Star Citizen opens update 3.11’s PTU build to all backers, with cargo decks, new weapons, and more

    
30
Star Citizen opens update 3.11’s PTU build to all backers, with cargo decks, new weapons, and more

The test build before the alpha test build of Star Citizen — a super alpha, if you will — has now opened up to all backers of the space sandbox. It’s time to kick the tires of alpha 3.11’s PTU version, which introduces a variety of the features that the Inside Star Citizen video series were discussing, including the first implementation of cargo decks, the Origin 100i series of ships, new weapons, the removal of green zones around landing areas, and inertial forces among other things.

The current PTU build also introduces several bug fixes for issues like players randomly dying while at New Babbage Plaza or Port Olisar or the Constellation not able to fly in atmo at Hurston and Lorville among other fixes. Of course, being a PTU build of the alpha, this version is going to carry a lot more issues and bugs than the normal Live version’s build would have, so not only should backers take a look through the patch notes, but they should also note the known issues list.

In other Star Citizen news, fans have learned that the assumed restriction of pledge gifting was found to not be accurate, and the weekly schedule of events will include information about the upcoming Imperator’s election this coming Thursday, with the following Friday featuring a roundtable leading in to the election on Star Citizen Live among other events.

sources: Reddit (1, 2, 3, 4), official site

No posts to display

30
LEAVE A COMMENT

Please Login to comment
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most liked
Subscribe to:
Reader
Joe Blobers

Here are a few numbers about SWS, a game made from previous assets (3d models + sounds) created by Motive Studios for Star Wars Battlefront II which was done in collaboration with DICE (1992) and Criterion Games (1996)… three EA’s subsidiaries totaling +900 employees, up-to-date game engine and pipelines at day one of SWS development…. to deliver a 5 vs 5 multiplayer gameplay fighting between massive 3D model sprite.

1% at best of SQ42+SC scope, sold “only” for 34$ vs 45$ for SC or SQ42.

This to put in perspective how easy it is to “compare” games which are absolutely not competitors with zero ambition from EA beside making easy money with minimum development vs ambition toward gamer community.

But because we are talking about space games, to all not having the opportunity to play vanilla SW games, have fun playing whatever SWS have to offer. At the end, this is each ones managing cash vs entertainment and a perfect example of Publishers behavior not planning to deliver anything close to SQ42+SC… and more future backers for CIG :)

Reader
MothballShow

tl;dr

Companies that set attainable goals and stick to a set budget can release games that are enjoyable.

Reader
Joe Blobers

… correct, especially when ambition is not on the table and by delivering games made out massively from previous released games assets + tech.
Why support ambition when you can just stick to re-skinned assets and sell it every year to a population happy to pay over times more for way less…

Reader
MothballShow

Why support ambition without a plan, proven track record, or a single deliverable after… how many years have they been working on Star Citizen and Squadron 42 (not to be confused with Star Wars: Squadrons, an actual game with fairly good critic ratings) this since the initial release dates?

Reader
Joe Blobers

Quote: “Why support ambition without a plan”

There is a plan: develop two ambitious triple-A from scratch. SC Alpha does show quite clearly what Publishers don’t care to deliver… beside spending minimum effort using already developed assets, pipelines, hundreds to thousands of devs. RSI don’t had this luxury.
Don’t support any alpha or crowdfunded model? Don’t support and wait till release, no problem.

Again, more space games is better. Like SWS, NMS, EVE, ED? Just grab them and play. I personally, as well as a million others backers, can spend over years several time 40$ to play released games and support others.

Reader
MothballShow

Weird. I only see you defending (poorly) SC. Where are all your posts supporting other space games?

RSI has had 8+ years to get their shit together. The “They had to start from scratch” excuse makes them look worse with each passing year and no release on either game – even the single player component, which has eternally been “just around the corner.”

And they keep getting surpassed by other companies as time goes on.

Reader
Joe Blobers

Quote: “And they keep getting surpassed by other companies as time goes on”
… That just demonstrate that Publishers can keep follow the same behavior: re-skinned past sequels a tiny fraction of scope of SQ42+SC and sell them at the same price (or even higher) than anything substantially more ambitious than whatever they have done.

Reader
MothballShow

I will believe your words when either SC or SQ42 reach their original minimal scope. CIG still haven’t done even that, so the “ambition” argument doesn’t hold water.

