Talk:Star Citizen/Archive 1

Archive 1

More references.

I forgot what I'm doing, so I'll just put references I found here.

• http://starcitizen.robertsspaceindustries.com/
• http://www.gamespot.com/shows/gamespot-live/?event=roberts_space_industries_gdc_panel20121010

There's some more videos on the first page, but it's a.. I'm not even sure if this fits under 'personal website' or just 'primary source'. I'll probably just go back to my hermitage after this. ArchabacteriaNematoda (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The first one is primary (WP:PRIMARY), and also the homepage and thus not very usable; the second one is dead. But here is another good refs that was just published:

Thursten, Chris (31 December 2015). "Meeting the stars of Star Citizen". PC Gamer. Future US.

Link to the website

Why is it locked? It has a reference number that favours someone especifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.222.38.177 (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• It is not locked in anyway, the padlock denotes a Secure HTTP (HTTPS) address: https://example.com, there's no hidden code/reference or anything. kkmic (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I think he meant the referral code that I have just removed from the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.169.73 (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

New Information

I realize a lot of the information posted doesn't exactly fall within the norms of Wikipedia, but I opted to add it in order to flesh out the article. As the game is released the article will naturally morph into a quality article. In the meantime I ask that the content be left in order to give the article some sort of contextual weight. Thanks. Gorba (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This type of content is more suited for wikia.org, not wikipedia - I've just tagged on an 'in universe' header so we remember that most of this will eventually have to go from the article or be edited into more of an outsider's description of the subject. 93.200.22.124 (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The goal of wikipedia is to provide the sum of human knowledge. That said, Gorba probably too much detail in the wrong place. Things like lists of fictional companies and systems belong in list articles. The lists should be split into their own articles.
Each list section does cover a topic worth discussing in this article (the main article), but not is such detail and in prose form. There may not be a lot of substance here yet, but there is more than enough information about (in-game and IRL). We don't need to try packing the article to bolster it.  —Sowlos  14:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good IP. I agree Sowlos but there is a slight problem. If you look at the ledes and gameplays for many games they detail sales and gameplay mechanics. Given that Star Citizen is in early development those two are clearly lacking, as is so much more information. I am a humble Wikipedia editor and if the will of other editors is to condense the article I'm all for it. I simply ask that you help me achieve that in a progressive manner over time. :) Gorba (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Dead link

This link is dead: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/unlock-hades-system/ (it is reference 13 at the time of writing) - --Simplexxx (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

License?

Which license is used for Star Citizen? 78.35.195.18 (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Star Citizen does not use a standardised license. It is closed source. 199.103.3.236 (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Developers

Maybe IllFonic should be added to developer list, latest jump point article sort of confirms it. On the other side I lack a source since jump points are private publications. 85.84.176.219 (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Someone

Yes, we should really wait for a more reliable reference. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

New reference. I think the Colorado film commissioner is a legitimate source. Added IllFonic to the infobox. Mveyb (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

List of development timeline and features

A quick question: Would a timeline and confirmed features be appropriate for the article? I tend to lean towards yes, but I am not sure how others would respond since they will mostly be derived from primary press releases since the game is not currently complete. I know primary sources are generally to be avoided but using them to illustrate funding and goals might give the article better information since the release won't go live until sometime in 2015. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed Elite from Page

Elite: Dangerous has no justification for being listed on this page. It is blatant promotion of a competing game to have it here. Perhaps if Elite was listed as an influence by Chris or Erin Roberts or one of the designers, then there would be a point. But putting it here is like saying "hey, we're a space combat sim too! Come look at us!". Last I looked, this was frowned upon by Wikipedia. 67.159.191.98 (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's listed because it's a similar game with similar origins (crowdfunding). This has been discussed numerous times before and the result was to keep it in. It's not advertising; it's a justifiable link to an article with the same topic. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The games Call of Duty 4 and Battlefield 4 are both modern military shooters. Both of these articles could have long lists of games in a "See Also" section on their respective articles, with the only valid concern being how long such arbitrary lists should be. It's clearly a case of promotion, and the link doesn't belong here. Eik Corell (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. I don't really care enough to fight about it. I didn't add the link originally, but consider:

• Both games are by developers of the original games
• Both were funded via Kickstarter
• Both are similar games

I don't see how that's not relevant. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

One is actually a released game with a lot of stuff happening. Maybe Elite shouldn't be tied to something this unfinished! ;)82.164.135.62 (talk)

WikiProject Video games reasssessment

Star Citizen is the most crowdfunded project ever, video games or otherwise. Also has a huge following, large budget and is part of a "genre revival." I would mark the importance as mid or high. The page needs some extra attention, specifically adding an Arena Commander section, which I will be looking into in the near future. 198.103.167.20 (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm answering the request for WP:VG assessment. After carefully consulting the importance criteria, I believe this article is borderline mid/low-importance. The large crowd-sourced budget is certainly remarkable, but I think it's premature to say that this is part of a genre revival. For a game to be classed as mid- or high-importance, it needs to have had a marked impact beyond its usual sphere of influence, either in inspiring many games similar in genre/funding method, or by becoming highly acclaimed or achieving huge sales. I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and rate this as mid-importance, because the crowdsourcing does somewhat set this game apart from others, but really the article needs to demonstrate that this has had a wider impact on the industry (e.g. by inspiring many other developers to do the same). Of course, this may not become apparent until some years after the game is released. (For comparison, Elite: Dangerous - a similar crowd-funded game - is currently ranked low-importance.)

