They're right though...this year will be a big one for CIG.
Star Citizen Discussion Thread v11
- Thread starter Sir.Tj
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
- Status
Not sure if offtopic and I m not interested in discussing this in detail when you took my comment literally. Star Citizen at the moment is pretty much pay-to-win. Major content AFAIK is behind a paywall which is settled at multiples of AAA game pricetags. Even 45 bucks is almost not achievable for kids without their parents. I m out of date with childrens weekly allowance but getting computer games at full prize was restricting me to 1 game per 2 months or so. Todays games certainly are not "kids stuff" because they cost serious money and just because their parents pick up the tab doesnt mean "kids can afford games easily today". And thats just the game. Take the desktop you need to run it into account....also a "present" from the parents.
So gaming today is mostly directed at the demographic which is earning money already aka NOT kids (tho we could argue about a 20 year old being a kid or not....age shifts the perception in this regard).
Now Star Citizen grants you access to basically "nothing" at 45 basic package. You can log in and run/fly around and sample all the things like missions and vistas. Want to mine? Want to multi-crew? Want to use speedsters? Want to use a "cooler" ship? Dig deep my friend because with just a simple wish like "I want more" you are already touching the hundred dollar mark and often end up with values that rival luxury car lease rates....basically for a different "skin" and sometimes the ability to do something else.
You can pretty much charge as much as you want for drugs as well, addicts will pay everything....no matter how high. The only limit is your competition undercutting your prices. So it seems in the immersion department Star Citizen is at the top position, others dont even come close for certain people (lets call em the "addicts" but please, no offense intended) and these folks will pay through the nose in order to get more of this stuff.
CIG is not providing a service or covering a need.....they are shamelessly exploiting peoples inability to control themselves in this regard. This has been its focus very early on and they only enhanced and enforced that direction. Which means actual development is secondary when keeping people "on the hook" takes priority.
With the money we are talking about "kids" are immediately off the equation. They dont matter and if some kids whos parents are silly or non-caring enough to allow them access that doesnt mean they are....those are exceptions and certainly not the rule. Star Citizens development and marketing is directed at adults wallets, not kids weekly allowance. So I m not sure what you mean by "things which are not true" because with this context nothing I wrote is "made up". CIG doesnt only "look" greedy, they damn sure ARE greedy.
In the end I welcome your response as it forced me to take a step back and think about what you said....if I really make up things to keep on "hating" on CIG so thank you for that. Your "payment" is another little wall of text
Its alpha dude, how the heck am I the one who has to say this?
But fun aside....its an alpha or possibly even a pre-alpha and even tho not ALL alphas run like crap its certainly expected. So many of the experience reviews describing log-in difficulties, crashes or bugs.....well....its an alpha.
You can blame CIG for not improving their product enough in YEARS to allow for a better experience but other then incompetence....not sure what to say. The issues most people have with Star Citizen which is often outright dismissed as "its alpha, you dont understand game development" is SCs lack of progress in gameplay terms. And I guess everybody with a shred of experience in this topic immediately sees it but its already so glaring obvious that even inexperienced people can spot that gashing wound or the open fracture easily enough.
You cannot dismiss SCs glaical development speed anymore and the total cost so far, somehow presented as a win in this debate by some only confirms what many people suspect. Incompetence, waste and possibly a scam.
At the same time what little exists is tried to be presented as gamebreaking or awe-inspiring when all we are basically are talking about are "shiny graphics" and thats simply wrong as SCs visual quality is the norm for years already, achieved and also broken by consoles and current high-visual games completely declassify SCs in this regard. And the goalshifting begins. Arguments come up describing all the options SC allows that other games dont. But somehow regardless how deep people dig into the awesome-sounding-words chest it all comes to a sandbox FPS open world map. Thats not new, thats not groundbreaking and SCs development demonstrates nicely WHY this kind of game wasnt pursued by other companies.
Star Citizen might eventually result in some kind of game. It already doesnt look like its going to be the BDSSE but if its not then the pricetag for creating SC makes it a financial flop. Its not going to be interesting to investors, its not going to be a good reference in your resume and hopefully its going to be a good example for other companies what NOT to do. The threat is that other companies pick up on Chris Roberts and try to exploit their playerbase without delivering even a minimum of a game. And while many blame Ubisoft, Blizzard and oh so many other big names for doing that already those "disappointments" are more of a game then SC is, have cost less and were produced quicker.
