this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
259 points (94.5% liked)

Technology

59287 readers
5168 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
259
Over 10 Years After It Was Announced, Star Citizen’s Single-Player Squadron 42 Is ‘Feature Complete’ - IGN (www.ign.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
105 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Over 10 Years After It Was Announced, Star Citizen’s Single-Player Squadron 42 Is ‘Feature Complete’ - IGN::Star Citizen developer Cloud Imperium Games has said Squadron 42, the single-player portion of its controversial space sim, is finally “feature complete”, over a decade after it was announced.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The point I was making was a response to the budget statement. Starfield uses an engine that bethsoft first licensed expensively, modified extensively at expense and then bought the company's assets. The game's singular budget does not show the development cost. That was my point.

If we're discussing game dev budgets we're not talking from an end user perspective.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Are you suggesting that we should raise the cost of Starfield’s development then and account for hidden engine costs?

We can do that. I don’t know what a good number would be, but let’s quadruple or quintuple it for fun. Are we sitting at the $1.5 billion dollar mark? This gives us a scenario where Starfield has now cost twice to develop than this game.

The game was still developed and released. At some point, long development times start to work against a product. This isn’t a field where consumer expectations and tastes remain constant. The longer a game takes to make, the more dated design decisions may appear. Graphics cannot remain cutting edge for the entirety of a 10 year development cycle without rework, which can be seen as a waste of resources. That time and energy could have gone towards something else. Rework enough systems and you begin to paralyze your ability to actually complete the project.