Looking at the quality of the article, I believe it is currently at the high end of the start class. There are really only two things holding me back from giving this a C. First, it is lacking a Gameplay section. Second, although the level of referencing is good enough for C or even B-class, too many of the sources used are primary. Wikipedia's guidelines on such matters states that it is okay to occasionally use primary sources, but to use these sources as the majority of all references is not good practice. If a Gameplay section is added and sourced and the current primary sources replaced where possible with secondary sources, I will not hesitate to promote this to C. Good luck! :) Una Laguna^Talk 12:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Guidelines

The infobox is in conflict with the syntax guide for Template:Infobox video game. The main problem is that it lists developers arbitrarily, without considering their position in the development hierarchy. But it also lists too many developers in general. I'd like to completely remove the fields for artist, designer, producer and programmer since this project doesn't appear to have "functional equivalent[s]". All removed developers can still be mentioned in the article, but the purpose of the infobox is to provide a concise overview of the game, not list people who are popular in the community. Please discuss your objections and specific positions or developers here and state your source. Mveyb (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems entirely justified and you should go through with it. If anyone disagrees they can edit some names back in and try to justify it. 198.103.167.20 (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at these guidelines, there is no instruction for the Developer(s) field for when multiple studios are directly involved in core gameplay and asset development. It's a relatively new concept. I think at least IllFonic should be included, probably Behavior as well since they seem to be in charge of the Hangar module. 69.165.213.2 (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, "(...) Individual development tasks handled by different companies (e.g. scenario, programming) and ports should not be mentioned in the infobox but in the article text instead." makes the intention very clear I think. As I wrote above, imho the overview aspect is very important. I suggest mentioning individual studios and developers in the article, not in the infobox. Please review my changes [1] to the development section and adapt/expand/move/remove as needed. Mveyb (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Third-Party References

I think I replaced all primary sources where it was possible. N.B. that doesn't mean all references are in order and there are still several statements that aren't referenced at all. It would be great if someone could double-check my changes and remove the {Third-party} advisory if they're satisfied. Mveyb (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Great work, I've been improving things here and there as time permits but you really overhauled the whole thing. Just added a ref to one of the last remaining statements that didn't have one. In my opinion it's time to remove the advisory. I'd prefer if a more experienced editor could confirm this and actually go through with it, though. 198.103.167.20 (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Official Release Date

I see that user Eik Corell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eik_Corell) insists on changing the release date from 2016 to 2017. He base this on (source 5) a news article that speculates on rumors from another news article. The source is unverified and is simply hearsay. The official release date of Star Citizen is 2016. This was communicated by Chris Roberts on PAX East 2015 (see http://i1.no/0hpe/) and he has repeated it many times since then in interviews and videos. The official release date may be changed later but until that time there's no use to speculate, and certainly not here in Wikipedia. I won't correct the article because I anticipate Mr. Corell will promptly undo the change again, as he has done before.

Prognatus (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference added. Sir Lothar (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Referral Program

Star Citizen recently launched it's referral program. Please refrain from adding referral links as per Wikipedia's External Links Policy. Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links for more information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.200.216 (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Crystal Ball in Lede

I feel that the lede projects certain claims about the project with certainty in wikipedias voice contrary to the sourcing. I have put a proposal below.

Star Citizen is a space sim video game under development for Microsoft Windows and Linux. Star Citizen is intended to consist of two main components: first-person space combat, mining and trading with first-person shooter elements in a massively multiplayer persistent universe and customizable private servers, and a branching single-player and drop-in co-operative multiplayer campaign titled Squadron 42. The game is being built on a modified CryEngine and is intended to feature Oculus Rift support.

Both Star Citizen and Squadron 42 are set in a 30th-century Milky Way centered on the fictional United Empire of Earth (UEE), an analogue of the late Roman Empire. A central theme of the game is citizenship – or lack thereof – in the UEE, which must be earned through player actions such as completing a period of military service. It is anticipated that citizens will enjoy certain in-game benefits, like paying a reduced tax rate, but the exact details are yet to be determined. A strong focus will be placed on player interaction, with player behavior influencing and being influenced by a dynamic economy system.

Star Citizen and Squadron 42 are produced by Chris Roberts' company Cloud Imperium Games and its European counterpart Foundry 42 and marketed under the Cloud Imperium Games subsidiary Roberts Space Industries. Roberts' previous works include games such as Wing Commander, Wing Commander: Privateer, Starlancer and Freelancer.

The game's campaign has been advertised as featuring the likes of Gary Oldman, Mark Hamill, and Gillian Anderson.

References

I'd appreciate comments.

The Escapist Article

I heard about this game on Forbes, and read an analysis about how the developers have been conducting negligent usage of money and the misspending of 85 million dollars. I came hoping to read more about this development as it seems that the company has gone out and begin threatening The Escapist with lawsuits, in the process making a huge legal mistake that they will not be able to defend if it happens to go to court. From what I've read The Escapist seems to have done proper reporting, and it seems at this point the developers are scrambling to do damage control. Could someone please add a section detailing all the events that have transpired? It seem to be a very important part and history about the development of this game. I hope that this page isn't being censured by the developers or the people that crowd funded the project. Thanks. 66.215.230.193 (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Considering that the claims made are not verifiable, and constitute nothing more than rumors, it doesn't seem appropriate for the wiki page. The idea that low-level employees know the financial status of CIG is laughable at best (the only people with that information would be a select few at the highest level). Frankly, nothing of consequence has come from the article, and the community has mostly forgotten about it. It hasn't affected the development nor direction of the game, so I'm unsure how you'd class it as "very important". 121.215.138.175 (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia really shouldn't take a stance in personal vendettas carried out by frustrated "competitors" which is exactly what would be the case if this was even mentioned in the article unless a more credible source than the personally disgruntled Derek Smart can be found. 01:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)2001:4DD0:FF00:9CAF:3142:7063:703F:710F (talk)

Derek Smart had nothing to do with the Escapist Article, nor was he cited as a source. That you are jumping to this conclusion here leads me to believe the Star Citizen fanbase did indeed have a strong role in creating/maintaining this article.73.138.37.85 (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

isnt the ceo of a 110$+ millions compny writig 8 hours angry letter revelant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.246.35 (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit dispute with Ferret and Neutral2006 concerning contents of the whole article

Neutral2006 contests that the lede is inaccurate on several points, but the one particular example presented to me was the claim that the game is planned for Linux. Multiple reliable sources however back this up, even if a Linux version is not yet available, the game is still "upcoming". Neutral2006 provided this unreliable source regarding Linux. However, the source doesn't say Linux is cancelled or no longer planned, only that the delays relate to CryEngine and that there's continuing efforts to get it to work. Based on the sourcing available, even Neutral2006's own link, Linux should continue to be listed. -- ferret (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested change 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The release date should be changed from TBA 2016 to TBA as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines

