someone buys all the ships in the game? They’ll be no incentive to play to upgrade to a larger ship when they’ve already bought it outside of the game.

    When will the cut off point be? $40, 50, 60 million? The developers need to be a bit more controlling in what they sell or this game is going to be Pay2Win if it isn’t already. At some point this is going to turn from crowdfunding to taking advantage of your rabid fanbase (The Yes Men).

    Personally I’m getting less and less excited about this game if everyone with a bit of spare cash can just buy a new ship with real money any time they want so they can kick the crap out of people with more sense than money.

    Its gone from a exciting PC venture into a greedy, capitalistic money grab. Such a shame.

    • SuicideKing says:

      Well, Roberts has pledged support for AMD’s Mantle API so maybe things will be different. And no, i think a mid-range GPU should be able to max this game out in 2015/16 at 1080p.

    • derbefrier says:

      Your confusion about the ships is because you are simply approaching the game from the wrong perspective. This is a universe they are creating, not a themepark MMO. There will be no traditional end game to win by buying the most expensive ships(which by the way only come with basic weapons). Buying a ship will in no way put a big red I win button on the screen during pvp. Its all about player skil, teamwork, and common sense. The real pay to win will be allhe practice we get in alpha and beta so us veteren backers will fly circles around the noobs no matter what ship we pilot :p

    • screecwe says:

      “This crowdfunding is great and all but only high end PCs will be able to play it as intended in 2015/16. We haven’t seen any gameplay yet and it’s been months since kickstarter ended.”

      The game is slated to hit in early 2015, meaning Jan/Feb. Not 2016. And yes, we have seen limited gameplay. Go to google. Use this ultra=complex search string “star citizen gameplay”. Bingo. Magic, eh?

      “I don’t like the fact that they are selling ships to play in game so anyone that has bought one is way ahead of people less well off or possesses any common sense. What will be the point to the game if someone buys all the ships in the game? They’ll be no incentive to play to upgrade to a larger ship when they’ve already bought it outside of the game.”

      The ship is just the starting point, the weapons and gear you outfit the ship with is what makes it powerful. When you get a warrior in an RPG, are you automatically as powerful as a warrior who is gear’d out? Of course not. Plus, these aren’t all the ships that will be in game. Ships will periodically be released.
      And lastly, how is this different from starting ANY MMO more than a couple days after its release? New players are ALWAYS behind players who have played longer than them. But they still manage just fine.

      “When will the cut off point be? $40, 50, 60 million? The developers need to be a bit more controlling in what they sell or this game is going to be Pay2Win if it isn’t already. At some point this is going to turn from crowdfunding to taking advantage of your rabid fanbase (The Yes Men).

      Personally I’m getting less and less excited about this game if everyone with a bit of spare cash can just buy a new ship with real money any time they want so they can kick the crap out of people with more sense than money.

      Its gone from a exciting PC venture into a greedy, capitalistic money grab. Such a shame.”

      Greedy? You act as if that money is going right into their pockets. The majority of it is going into developing the game and ensuring it lasts for a long time. Is it greedy that they created jobs for over a hundred out of work people? Why aren’t you whining about the big companies like EA who pump out recycled crap while treating their workforce like slave labor? All while spending over a hundred million to pay people who have no part in making a game.
      But no, the little developer with 30 million is the one that is greedy.
      I think you need a little perspective.

      • jalf says:

        I think you need a little perspective.



        I think you do.

        Really, look at how absurdly defensive you’re getting over a game that (a) isn’t yours, and (b) isn’t out.

        “A little perspective” might indeed be a very healthy thing.

  11. Perjoss says:

    Wow, weren’t they at 29m just a few days ago? even if this game turns out to be a heap of steaming cack, the support it is receiving alone is a very nice message to other devs and publishers that the space exploration genre is in need of some love in the form of some heavy hitting titles.

    What we really need is an RPG similar to mass effect but maybe choices have more impact and then this whole layer of space exploration on top of it. I loved the buggy exploration from ME1 as basic as it was but then they went and took that away in the sequels :(

    • djbriandamage says:

      Wing Commander meets Mass Effect meets Star Control 2, please!

    • acoff001 says:

      You pretty much just described The Mandate, which is about 5k from being funded currently.

      • Perjoss says:

        I know! some of that Kickstarter money was mine, I’m very excited for that game :)

  12. SuicideKing says:

    A lot of them seemed like they didn’t believe what they were saying, or at the least, uncomfortable.

    And I think any GTD Orion will have something to say about its namesake being reduced to a mining platform. :|

    EDIT: Nathan, i read a quote from a developer who stated that developing a game for all 5 platforms (both Xboxes and Playstations + PC) costs about $50m…so $30+ is pretty good for a PC-exclusive.

    • Rizlar says:

      Some traditional American understatement at 5:16.

      Was a bit concerned about the vagueness/confusion over writing for games. ‘We have to write a story… but think about what the player might do as well?!’ . That’s kind of central to game narratives, or you risk turning out something like LA Noir. But then the guy mentioned working on Mace Griffin and now I’m totally 100% on board.