Until then, you’re just theorycrafting, and the lack of demonstrable progress on both SC and SQ42 do not support any stance you have.

Reader
Joe Blobers

Fine. Demonstrable progress are visible at every patch. Let’s say you are looking for a released product and don’t join alpha. That is totally okay.

Reader
MothballShow

Then what’s your response to those who backed because of those stated release dates that are now years behind us?

Was GIC lying? Were they incompetent? Was their ambition greater than their abilities?

Reader
Joe Blobers

So much negativity :)

Backers joined because CR, perfectly knowing the guy is ambitious. Based on funds received, project scope increased, validated by backers year after year… and looking at current Alpha 3.11 and upcoming patch with more gameplay allowed by Icache currently implemented, the choice was smart.

If only the gaming community could face more often incompetent able to gather more unique features packed in Alpha than any single triple-A released…
Looking at current Alpha, they are both competent and able to deliver.

You can disagree. Fine just wait till Beta or release.

Reader
MothballShow

They increased scope? The community didn’t decide on that; the increase in scope was Chris simply saying “yes” to everything.

From 2013:
“Finally there is one very important element – the more funds we can raise in the pre-launch phase, the more we can invest in additional content (more ships, characters etc.) and perhaps more importantly we can apply greater number of resources to the various tasks to ensure we deliver the full functionality sooner rather than later.”

and:

“we don’t commit to adding features that would hold up the game’s ability to go “live” in a fully functional state.”

So was he lying 7 years ago when he told that to backers? Could it have been to get more funding? Or did he truly not know that Star Citizen would still be in alpha in the year 2020, and that CIG couldn’t even get the single player game, SQ42 out of the door?

People have every reason to be negative, and the fact that you continue to defend a company that has managed to miss deadline after deadline tells me you are exactly the mark Chris was looking for.

Reader
Joe Blobers

Scope change is mid-2014. Approved by pool and never ending support from original backers and new backers.

People are not used to real ambitious Triple-A development and at the same time they want to get ride of Publishers behavior spending 50M$ on a re-skinned game every year.
That have a cost, not money but time.
Current Alpha have more features than any released single Triple-A and the gap is going to increase next year with Icache allowing more gameplay like outpost construction, big container transport, medic…

What matter is why I spend 45$, how much I got from them over years and what I got at release compared to the rest of the gaming industry. As a consumer, it is a win each time. As a backer, I understand what I pledged for, pledge to get a release later on… and learned to handle hype and frustration. Good result for as low as 45$.

Reader
MothballShow

Point to the scope change, because it’s in neither of the two polls I linked (each of which had a low turnout from the total number of existing backers at the time).

Because you can’t. It’s a myth you and other backers have fabricated. You choose to believe that there was a consensus to increase scope while simultaneously (or maybe as an excuse for) not holding Chris accountable for dates he set or things he said.

So not only is Chris Roberts either incompetent or a liar (perhaps both, with yesterday’s announcement that SQ42 is nowhere near completion), but you are willing to enable such behavior.

In the end, you have zero deliverables, and Chris gets to dodge critical reviews from official sources while raking in more money.

They need to show some convincing footage in the next few days, or backers will become even more upset.

Comparing crowdfunded games made by washed-up developers who got lucky through shady practices in the 80s and 90s, at least Richard Garriott had the sense to slip out the door. Chris has tied himself to this ship.

And if you defend this project with ONLY $45 into it, your problem is more localized than the people criticizing it.

Reader
Joe Blobers

80% of neutral and positive vote is not fabricated. The pledge amount increasing as well as the number of backers coming from 40K to 1 million is not fabricated.

Backers are not a single entity of 1 million represented by a few hundreds upvote thread (way less in reality when looking at individual thread comments). As CR said, you can’t satisfy everybody and the answer is a revised roadmap in December, monthly dedicated SQ42 communication called Briefing Room and confirmation 50 teams made of +600 devs are working to deliver remaining core techs (like icache), new gameplay + server meshing.

Last but not least, amount pledged does not matter. I share my opinion as you do and won’t stop because I see no light coming from any others companies with such scope and ambition.

Reader
MothballShow

80% means nothing when only 20k people voted (at the time, the total player base was estimated at well over 100k).

You can share your opinion. I’ll never stop anyone from doing that, but if we hold Chris/RSI to their words, they are either lying or incompetent.