Care should be taken in stating release dates. Many commercial gaming sites, such as GameSpot, IGN, and 1UP.com, supply accurate dates, as well as vendor sites such as Amazon.com or GameStop. For unreleased games, vendor sites should not be used as verifiable sources since their date is likely based on their best estimate of when the game is to be out; always look for corroborating statements from reliable sources to confirm these dates. If a general timeframe ("first quarter", "early") or even month is provided, include this before the year, but do not link these terms (see date formatting in the Manual of Style). Avoid the use of seasonal estimate release dates ("winter", "summer") as these have different meanings in different parts of the world (see WP:SEASON for more). If the game is announced but no release date is given, state this as "TBA"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutral2006 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC) Neutral2006 (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Response to 1) The 2016 date is from a reliable source (Polygon) in which Chris Roberts stated a release in 2016. It was not taken from a vendor site. The article's infobox is in line with guidelines. -- ferret (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Response to 1) http://www.polygon.com/2015/1/21/7866019/chris-roberts-says-star-citizen-will-reach-100-million-in-2015-shares .Being the cited article, makes no mention of a release date in 2016 and further more http://www.polygon.com is not a reliable source and the date of the article is 1 year and 6 months ago. The only reference is a quote from a video directly from the Ceo of the games publisher and developer, which under the guidelines is not allowed. Neutral2006 (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Please indent your responses with colons. This helps keep the discussion in order. Polygon is a vetted reliable source, see WP:VG/RS. Did you even read the article? Direct quote: "By the end of 2015 backers can expect to play the alpha of the persistent universe, leading up to an eventual 2016 commercial launch of the game." Yes, it is old, but 2016 isn't over yet so its not inaccurate. The guideline does not forbid a quote from the publisher/developer that is covered by a reliable source. When we get to 2017, it will be inaccurate and removed. For now, it's still the planned release. -- ferret (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Question wheather or not I read the article is not really necessary for this discussion and as such is inflammatory and only serves to incite a flame war, please refrain from this behaviour in the future to keep the discussion civil. lets look at the accuracy of the polygon article.

--According to the polygon article: -Star Citizen FPS will release in Spring 2015 - Didn't happen. -The beta of the planet side product Spring 2015 - Didn't happen. -Arena Commander 2.0 Summer 2015 - Didn't happen. -Squadron 42 episode one Fall 2015 - Didn't happen. -Full persistant universe of Star Citizen end of 2015 - Didn't happen. -Full Commercial release 2016 - Considering that we are in June of 2016 and all of the above have failed to release, the major one being the full persistant universe, which is a critical component of the full release, i'd say that the 2016 estimate is inaccurate along with the polygon article cited above.

The Star Citizen Gamepedia has the Final release as 2017-2018 Final Release

The game's final release is anticipated to occur at the end of 2017-18[8] along with the full persistent universe and all previous features implemented and scaled up. Star Citizen Commercial launch date is not officially stated.

Neutral2006 (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Gamepedia is a wiki and unreliable, it can't be used as a source. The basic fact is that we're still in 2016 and the source is not yet wrong. However, I also don't have any particular investment in it so "TBA" is fine with me in the end. -- ferret (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.Neutral2006 (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Can you please remove "2016" and the polygon source from the infobox? (Or if referenced elsewhere, move it so AnomieBot doesn't have to fix orphan) -- ferret (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested change 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ok, so the original lead I have issues with, being as the games not released and it is all pure speculation, is there anyway you can just make it clear that none of these things currently exist in the game and they are all features that the developers "hope" to include in the final game?Neutral2006 (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The lead currently starts the second sentence with "Star Citizen will consist". Would changing it to "Star Citizen is planned to consist" solve most of the issue for you? While I think "will consist" is fine, adding "is planned" will make it clear that it hasn't been delivered on yet. -- ferret (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that.Neutral2006 (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Could you implement? In second sentence, add "is planned" such as: "Star Citizen is planned to consist" -- ferret (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested change 3

"In December 2015, the "Persistent Universe" module was released in the form of Alpha 2.0." In the 2.0 release there is no persistant universe, if you log out of the game and log back in the game will but you in a comepletey different server, with no form or saving and loading at all, i.e. no persistance. They have a rudimentary save/load in the 2.4 release but the universe is not perisitant.

Technically it is correct. The module *is* the persistent universe module. Its just not working as named. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I think a bigger issue is that the statement is unsourced. There's a source here to solve that. The source notes "a small scale version of the space sim’s Persistent Universe." which we can add. -- ferret (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Tweaked and added source. -- ferret (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested change 4

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Roberts' previous works include games such as Wing Commander, Wing Commander: Privateer, Starlancer and Freelancer.[9][20]" I think that this does not belong in the lead section and maybe doesn't belong in the whole article, as users can follow the links to Chris Roberts Wikipedia page and find out this information,it does not really belong here. Neutral2006 (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially as the lead should summarize the article, and his past work is never really discussed in the article body. -- ferret (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Another implement ;) Please remove the last sentence from the lead concerning Roberts' previous works. -- ferret (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested change 5

"A strong focus will be placed on player interaction, with player behavior influencing and being influenced by a dynamic economy system.[15]" This is pure speculation and there are no cited sources for this.Neutral2006 (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by no cited source, the [15] in your quote above is a source. In this case, its an interview with Roberts done with Joystiq's Massively, which is a reliable source from WP:VG/RS. 17:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested change 6

I'd like to request this edit be undone: This edit. The section contains the same content twice right now, Neutral2006's edit and from the time I fixed some spelling in Neutral2006's first edit. I would like the original content added back, THEN we can discuss whats in it. Right now, the double section should be fixed. -- ferret (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Would you please handle this in view of no further responses after a couple of days? I view this as a "return to last good" edit. The article needs to be repaired. -- ferret (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The other guy is gone, and last time he left, he was gone for like a decade, so I've unprotected it. Let me know if arguments ensue again... Sergecross73 msg me 18:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. -- ferret (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Development time controversy

