7 ms·

Personally I think even if they fail (though I prefer they succeed!), they've still done a wonderful thing. They are pushing boundaries far beyond what I though

Personally I think even if they fail (though I prefer they succeed!), they've still done a wonderful thing. They are pushing boundaries far beyond what I thought was possible in modern games and that in itself is a great accomplishment. It's going to push more game developers to do the same and given the success of Red Dead Redemption 2 - which also pushed boundaries beyond what I expected - it seems we're going to be getting some really massive and immersive games in the not too distant future.

simion314 8y ago
about RD2 , what do you mean it pushed boundaries? if are you referring at programming I want to know what you mean since I did not see anything new in it(just asking not want to contradict you). The graphics and animations are good but I seen similar on other games.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  The graphics and animations are more or less on par, it's the underlying mechanics where new ground is being driven. Star Citizen has taken the "simulation" approach to insane levels. There are so many things you can do in Star Citizen that just aren't possible in other games because of how they're designed. In a lot of games, each interior of a spaceship would be a map, and then you would have a map of each location you could exit the spaceship, and then you would effectively teleport at a doorway when you "exit the ship". (Think about how this works in Mass Effect. The "ship" that you run around on never actually "moves". It's much easier and more efficient to make a game this way for a lot of reasons. In Star Citizen, they actually move a ship around the map, and if you open the door, it opens the physical barrier between you and the outside world and you can see out of it. By keeping everyone and all objects "in space" all the time, Star Citizen allows some insanely different experiences that other games would have to specifically program functionality for.
  - hartator 8y ago
    In Battlefield 1942, you can steer a full aircraft carrier while other player spawn on it and small boats and aircrafts are taking off of it. And yes you can walk on it too. It was more than 16 years ago.
    - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
      Now add space travel in three-dimensions, moving between variable gravity and atmosphere environments, make the map the size of a solar system with fairly massive planets that you can fly down to any part of freely. Try to get hundreds or thousands of people in that at one time, then throw tons of NPCs down on top of it to make sure things really seem lively. Etc. Add not just the fully-modeled interior of one or two aircraft carriers, but several of varying size and scale from various manufacturers (and species), add multiple professions for mining, salvaging, refining, etc. which each have mechanics far beyond "press key to do action". This is a non-exhaustive comparison. There are an insane number of aspects where Star Citizen is trying to take it to another level. Trying to compare Battlefield 1942 to an approach like Star Citizen is like comparing a deck of playing cards to Battlefield 1942. You're trying to compare a first-person shooter which allows for a handful of straightforward game loops to a game that attempts to include the full scope of MMOs and sandbox games with the graphical and environmental fidelity of a first-person shooter.
      - hartator 8y ago
        I would love all of that but so far none has been delivered. When you play what has been delivered, it feels like a shitty side project put together in a hurry. Game crashes. Current art is ugly. Interiors are empty and feels fake. Performance is sluggish even on top of line PCs. Physics are no fun. Collisions are not properly implemented. Every ships and players look the same. They should call this project a failure and release the resources currently being stuck in this project.
        Pfhreak 8y ago
        > I would love all of that but so far none has been delivered This is objectively false, and you seem to have a serious chip on your shoulder. I played their last open play session, and I definitely jumped in a ship with multiple friends, flew to several different planets, flew down to their surface, transitioned between different atmospheric environments. I had a lot of fun with it. It's one thing to say, "I don't like what they've done." It's another to say, "They haven't done something." when they objectively have.
  - simion314 8y ago
    Just some corrections(I did not downvote you), Mass Effect is an old game, Mass Effect Andromeda for example had the ship appear on the actual planet so you can see outside the windows. Btw I was not criticizing RD2 , a good game can use old boring techniques, I was wondering if I missed some revolutionary thing they did since previous games. The new X game also looks interesting, Space Engineers is also a game that I follow it's progress
    - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
      Andromeda uses all of the same limitations though as the original Mass Effect trilogy, for the most part. While the ship "appears on the actual planet", it is in a fixed position. This means they know exactly what will be displayed out the windows, for instance, and it can likely be pre-rendered or otherwise heavily optimized. You cannot move on and off the ship without a "cut", because you are moving from one map to the other. There is also no real movement of the ship with respect to a planet, as transitions such as landing are done via cutscene. Andromeda moves Mass Effect forward here and there, but it's still more or less limited in the same ways, and I think my comment still mostly applies. I didn't intend to specifically refer to "Mass Effect 1", but the franchise as a whole.