Good things take time? Sure, thats true. This doesnt apply to game development tho for very obvious reasons if you care to research it.
Kids are buying 2500$ computers? Kids buy 150$ HOTAS? Kids buy 1500$ pixel ships?
Out of interest....how would you define a "kid"?
When I talk about kids I m ranging them from 5-17 which means no income at all or maybe minimal income from activities like delivering papers or working as baggers at the grocery store. Some games are directed at kids "forcing" them via peer pressure into pestering their parents into buying those for them (kids who dont play fortnite are not "chill" etc) but most of them start out as F2P to allow kids easy access and hoping for future income via costume or store transactions (again....from parents and relatives) but usually transaction prices are set at or below an adults trigger point. For that you can take a look at the toys market. When parents are willing to pay 50$ for a toy truck for their kids then they ll be willing to pay 50$ for a video game that it really wants.
Star Citizen is not directed at those people and those kids. Some kids might be among the backers but I doubt very much that they reach a sizable % (more then 2). Star Citizen is directed at adults who are gamers themselves who earn the cash required to invest into 2500$ fantasies and justify that only to themselves. If you are married and your partner is not into computer games or an avid SC fan as well I predict serious problems in your marriage after a certain point when a "normal" perception about the value of money and the value of pixels clash with the perception of somebody "hooked". I know there are enough examples of exactly that happening (thanks to the people who opened up about their private lives enough) but sorry....those are the exception, not the norm.
You can blame CIG for not improving their product enough in YEARS to allow for a better experience but other then incompetence....not sure what to say. The issues most people have with Star Citizen which is often outright dismissed as "its alpha, you dont understand game development" is SCs lack of progress in gameplay terms. And I guess everybody with a shred of experience in this topic immediately sees it but its already so glaring obvious that even inexperienced people can spot that gashing wound or the open fracture easily enough.
You cannot dismiss SCs glaical development speed anymore and the total cost so far, somehow presented as a win in this debate by some only confirms what many people suspect. Incompetence, waste and possibly a scam.
At the same time what little exists is tried to be presented as gamebreaking or awe-inspiring when all we are basically are talking about are "shiny graphics" and thats simply wrong as SCs visual quality is the norm for years already, achieved and also broken by consoles and current high-visual games completely declassify SCs in this regard. And the goalshifting begins. Arguments come up describing all the options SC allows that other games dont. But somehow regardless how deep people dig into the awesome-sounding-words chest it all comes to a sandbox FPS open world map. Thats not new, thats not groundbreaking and SCs development demonstrates nicely WHY this kind of game wasnt pursued by other companies.
Star Citizen might eventually result in some kind of game. It already doesnt look like its going to be the BDSSE but if its not then the pricetag for creating SC makes it a financial flop. Its not going to be interesting to investors, its not going to be a good reference in your resume and hopefully its going to be a good example for other companies what NOT to do. The threat is that other companies pick up on Chris Roberts and try to exploit their playerbase without delivering even a minimum of a game. And while many blame Ubisoft, Blizzard and oh so many other big names for doing that already those "disappointments" are more of a game then SC is, have cost less and were produced quicker.
Good things take time? Sure, thats true. This doesnt apply to game development tho for very obvious reasons if you care to research it.
Kids are buying 2500$ computers? Kids buy 150$ HOTAS? Kids buy 1500$ pixel ships?
Out of interest....how would you define a "kid"?
When I talk about kids I m ranging them from 5-17 which means no income at all or maybe minimal income from activities like delivering papers or working as baggers at the grocery store. Some games are directed at kids "forcing" them via peer pressure into pestering their parents into buying those for them (kids who dont play fortnite are not "chill" etc) but most of them start out as F2P to allow kids easy access and hoping for future income via costume or store transactions (again....from parents and relatives) but usually transaction prices are set at or below an adults trigger point. For that you can take a look at the toys market. When parents are willing to pay 50$ for a toy truck for their kids then they ll be willing to pay 50$ for a video game that it really wants.