  13. Didden says:

    At $50 million you unlock world peace.

  14. Solidstate89 says:

    They’ll easily break 32 million in a few more hours, and possibly 33 before the day is out, depending on what other ships they might reveal. Today is the last day for LTI and they’re selling 400 Idris Corvettes at 1250 a pop, not to mention the two new Alien ships they have on sale.

    Depending on whether they announce any other surprises during today’s live stream, prepare to see 33 million broken.

  15. Martel says:

    The scope is going to get so big, and the expectations so high, it seems like this is destined to fail. I really hope I’m wrong.

  16. tigerfort says:

    AAA titles might have huge budgets, but how much of that is actually spent on developing the game? GTA V’s budget was supposedly £170 million, but most of that was surely spent on putting posters on every advertising board in the world for a month (plus presumably some nominal amount for TV, internet, and other advertising).

    • GamesInquirer says:

      Marketing is usually not included when publishers claim what a game cost to develop.

      Not sure about that GTA number in particular though.

      • HywirdKreFey says:

        Actually marketing is included this time for some reason:
        link to

        I can’t find where i have seen it, but i remember reading that more than half (!!) of £170 / $265 millions were spend on marketing.

  17. djbriandamage says:

    “From opening with an epic battle instead of a training patrol to missions that seamlessly combine boarding and space combat, we aim to put you right into the action!”

    I really loved the escalation of the Wing Commander games from patrols to all-out war. Patrols are a perfect way to acquaint yourself with your first wingman.

    • JamesTheNumberless says:

      Yeah, but in Wing Commander things were, as you say, escalating in the war at large and you were part of a small task force. I guess what they’re going for here is a universe in the thick of it and on a larger scale. And it’s probably better to start new players off in an area where there will be a lot of other new players doing the same stuff. I imagine this initial battle is going to be a sort of sandbox battle and that once you start the game proper you’ll be able to choose which part of space you want and what kind of role you want to play there.

      Hopefully by the time this game comes out I’ll have saved enough money to pay for electricity, internet and a supply of tinned food to last me the 40 or so years I probably have left to live, because I will probably be quitting my job and locking myself in a room with this game from then on.

      • JamesTheNumberless says:

        Oh by sandbox I mean sandbox in the traditional MUD-era use of the term, as in an area for newbies… not a “sandbox game” type of sandbox… Oh dear, I’m getting old.

  18. Lobotomist says:

    I am starting to be highly skeptical.
    I put my money before they reached kickstarter goal, in hope of them making the game.

    But now we have a game that is not even released and producers made enough money to simply pack their bags and leave.

    In fact given no guarantee on kickstarter they cant do just that. Simply say they were hit by tornado , or tsunami, or theft if you need more believable excuse.
    Or they can just deliver a bad game (or simply not as good as we all hope for) – They all ready made the money for “sales”

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      You’re starting to be skeptical because they now have enough money that they could just walk away and steal it? Have they done anything to give the slightest indication that this is something they are planning, or have even considered for a second?

      What a disturbingly cynical view of mankind you have!

      EDIT: disrubingly??

    • Solidstate89 says:

      Yeah, all those offices they’re leasing, and people they’re hiring – that’s all just for show. We all know Austin, Texas gets hit with Tsunamis all of the time. And let’s not even get into how often Montreal has Volcano eruptions!

      • TWChristine says:

        A while back I was taking a Small Group Communications course or some such and we did one of those “Team Building!” exercises. The plot was that you were in a plane that crashed in the Arizona desert and you had all these items to choose from that you then had to list in order of importance for survival. Anyway, this older lady said “I want to take the gun, there might be tigers.” Assuming she was joking I just kind of laughed and said, “I think we’ll be ok!” to which she then said, “But how do you know there won’t be tigers?” I then just stared at her and didn’t know what to say.

        • cpt_freakout says:

          Tigers are shady sons of bitches, my friend. I mean, have you ever seen one outside the zoos? No? Well, how do you know it’s not because they’re not living in your very shadow??!?

  19. Apocalypse says:

    32 million already reached dudes ;-)

  20. Walsh says:


  21. Arglebargle says:

    It’s a brilliant royal scam. Roberts probably has a team who does nothing but come up with ideas for things that they can use to rake in more money. Bet he doesn’t give them a percentage either.

    I fully expect the game to be of the same quality as his director and producer output while in Hollywood.

    • Apocalypse says:

      Another Lord of War?

    • sgstorm says:

      @Arglebargle – gosh what might that brilliant royal scam be? Really – are you serious? You are always on these threads trash talking Star Citizen and Chris Roberts and pretending you have intel on Chris Roberts himself. So what’s your real beef as your intel is definitely askew.

  22. WarTourist says:

    Nothing would please me more than this game to be awesome, but I struggle to understand why people would spend the money they are on something like this. I guess if you’re just “investing” in an enterprise with no intention of recouping that money back, *shrug* it’s good to have people like that if you’re running a company.

    But if you’re trying to make smart choices about how to spend that money (ship A over ship b), how can you possibly be making an informed decision? How do you know you’ll like the way it handles? How do you know it won’t be vulnerable to an incredibly common exploit?

