[1] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen

They have an alpha that's fun to mess around in and gets big updates 4x a year.

There are plenty of games that cost $60+ that are worse than SC for $45 and the promise of bigger updates.

If CIG folds after a decade, that's not a scam... that's just a mismanaged studio. CIG has delivered a product. You can judge whether it is a good product, but they have delivered and continue to deliver.

They've spent nearly 10 years and close to half a billion dollars, and all they've produced is a glorified model viewer with some extremely buggy and half-baked gameplay mechanics tacked on. There is no visible progress towards a viable MMO or indeed of server instances supporting more than ~30 concurrent players without breaking in bizarre ways.

>If CIG folds after a decade, that's not a scam... that's just a mismanaged studio

It became obvious years ago to anyone but the wilfully ignorant that CIG are incapable of delivering, and to continue to take people's money in this circumstance is indefensible. If they cannot deliver they should gracefully admit it and refund backers and investors as much as possible. Instead they continue to pump out new ship models while making no progress towards core tech required to actually deliver something resembling the game they promised.

>CIG has delivered a product. You can judge whether it is a good product, but they have delivered and continue to deliver.

That is the problem - they continue to deliver eye candy to attract new victims, but nothing of substance. Star Citizen is vapourware with just enough bait to keep luring gullible whales into dropping cash on ship models.

There's plenty of similarly priced or cheaper games which have far more substance (in terms of delivered scope, not promised scope).

>but it's clearly marketed as a work in progress, with no unrealistic promises made

Star Citizen's kickstarter originally promised to release in 2014/15 [1], and they continue to push back that date with no end in sight. This behaviour is literally illegal in my jurisdiction - there are reasonable exceptions for things outside the supplier's control, but scope creep is not one of them.

>You, like several others, seem to be blaming it for not being something it does not claim nor aspire to be.

I mean, they've claimed to be able to deliver a game and have failed pretty spectacularly at that. They claimed to deliver an accurate flight model which accounts for centre of mass, individual thrusters, etc. and as I understand the current flight model is basically "noclip mode but with collisions". They've sold so many ships for various lifestyles (journalism etc.) but show no progress towards even a vague idea of how those game mechanics would work, let alone implementing them. User created content and modding tools, land claims, private servers, all have been promised and then silently dropped in favour of spruiking newer and shinier ship models. They've claimed to deliver a universe of star systems and are still manually grinding out content for the first star system.

> I haven't bought it, but I just might when it can be run well enough on Linux, with limited expectations on my part

I'd advise you hold off until they deliver something close to a finished game, or even just hit beta, but you do you.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20121019000754/http://www.kickst...

It's playable right now, has been for a long time. The fact that it's not been deemed "finished" is rather irrelevant. You can compare it to a similarly-themed game such as Elite: Dangerous, which has been released and updated through paid extensions. There doesn't seem to be that much more to do in that game, from what I can gather. (I bought it, but haven't gotten around to playing it much yet.)

Or put another way, with a typical funding method SC could have released their game a few years back as it was as "gold", and it would have been a decent game -- certainly no worse than No Man's Sky at launch.

Comparing SC to the average scam Kickstarter that doesn't deliver anything and lies to the backers is simply wrong. It's an ambitious project and their release date goals were way too optimistic -- but it's hard to get mad at them for that when you have any experience with software development.

I downloaded star citizen out of curiosity during free fly last year and there's virtually nothing to do. That's if you can even get into your ship without crashing. It took me many attempts. Core gameplay loops just aren't there. The only people having fun are those that "make their own game" by role playing.

I've played a good amount of Elite. I got bored eventually but there's a ton of solid gameplay and virtually no bugs. It's a better game than star citizen in its current state in every way I can think of.

The buggyness of star citizen is unforgivable. I've played many early access and alpha games and nothing I've touched is as unplayably buggy as SC has been for years.

LOL, Jesus Christ if this isn't proof-positive that Modern Monetary Theory has corrupted everything I don't know what is...

Cyberpunk 2077 single-player was $121MM and they have multiplayer planned so probably add another $50MM - $60MM on top, if not more.

I have no doubt that GTA 6 and Elder Scrolls 7 will both come near or break $300MM. $300MM is an absurd amount, but that's just where the market is headed; big and expansive games.

I am not defending CIG necessarily but scoffing at a number out of context is disingenuous.

But yeah, the price tag is likely to be $500M - $750M but their goal isn't to put out a rehash of a rehash for $80 then rinse-repeat next year.

CIG is pretty upfront they are trying something crazy and Chris Roberts (SC creator) is well-known for his scope creep + desire for perfection. It's not like CR is demanding monthly subscriptions to play or that everyone spends $x / year on SC.