      - simion314 8y ago
        Sure, my comment was purely informative , I am not a Star Citizen critique because I am not following this game since I am playing single player games. I am curious if you tried the X games from EGOSOFT (for some reason I could not get into them but the latest one looks better) , or if you tried Space Engineers (this one appeals to me because I could create or import Star Trek ships and create my own thing , though I am waiting to be done before I get back into it.
  - imtringued 8y ago
    >In Star Citizen, they actually move a ship around the map, and if you open the door, it opens the physical barrier between you and the outside world and you can see out of it. This doesn't sound special or ground breaking at all. Heck there are decade old MMOs like shores of hazeron that combine survival game elements, sim city style planet construction with complex resource simulation and minecraft style construction of your own custom designed spacecraft. At all times you're playing single character seamlessly without any loading screens. There is one exception though. Traveling to another solar system via a wormhole opens a loading screen, however if you don't have a warp drive you can just accelerate to light speed and travel within 10 minutes to another solar system without a loading screen. However it's developed by a single guy and pretty much dead nowadays with 5 active players but it wouldn't surprise me if star citizen can't reach the complexity of that game within the next few years despite having significantly more resources. http://allthetropes.wikia.com/wiki/Shores_of_Hazeron http://allthetropes.wikia.com/wiki/Shores_of_Hazeron
    - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
      Sometimes I am not sure if people are serious. It's not to say that graphics = complexity, by any means, but supporting the complexity Star Citizen is trying to with the sort of graphics that Star Citizen has is a very, very different thing. Another commenter wondered why more Star Citizen backers weren't interested in the 2D game he founded. Again, hard to tell if people are serious, or they just don't understand what the draw is. Images: https://cdn.mmos.com/wp-content/gallery/shores-of-hazeron-overview/shores-of-hazeron-7.jpg https://cdn.mmos.com/wp-content/gallery/shores-of-hazeron-ov... https://cdn.mmos.com/wp-content/gallery/shores-of-hazeron-overview/shores-of-hazeron-2.jpg https://cdn.mmos.com/wp-content/gallery/shores-of-hazeron-ov... https://cdn.mmos.com/wp-content/gallery/shores-of-hazeron-overview/shores-of-hazeron-5.jpg https://cdn.mmos.com/wp-content/gallery/shores-of-hazeron-ov...
      - mynameisvlad 8y ago
        I mean, Shores of Hazeron is a 10+ year old game at this point. You can't, with any shred of genuineness, actually compare the graphics between it and Star Citizen. Same with Star Sonata (it's really not that hard to scroll up and actually be respectful and use the name of the game instead of belittling it to a "2D game") which is almost 15 years old now. Of course the graphics of S:C are going to be more complex. But that says nothing about the underlying technology, which you claimed is so incredibly groundbreaking but were immediately disproven by other games managing the exact same thing a decade ago. It's really not as insurmountable of a challenge as you make it seem to support prettier graphics on the same technologies used 10+ years ago with the massive CPU and GPU upgrades we've had in the last decade.
- y-c-o-m-b 8y ago
  Fair question. It was a combination of several things put together that I think qualifies as pushing boundaries for me. On their own these things may not be a big deal, but altogether and especially on relatively outdated hardware(console) they're great accomplishments. The game is seamless - and I think God of War does this well also - basically there's really no "loading" once you're in the game; you go from gameplay to cutscene to gameplay without any interruption. The graphics are high quality and that's amazing for how huge the game is and how extremely dynamic it is (e.g. how animals interact with the environment, the weather). Considering the lag I get on the PS4 with games like Witcher 3 that try to balance high quality graphics with scale, RDR2 is smooth. You can be on a train fighting 30 guys (each with dynamic facial expressions) with animals running around in the distance, explosions, the wind is blowing the trees around you and it's changing from sunshine to pouring rain - all this and more without a hiccup. That's a lot of detail processing at one time. EDIT: one other thing I found impressive and i'm not sure I've seen this in other open-world games or if they intentionally programmed it this way: during one of the missions I slaughtered about a dozen or two guys and traveled a considerable distance away from the scene. Normally when you come back to something like this, the world around you has pretty much re-rendered, but 30 minutes later when I arrived back, all the dead bodies were in the same place as before.
  - simion314 8y ago
