@slappy54: No. We will probably get the 3.0 release later this year, which will basically be mostly a single system. Depending on about a million factors, I expect the Beta release will be in 2018 or 2019, with the "final" (the game will be continually updated) release around 2020-2021.
It could be earlier if the pipelines get faster, but they're still doing some serious tech R&D that will have a major influence on how fast they get things done.
@KerrinScott: Grand Theft Auto V took five years of development. Original WoW took 5 years. Mass Effect Andromeda began development in November 2012. Star Citizen started funding in October 2012, meaning it has been in development for four years, three months, and the scope of the original game has changed significantly from it's original design goals, and has a significantly smaller scope, along with full funding and team from the beginning (Star Citizen's original team was a fraction of its current size).
Keep in mind that the actual development on the game is significantly farther along than the released Alpha; they don't release an update to players until it's in a "milestone" playable state (for an Alpha). The 2.6 release incorporates, for example, changes to the selection UI that have been shown in development videos a year before it was implemented for testing.
Chris Roberts' original plans were to never cease development, so that's not some sort of shocking surprise to backers. There will be a "release" but the game is intended to be structured similar to something like Elite, where development, new features, and expansions continually improve the core game. A "space-life simulator" was the original vision...a game that was more than just Eve with cockpits, or Freespace 2 with better graphics. A game where you really felt like it was a living, breathing world.
The game is exactly what backers were looking for, and the development is going at a good pace for it. They even asked backers once they reached full funding for the original concept if they'd prefer to expand additional features, which would significantly delay the game's release, or just make the original game and not add on. 54% voted for them to continue expanding the game, and while I don't know about every individual, there were a couple of backers noted in gaming news to have been refunded their contributions due to the changes.
Star Citizen is not publicly traded, and intentionally do not have investors that can influence the game development (they had to break away from some funding sources due to conflicts over this. People funding the game know it will take a long time; they just released their internal timelines to the public, and have always been transparent with delays and issues. The only people really complaining about the development timeline I see are people who aren't interested in the game in the first place...the rest of us are willing to be patient to get the product we really want rather than another half-assed AAA game designed to please investor's bottom line.
@dlaney34: The game is 40 bucks. Nobody is making you buy it now. The game wouldn't exist at all if it weren't for those who bought in early...the early buyers are the publishers.
@Karmazyn: It runs just fine on my 1060 on max settings at 1920x1080. Either you're running at 4k, have crappy other systems and hoped the 1080 would fix it (slow processor, RAM, hard drive), or are running too many background processes. This is in PU.
Also, the game's detail is basically a AAA game without any optimization. Of course it's not going to run as well as a fully released game, regardless of fidelity.
@barcaazul: But you don't need this card to replicate the PS4 and XB1 on a gaming PC. Most of Nvidia's 700 series can do that, and you can buy a nice factory overclocked GTX 770 for less than $200 and run 1080p games at 30 fps just like a console can, if not better. In fact, the HTPC that I built for my living room cost about $600 for the whole computer and outperforms both consoles. Granted, I built it myself, which cuts down some of the cost, and I used a closed-circuit water cooler and fanless power supply to keep the heat and noise down in our living room, so it's not exactly "off the shelf", but it's also my secondary computer.
The only reason there is still room for consoles is because people are still willing to pay for overpriced, quickly outdated hardware and overpriced software. As long as the companies making the consoles can make a profit, they'll keep making them.
But just because something is profitable doesn't mean it's superior or more cost effective than alternatives.
@Ha2e: Again, this cuts both ways. The PC versions of Bethesda games, for example, are universally better than the console versions, even before mods are added (and after it's not even close). Same with the Dragon Age games, especially the first one, which was a mess on consoles.
Bad PC ports exist, sure. But Batman Arkham Knight's issues, for example, were patched out soon after release. Other examples, such as the original Dark Souls port, were patched out by fans.
The bad console versions of games? Yeah, they stay bad.
@game4metoo: $599 for a graphics card? You can easily get a $300 card which will outdo every console ever made. A $599 graphics card will do things consoles can only dream of.
Heck, for $599 I could build a better *computer* than any current gen console.
@sniperwol_basic: The problem is that "exclusive to console" titles are A) relatively rare and B) dwarfed wholesale by the PC market. For every Uncharted 4, Bloodborne, and The Last of Us there is an XCOM 2, Starcraft II, and Galactic Civilizations III that are likewise PC exclusive.
Granted, which "exclusive" (and honestly most console exclusives end up as PC ports eventually, only a few rare titles ever *stay* exclusive) titles you enjoy is personal preference, the fact that there is a ton more variety on PC is incontrovertible. And that's even before you factor in mods and backwards-comparability, both of which exponentially increase the variety of game experiences you can have on PC versus consoles.
The fact is that if you have the money for a PS4 you have the money to buy a gaming PC. A mid-range gaming PC that will play most games on the market is $400-$500, and you quickly make up any extra cost with generally cheaper PC games and sales. Add in the fact that your gaming PC can also be used for non-gaming activities, and that most people are likely going to spend $200+ on a minimum spec PC or laptop anyway for work and web browsing activities, and the extra cost of the gaming PC is quickly dwarfed by the multiple devices and $400 gaming console needed to attempt to replicate it.
And since you're talking about buying *both* consoles, which is a whopping $750 at least, there is absolutely no way that is a better deal than buying a single gaming PC. Even for exclusive titles. There are plenty of great third-person action games out there. I wouldn't spend the price of a solid gaming PC for the couple that haven't ported over yet.
@BboyStatix: Out of curiosity, why can't you put your desktop computer in your living room? Gaming computers aren't that much bigger than a PS4, and few are larger than a desktop plus a PS4. Even if you work from home, unless you're doing some kind of engineering work, you can easily do work on most $150-$250 desktops or $200-$300 laptops.
You can also easily stream your desktop to a living room (or better yet, hook it directly to your living room and stream to a work monitor) for pretty cheap (Miracast devices cost around $50). Assuming you have a home WiFi this is easy to set up.
I just don't understand the "better value" arguments for anyone that already plans on having a desktop of any sort. A standard desktop computer costs anywhere from $150-$400. A high-end (but not bleeding edge) graphics card, such as a Nvidia 970, costs around $300. So if you plan on getting a PS4 *and* a regular PC, you're looking at an average of $700. That's $50 less than a pre-built gaming PC that will run circles around a PS4.
Sure, there are advantages to a console...basically exclusive games. But that same benefit applies to a PC ten-fold. There are thousands of PC exclusive games that people who limit themselves to consoles have never heard of, while there are only a handful of high-profile console exclusives (which, incidentally, usually end up on PCs eventually except in very rare cases). PCs are also nearly 100% backwards-compatible; you don't just have the current library of games, but you have access to over 20 years of gaming history. Sure, a lot hasn't aged well, but there are plenty of games that have and are still worth playing.
And none of that is counting the fact that PC games tend to be much cheaper, and on sale more often, than console games (outside the resell market, which frankly tends to be a trash bin of crappy games that people didn't want anymore).
I have both the previous generation consoles, and have had plenty of fun with them. But after getting a decent gaming computer, and seeing just how much *larger* the PC market is, and with so much more variety beyond FPS and 3rd person action adventure which dominate the console market, plus MODS (oh, lord, the mods!)...I simply can't see any reason why anyone would pay the price of a decent video card on a platform that is so limited.
hunteriv4's comments