Star Citizen Discussion Thread v11

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
No since you can also get those ships with in game money and plan is to remove ship buying on release. So there is no paywall.
But will there be a release?
And will CIG adhere to that particular plan?
At this point I'm not very optimistic about either.
If the inconceivable happens (= yes to one or both above), I'm afraid the ship prices & in game money making will have such a balance that any free-to-play mobile game's grind pales in comparison. And if anyone really wants drag E: D to this, the same can be expressed as: "compared to all the possible ways of feeling 'grind' in E: D, you ain't seen nothing yet!"
 
But will there be a release?
And will CIG adhere to that particular plan?
At this point I'm not very optimistic about either.
If the inconceivable happens (= yes to one or both above), I'm afraid the ship prices & in game money making will have such a balance that any free-to-play mobile game's grind pales in comparison. And if anyone really wants drag E: D to this, the same can be expressed as: "compared to all the possible ways of feeling 'grind' in E: D, you ain't seen nothing yet!"
What do you mean you can earn 200k in a day and it only speeds up from there. And for release true the might fails long before :D But even currently there is no pay wall for the content.
 
What do you mean you can earn 200k in a day and it only speeds up from there. And for release true the might fails long before :D But even currently there is no pay wall for the content.
Is 200k a lot or not much in PU ship prices terms?
Examples? (Mole? 890J? Idris? others?)
And again, there looms the very probable possibility of "I am altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further."
 
Is 200k a lot or not much in PU ship prices terms?
Examples? (Mole? 890J? Idris? others?)
And again, there looms the very probable possibility of "I am altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further."

The price point can't possibly survive release since its currently pegged at a point above the average wage of a lot of places. Its a gold farmers dream and they'll tank it on day one.
 
Is 200k a lot or not much in PU ship prices terms?
Examples? (Mole? 890J? Idris? others?)
And again, there looms the very probable possibility of "I am altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further."
Yeah its more than enough to rent mining ships and most ship cost 1mil to 5mil. More you progress the faster money you make and tell me a game where you are supposed to get the best ships in a day. So they will 100% nerf them so you have to earn the ships like in every other game. And mostly you are also assuming that it will have unbelievable grind levels on release.You are probably right as well because most big ships are meant for multicrew and big organizations to shell in money together to procure a ship. Same way me and my friend put our ingame money together to get a caterpillar and then we put our money into buy cargo for it.
 
Last edited:
Indeed I did. Was very familiar with those anyways, but thanks.


Fair enough. Just seemed a bit odd that you fixated on the first entry when the whole spread of examples imply a lot more in concert ;)

Included in your quotes and newsletter you will also find the statements about no guarantees or commercial commitments, only intentions, that follows in the same narrative as in the Kickstarter:


Yep, which are functionally no different from CIG’s get out clauses:

The Pledge Funds will be earned by RSI at the earlier of:
  • when the Pledge Item becomes functional in Star Citizen’s Alpha Persistent Universe (or is delivered separately, such as the game Squadron 42), or
  • when your Pledge Funds have been expended for the Game Cost.


Or most other standard hedging in pre-sales.

None of that changes what was marketed:

As mentioned Newsletter 29 or 32 are not part of the LEP product description anyways, and for good reason given the lack of commitment or guarantee.


They are clearly direct marketing material as they both link (sometimes repeatedly) to the point of sale (which cites the same broad objectives). And they both speak in declarative absolutes. “You will be able to...”

I’m not really going to play the ‘suck a stone for a year to win an argument about erosion’ game on this. FDev very clearly took monies on the understanding that they would try to add ‘Legs’ + complex living planets. It’s genuinely that clear and straight forward. (If you want to disagree some more we can do it on DD ;))

CIG also regularly take monies on the understanding that they’ll try and add flying space bazaars, or giant capital ships with 80 NPCs, or landing zones on Earth, or 100+ bespoke systems at launch (both still on the live funding page etc), or a hundred other absurd things before breakfast in 2025. They are off the scale on all comparable aspects (technical difficulty of their unrealised claims, monies continually taken, scale and sizzle of their marketing, ongoing addition of future complex dev for sale).

Which is what this thread should be about ;)
 
Last edited:
Anyway, to somewhat counter all the increasingly snotty and irritating personal bickering seemingly heading to becoming the norm on here...FTR's look back on the year of Star Citizen culminating with the release of 3.8... which happens to reflect my views and opinions on the development of Star Citizen as a whole to the letter once again. Well worth a watch in entirety instead of snipping out of context jibes to suit whatever personal agenda fills yer boots.