    Thanks for the reply, seems to me that is a natural evolution from the previous game, the new hardware is more powerful and they had the money and time to add those details and polish it. I 100% agree the graphics and details are great, I was wondering if they brought something revolutionary since the last games that I missed in the reviews and gameplays I watched.
  - mikewhy 8y ago
    > The game is seamless - and I think God of War does this well also - basically there's really no "loading" once you're in the game; you go from gameplay to cutscene to gameplay without any interruption. Lots of games have had "no loading" (after a large load in the beginning and hidden loads throughout the game), dating back at least to the PS3. What God Of War did differently is that there's no camera cuts; the whole game is one continuous camera shot.
liquidise 8y ago
Agreed. I would also add they are completely rewriting what is the size of project approachable by “indie” game devs. A success changes the rules of the game dev ecosystem.
- Waterluvian 8y ago
  I think "indie" starts to mean very little when you apply it to a studio with $200M.
- clavalle 8y ago
  Roberts was already a big budget producer by the time SC came around...calling someone 'indie' when they've hired Nicolas Cage for a project is stretching the term well beyond its limits.
  - danso 8y ago
    Henry Cavill is SC’s more notable get [0]. Nicolas Cage is unfortunately mired in mostly VOD projects to deal with his reported financial problems. 0: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/63481/superman-star-henry-cavill-confirmed-citizen-role/index.html https://www.tweaktown.com/news/63481/superman-star-henry-cav...
DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
Speaking only for myself, I contributed Kickstarter funds to get a working game, not to advance the state of the art. I realize different funders have different takes on this. EDIT: I should mention that I haven't actually tried playing the game in quite a while. I've been waiting for the developers to stamp it as "released" before I take another look. So perhaps in its current form, it's playable enough to satisfy what I signed up for. It's a little hard to tell from the varied characterizations of its current playability.
- hartator 8y ago
  I've tried recently it's unplayable and none of mechanisms are remotely fun.
  - Kuinox 8y ago
    Then you didn't tried recently. Recently i get 30+ fps and the game is playable.
    - aeternus 8y ago
      You have a very generous definition of playable. Basic things like collision detection don't work. Large ships clip through each other, they disappear randomly. Seats and other interactables glitch out stranding you, there are numerous bugs that can catapult a passenger into deep space at ridiculous speeds.
      - h1d 8y ago
        I haven't played but is this what you get after 8 years with $200m? If the $200m came from a studio's budget, the guy is fired 5 years ago.
hartator 8y ago
As an early Star Citizen backer, I don't fully get how they pushed the boundaries of gaming. They seem to have to just wasted backer money, wasted hours of developer time that could have been used to make other games, and broke promises.
- iamdave 8y ago
  Here's something worth reading: https://starcitizen.tools/Object_Container_Streaming https://starcitizen.tools/Object_Container_Streaming
  - Negitivefrags 8y ago
    As a game developer, I don’t think this is particularly noteworthy. I’m sure it was a very important optimisation for Star Citizen, but it’s not like some amazing tech that will be important for the game industry or anything. Star Citizen had some awful performance problems, and because the development is quite public, optimisations that programmers are working on get important sounding names and publicity all their own. If it wasn’t for that, this would just be an implementation detail in their engine.
    - iamdave 8y ago
      I didn't post that to suggest it was something remarkable or novel in game development, but it certainly wasn't a waste of time as the commenter I replied to was suggesting. As you said, OCS was a needed optimization at the time it was rolled into the publicly facing releases, and I thought it was an interesting topic to at least share with others who are interested in the discussion (the amount of negative downvotes I see now maybe suggests folks don't find it as interesting as I do as someone who merely plays video games but doesn't develop them); at the very least I wasn't aware that it's a common technology, but it is still an interesting technology to me nonetheless.
  - Ralfp 8y ago
    Its just zoning combined with streaming, but under other name - its been around for a long time, at least the times of Unreal Engine because I clearly remember dealing with zones in first Unreal's editor back in 98. As fun fact, its something you are getting for free with Unreal Engine 4.smth these days because Epic needed it for Fortnite Battle Royale ;)
Krasnol 8y ago
Seriously? They've done a TERRIBLE thing. They've shown that you can get ridiculous amounts of money for...pictures and empty promises. I hope this idea will never catch on because this is far worse then every loot box business model out there. It also hurts everybody else attempting to do something like that. Just imagine what a capable director could have done with those amounts of money...
h1d 8y ago
> done a wonderful thing That's the least you expect from a $200m project. It's a massive failure if they don't deliver with that amount of money. It's just that they lose nothing but reputation because it wasn't their money. Bad management so far.