Pretty sure this article needs a 'controversy' section, to include both accusations included in the other talk thread, and the recent developments involving donors getting their money back. Regardless of the truth of each individual article or accusation, there exists a pattern of accusations that need to be noted. I've not seen a single article in the background reading I've been doing that doesn't note some variation of development creep. This seems to be, in the literature (as it were) an open secret, and the fact that the article contains nothing seems an omission. Odoketa (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:CRITS we should try to avoid a 'controversy' section, but we do need to work in the recent donor court case that resulted in money being returned. There's plenty of sources for that. Anything about development creep and controversy tied to it will need sources I haven't personally seen. -- ferret (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I came to note sources I'm reading, including http://www.wired.com/2015/03/fans-dropped-77m-guys-buggy-half-built-game/ Which obviously dates from March, 2015. The Wired article seems to do a good job of noting that some people were expecting nothing, and others expected something well before now. Odoketa (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I see the Verge has also done a more recent article on this, with a much less provocative title. http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/14/10104670/star-citizen-100-million-crowdfunding It in part cites this polygon article, which does take us closer to the very dubious world of gaming news reporting. http://www.polygon.com/2015/8/20/9180067/star-citizen-backers-claiming-refunds-are-getting-their-money-back However, there is actually over 100 million out there, and there is actually no game. These are verifiable facts, which make me much less dubious that this is some sort of troll news. This Forbes article http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/10/07/everybody-needs-to-calm-down-about-star-citizen/#4745704312da Is fairly well balanced, but also now over a year out of date.

Odoketa (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

In reading WP:CRITS and rereading the article, I think part of the problem is that this reads like promo material for the game. It may be that what needs to happen is a major revision of the article. There's a lot of detail in this article that might be true, in that it is proposed content, but isn't actually a fact on the ground. Odoketa (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

To a degree, it's going to be expected that the gameplay section of a game still in development/alpha will be talking about features that aren't released yet. I'm not seeing major sourcing issues, and it's worded in future tense for the most part. Do remember this is an unreleased product, so much of the planned gameplay is known to be announced rather than delivered. In the development section however, the content is generally dealing with the slow roll out of features, when they became available for alpha testing, etc. Again, with proper sourcing by all appearances. I do believe there's probably room for a reception section that discusses some of the reliably sourced criticisms. The backer that recently got refunded should go in the Funding subsection. -- ferret (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This "controversy" section or something similar definitely needs to be in here. How can this even be a question? 184.66.82.46 (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

As stated above, the answer to your simple question is in WP:CRITS: "sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged". It's clearer to mention controversy in the context of whatever was controversial, than to present a controversy-free "Release" section and hope the reader carries on and finds "Controversy" later in the article. --McGeddon (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

No Man's Sky addition

I don't know if I agree with this addition as a see also. While they are both space games (I hesitate to even use the word Sim in no man's sky) the options for actually playing both games are not equivalent (viable advancement paths, take play methods, etc.)

It's kind of like linking splatoon with gears of war. While tangentially they have similar gameplay I wouldn't put them on the same page. Tivanir2 (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Just boldly remove it. -- ferret (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Before removing it boldly: are comparisons regularly made in the media? If so, let's keep it in. It's not up to us to say whether a comparison makes sense or not. 80.6.181.41 (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Based on preliminary searches the most they reference is saying that Star Citizen looks like it will be what no man's sky wanted to be. There isn't any portions I spot that show any kind of direct corollary between the two games. Tivanir2 (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

They are definitely being compared as two ambitious space sim games promising a vast, interactive world, with the implication that Star Citizen may fail to deliver like No Man's Sky did. I created a section with a couple of sentences about the comparisons being drawn, with refs. 2601:644:2:B64B:2C59:A260:211A:F7B7 (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Now Gareth Bourn works in Foundry 42, the European subsidiary of Cloud Imperium Games. He was a "Live Designer" at Hello Games and got involved in No Man's Sky. This is relevant to the article, in my opinion. https://www.linkedin.com/in/garethjamesbourn 87.217.159.29 (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Fundraiser

I removed this edit because I don't see what the point is in constantly updating the donation count in this manner without proper, non-primary sources indicating why the increase is notable. The text says that on X, the funding surpassed Y, and yet we keep updating it. It seems a bit advertise-ish and just unnecessary. Eik Corell (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a rather interesting discussion here regarding this ever-updating source of income as well as the lack of non-PRIMARY sources. There's no resolution or consensus, but it definitely relates to this instance as well.

As to the actual question of whether this information is necessary - I'm on the fence. One the one hand, now that it's the largest-funded-by-crowdsourcing project ever, the exact number is rather unnecessary. However, it is still a rather large sum of money. I think the best compromise would be to find a recent source that gives verification to something around the $140mil mark and leave it at that (i.e. we don't need to know the exact value they've raised). Primefac (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I think there's a point where it should be recognized that crowdfunding has ceased or shifted to outright commercial sales. My understanding is the game sells access to various ships and the like now. I'm not sure that can quite be called crowdfunding. Unfortunately, I doubt there's a clear source to back my view. -- ferret (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive. I'll be putting this on the main page as a better ref. Primefac (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

And yet again, the article is citing a primary source for the funding... 86.128.242.86 (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe it's all in the act of transparency, if we stop caring how much has been raised by the backers - they will stop reporting it - but the entire premise of the game is to re-invest all "income" back into the game - thus the funding is crowdsourced and not from a publisher. people update it every million dollars because back when it started each million raised was a bit of a surprise and a new stretch goal to go with it. whilst the stretch goals have stopped this hasn't stopped CIG from expanding the scope and features of the game. Scottym90 (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia's role is to assist CIG in accumulating funding for their game. It isn't. Article content, including any commentary regarding funding, is based around what external sources find significant, and not on what effect publicising such data might have on 'stretch goals', or on what individual contributors to the encyclopaedia 'care about' it. 86.128.242.86 (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I only stated it was in the interest of Transparency. none of the published data has any effect on stretch goals or funding. simply updating the amount the game has raised is updating the article. If you state how much the game has raised, why is wrong to update these numbers? Scottym90 (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The numbers are unverified by any external source. Wikipedia is not here to provide a mirror of CIG's website. The article uses far too much primary-sourced publicity material as it is. This is an unreleased game from a new publisher, and the only reason there is an article on it at all is because of the coverage by external sources. If promotional claims (which clearly include funds raised through preorders) cannot be externally sourced, they don't belong in the article. 86.131.45.144 (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Glaring omission?