 
Last edited:
What do you mean you can earn 200k in a day and it only speeds up from there. And for release true the might fails long before :D But even currently there is no pay wall for the content.
Yeah its more than enough to rent mining ships and most ship cost 1mil to 5mil. More you progress the faster money you make and tell me a game where you are supposed to get the best ships in a day. So they will 100% nerf them so you have to earn the ships like in every other game. And mostly you are also assuming that it will have unbelievable grind levels on release.You are probably right as well because most big ships are meant for multicrew and big organizations to shell in money together to procure a ship. Same way me and my friend put our ingame money together to get a caterpillar and then we put our money into buy cargo for it.


There is a paywall of sorts in the sense that wipes still remove earned ships unless you’ve bought with real cash.

Did you and your friend earn the caterpillar you mention from starter ships incidentally, with no cred purchases? That would be the true test of there being no paywall ;)

On how launch might look:

- Rentals speak to the crappier end of compulsive design with their real-time clock for ownership. (Play or lose out etc). They likely won’t include the full higher end roster, to keep them premium, same as now.

- Credit purchases are set to continue post-launch. Even with a generous daily cap that’s pretty much P2W off the bat.

- The majority of CIGs revenue seemingly comes from whales, not new uptake. That’s where design decisions will be focused. In making sure in-game realities give them a feeling of value and exclusivity from their expensive ships. That means grind walls. Major grind walls.
 
lol, im all about the factually accurate comebacks!

i'm doing my best coach!

No worries champ. Reach for your dreams.

Just to be clear here, I'm not trying to tell you or anybody else what to think about SC. Stig's comment was entirely valid though, he only pointed out that the $90 mentioned to buy in with a particular ship was more than you'd pay for a newly released AAA game. It is and that boggles my mind too.

That's in large part because I don't have a few grand to drop on buying games, or to spend on any other hobby; to me these are significant amounts of money so the concept of spending that kind of cash to buy in as a glorified beta tester for a game that's been in development for what, seven years now and doesn't look as if it will be ready for what I'd consider a release (leaving aside Chris's desire to open an existential debate about what 'release' even means) for at least another few years is roughly akin to the way I'd feel about throwing tenners down a grid.

I fully appreciate that people fortunate enough to not be living with the economic restrictions that are a feature of my life might have a different opinion. It doesn't make a personal observation any less valid though.

If you're content with the experience you're receiving for the money that you spend, good luck to you.
 
Last edited:
No since you can also get those ships with in game money and plan is to remove ship buying on release. So there is no paywall.

When the game gets an actual release, there will undoubtedly be a refactoring of pricing to make the ships that people have paid hundreds of dollars for significantly expensive in terms of in-game funds, or to make the required amount of in-game funds non-trivial to acquire. The backlash from some whales who have spent what are (to me) absurd amounts of cash on ships if those ships are then trivially easy to acquire via gameplay would be immense.

The real problem SC is likely to face when/if it ever approaches an actual release is balancing. Firstly in terms of the game economy and secondly in terms of the relative utility and combat strength of ships. If somebody's $300 immersion chariot can be taken down by three goons in entry level Auroras with dedicated ganking min/max builds (and if they can't, that will be another first that Roberts has managed because there are gamers who basically spend their lives working out how to pull stunts like that) the wailing and gnashing of teeth will be immense.

The only potential way that issue is going to be avoided will be that from what I see of the game online at the moment, ships seem increasingly to exist primarily as a way for people to travel to different locations to play an FPS game. As I was one of the people whose interest in this game was prompted by Chris's original pitch of basically an updated Wing Commander with MMO elements, I'm more relieved every day that I ultimately decided not to back it after remembering the development debacle that Freelancer became. I still hope it gets a release (S42 more than SC) and if it looks good at that time, I'll almost certainly buy it but the idea of throwing any money into it when it's in its current state based on Chris Roberts's promises of what it will become, let alone the significant amounts needed to buy in with something other than the basic ship, still seems extremely risky to me.

The fact is, nobody knows how much of a paywall the released game will have in real terms because no matter what you can theoretically do in the game in terms of earning and buying ships, it's not until the game is out there with a live economy and no more wipes after updates that the actual situation will be known. Any assessment of that made today is ultimately based on what Chris Roberts says will happen and in terms of reliability, that's not what I'd call a sound basis on which to make judgements. If it was, I'd have been playing his updated Wing Commander game for about four years now.