simion314 8y ago

about RD2 , what do you mean it pushed boundaries? if are you referring at programming I want to know what you mean since I did not see anything new in it(just asking not want to contradict you). The graphics and animations are good but I seen similar on other games.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
The graphics and animations are more or less on par, it's the underlying mechanics where new ground is being driven. Star Citizen has taken the "simulation" approach to insane levels. There are so many things you can do in Star Citizen that just aren't possible in other games because of how they're designed. In a lot of games, each interior of a spaceship would be a map, and then you would have a map of each location you could exit the spaceship, and then you would effectively teleport at a doorway when you "exit the ship". (Think about how this works in Mass Effect. The "ship" that you run around on never actually "moves". It's much easier and more efficient to make a game this way for a lot of reasons. In Star Citizen, they actually move a ship around the map, and if you open the door, it opens the physical barrier between you and the outside world and you can see out of it. By keeping everyone and all objects "in space" all the time, Star Citizen allows some insanely different experiences that other games would have to specifically program functionality for.
- hartator 8y ago
  In Battlefield 1942, you can steer a full aircraft carrier while other player spawn on it and small boats and aircrafts are taking off of it. And yes you can walk on it too. It was more than 16 years ago.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    Now add space travel in three-dimensions, moving between variable gravity and atmosphere environments, make the map the size of a solar system with fairly massive planets that you can fly down to any part of freely. Try to get hundreds or thousands of people in that at one time, then throw tons of NPCs down on top of it to make sure things really seem lively. Etc. Add not just the fully-modeled interior of one or two aircraft carriers, but several of varying size and scale from various manufacturers (and species), add multiple professions for mining, salvaging, refining, etc. which each have mechanics far beyond "press key to do action". This is a non-exhaustive comparison. There are an insane number of aspects where Star Citizen is trying to take it to another level. Trying to compare Battlefield 1942 to an approach like Star Citizen is like comparing a deck of playing cards to Battlefield 1942. You're trying to compare a first-person shooter which allows for a handful of straightforward game loops to a game that attempts to include the full scope of MMOs and sandbox games with the graphical and environmental fidelity of a first-person shooter.
    - hartator 8y ago
      I would love all of that but so far none has been delivered. When you play what has been delivered, it feels like a shitty side project put together in a hurry. Game crashes. Current art is ugly. Interiors are empty and feels fake. Performance is sluggish even on top of line PCs. Physics are no fun. Collisions are not properly implemented. Every ships and players look the same. They should call this project a failure and release the resources currently being stuck in this project.
      - Pfhreak 8y ago
        > I would love all of that but so far none has been delivered This is objectively false, and you seem to have a serious chip on your shoulder. I played their last open play session, and I definitely jumped in a ship with multiple friends, flew to several different planets, flew down to their surface, transitioned between different atmospheric environments. I had a lot of fun with it. It's one thing to say, "I don't like what they've done." It's another to say, "They haven't done something." when they objectively have.
- simion314 8y ago
  Just some corrections(I did not downvote you), Mass Effect is an old game, Mass Effect Andromeda for example had the ship appear on the actual planet so you can see outside the windows. Btw I was not criticizing RD2 , a good game can use old boring techniques, I was wondering if I missed some revolutionary thing they did since previous games. The new X game also looks interesting, Space Engineers is also a game that I follow it's progress
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    Andromeda uses all of the same limitations though as the original Mass Effect trilogy, for the most part. While the ship "appears on the actual planet", it is in a fixed position. This means they know exactly what will be displayed out the windows, for instance, and it can likely be pre-rendered or otherwise heavily optimized. You cannot move on and off the ship without a "cut", because you are moving from one map to the other. There is also no real movement of the ship with respect to a planet, as transitions such as landing are done via cutscene. Andromeda moves Mass Effect forward here and there, but it's still more or less limited in the same ways, and I think my comment still mostly applies. I didn't intend to specifically refer to "Mass Effect 1", but the franchise as a whole.
    - simion314 8y ago
      Sure, my comment was purely informative , I am not a Star Citizen critique because I am not following this game since I am playing single player games. I am curious if you tried the X games from EGOSOFT (for some reason I could not get into them but the latest one looks better) , or if you tried Space Engineers (this one appeals to me because I could create or import Star Trek ships and create my own thing , though I am waiting to be done before I get back into it.