Out of long-forgotten interest in Space Sim games, and recently remembering about them, I've been reading as many sources about this game as I could (which I first thought sounded promising). Now, I'm shocked that this article has no reference whatsoever to the absolute controversial gong show the development of this game has become. While I'm not invested either way, this seems... strange? There are plenty of RS; the existence of the controversy doesn't seem controversial....

104.128.253.11 (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I was surprised by that too! I think any reference to controversy has been deleted by the game's fans as being insufficiently sourced. I get the impression that if someone did try to add any coverage of it, they'd have to litigate every word they wrote. Not worth my time TBH. Jfsupeene (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Just post requests for additions, with proper reliable sources, to the talk page and it'll get worked in. -- ferret (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of 'reliable sources', is it really Wikipedia policy to use a game developers own PR hype regarding as-yet entirely unverifiable future plans as sources for assertions in Wikipedia's voice regarding what finished game content will consist of? This would be questionable enough in relation to an established developer with a history of actually releasing products they had previously described, and CIG has no track record whatsoever. 86.128.242.86 (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no such policy. Reliable secondary sources are by far preferred to primary sourcing. That said, covering the developers plans is fine. It doesn't need to be in a void though without any of the secondary reporting being covered. -- ferret (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between reporting that a developer intends to do something and reporting that it is going to happen. This article does the latter repeatedly, based solely on CIGs own PR. 86.128.242.86 (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I get you. The article isn't protected or anything though. Be WP:BOLD. Just move slow, follow sources and make sure to keep a neutral view point. I also recommend making edits in batches or paragraphs. This way if someone disagrees with a part of your edit, they revert just that instead of the whole thing. -- ferret (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

What is controversial about the development? the fundraising method? or the outspoken trolls? there is plenty of drama surrounding the game but it doesn't seem appropriate to start listing each individual drama. Scottym90 (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is above bribery and corporate donation. 2/6/2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.0.9 (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Plot

The lead gives some details on setting, in a very loose form. Is enough information available to build a single paragraph plot section regarding the setting and basic premise? -- ferret (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that there is too much detail - much of it contradictory. Over the years CIG have given all sorts of descriptions of the game, and of the players role within it. Trying to summarise it, and make some sort of sense, would probably involve WP:OR. 86.128.242.86 (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead

I undid this edit because the source (Chris Roberts) verifies a switch to Lumberyard and this part of the sentence was about disclosure of the engine switch which is also covered in the source. The reason for removing it: "Lumberyard did not cause delays, internally the engine is still known as Star Engine. CryEngine and Lumberyard are the same engine with minor differences." has nothing to do with it at all and is factually wrong. --Skyrant (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Skyrant

Squadron 42 release date

Question for user Skyrant: Where on the homepage does it say a 2017 release date? I can't find it. If it really were in any shape to be released this year, the devs are being uncharacteristically quiet about it. For that matter, even if CIG claims it's coming out 2017, why is Wikipedia obligated to take that at face-value? They've missed every single release date so far. Jfsupeene (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

As an update, I did find where "2017" appears on the SQ42 homepage. However, I follow the reddit for this game and nobody there seems to think it's coming out in 2017, and several backers have mentioned being disappointed at the lack of updates. I don't think the website can be taken at face value in this context. Jfsupeene (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Reddit is not a reliable source. The homepage of the developers of SQ42 is a reliable source. It does not matter what you think when this will release. The official Homepage of the developers says 2017. Skyrant (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The only thing I could find was a single small graphic with "2017". That's not quite the same as a confirmed release date. The homepage is a WP:primary source so extra care must be taken to avoid WP:original research. -- ferret (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The same is true for all Movie homepages, or movie trailers or other game homepages. They show a "small graphic with [insert year]" and that has always been interpreted as release year. In any case, it is more reliable than what someone thinks or what reddit speculates. There are more sources incl. Chris Roberts confirming it in an interview with German Magazine Gamestar Skyrant (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The Squadron 42 homepage is not a reliable source, per WP:SELFSOURCE. It is self-serving, since that website is designed to sell pre-orders. More importantly, CIG has a well-established track record of missing dates, so extra skepticism is warranted. They haven't shown any evidence that the game is near release- there's no public alpha or beta, or even a demo video or marketing campaign. To put it mildly, there is reasonable doubt that the game is coming out in 2017.

The "other source" you mentioned is just the publisher, again, but this time the claims are being made in a magazine instead of a website. It's still a primary source. I think it's important we sort this out here without edit warring- this article still seems like it takes place in an alternate reality, in part because it uncritically repeats the publisher's claims at face value. Jfsupeene (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The Article cites Chris Roberts saying it will release in 2017 just not early in the year. It does not matter what you or reddit believe. The Chairman and the Homepage say 2017 and that is the end of it. If you revert or delete any more sourced edits like you just did again with The Pledge i report you for vandalism. If you want to re-order chronologically Then RE-ORDER and don't delete. Just because you think it is irrelevant does not make it so. For a Crowd funded Project the Pledge of the Developer is relevant and displayed on their Homepage! Skyrant (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Skyrant, please stop completely undoing every edit to this article for minor things. If you disagree with a part of a larger edit, just reinsert that one piece yourself. I've done it for you in regards to the Pledge paragraph. As information, I'm an administrator and do not see anything Jfsupeene has done as constituting vandalism (Actually read WP:Vandalism). Edit wars take two, so any edit war notice would be issued to both of you. -- ferret (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

To ferret and anyone else following: any reason why I shouldn't remove the "2017" dates again? So far the only argument against I'm hearing is that "the Chairman says 2017 and that's the end of it," which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Jfsupeene (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

(Reverted 1 edit by Jfsupeene (talk): Please read WP:Primary sources. The developer is not inherently unreliable. (TW)

Hi ferret, like I said above, I think this specific developer is inherently unreliable. I'm not saying EVERY game developer is unreliable, which I know isn't policy. There are lots of sources on the article and the talk page that question Chris Roberts/CIG's credibility. There's also a pretty basic pattern: they said the game would come out in 2014, and it didn't. Then they said it would come out in 2015 and it didn't. Then they said it would come out in 2016 and it didn't. Now they seem to be saying it's coming out in 2017.