I'll throw in a prediction actually; whenever it gets what most of us would recognise as a conventional release, it will move to either a freemium or subscription model, probably freemium, within two years. That's unless you imagine that they can somehow make enough money from one-off sales of the game to support CIG's international network of studios that will be required to deliver ongoing content, despite the fact that much of the game's target audience will have already bought in by that time. That's the aspect of their business model that I find most baffling to be honest; the fact that we're talking about one of the most costly games in history to develop even to the point it's at today, yet the funding tap is planned to be turned off completely on release day other than one-off purchases of the game. It's a massive elephant twerking in the corner of the room in a day-glo tutu whilst playing cymbals, which many people seem to be able to completely ignore.
 
Last edited:
The fact is, nobody knows how much of a paywall the released game will have in real terms because no matter what you can theoretically do in the game in terms of earning and buying ships, it's not until the game is out there with a live economy and no more wipes after updates that the actual situation will be known. Any assessment of that made today is ultimately based on what Chris Roberts says will happen and in terms of reliability, that's not what I'd call a sound basis on which to make judgements. If it was, I'd have been playing his updated Wing Commander game for about four years now.
Exactly, this is same as people can't for certain say that it wont be pay to win while other people can't say that it will be . Time will tell.
 
Last edited:
When the game gets an actual release, there will undoubtedly be a refactoring of pricing to make the ships that people have paid hundreds of dollars for significantly expensive in terms of in-game funds, or to make the required amount of in-game funds non-trivial to acquire. The backlash from some whales who have spent what are (to me) absurd amounts of cash on ships if those ships are then trivially easy to acquire via gameplay would be immense.

The real problem SC is likely to face when/if it ever approaches an actual release is balancing. Firstly in terms of the game economy and secondly in terms of the relative utility and combat strength of ships. If somebody's $300 immersion chariot can be taken down by three goons in entry level Auroras with dedicated ganking min/max builds (and if they can't, that will be another first that Roberts has managed because there are gamers who basically spend their lives working out how to pull stunts like that) the wailing and gnashing of teeth will be immense.

The only potential way that issue is going to be avoided will be that from what I see of the game online at the moment, ships seem increasingly to exist primarily as a way for people to travel to different locations to play an FPS game. As I was one of the people whose interest in this game was prompted by Chris's original pitch of basically an updated Wing Commander with MMO elements, I'm more relieved every day that I ultimately decided not to back it after remembering the development debacle that Freelancer became. I still hope it gets a release (S42 more than SC) and if it looks good at that time, I'll almost certainly buy it but the idea of throwing any money into it when it's in its current state based on Chris Roberts's promises of what it will become, let alone the significant amounts needed to buy in with something other than the basic ship, still seems extremely risky to me.

The fact is, nobody knows how much of a paywall the released game will have in real terms because no matter what you can theoretically do in the game in terms of earning and buying ships, it's not until the game is out there with a live economy and no more wipes after updates that the actual situation will be known. Any assessment of that made today is ultimately based on what Chris Roberts says will happen and in terms of reliability, that's not what I'd call a sound basis on which to make judgements. If it was, I'd have been playing his updated Wing Commander game for about four years now.

I'll throw in a prediction actually; whenever it gets what most of us would recognise as a conventional release, it will move to either a freemium or subscription model, probably freemium, within two years. That's unless you imagine that they can somehow make enough money from one-off sales of the game to support CIG's international network of studios that will be required to deliver ongoing content, despite the fact that much of the game's target audience will have already bought in by that time. That's the aspect of their business model that I find most baffling to be honest; the fact that we're talking about one of the most costly games in history to develop even to the point it's at today, yet the funding tap is planned to be turned off completely on release day other than one-off purchases of the game. It's a massive elephant twerking in the corner of the room in a day-glo tutu whilst playing cymbals, which many people seem to be able to completely ignore.
Apart from the pay to play and marketing side of Star Citizen...which I'm not touching with a bargepole... the idea of using ships simply to fly to FPS encounters isn't really what the majority of folks do in Star Citizen outside of the Rexilla shilling machine and is as alien a concept to me as it would be playing Fortnite.

I fly spaceships and use them much the same as I do in Elite...the option to get all filled with testosterone and go combing the chest hair whilst toting guns is there...but I've not engaged in any FPS style gameplay bar twice in SC over the last 2 years and that was just joining in with some randoms who wanted to try it out.

Having space legs doesn't mean you're tied to using them to run about shooting folks in the face...far from it.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Fair enough. Just seemed a bit odd that you fixated on the first entry when the whole spread of examples imply a lot more in concert ;)

No worries, never fixated on a single entry but the whole (and very consistent) way FDEV seems to have marketed the LEP.

Yep, which are functionally no different from CIG’s get out clauses:

Not really, those clauses are primarily aim to protect CIG from refund claims (further, the CIG TOS have changed dramatically multiple times over the year so we can probably dance for quite a while about those depending on when you pledged) and not to convey to the buyer the basic risk of non guarantee or non delivery.

