How would you rate CIG as a company and game developer on a scale of 1 to 10.

Pandajacket

Posts: 1212

Posted:
Posted: -
How good of a company do you think CIG is based on:

What they have promised to do.
What they have actually done.

When they said they could do something.
When they actually did it.

Communication with the community.

Handling concerns.

Advertising

Trust

etc. etc.

And anything else you can think of.

10 being the best company you have ever heard of. 1 being the worst company you have ever heard of.
How does CIG stack up against all the rest?
  1. Would they be a....514 votes
      10 They are beyond a shadow of a doubt the best company i have ever dealt with.
      21.60%
    1. 9
      10.51%
    2. 8
      18.29%
    3. 7
      14.20%
    4. 6
        7.59%
    5. 5
      11.09%
    6. 4
        6.81%
    7. 3
        7.00%
    8. 2
        0.78%
    9. 1 The worst scummiest, immoral, corrupt, greedy organization ever created on Earth.
        2.14%
Use my referral code when you sign up for the game and get 5,000 UEC FREE! STAR-9YXC-JVYJ
  • GenDesperado

    Posts: 1561

    Posted:
    Edited: by GenDesperado
    Posted:
    Edited:
    I don't get the point of these threads. What can it possibly add to this thats positvie but more complaining about what CIG did or did not promise
    "I'm Brian and so is my Wife"
    Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
    Dyslexics of the world, untie!
    Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected become the expected?
  • Skynight

    Posts: 7901

    On Probation
    Posted:
    On Probation
    Posted:
    Even if the game never came out, they'd still be light years above EA
  • Manowars

    Posts: 825

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Despite what people say about them, the competition isn't exactly good.
    PURGE THE HERETICS, KILL THE PAGANS!
  • Mightylink

    Posts: 661

    Posted:
    Edited: by Mightylink
    Posted:
    Edited:
    9, not perfect but I really like their openness, its so much better then other companies holding back information until its too late for profit, it really makes me mad when a game promises to have multiplayer and you find out it doesn't have multiplayer after you bought it and can't get a refund...

    At least I know where Star Citizen is going and what it will have and possibly not have and I'm really happy about it.
    aegis-sig_zpsycuenbxr.png
  • RoadkillStew

    Posts: 2238

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    I don't get the point of these threads. What can it possibly add to this thats positvie but more complaining about what CIG did or did not promise

    Since when does everything always needs/have to be sunshine, rainbows, unicorns & kittens?
    photo 300i-ly_zpskwurlr7l.jpg
  • Ibly1

    Posts: 3346

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I'll have to get back to you in 2 years for an answer. Don't know yet.
  • brainstew

    Posts: 8

    Posted:
    Posted:
    My overall review of them depends on playable content for each promised role. Will there be enough content for the thousands of players who want to explore? Will there be enough quests and endgame content to hold over players?

    And the answers to these questions aren't going to be clear for a couple years. I am perfectly fine with them taking all the time they need. I worry about their ability to keep adding content.
  • Starlin

    Posts: 13554

    Posted:
    Posted:
    The "Concern" threads in general usually means its been 8 weeks since the previous build. Its also a sign of no good games being out.... otherwise people would be playing them.
    "The ship stats page is always wrong. If for some reason it is right, then it will warp reality until it is wrong again." -Manic
    "An object at rest, cannot be stopped!" - The Evil Midnight Bomber (What Bombs at Midnight!)
  • SpectreEH

    Posts: 435

    Posted:
    Posted:
    10/10 cause they are doing something no one has ever done before and are setting the stage for any and all video games of the future... This is history in the making boiiies and griiillls.
    lbWft6B35G6MlbWft69B3HNc97dZjj
  • Hellshavoc

    Posts: 337

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Impossible poll as no judgement can be passed until game is released and then can be judged on merit.
  • aesu

    Posts: 52

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Even if the game never came out, they'd still be light years above EA

    now I'd love to see some comparison with examples :)
  • TGxRazzyman

    Posts: 82

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I gave them a 7. I think they are doing a great job, but are a bit behind their schedule. Not that I blame them for the time it's taking, I expect it, but that it took them so long to start adjusting. I think they've made some mistakes and botched some things, but I credit them for doing things the hard, and right way. Scrapping the first iteration of SM for example, or not showing SQ42 demos recently. Those were tough and crappy calls, but the fact they were made because the quality wasn't there, despite the fact that it doesn't look good for them, speaks to integrity.