From the initial release dates that were missed, to original features that still aren’t in the game, to “Answer the Call 2016,” to “players will have Squadron 42 in their hands next year,” to “we’re planning on a Q3/Q4 of 2020,” to this latest AMA that walked everything back to square one – if no one’s holding Chris accountable or criticizing him, what incentive does he have to ever release a finalized product?

All he needs to do is trot out excuses every year or so, and the people who pre-paid for a nonexistent single-player game will keep enabling him to do nothing.

Reader
Joe Blobers

Welcome to democracy concept driven by who ever want to participate. Some guys on the planet have an hand on nuclear weapons with less support :)… others expressed their vote with their wallet, hundred thousands of them not few whales who are part of any online game.

Quote: “what incentive does he have to ever release a finalized product?”
All of them if cash is the single reason. A company making hundreds $ in Alpha. How much do you think they can make with two polished product with no competitor of the same caliber and by far? The best incentive for shareholders is to deliver.
Huge difference is that they have cash, support from community to deliver when ready not because some middle men decide this quarter must make x% of profit per share.

Community, including those more vocal than others (who don’t represent the vast majority) do express there concerns about development.
Tons of information are provided every week, the last Letter From The Chairman is extremely clear about those concerns.
Revised roadmap is coming in December, precise information have been given about the remaining core tech needed to push more gameplay (mainly icache planned for full implementation mid-next year) and server meshing first implementation.

Reference to JK Kennedy in this Letter match perfectly what is backers spirit to join the journey and everyone can make educated decision with several free weeks per year, to join or wait.

Reader
MothballShow

You do realize the Apollo 11 program took less time – and on lower tech – than it’s taken Chris Roberts to release a complete anything? But his self-awareness seems to line up nicely with the backers.

Reader
Joe Blobers

Sure and the Earth is flat :)

Reader
MothballShow

1961-1969 (the first lunar landing).

8 years.

Facts are my friends. Are they yours?

Reader
Joe Blobers

Totally missing the point of time vs costs vs numbers of employees working for the project… As usual, date is everything who care about the whole picture :)
… and the “lower tech” argument lol: Apollo program used the latest tech, material and program available at the time.

You may change friends, they are not so nice :)

Reader
MothballShow

Let me understand. Chris mentions dates and sets expectations over 8 years, and finally comes to his senses and says “No more dates.”

This is a very good thing, because it keeps people from asking him when he thinks the project he’s in charge of will be finished.

Unfortunately, he failed to do that from the start, so there are a lot of upset backers.

Answer the Call 2016

It’s right around the corner!

We intend to have SQ42 in players’ hands by the end of this year.

Live beta in Q3/Q4 2020!

In conclusion, the people who defend Star Citizen/SQ42 (who aren’t on the payroll) are extremely gullible, because they only focus on “what will be” instead of what’s been demonstrated since the project’s inception.

Reader
Joe Blobers

I am not a gullible person by nature and never take what someone is selling as accurate.
I saw the project evolution and development. As backer I valid it. What we do have now in 3.11 is a tangible reality only because ambition is key before date.

Still I am partially gullible to think only 45$ can provide so much while publishers keep providing so little versus the Billions $ their get every single year.

I agree however on your reading about latest CR statement about “no more dates”. This is good not only because it is more than clear but because it comes with soon revised roadmap, dedicated SQ42 monthly report and clear explanation about what are the remaining “blockers” they do prioritize for the next coming quarters (icache+ server meshing).

Reader
MothballShow

I agree however on your reading about latest CR statement about “no more dates”. This is good not only because it is more than clear

This is good.

but because it comes with soon revised roadmap, dedicated SQ42 monthly report and clear explanation about what are the remaining “blockers” they do prioritize for the next coming quarters (icache+ server meshing).

This is not, because it’s not definite and subject to change. So maybe Chris wasn’t clear enough (he seems to excel at that).

Reader
Sean Barfoot

Fair play to Chris Roberts, I never thought he could actually do it but I was wrong.

I’ve been playing his Squadrons game which finally came out last week, and it is fantastic!

StuartGT
Reader
StuartGT

Chris’ dream came true

3a1kRqt[1].png
Reader
Bruno Brito

I’ve been playing his Squadrons game which finally came out last week, and it is fantastic!

42 launched?

Reader
Tanek
Reader
Bruno Brito

l o l

Reader
Tee Parsley

Guess it was worth the wait!