Not only that, CIG goes even further and literally represents non delivery as "unlikely" in its own TOS.

On the other hand FDEV marketing material was very explicit about that risk, all the way since kickstarter. Remember we are talking here about "promises" and not about developer refund protection.

CIG way to market and "promise" all those is indeed very different to the LEP due to the SC Stretch Goals very clear commitment made for very specific deliverables in exchange for very precise funds paid by customers. No such commitment was ever stated by FDEV at any point for space legs or atmospheric planets. The only confirmation of any commitment (TOS refund related clauses notwithstanding) to deliver a specific product in the LEP was Horizons at the 2015 LEP sale. The rest is pure intent subject to a very explicit non delivery risk.

They are clearly direct marketing material as they both link (sometimes repeatedly) to the point of sale (which cites the same broad objectives). And they both speak in declarative absolutes. “You will be able to...”

Which was always stated as an intent and not a commitment (unlike SC stretch goals) without any guarantees both in and out of the store:

... access to all these features and updates for as long as we create them at no further cost...
... if we are as successful as we hope to be...
We intend to continue expanding the game both with new content and new features...
 
Last edited:
No worries, never fixated on a single entry but the whole (and very consistent) way FDEV seems to have marketed the LEP.



Not really, those clauses are primarily aim to protect COG from refund claims. That does not really change much with regards to promises and the way CIG marketed those is indeed very different to the LEP due to the Stretch Goal very clear commitment made after very precise funds were reached in exchange of very specific deliverables. No such commitment was ever stated by FDEV at any point. The only confirmation of any commitment (TOS refund related clauses notwithstanding) to deliver a specific product in the LEP was Horizons at the 2015 LEP sale.

Further, the CIG TOS have changed dramatically multiple times over the year so we can probably dance for quite a while about those depending on when you pledged.





Which was always stated as an intent and not a commitment (unlike SC stretch goals) without any guarantees both in and out of the store:
I will go to the toilet now if i can maybe, but I will do it but I'm not sure but for certain I will... maybe if I'm lucky. So basically they use that good old scummy marketing trick where THIS thing will do this and in small text it says "no promises".
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
I will go to the toilet now if i can maybe, but I will do it but I'm not sure but for certain I will... maybe if I'm lucky. So basically they use that good old scummy marketing trick where THIS thing will do this and in small text it says "no promises".
It is not really "small text" when you can find that basic non guarantee principle almost everywhere, in the store product description, kickstarter material and multiple newsletters to name but a few. As opposed to this:


The difference in marketing and commercial commitment is huge. Night and day even. Irrespective of how easy it is for a given developer to deny refund claims.
 
Last edited:
Apart from the pay to play and marketing side of Star Citizen...which I'm not touching with a bargepole... the idea of using ships simply to fly to FPS encounters isn't really what the majority of folks do in Star Citizen outside of the Rexilla shilling machine and is as alien a concept to me as it would be playing Fortnite.

I fly spaceships and use them much the same as I do in Elite...the option to get all filled with testosterone and go combing the chest hair whilst toting guns is there...but I've not engaged in any FPS style gameplay bar twice in SC over the last 2 years and that was just joining in with some randoms who wanted to try it out.

Having space legs doesn't mean you're tied to using them to run about shooting folks in the face...far from it.

Fair enough, I guess there's an element of bias towards that kind of thing in the youtube crowd.
 
It is not really "small text" when you can find that basic non guarantee principle almost everywhere, in the store product description, kickstarter material and multiple newsletters to name but a few. As opposed to this:


The difference in marketing and commercial commitment is huge.
There is no doubt that SC does it I have no clue why you keep bringing that up as a point when responding to me. SC marketed a ton sold pledges on promises and stretch goals. The info is all out there and can be seen :D
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
There is no doubt that SC does it I have no clue why you keep bringing that up as a point when responding to me. SC marketed a poopoo ton sold pledges on promises and stretch goals. The info is all out there and can be seen :D

Well the origin of this conversation was to compare how these games issue their "promises" and how much of a commitment they represent to buyers. Some said there was no difference. As you seem to agree now there is indeed a big difference.
 
Well the origin of this conversation was to compare how these games issue their "promises" and how much of a commitment they represent to buyers. Some said there was no difference. As you seem to agree now there is indeed a big difference.
Yes and the origin said that only SC made promises while others didn't my whole point was that they all have done it. Ohh crap I mean on varying degrees some less than others. Before people come and say I want to paint all of them in one color.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom