Star Citizen Thread v6
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
So the premise here is "Pay to Bling" is truly awful, yet "Pay to Idris" is perfectly acceptable because your grandchildren may be alive to complete earning your Frigate after you have gone?...
Sounds legit to me...
Sounds legit to me...
Absolutely - It's disgusting that these shady developers try to make money by selling shiny stuff! (/s)
On topic -
I'm wondering - what would have happened if SC funding had stopped at $65m, when they had enough to finish the game with all stretch goals?
Would the game have already folded? Or would we have a fairly decent game released, with people buying the game because it's fun with more content released later as sales fund the development?
Guess we'll never know.
LOL, I just watched an interview in which Chris Roberts considered the game to be overfunded. At that very moment SC had just reached 16.4 million dollars.
And he said that the game would be completely finished and released in 2014.
Those where the days.
Mu77ley
Volunteer Moderator
No it can't. They've said that's how it will be (if you trust the word of developers who repeatedly lie), but right here, right now there is NO way to earn SC stuff in-game.
It's hilarious, you buy endgame ships (actually pictures of them) for hundreds to thousands of cash in SC and it's supporting development.
You buy cheap optional cosmetics for an actual playable ship on a sale in ED and you're being ripped / the company it's a remorseless cove of thieves.
Sure... sure.
Have fun waiting the yearly groundbreaking promises / revelations for CitizenCon.
You buy cheap optional cosmetics for an actual playable ship on a sale in ED and you're being ripped / the company it's a remorseless cove of thieves.
Sure... sure.
Have fun waiting the yearly groundbreaking promises / revelations for CitizenCon.
Last edited:
They have also said, repeatedly, that everything will go up in price and that now is the best time to grab Ship X as it delivers exceptional value, and that future rebalancing will make Ship X much harder to obtain for non-buyers.
There was also that delightful piece of waffle where Genuine Roberts hinted at Orgs being the only things capable of owning certain assets. I can't remember if was ships or maybe a station - it was when they introduced the Jump jpeg I believe - but I'm not going back through years of videos trying to find it, sorry.
Last edited:
It's an interesting question, and one that's dodged by people who like to use the fact that development is still limping along to discredit the predictions of imminent implosion.
But even the game they originally pitched in 2012, before Roberts caught gold fever and started promising everything and the kitchen sink, would require far more content and game mechanics than they've managed to produce so far (2.6.3), so I don't see that there's any way they would have delivered a finished product of any description any sooner, and for less money. It's tempting to think they would have set more realistic goals if they hadn't hit the funding jackpot, but with Roberts in charge, and no one to rein him in, it seems unlikely.
On the other hand, if the rabid community hadn't gotten so out of hand, and the codependent cycle of whales throwing fists full of money at CIG ,who are then motivated to produce nothing but more sales, might not have developed, and they might have had more incentive to develop an actual game.
Yeah - I think Chris saw "more money than he ever imagined" as "Infinite money"!
Which is a shame, I would have liked to see CR's dream for Star citizen materialise, but that's not looking very likely right now
.
Simply WOW! The one ship I want in SC is only $140 .....
And exactly what is the difference in $5.00 for anything in the store that you can play without in a fairly completed (if not finished) game? Where as, see above, I would have to fork out $140 dollars for the one ship I want? Yes I can earn it in game. But only when the game is released. Which is when?
Now I apologies if my tone is a bit heated but though I invested in SC so I could legally, I guess, have a say in discussing it I do have my doubts it will be released. I do hope it is and I will be more than happy to eat each and every on of my words. But till that day comes, 3.0 which is pushed back quite frequently is the only indicator that this train might be on track at all.
You gentlemen are doing a great job, in my opinion of discussing this in what I consider a level headed manner. Though some of it is a bit over my head, i.e. financial disclosures and such. So I have enjoyed reading your posts. But all the concept art and video rendering do not mean anything till the egg hits the pan and I have what I payed for. I admit that $65 dollars doesn't give me a big voice but it does give me a bit of lee way.
Cheers ...
Chief
On every game forum I have been at there does always seem to be a group of users that insist every expansion, optional DLC or cosmetic should have been included in the game for free and was clearly cut to nickle and dime consumers and that the game shouldn't have been released until it had all the features it had even if they are talking about a game released 3 or more years ago.
I mention it here as they seem to have the idea that
1) The Devs have unlimited fund to indefinitely continued to develop the game
2) Once a game is released any additional content should be free as they have already paid for the game, so the Devs should charge for anything new.
Which seems to related to SC in that the same assumption 1 ) not only applies to SC but seems to be encouraged
*edited as I wrong on my phone and some things didn't make sense*
Last edited:
By now I dont think that CiG was ever able to deliver the promised project after they re-designed the idea and went scope-crazy end of 2014 (and whos to say they were able to deliver the original concept? By the time they went overboard they didnt have anything promising ready either). I guess that was the time when CRoberts and his family realized this endeveour is more profitable if they continue to milk and play the suckers already engaged in the project rather then trying to make good on their promises. The cold-hearted intention and deliberateness they pursued this idea with is nothing short of criminal and I hope future investigations and questions will reveal the man and his scam for what it is.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
The argument about SC paid for items being also achievable in game has never seemed to explain anything or justify anything, at least to me. Multiple reasons why.