What reason do you or anyone else have to think this game is being released in 2017? --Jfsupeene (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Jfsupeene, the key here is presenting what can be sourced. We can source that the developer currently "claims a 2017 release". That's all we have to say though. We don't have to say "is announced for a 2017 release" or "will be released in 2017". -- ferret (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Well, ok, great, but now the article says the game "is slated for a 2017 release." And in the sidebar, it just says the release date is "2017" with no qualifiers. It seems like you agree that that's misleading, so why did you revert my edit? If you think it's worth pointing out that "the developer claims a 2017 release" then couldn't you add that language? Instead of just reverting my edit?

On a broader note- do you really think *every* claim made by CIG/Chris Roberts *has* to be repeated uncritically in this article? They have made a massive number of claims about what the finished game will look like and when it will come out, far more than are catalogued here. I'm talking huge in-depth lists of wildly ambitious statements about trading and the economy and AI and ship repairs and space combat, none of it backed up by finished product. --Jfsupeene (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I felt the edit needed considerably more work, which I just attempted, including rearranging it quite a bit, including recovering the interview source you removed. Let me know your thoughts. As for "uncritically" repeating claims, I think its perfectly relevant to at least state the current claim (While culling out past claims that no longer apply). We don't need a running log of them, I agree there, but representing at least the "current" plan is valid. -- ferret (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree, your way looks good. One minor nitpick: the infobox says a 2017 release date. I'll try and do some work on the article that doesn't involve release dates. And, sorry if I was sharp earlier, I'm not a morning person :) --Jfsupeene (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Pledge paragraph

If you would, please use this section to discuss the pledge paragraph that is currently being edit warred between Jfsupeene and Skyrant. At this point, there's enough reverts that I will issue edit warring notices next. Discuss the content first and come to an agreement either to leave it alone or make changes both editors can accept. -- ferret (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I was deleting this paragraph because I think it sounds non-neutral. The tone makes it sound like a condemnation of the developer, rather than a factual reporting of events. My attempt at replacing it was: "Star Citizen was announced in 2012 with an estimated release date of 2014, and has since been delayed repeatedly" (keeping all the citations). I didn't reference "the pledge" because IMHO it's marketing-speak, similar to what many other companies employ about "the customer is our highest priority" and all that. But we can add a reference back in if Skyrant feels it should be there.

In general, I'm deleting content for two reasons. I think some of the text is chronicling twists and turns that just aren't that interesting to the average reader. I prefer to condense that, to put the emphasis on where the game is right now rather than how it got here. Also, I'm removing some of the claims the developer has made about promised features that will be in the game "eventually." Chronicling an endless series of promises, from people who are actively raising money, seems unencyclopedic when there's reasonable doubt about whether those promises will be fulfilled. If that content should be added back in, I think it should be in its own section, instead of distracting from the story of the game's development. If there's an established WP policy for this situation, then of course I'm happy to follow that instead! --Jfsupeene (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

No issues with most of your edits. It's this one paragraph that has been focused on by Skyrant as well (Not counting the release date stuff in the above section). I believe it's worth mentioning, but it also needs a rewrite, as it has at least one awkward sentence that is making a statement as fact, when it's attempting to describe Roberts' position. -- ferret (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Since we've had a few days to cool down, I'm gonna take a shot at this rewrite. Jfsupeene (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

New York Times on Star Citizen

"Video Game Raised $148 Million From Fans. Now It’s Raising Concerns." [2] 31.48.240.84 (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Added to refideas above, until someone can work it in. -- ferret (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggested expansion of reception section - criticisms

Or, alternative to the heading, absorption of the reception section into Development. The game hasn't been released and it seems odd for there to be a separate reception section to it. In any case, hardly anyone familiar with the Star Citizen development is unaware of the very loud voice of Derek Smart in particular, but this page doesn't mention his (rather aggressive) commentary. I suspect if I made a change directly it may initiate a bit of drama so I would like some suggestions on how to proceed? I was thinking of adding something like this, possibly at the end of the current development section: "In 2015, the technical feasibility of the then-current scope, and the ability of the developers to produce the game, was called into question by game developer Derek Smart (source, probably URL:http://dereksmart.com/2015/07/interstellar-citizens/)." Other sources may be included to elaborate on the nature of the controversy thus caused. I figure that regardless of what one thinks of the controversy, the fact that it is so prominent deserves at least some mention on the page. Osmanthus22 (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

"Pre-release reception" is often covered by Wikipedia and typically as a reception section like this. As for Derek Smart, he himself is not a reliable source in our eyes, and would be a primary source for himself basically. We'd need a secondary source that has covered his involvement/criticisms. Just quick example, but something like Polygon, Rockpapershotgun, etc. -- ferret (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks on both points, that makes a lot of sense. I'll look for some sources like this. Osmanthus22 (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Osmanthus22: I went ahead and added a few sentences based on the wording you suggested. Rentier (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this, of course I wasn't able to follow up on what I'd intended. From what Ferret said, it seems to me that these sources are also appropriately reputable. Osmanthus22 (talk) 04:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Linux compatibility source?

the article states that star citizen and squadron 42 will be released to Linux as well as windows but I can't find any sources explicitly stating that it does ABrown_CIG was cited as saying (Vulcan) opens the door for a single graphics API that could be used on all Windows 7, 8, 10 & Linux

could being the operative word here

84.84.246.136 (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The article currently supports it with this source where Roberts said it would be officially supported. -- ferret (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Legal troubles