    On top of that, I’m not sure people here understand how difficult it is to make a FUN game. What if all your money results in a game you, personally, don’t like? What if there’s predatory micro transactions every session? What if hacks make the game completely unfair to non-cheating players? I hope people will say “no biggie, I’m just glad the product exists” but having spent 2 milliseconds on the internet, that’s an uncommonly level headed perspective. I suspect it will be more bluster, threats, and internet petitions to “deliver on the promise made at the start of development”. Nobody sets out to make a bad game, but bad games happen all the time.

    The last thing I think people are hand-waving away are the risk Jenga that this product represents. This is a new company (hasn’t shipped anything), a new team (many not having worked together before), on a new engine (I suspect very few of them have shipped on Crytek), and a new IP. Within the halls of Origin, those were the key risks analyzed in determining if a product got greenlit or not. The ideal situation is three of those are Yes, they’ve done that before, and one No, that’s where we’ll take the risk on. By the metric of what resulted in the games we all adore, this product would have be flagged as incredibly risky. They didn’t adhere to this process because they hated innovation, they adhered to it because it prevented cluster-fucks. It prevented absurd over reaches in scope and under delivered software. Add to this the game has a MMO-style scope and lead by a movie guy (when has that ever worked out), there’s seems to be a surprising lack of skepticism about this being a product that people here will enjoy.

    I suspect that all comes across incredibly negatively, but my intent isn’t to poo-poo on the enthusiasm for Star Citizen. It’s to remind people that what this company is trying to do has been attempted in other genres before and have failed spectacularly (38 studios being a recent example). I’m hoping peoples expectations are in line with the challenges associated with this effort, because otherwise there’s a very real chance all your money bought you is a ticket to bitch on their forums.

    • JamesTheNumberless says:

      The main worry that I have is that most people are getting into this game because they remember what great single-player games the early and mid-series Wing Commander games were. those were single player games where you couldn’t have possibly been more of a “chosen one” type of character… I mean, you were bloody Mark Hamill in two of them!. Yet this is an MMO and the only example I can think of, of an MMO that focuses heavily on single-player story is the Old Republic, which is by no means the world beater all the fans (again largely motivated by nostalgia) were originally hoping it would be.

      • Solidstate89 says:

        Star Citizen and Squadron 42 are two separate games on the same coin. You can go your entire life just playing Squadron 42 and never touch Star Citizen, it is conversely true of Star Citizen. They’re not trying to give a single player experience in SC.

        • JamesTheNumberless says:

          Interesting. I was only pointing out my apprehensions but I was overall more hopeful than not regarding the idea of the two existing in the same universe. It would have been good to be able to play through squadron 42 missions with a friend or two as wingmen, or perhaps with a roster of real people rather than of AI pilots – where you can fly with anyone else who’s currently about to start the same mission.

        • Sharlie Shaplin says:

          Squadron 42 even has it’s own studio. Alot of the people working on it have worked on a lot of excellent space games in the past. It’s the main reason I backed, the Star Citizen thing is just gravy to me.

  23. BrainFlush says:

    I know I said I would stop commenting here but I couldn’t help it, even if I hate the fact I don’t get a notice when someone replies.

    Star Citizen has blown the doors off crowdfunding. And it hit $33 million today. $2 million in one day. And what really blows me away, people still don’t know about it. How is that possible? Also roughly 20000 people joined since last Monday. Impressive but not great. What is impressive is the amount people are throwing down and keep throwing.

    I look forward to playing it at some point. The Avenger update in the 4 hour stream was impressive. Too bad I melted it.

    • JamesTheNumberless says:

      I think it’s partly because he hasn’t done it all on Kickstarter. also because the company itself is rather more nebulous. It’s harder to tie a name and a place to it. Roberts isn’t a superstar designer in the same league as Richard Garriott or Tim Schafer and the whole spaceship game genre is one that hasn’t had the same kind of following throughout the last 15 years as RPGs have still enjoyed, nor were games like Wing Commander played by as broad an audience as the old Lucasarts adventure games even in their heyday. Lastly, Roberts hasn’t done anything recently that anyone can recall, there is a whole section of people now crowd funding things who weren’t even born when the first Wing Commander launched and who are about half of the whole target demographic for SC. So it’s not going to have the same kind of attention lavished on it as if Doublefine or Obsidian does a Kickstarter.

      However, I’m sure this will all change when it’s released. If it’s a flop the media will never get tired of citing how much money was pledged and if it’s a success you can expect most people will learn of how it was funded well after the fact.

      • sgstorm says:

        @JamesTheNumberless – you are joking right?! How do you come to the conclusion that Chris Roberts is not in the same league as Richard Garriott or Tim Schafer?

      • Sharlie Shaplin says:

        He is actually a legendary name in the space combat/trader game community, just as legendary as the people you named in their respective genres. Also Wing Commander was very popular, imo that is the main reason that he gained so much initial success with crowd funding. I think the reason it’s still continuing is that he was very clever in his appeal to the “PC Gamer”, making people who backed feel special in some kind of way, kinda like they are contributing to a cause for PC.