    I can't give a 10, as there's always room to be better and there's been hiccups here and there, but they are one of the best companies I've dealt with in some time. I'd certainly revise my number up once the game actually launches as well so long as it's relatively bug free and good, both of which I expect.
  • Valaska

    Posts: 5339

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I give them a good solid 6. They are good with communication, you could say great but a lot of their communication is confusing or unclear... Normally that wouldn't be too big of an issue, their real issue in my opinion is the incapability of working as a team and estimating their tempo of work and turnarounds for completion of projects. This incapability is very alarming for a team that's been together this long, and the product they are delivering... While massive potential, is typically ridden with inconsistencies in balance, and general performance.

    They state they are pushing boundaries and such but then they deliver golf swings, they state they are going to be the BDSSE and do something new and never tried before but churn out the flight model of 2.6 which called back to the original Elite in the worst ways possible. Extreme server instabilities and poor network code even in an isolated small FPS skirmish when the game is supposed to have kilometer long carriers.

    CIG is finding their legs still, the only thing is I hope they find them and start running long before the money begins shrinking. I think once they find their groove we might start seeing something special coming together, the vision is there and the mentality... But not the cohesion or produced work.
  • Andy_H

    Posts: 1814

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I don't think we can really say. CIG holds a double edged sword when it comes to open development. It is good in some ways and we observe and provide feedback. But we are also basically watching brain surgeons researching new techniques on lab pigs while we ourselves might have once seen a medical textbook sitting on a shelf at the library. A lot of things won't seem right because we have never went through medical school, residency, and all the other certification processes to become doctors. We have pleb knowledge, which is just enough to give us the illusion that we actually know something based on our tiny little corner of reality.
    sword_art_online_shinon_oxide37_by_oxide
  • Skynight

    Posts: 7901

    On Probation
    Posted:
    On Probation
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    Even if the game never came out, they'd still be light years above EA

    now I'd love to see some comparison with examples :)
    Comparisons of what? I just want EA to burn to the ground.
  • GeoToaster

    Posts: 411

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I think they're above average, reading the various articles about how things are behind closed doors at CIG it sounds like a lot of your typical office politics and team building project shenanigans'. Some people slam it for that, I see it as an average workplace overall.
  • Thermoluminescence

    Posts: 2325

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    Even if the game never came out, they'd still be light years above EA

    now I'd love to see some comparison with examples :)
    Comparisons of what? I just want EA to burn to the ground.
    EA burned to the ground and then through it to the other side straight into hell, which is where their main office now resides.
    Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
  • Valaska

    Posts: 5339

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    Even if the game never came out, they'd still be light years above EA

    now I'd love to see some comparison with examples :)
    Comparisons of what? I just want EA to burn to the ground.
    Why? They're one of the few things that doesn't produce early access or permanent beta's. Actual complete games, its a rarity these days, Project Red CD, HareBrained Schemes... These are pretty much the only 3 companies around. Ubisoft from time to time but they piecemeal a lot of content in games like The Division etc.
  • Skynight

    Posts: 7901

    On Probation
    Posted:
    On Probation
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    Even if the game never came out, they'd still be light years above EA

    now I'd love to see some comparison with examples :)
    Comparisons of what? I just want EA to burn to the ground.
    Why? They're one of the few things that doesn't produce early access or permanent beta's. Actual complete games, its a rarity these days, Project Red CD, HareBrained Schemes... These are pretty much the only 3 companies around. Ubisoft from time to time but they piecemeal a lot of content in games like The Division etc.
    Why?

