My plea (and suggestion) for I-NOVAE's future!

As a $2000+ backer of Star Citizen, I must make a plea to you guys. “Going public” can’t be good for your future. I’ve learned, through comments/interviews by and with Chris Roberts over time, that fans can provide more than enough funds (currently over $36 million and still going for Star Citizen as an example) to drive a game or technology. On top of that, fans of your game(s) will also help shape the game and your design decisions to better help you release a game that the gamers want (not want some investor who is only interested in money wants).

I have kept a watchful eye on Infinity’s progress (distant at first due to a lack of solid updates and hard to find info in the early days) and the engine you guys have been making for a few years now and it is amazing to see where you are going with this. I think if you market Battlescape well enough as a game running on your engine, you will sell the engine much faster AND you may even gain many of the same space sim followers that have pledged so much toward Star Citizen and other space sims out there.

Now, if you are just wanting to release a game that shows off your engine in hopes to get investors, I’m disinterested already. I don’t mean to sound crass but I wouldn’t be the only one who would just say “meh” and move on. Concepts and designs already shown and discussed about Star Citizen are the most exciting the world has seen yet for a space sim and yet Chris Roberts has clearly stated that procedural generated planets (procedural generation really only feasible option) that are fully and openly explorable is a possibility - maybe - but only after game release if at all. But this part would be the final piece that is needed, yet so far from being a reality at this point, to make it truly the absolute defining space sim out there. There will be landing on planets but they won’t be fully open and explorable (maybe never if not feasible enough).

It’s really too bad you guys can’t reach out to Chris Roberts and sell him a license to use the procedural planet generation part of your engine. They’re using CryEngine 3 for the game otherwise. Even if that disinterests you, why not look into the methods for marketing, community involvement, and modular release of that super massive and immersive space sim that Chris Roberts lives by currently. Follow these same game deployment methods because you can’t deny that $36 million and counting speaks volumes! If you are delivering what the space sim and general sci-fi game fans want, the money will come. Trust me.

I hope I have posted this in the correct forum. Being a place for suggestions, it seemed to be the best choice. I apologize if there is a more viable or recommended forum to post this in. Either way, I am excited now for what you guys could potentially bring the world. I will be jumping on the Kickstarter bandwagon once it opens up for your campaign in faith that this will become yet another super awesome and immersive space sim that takes the gaming world by storm!

Thanks for listening.

This is the correct forum and thank you for your feedback and support! We’re releasing our first game, Infinity: Battlescape (I:B), not to get investors but to build our team, our infrastructure, and hopefully generate enough revenue to get us within reasonable Kickstarting distance of funding development of the full Infinity MMO. We’d also like to release modding tools to the community once I:B ships so that they can mod the game and create cool content themselves.

At this point I think Chris Roberts is more than happy with his choice of technology platform however if he’s ever interested in using our technology we’d be more than happy to have a conversation with him =).


Imagine the fidelity of Starcitizen’s ships and game play with Inovae’s galaxy engine. I would throw money at the game until I had no more money to throw, then go find more money to throw.

P.S. Keith, Limit Theory, being built by a two man team, is building an 100% procedural game just like you guys, only without the seamless planets(which they really want to implement). I think you guys could learn a-lot from each other. Might want to check them out. :smiley:

1 Like

The developer of Limit Theory, Josh Parnell, is a long term Infinity community member, this is his forum name: XeonXT_

There has been some back and forth about procedural generation on the old forum. Sadly no possibility to link it until the archives come live.

Wow, I actually did not know that. Thank you! I wasn’t that active on the old forums sadly enough.

We had some great debates with Josh a few years ago, some of us assumed he was just another wannabe with more mouth than action, myself included, at least initially. The main point of contention was the possibility of procedural space ship generation. Josh argued that procedurally generated ships could be just as interesting as ones carefully crafted by artists.

Now that he’s a year into creating Limit Theory its easy to see where he was coming from, but a few years ago when hundreds of hand designed ships had already been contributed to Infinity it was difficult to see his point. At one point he was challenged to create a prototype to show us that his ideas were in any way practical. After he returned with a working prototype we all took him a lot more seriously.

I’m sure he understood our scepticism, for every person that can follow through with their ideas there are a hundred that expect their conceptual dreams to be delivered by some other agent. He’s done great and deserves all the success he’s having, not many understand the sacrifices that have to be made when you dedicate yourself to a large software project.


Thanks for the prompt reply @INovaeKeith

I think I understand now where I:B is in terms of your scope. I look forward to seeing/hearing more about what I:B will be overall as a game.

Probably not, actually.