- imtringued 8y ago
  >In Star Citizen, they actually move a ship around the map, and if you open the door, it opens the physical barrier between you and the outside world and you can see out of it. This doesn't sound special or ground breaking at all. Heck there are decade old MMOs like shores of hazeron that combine survival game elements, sim city style planet construction with complex resource simulation and minecraft style construction of your own custom designed spacecraft. At all times you're playing single character seamlessly without any loading screens. There is one exception though. Traveling to another solar system via a wormhole opens a loading screen, however if you don't have a warp drive you can just accelerate to light speed and travel within 10 minutes to another solar system without a loading screen. However it's developed by a single guy and pretty much dead nowadays with 5 active players but it wouldn't surprise me if star citizen can't reach the complexity of that game within the next few years despite having significantly more resources. http://allthetropes.wikia.com/wiki/Shores_of_Hazeron http://allthetropes.wikia.com/wiki/Shores_of_Hazeron
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    Sometimes I am not sure if people are serious. It's not to say that graphics = complexity, by any means, but supporting the complexity Star Citizen is trying to with the sort of graphics that Star Citizen has is a very, very different thing. Another commenter wondered why more Star Citizen backers weren't interested in the 2D game he founded. Again, hard to tell if people are serious, or they just don't understand what the draw is. Images: https://cdn.mmos.com/wp-content/gallery/shores-of-hazeron-overview/shores-of-hazeron-7.jpg https://cdn.mmos.com/wp-content/gallery/shores-of-hazeron-ov... https://cdn.mmos.com/wp-content/gallery/shores-of-hazeron-overview/shores-of-hazeron-2.jpg https://cdn.mmos.com/wp-content/gallery/shores-of-hazeron-ov... https://cdn.mmos.com/wp-content/gallery/shores-of-hazeron-overview/shores-of-hazeron-5.jpg https://cdn.mmos.com/wp-content/gallery/shores-of-hazeron-ov...
    - mynameisvlad 8y ago
      I mean, Shores of Hazeron is a 10+ year old game at this point. You can't, with any shred of genuineness, actually compare the graphics between it and Star Citizen. Same with Star Sonata (it's really not that hard to scroll up and actually be respectful and use the name of the game instead of belittling it to a "2D game") which is almost 15 years old now. Of course the graphics of S:C are going to be more complex. But that says nothing about the underlying technology, which you claimed is so incredibly groundbreaking but were immediately disproven by other games managing the exact same thing a decade ago. It's really not as insurmountable of a challenge as you make it seem to support prettier graphics on the same technologies used 10+ years ago with the massive CPU and GPU upgrades we've had in the last decade.
y-c-o-m-b 8y ago
Fair question. It was a combination of several things put together that I think qualifies as pushing boundaries for me. On their own these things may not be a big deal, but altogether and especially on relatively outdated hardware(console) they're great accomplishments. The game is seamless - and I think God of War does this well also - basically there's really no "loading" once you're in the game; you go from gameplay to cutscene to gameplay without any interruption. The graphics are high quality and that's amazing for how huge the game is and how extremely dynamic it is (e.g. how animals interact with the environment, the weather). Considering the lag I get on the PS4 with games like Witcher 3 that try to balance high quality graphics with scale, RDR2 is smooth. You can be on a train fighting 30 guys (each with dynamic facial expressions) with animals running around in the distance, explosions, the wind is blowing the trees around you and it's changing from sunshine to pouring rain - all this and more without a hiccup. That's a lot of detail processing at one time. EDIT: one other thing I found impressive and i'm not sure I've seen this in other open-world games or if they intentionally programmed it this way: during one of the missions I slaughtered about a dozen or two guys and traveled a considerable distance away from the scene. Normally when you come back to something like this, the world around you has pretty much re-rendered, but 30 minutes later when I arrived back, all the dead bodies were in the same place as before.
- simion314 8y ago
  Thanks for the reply, seems to me that is a natural evolution from the previous game, the new hardware is more powerful and they had the money and time to add those details and polish it. I 100% agree the graphics and details are great, I was wondering if they brought something revolutionary since the last games that I missed in the reviews and gameplays I watched.
- mikewhy 8y ago
  > The game is seamless - and I think God of War does this well also - basically there's really no "loading" once you're in the game; you go from gameplay to cutscene to gameplay without any interruption. Lots of games have had "no loading" (after a large load in the beginning and hidden loads throughout the game), dating back at least to the PS3. What God Of War did differently is that there's no camera cuts; the whole game is one continuous camera shot.

liquidise 8y ago

Agreed. I would also add they are completely rewriting what is the size of project approachable by “indie” game devs. A success changes the rules of the game dev ecosystem.