It appears that CIG are being sued by Crytek over alleged breach of contract and copyright issues relating to Star Citizen. A developing story, currently getting significant coverage in multiple gaming news websites: e.g. [3][4][5] Probably best to wait until the situation is a bit clearer, but should probably get at least a mention in the article. 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:BD16:4BA6:9D15:21E7 (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Now reported by the BBC. [6] 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:A802:F10B:4418:2A44 (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

If you'll write it up and tell me where you'd like it added, I'll edit it in. -- ferret (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I could do that myself, couldn't I? The article isn't protected. I'm inclined to wait a bit though, to see whether there is more mainstream media coverage, and perhaps more in the way of detailed analysis: At the moment, all the sources are simply echoing the Crytek filing and CIG's response, with little in the way of indication as to how significant it could be. I suspect that we may get a bit more in-depth commentary later. As for where to add material on this, a 'legal issues' subsection at the end of the 'development' section would seem reasonable. We may also have to reword parts of the existing content too, since it currently makes assertions about some of the things Crytek are in dispute over: e.g. when exactly the switch to Lumberyard took place (they seem to be claiming that CIG are still using Crytek code).

Incidentally, the section about the '3.0 alpha' is badly out of date: several planned features have been dropped, and the 'detailed schedule report' has turned out to be more or less irrelevant, since the scheduled dates were hopelessly optimistic, and '3.0' still hasn't been released to backers in general. Finding a third-party source to adequately explain the current state of development may be difficult though, and it might be better to simply remove the section, since it is clearly wrong, and because Wikipedia isn't obliged to echo CIG's unreliable claims about scheduling. The article would be a lot better if it had less about what CIG says it is going to do (which changes regularly) and more about what they have actually done. (same person here as IP 2A00:23C1... above: had to change WiFi network) 86.179.216.162 (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Assumed article was protected haha. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned it (lawsuit) seems like something getting legitimate coverage. Be WP:BOLD when you're comfortable with the level of coverage. As for the 3.0 stuff, if it's sourced to primary source (CIG) and since been cut, just remove it. If it's well sourced by secondary sources might need to ponder more. -- ferret (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

A article explaining the legal issues in more depth: [7] From the look of it this case may raise issues of broader consequences for the video game industry. Worth watching for further developments, even if we don't add more coverage immediately, though the next thing to watch out for will be CIG's legal filings in response to Crytek's claims: as a matter of course we should include both, per WP:NPOV. 86.130.97.28 (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

At this point most of the Crytek lawsuit has been dismissed in the pre-trial phase due to lack of evidence and dubious legal logic on Crytek's part. Court-ordered settlement talks are ongoing but show no progress; the latest development was Crytek demanding that CIG agree to an extension on certain pre-trial motions as a precondition to settlement talks, and getting slapped down by the court over it. Trial on the (few) remaining points is scheduled for early 2020. --DesiArcy (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Star Citizen edits explanation

I believe this needs discussed as the objectivity and accuracy of Wikipedia articles, at least to me, is paramount. I was unaware articles written in personal opinion and not containing complete factual information were now regarded as a source for Wikipedia pages. In my edit I removed reference to a piece written on Ten Ton Hammer entitled "Stop Funding Star Citizen". In the first couple sentences the author writes the phrase "A fool and his money are easily parted.” Then goes on to say "I think the situation the game currently finds itself in is both ludicrous and scandalous". This is just in the first paragraph. The article is filled with nothing but "I think" and attacks on the game. This is not objective information, but subjective opinion.

The second article cited is an an informational piece on Chris Roberts experience in the industry with an explanation of the game as it was in 2014. It shouldn't be linked to a sentence that reads "The game's developers have attracted criticism for continuing to raise funds enthusiastically while failing to meet project deadlines, as even that sentence is subjective in its description.

The third portion has the sentences "From the outset, Chris Roberts, the game's lead developer, pledged to treat every customer with the same respect as a publisher. However, he has been late to disclose major events like an engine change and missed release estimates." While the pledge Chris Roberts made is accurate and factual, the bit about him being late to disclose what the writer himself deems as important information is subjective. Indeed the very page the editor links points to Chris explaining the changes in exactly the same way he always does, with none of the comments below saying anything about it being late or being lied to in any fashion. In addition, none of the information the editor added is about the game itself. If it needs to be printed, it should be on Chris Roberts page, not the Star Citizen page as the edits are about Mr. Roberts.

Corvys (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Critical subjective content is allowed in articles, if you just remove things because they happen to be negative, then that's akin to censorship. Using this logic, then we should remove all positive reception too, right? That being said, I've gone ahead and removed or rewrote some of the claims, because they were either outdated or could be generalized without pointing out specific people. Hopefully this is a compromise, because I don't agree with just blanking the entire section. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the unfinished status of the game, subjective opinion is about all this article has to go on if it is to demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia standards. And it isn't difficult to locate material critical of the project, and of the long saga of missed deadlines in particular. Omitting any mention of it would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV policy. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

While I agree that removing any reference that criticizes the game is unnecessary, I would argue that an encyclopedia (as Wikipedia strives to be) is not about one person's opinion, regardless of which media outlet they write for. It's about factual accuracy, and whatever 'subjective' opinion a person may voice, it's important that we accurately present both sides of an argument. Since the Ten Ton Hammer editor linked to an article that apparently contradicts his claims, I suggest that we use that link and tack on a 'however' that cites the relevant and accurate version of Chris Roberts' announcements. 70.66.215.159 (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Remove Linux from the supported platforms

As much as I would like to see Linux in the list of supported platforms, I don't think it should be there.

Right now, Star Citizen is officially only supported on Windows. I think it's false to say that SC supports Linux because 4 years ago, they said they may do it one day (if all the stars are aligned). The article can keep the parts in the Development section where it says that the developers have stated they would like to port SC to Linux eventually, but right now, the facts are that SC has not been ported on Linux, it is not officially being ported either, and there is no official roadmap for it.