    Forced Multiplayer For Broader Appeal like Mass Effect
    Rehashing IPs To Cash-In on a near yearly basis (Need for speed, battlefield, etc)
    Buying Out Studios And Gutting Them.
    Origin (Powered by EA) Forum Bans Result In Bans From All Your Purchased Games
    Early Server Shutdowns
    Online Passes
    Day-One DLC

  • NtrepiD

    Posts: 656

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Can we wait until more of the game comes out, so that we can judge it? ;)

    It doesn't make any sense to judge fulfillment of promises until there's more to play and evaluate.
  • NJS

    Posts: 1660

    Posted:
    Edited: by NJS
    Posted:
    Edited:
    Their customer support is top notch, by far the best.
    Their transparency compared to other gaming software companies is very good (although not up to the standard they set themselves earlier)
    Their marketing is good, although aggressive (can't fault them on the results)
    Their time lines are bad.
    Their communication is awful.

    CR deadlines boarder on lies or gross incompetency. From SM's first delay (or would be cancellation), to SQ42, to 3.0.
    Their own set standards on transparency compared to lack of any communication on bad news really hurts their score in my book.
    Their lack of significant core game mechanics progress (professions, core ship functions, etc...) beyond tech demos and allow feature creep (procedural gen was not suppose to come until after release).

    Purely judging them on the standards and expectations set by CIG themselves, I gave them a 3.

    As a company apart from their own promised standards they rank around a 5 (average, will wait and see if it moves up or down base on released products).

    Overall I hold CR and CIG's word to a higher standard than the industry "norm" so I voted with the score compared to their own set standards. Right now they are at a 3, not good at all...
    html>
  • Salvehn

    Posts: 27

    Posted:
    Posted:
    7
  • Raess

    Posts: 1070

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    The "Concern" threads in general usually means its been 8 weeks since the previous build. Its also a sign of no good games being out.... otherwise people would be playing them.

    I have a strong feeling that these guys aren't into gaming as much as into drama.
    There are a ton of marvellous games out there.

    @topic: I give a fuck about it, I am interested in the end results and I hope we will get a privateer successor after they finished SQ42.
    The IQ of a mob is the IQ of its most stupid member divided by the number of mobsters - Terry Pratchett.
  • X71

    Posts: 4725

    Posted:
    Edited: by X71
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    I don't get the point of these threads. What can it possibly add to this thats positvie but more complaining about what CIG did or did not promise

    Since when does everything always needs/have to be sunshine, rainbows, unicorns & kittens?
    Same can be asked why everything needs to be rain, dark clouds, demons and feral cats.

  • X71

    Posts: 4725

    Posted:
    Edited: by X71
    Posted:
    Edited:
    I gave them 7. Customer service is the best I've experienced. But they can definitely improve on communication and deadlines.

  • aesu

    Posts: 52

    Posted:
    Edited: by aesu
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    Even if the game never came out, they'd still be light years above EA

    now I'd love to see some comparison with examples :)
    Comparisons of what? I just want EA to burn to the ground.
    Why? They're one of the few things that doesn't produce early access or permanent beta's. Actual complete games, its a rarity these days, Project Red CD, HareBrained Schemes... These are pretty much the only 3 companies around. Ubisoft from time to time but they piecemeal a lot of content in games like The Division etc.
    Why?

    Forced Multiplayer For Broader Appeal like Mass Effect
    Rehashing IPs To Cash-In on a near yearly basis (Need for speed, battlefield, etc)
    Buying Out Studios And Gutting Them.
    Origin (Powered by EA) Forum Bans Result In Bans From All Your Purchased Games
    Early Server Shutdowns
    Online Passes
    Day-One DLC

    Ah so you don't like their business perspective... Well unlike CIG they are a published that gets money on delivery. If CIG can't deliver soon I fear they might need to resort to one or more of the above mentioned to keep floating.

    Forced multiplayer isn't bad... it is a security measure against pirates and who can still play high end games in 2017 and not have a decent internet line to match? I even agree with this strategy because the Mass Effect franchise is better because of it. If AAA games like these were pirated easily then who could pay the creative team to keep creating new stories and experiences? You rather see Mass Effect gutted or properly secured?