Waterluvian 8y ago
I think "indie" starts to mean very little when you apply it to a studio with $200M.
clavalle 8y ago
Roberts was already a big budget producer by the time SC came around...calling someone 'indie' when they've hired Nicolas Cage for a project is stretching the term well beyond its limits.
- danso 8y ago
  Henry Cavill is SC’s more notable get [0]. Nicolas Cage is unfortunately mired in mostly VOD projects to deal with his reported financial problems. 0: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/63481/superman-star-henry-cavill-confirmed-citizen-role/index.html https://www.tweaktown.com/news/63481/superman-star-henry-cav...

DoofusOfDeath 8y ago

Speaking only for myself, I contributed Kickstarter funds to get a working game, not to advance the state of the art. I realize different funders have different takes on this. EDIT: I should mention that I haven't actually tried playing the game in quite a while. I've been waiting for the developers to stamp it as "released" before I take another look. So perhaps in its current form, it's playable enough to satisfy what I signed up for. It's a little hard to tell from the varied characterizations of its current playability.

hartator 8y ago
I've tried recently it's unplayable and none of mechanisms are remotely fun.
- Kuinox 8y ago
  Then you didn't tried recently. Recently i get 30+ fps and the game is playable.
  - aeternus 8y ago
    You have a very generous definition of playable. Basic things like collision detection don't work. Large ships clip through each other, they disappear randomly. Seats and other interactables glitch out stranding you, there are numerous bugs that can catapult a passenger into deep space at ridiculous speeds.
    - h1d 8y ago
      I haven't played but is this what you get after 8 years with $200m? If the $200m came from a studio's budget, the guy is fired 5 years ago.

hartator 8y ago

As an early Star Citizen backer, I don't fully get how they pushed the boundaries of gaming. They seem to have to just wasted backer money, wasted hours of developer time that could have been used to make other games, and broke promises.

iamdave 8y ago
Here's something worth reading: https://starcitizen.tools/Object_Container_Streaming https://starcitizen.tools/Object_Container_Streaming
- Negitivefrags 8y ago
  As a game developer, I don’t think this is particularly noteworthy. I’m sure it was a very important optimisation for Star Citizen, but it’s not like some amazing tech that will be important for the game industry or anything. Star Citizen had some awful performance problems, and because the development is quite public, optimisations that programmers are working on get important sounding names and publicity all their own. If it wasn’t for that, this would just be an implementation detail in their engine.
  - iamdave 8y ago
    I didn't post that to suggest it was something remarkable or novel in game development, but it certainly wasn't a waste of time as the commenter I replied to was suggesting. As you said, OCS was a needed optimization at the time it was rolled into the publicly facing releases, and I thought it was an interesting topic to at least share with others who are interested in the discussion (the amount of negative downvotes I see now maybe suggests folks don't find it as interesting as I do as someone who merely plays video games but doesn't develop them); at the very least I wasn't aware that it's a common technology, but it is still an interesting technology to me nonetheless.
- Ralfp 8y ago
  Its just zoning combined with streaming, but under other name - its been around for a long time, at least the times of Unreal Engine because I clearly remember dealing with zones in first Unreal's editor back in 98. As fun fact, its something you are getting for free with Unreal Engine 4.smth these days because Epic needed it for Fortnite Battle Royale ;)

Krasnol 8y ago

Seriously? They've done a TERRIBLE thing. They've shown that you can get ridiculous amounts of money for...pictures and empty promises. I hope this idea will never catch on because this is far worse then every loot box business model out there. It also hurts everybody else attempting to do something like that. Just imagine what a capable director could have done with those amounts of money...

h1d 8y ago

> done a wonderful thing That's the least you expect from a $200m project. It's a massive failure if they don't deliver with that amount of money. It's just that they lose nothing but reputation because it wasn't their money. Bad management so far.