First and foremost is that by paying the player instantaneously achieves an in game advantage over other players that just grind and which will prove tangible and material in any aspect of the game that happens to have the slightest competitive angle to it.
Second is that gameplay balance and overall design then becomes hostage of individual items commercial considerations which is often going make game designers to focus on selling those specific items, the ship of the month or the shield of the week, in order to design them, instead of focusing on the game big picture and overall balance design. You can still balance a game like this of course but I reckon it is the option that carries the highest risks of derailing the overall balance and game play equation.
In terms of gameplay design I much rather prefer a content expansion/season based business model than a business model based around gameplay impacting micro transactions. Hands down.
First and foremost is that by paying the player instantaneously achieves an in game advantage over other players that just grind and which will prove tangible and material in any aspect of the game that happens to have the slightest competitive angle to it.
Second is that gameplay balance and overall design then becomes hostage of individual items commercial considerations which is often going make game designers to focus on selling those specific items, the ship of the month or the shield of the week, in order to design them, instead of focusing on the game big picture and overall balance design. You can still balance a game like this of course but I reckon it is the option that carries the highest risks of derailing the overall balance and game play equation.
In terms of gameplay design I much rather prefer a content expansion/season based business model than a business model based around gameplay impacting micro transactions. Hands down.
Last edited:
I can see the idea behind it.
People who simply do not have the real-life time to grind for stuff can at least get the base hull. Sure, they get an advantage that they start with a ship but let's list disadvantages.
- Cash cost
- Ship running costs (NPC crew, fuel, repairs, landing fees etc)
- Upgrade cost (more, larger and expensive modules to upgrade
So, while they get a head start one would still stumble on the upgrade part since they STILL need time to grind, and I bet modules might require ranks, reputation, money and other things that outside money simply cannot buy.
Unless it's straight PvP the guy who purchase a ship only gets a head start but will then still take longer to find parts and such due to the time investment needed.
dayrth
Volunteer Moderator
But the people who have to grind to get that base hull are left with those same disadvantages once they get there as well (except the Cash cost). Buying the hull skips the grind and gets you that ship instantly. How is that not paying for an advantage? (in other words pay to win).
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
It is not just about hulls, or about the current pledge structure. But about any item impacting gameplay that will be available for purchase, and about the business model post go live.
If those micro transactions end up being as inefficient as you suggest then their commercial success once the game goes live is probably doomed already. I think you underestimate a little people's ability to optimise and min/max their in game performance based on tools and features available to them, whether paying ones or not. You also seem to enter speculative territory with regards to the worthiness, or lack thereof, of SC gameplay impacting micro transactions.
If there is something decades of gaming have taught us is that by and large players will always find and exploit any and all advantages offered to them to the fullest.
Last edited:
The trouble with this is that it legitimises any and all monetisation. If you allow some advantages how do disallow others?
If a person does not have the time to earn a ship and therefore it is acceptable for them to pay cash for it why is it not ok for them to buy modules, ie weapons, shields etc, especially if those modules have a time investment through ranks, reputation and so on.
If they have the time earn these things but do not have the time to earn the basic ships, what gives? The justification for this just doesn't make any sense to me.
People are not buying ships because they don't have time to play, they are simply paying to skip the process of earning those ships in game. If CIG were selling modules that you could use in the PU and thus avoid the time investment for gaining rank or reputation, these very same people would be all over them.
I firmly believe that when it comes to game affecting items they should only be earned in game, what happens in the game is what should advance your character, not the size of your wallet out of game.
Last edited:
Thats the thing given the sheer cost of ships in SC in comparison to the worldwide average wages $1,480 per month (2012) or as a random lowish but not lowest example $300 per month (Brazil 2016), there's no way SC if successfully released won't attract gold/ship farmers like moths to a flame.
A starfarer costs $300 and the last estimate I remember from CIG (Chris Roberts himself) was 60 hours of game time to go up a ship tier. Average hours worked per month is 173, that's 2.8 starfarers per month if you treat the game like a job and use a ship one tier down from a starfarer with no exploiting required. Grind a bigger ship, use the first starfarer yourself or buy a big ship outright and those numbers increase dramatically.
Ship prices are unrealistic and cannot stay anywhere near where they are, that was my first thought on seeing CIG's store page.
It doesn't favour those who don't have time thought, unless those who don't have time also have spare cash. It actually favours those with credits, with no thought for those who have little time and little cash.
So holding it up as something favourable for those with limited time is not right, it favours the rich, pure and simple, regardless of whether they have time or not.
- Status