    Hey if you made a great recipe you'd do exactly the same, the franchises are great... so is Star Wars... is that rehashing or expanding the universe?

    Buying out studios, gutting them and integrating them into EA... yes I agree that isn't cool but that is why early-development and crowd sourcing has been trending late years. Then again the ones to blame are the owners of those studios because they sell them... EA just plays a smart game.

    Origin forum ban equal to all games ban is not good indeed... but you only get banned by being an @ss anyway.... so is it still not good?

    Early server shut downs... for games that are no longer profitable?

    Online passes... for what?

    Day-one DLC because they have to meet deadlines and go gold and on a budget... you don't need to buy them and they in no way will alter the game but are only an extension to it for people who want to spend an extra dime. I rather have a day one DLC compared to a product which is delayed over and over again because some non-critical content is not finished yet.

    So sorry but in the end I think you are underestimating game development and making money from it quite much if those are your arguments.
  • BadVlad

    Posts: 130

    Posted:
    Posted:
    There need to be two separate ratings, one for the company and the other is for CR as the project leader, the company is pretty good considering, it has some very talented people working for it, which is obvious, and those people do want to make a good game, but when you have a project leader with absolute power over everything that happens (and doesnt happen) and this project leader doesnt know what he is doing and he tries to micromanage everything ... well lets just say this is by far not the first time when leadership has been responsible for sinking the company. I would rate the company pretty high but its leadership, while not completely incompetent, isnt too far from it.
  • PapaDragon

    Posts: 1405

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    They Customer support is top notch, by far the best.
    Their transparency compared to other developers is very good (although not up to the standard they set themselves earlier)
    Their marketing is good, although aggressive (can't fault them on the results)
    Their time lines are bad.
    Their communication is awful.

    CR deadlines boarder on lies or gross complimentary. From SM first delay (or would be cancellation), to SQ42, to 3.0.
    Their own set standards on transparency compared to lack of any communication on bad news really hurts their score in my book.
    Their lack of significant core game mechanics progress (professions, core ship functions, etc...) beyond tech demos and allow feature creep (procedural gen was not suppose to come until after release)

    Purely judging them on the standards and expectations set by CIG themselves, I gave them a 3.

    As a company apart from their own promised standards they rank around a 5 (will wait and see if it moves up or down base on released products).

    Overall I hold CR and CIG's word to a higher standard than the industry "norm" so I voted with the score compared to their own set standards. Right now they are at a 3, not good at all...

    +1

    A bit harsh, but I think a very objective post : not fanboy, not trolling or nay-sayer.
    But to be honest, I think the poll wanted us to rate the company compared to other companies, not their own standard. That's why I voted 6.

    Sorry, but I find it funny (and sad) that nearly a third of the voter think this is the best company ever.
    CIG is good, they are above average, but they are certainly not perfect. If they are the best you have around your place then I wouldn't go outside and never, never open my wallet.
    Where is my Merchantman?
  • Acuta

    Posts: 1536

    Posted:
    Edited: by Acuta
    Posted:
    Edited:
    As a company, seem pretty normal. Bit toxic at times, Left hand seems often to not know what the Right hand is doing, corporate-speak abounds, aggressive toward money, perpetually overly optimistic about their product and deadlines, over-promise, under-deliver, etc. As an employer they seem better than most, much worse than others if former employees can be believed (large grain of salt...they could be fantastic or horrible).

    As a developer, outstanding. For all the pissing and moaning they have gone from nothing but a concept and a demo to 4 studios and a tangible product (albeit rough, disjointed, and pretty empty so far) in a relatively short order. They think outside the box and don't fear pushing boundaries of new tech, tools, and ideas. They work on the game more as artists and engineers than as cubicle rats fearing the lash for missing deadlines. Though our "wonderful" community sure likes to try and be the pencil-necked geek in the corner office regularly enough.
  • Bartfresse

    Posts: 256

    Posted:
    Posted:
    11. Poll is flawed :P.
    eC9xE5i.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.