If you want to buy an overpriced ship, go for it... but you can buy most, if not all, ships in-game for in-game currency that's easy to get. It looks like the most expensive ship purchasable in the game is an "890 Jump" which costs 32M aUEC or $950. You can get 300k aUEC every two hours so like 212 hours of grinding (but seriously, this ship is purely a status symbol. Just like those crazy rare flying mounts in World of Warcraft.)

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_g...

But the scope creep is pathetic. I used to support them early on and for quite a while; however they have lost all incentives to do anything other than string the backers along. They haven't actually set to deliver something properly playable and at this point the only people enjoying the game are the hardcore fans who HAVE to enjoy it otherwise they feel like they haven't got their money's worth.

Scope creep itself is fine, but if it perpetually delays your initial release then what's the point? I think they know that by now.

I find it interesting that there are currently zero Bethesda games on the list despite their fairly broad scopes, which is... telling, considering the reputation of their games. That said, I have doubts that ES6 will hit $300M. Maybe ES7 as you say, but that's not the next Elder Scrolls game.

MMT is a model used to explain how the economy will be affected by certain governmental policies

So I'm not sure how it's supposed to have "corrupted" everything. Care to elaborate?

Still no game.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/spaceventure/two-guys-s...

  I've play Star Citizen more then any other game in the last 5 years, well maybe on par with Skyrim. If you haven't seen it in a while the original scope of the game ( spaceship based sim ) is quite complete and polished.  If all you want to do is hop in a ship, fight some pirates, do some pvp, missions or cargo hauling for credits to upgrade your ship or buy a new one its all there. Its a blast to play with a friend as most ships are multi-crew.

    $2,134,374 pledged of $500,000 goal

Martinez M1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8AOrkfR1WM

A bunch of different hammers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DabECxs3WhU

Aha! That’s what I’ll get good old uncle Bill.

I think it took Leatherman ten years to get something out the door —but that was the 70s when you didn’t have the prototyping we have today.

[1] https://www.craftsman.com/products/automotive-tools/wrenches...

It's a shame, really. Speaking from experience, I once raised over $20K USD on a $48K goal. The project failed on Kickstarter; however, I was able to raise funds and complete the project by other means, but Kickstarter does not allow me to make updates to the project because it 'failed.'

I have to ask, though... which project is a failure, the one which is completed despite failing to meet the Kickstarter goal, or the one which meets the goal but never delivers?

I happily lurk and consume along with the other 99%.[1] In part, this is because when I read HN, I attempt to stay on the front page for the sake of time and though I appreciate those who sort by new and filter what gets to my eyes, it's rare that a conversation is fresh enough that it makes it worthwhile to comment in terms of viewership, nor that it's valuable enough insight to take up someone else's finite resource pool of time to read.

It seems upon personal review that by posting I may now have committed violence twice today on that valuable resource. My apologies. I'll attempt to post less regularly or more profoundly in the future.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture)

I don't know anything about the product itself, but based on your description I wish I had something like that in the van when i was in a band and we were going on road trips in a cheap van. Especially if they somehow included a hacksaw.

But these multi taskers are pretty much good at nothing.

I reckon a lighter hammer swung faster is more likely to end up with a bent nail.

Also, exponential would be 2^v. v^2 is quadratic.

(And you need to sub in the F=ma part as well to demonstrate your point, so your gain from the lighter hammer should be less than quadratic. Exercise left to the reader.)

I'm assuming that when you swing a hammer, your arm applies a constant force to the hammer. Let's say that force is F, and we are swinging the hammer a distance of d, and the mass of the hammer is M.

Then the acceleration is a = F/M. The distance traveled in time t is 1/2 a t^2 = 1/2 F/M t^2. We want that to be d.

That happens at time t = sqrt(2dM/F). The velocity at time t is a t, so the velocity when the hammer hits the nail is v = sqrt(2dF/M).

That gives a momentum of M v = sqrt(2dFM).

The kinetic energy is 1/2 M v^2 = 1/2 M 2dF/M = d F.

Note that the momentum at distance d depends on the mass. It goes up as the square root of mass. Kinetic energy at distance d, on the other hand, does not depend on mass.

When I've hit hammers with nails, the heavy hammers have always seemed to drive the nail deeper per hit than the light hammers, which suggests that hammer mass does matter, suggesting that it is not kinetic energy that determines how deep the nail is driven.

Seems that way; if you're using a hammer, the goal is for all parts of the system to come to a stop. You're trying to deform the material you're hammering the nail into; isn't that measured in energy transfer?

Intuitively, I feel like weighty hits tend to drive the nail into the wood, whereas fast hits just bash the nail about. That might be more about accuracy though?

(Also my anecdote confirmed by someone with practical experience, see other comment.)

Yes, if you're using your arm, there's a tradeoff between speed and accuracy. If you're using a nail gun, not so much.

I was just saying that it looks to me like measuring what happens in energy seems correct, and measuring in momentum looks like a conceptual mistake.