-- Creak (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• All announced/planned platforms belong in the infobox. "Speaking of Linux: Roberts reaffirmed that while Windows is the main targeted platform for Star Citizen, the game maker will also be officially supporting Linux." confirmed it's planned, so unless you have news of the port being cancelled, it shouldn't be removed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I've seen this article, but it's from 2014 and, today, SC is not officially released on Linux. If it was listed on the roadmap, it would be acceptable to list it in the supported platforms. Creak (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It not being currently released is not a factor for a platform's inclusion in the infobox; it being announced and/or officially planned to be released in the future is. However, you could make the case that at the time, claiming a Linux version was planned was only a potential suggestion riding on success of the Windows version, in which case maybe you are right. Have they not remarked on a Linux version at all since that article? EDIT: having looked into it more, it's apparently a "to-do" thing after the final version (Windows) is released, so I think we could just assume it's only was only a suggestion and not something they are actively working on. If nobody else disagrees, then I also support it should be removed from the article as a planned port. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Originally slated to release in 2014?

Which of the citations following this statement is supposed to support this?

I thought perhaps the Kickstarter listing, but the only mentions of 2014 I can see there are in the pledge tiers, which I thought were understood on Kickstarter to be dates for the specific rewards, hence why they often vary between the tiers. --Saerain (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It isn't hard to find evidence of Roberts giving a 2014 release date:

"Currently I've spent a year building the tech," he said. "It's going to be two years before we can go live." (Oct 2012) [8]

"Late 2014 is when Roberts hopes to launch Star Citizen."[9] (Oct 2012)

"Those who support the game early will get to play builds ahead of the release of the final version. Roberts hopes a year from now an alpha multiplayer version of the game will be available. This won't take place in the persistent universe, but will act like a World of Tanks battle session. 10 months after this release the alpha persistent world will launch, with the full game due out just over two years from now, at some point late 2014." [10] (Oct 2012)

“Our purpose today is to allow our fans to join us in this process early,” says Roberts. “It will likely be another two years before the full product is ready for release, but early backers will be able to play a version of the game a year from now.” [11] (Oct 2012)

86.148.84.151 (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• It should just say "full launch was anticipated for 2014", not that it was actually going to happen. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Game is "released" according to CIG

My edit that the game is currently not "upcoming" got reverted because it is classified as being "alpha". This is untrue since according to this talk from CitizenCon 2948 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqxmonfCwvM) Robert says that the MMO is a "persistent universe, there will be no reverts, no worry about it getting wiped. [...]When we get to full persistent and server meshing, that is our marker [for a full release, red.][...]We don't have a particular viewpoint of this is it, this is where we finish, now we call it done.".Mr seeker (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I mean, that basically goes against your edit. He said when they get to full persistent and server meshing that is the marked for full release.. he said that this week, so, clearly not there yet. Keep in mind that "released" doesn't mean "no longer in development, no longer supported" -- ferret (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

"incompetence and mismanagement on a galactic scale"

A new article on Star Citizen from Forbes Magazine. [12] Doesn't pull any punches, and includes a fair bit of detail on Roberts' prior projects (many of which seem to have ended in less than happy circumstances) as well as interesting and less than flattering commentary from several significant games industry sources. It would seem remiss not to include content based on this source, given the lack of other major coverage from sources not content to regurgitate CIG hype. I'd think about adding it myself, but the article is locked. 86.133.149.209 (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I may try to work this in later, maybe not, but wanted to quickly note because it sometimes comes up with Forbes articles: This one is a reliable source, as Matt Perez is a staff writer, not a contributor. -- ferret (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I note that nothing has been done regarding this Forbes article. This seems to me to be somewhat lacking, given the source (a magazine of international repute with a circulation approaching a million readers) and the fact that the article in question has subsequently been commented on in multiple credible games-industry sources. If nobody else is willing, do I have to make a proposal for new content here? I can't edit the article myself, given that it is locked... 86.133.149.209 (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you can make edit requests here. Feel free to suggest exact text to add and I will make the edit for you. -- ferret (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up, the article is incredibly biased. It's also fairly inaccurate in a number of claims. In terms of bias: 1) Perez talks about Wing Commander directly and Roberts across 3 sentences. In comparison, Perez spends 16 sentences talking about Robert's personal life and family. 2) Perez continually mentions ship prices but only mention the most expensive prices more often than the more common entry level ships. 3) Perez quotes Jesse Schell about how abnormal the development time is. However at E3 this last year, the game that was most discussed was Cyberpunk 2077. Cyberpunk 2077 has been in development for roughly the same period of time (give or take a few months) and is again the most anticipated game at E3 this year, despite the fact it has been in development for 7 years with no definitive release date yet. There are numerous other examples like these in the articles, so I'd suggest finding a second source for anything pulled from the Forbes article. Rtbittaker (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Raise your hand if you think Forbes is more biased than Rtbittaker.45.46.252.14 (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, since Wikipedia policy on what constitutes a reliable source isn't based on whether random Wikipedia contributors agree with them. 86.133.149.185 (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent Forbes article highlights a glaring omission: No controversy

This article definetely needs a “controversy” section that delves deeper into the many controversies about the game. The most recent example of controversy regarding Star Citizen was just a few weeks ago, when Forbes published an article that highlighted the games problematic development, dubious fundraising/monetization strategies, the constant delays, spending over 200 million dollars of backers money on a game that might never see the light of day, and of course the colorful history that Chris Roberts shares with the head of Marketing at CIG, which includes not just hiring her for a position she was unqualified for, but also reporting her to the police for assault and stalking.

Forbes is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Moreover, it’s not just Forbes that have covered the controversy over CIG/Star Citizen, it virtually impossible to Google ‘Star Citizen’ without coming across articles about the controversy.

It’s omission from Wikipedia is a curious, clear omission and entirely unencyclopedic.

If none of the current editors want to take a stab at including a “controversy” section, I could give it a try. And as someone who isn’t a backer, I have no particular agenda or possible bias on the topic.

185.107.12.99 (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Read the section directly above this one. So far no one had taken the time to write anything is all. Note that we try to avoid criticism sections, should try to work it into the existing sections. -- ferret (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Why do we "try to avoid criticism sections"? There is such a huge amount of criticism around this project that a separate section is warranted. --Neuhaus (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Because they can just be written into the reception section. We don't have a separate "praise" section do we? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)