Star Citizen is not directed at those people and those kids. Some kids might be among the backers but I doubt very much that they reach a sizable % (more then 2). Star Citizen is directed at adults who are gamers themselves who earn the cash required to invest into 2500$ fantasies and justify that only to themselves. If you are married and your partner is not into computer games or an avid SC fan as well I predict serious problems in your marriage after a certain point when a "normal" perception about the value of money and the value of pixels clash with the perception of somebody "hooked". I know there are enough examples of exactly that happening (thanks to the people who opened up about their private lives enough) but sorry....those are the exception, not the norm.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
I see your point on the P2W..... There are lots of different levels which people consider P2W (some say horizons is P2W because you have to buy horizons to remain competitive).Not sure if offtopic and I m not interested in discussing this in detail when you took my comment literally. Star Citizen at the moment is pretty much pay-to-win. Major content AFAIK is behind a paywall which is settled at multiples of AAA game pricetags. Even 45 bucks is almost not achievable for kids without their parents. I m out of date with childrens weekly allowance but getting computer games at full prize was restricting me to 1 game per 2 months or so. Todays games certainly are not "kids stuff" because they cost serious money and just because their parents pick up the tab doesnt mean "kids can afford games easily today". And thats just the game. Take the desktop you need to run it into account....also a "present" from the parents.
So gaming today is mostly directed at the demographic which is earning money already aka NOT kids (tho we could argue about a 20 year old being a kid or not....age shifts the perception in this regard).
Now Star Citizen grants you access to basically "nothing" at 45 basic package. You can log in and run/fly around and sample all the things like missions and vistas. Want to mine? Want to multi-crew? Want to use speedsters? Want to use a "cooler" ship? Dig deep my friend because with just a simple wish like "I want more" you are already touching the hundred dollar mark and often end up with values that rival luxury car lease rates....basically for a different "skin" and sometimes the ability to do something else.
You can pretty much charge as much as you want for drugs as well, addicts will pay everything....no matter how high. The only limit is your competition undercutting your prices. So it seems in the immersion department Star Citizen is at the top position, others dont even come close for certain people (lets call em the "addicts" but please, no offense intended) and these folks will pay through the nose in order to get more of this stuff.
CIG is not providing a service or covering a need.....they are shamelessly exploiting peoples inability to control themselves in this regard. This has been its focus very early on and they only enhanced and enforced that direction. Which means actual development is secondary when keeping people "on the hook" takes priority.
With the money we are talking about "kids" are immediately off the equation. They dont matter and if some kids whos parents are silly or non-caring enough to allow them access that doesnt mean they are....those are exceptions and certainly not the rule. Star Citizens development and marketing is directed at adults wallets, not kids weekly allowance. So I m not sure what you mean by "things which are not true" because with this context nothing I wrote is "made up". CIG doesnt only "look" greedy, they damn sure ARE greedy.
In the end I welcome your response as it forced me to take a step back and think about what you said....if I really make up things to keep on "hating" on CIG so thank you for that. Your "payment" is another little wall of text
Its alpha dude, how the heck am I the one who has to say this?
However for me the jury is still out on how bad it will be. Things may have changed and if so I would be interested to know (I don't follow the game as closely as some in this thread,) however CR definitely said at the start every ship, skin, cosmetic, weapon... Basically everything will be purchasable in game by in game currency .
IF this is still the case (if it isn't then that would be the final nail in the coffin for me) but IF it is still the case then imo exactly how obnoxious these ships bought with real cash are will depend on how long it takes to earn the money in-game.
IF hypothetically it takes "just" a few 1000 in-game hrs to go from start to any ship you want without paying for ship's/credits with cash then to be honest I am fine with it. Let's assume for a minute the game is half as good as what CR has painted it (I know it's a leap,). But if that is the case it will be a long term game, meant to be played over many many years for 1000s of hrs.
Then building up to the big ships is exactly the kind of thing to keep me playing.
It is how I play ED as well (around 2000hrs in and still not got the rank or money for a corvette or cutter and I am just fine with that).
So for me the jury is out on 2 things
1) rate of earnings in game in final product
2) how forced PvP is going to be (the PvP slider has gone which is massive for me. I am kind of hoping private servers get added but last I heard this was not the plan.
the pc/console video gaming demographics is now 30+ years olds, kids just watches youtube and play mobile games.
And i know its taking long time but stayed tuned for this year its going to be a big one! The announcement of Squadron 42!
whistles jauntily Let me be clear - CE was never intended to be a multi purpose game engine. Actually it was a technological demo and nothing more, and hard coded to make first person shooters. Of course that Sniper game fits in perfectly and wont break anything in the game engine, all they had to do is create new assets and there you go. (*)
There was never any intention of making extended area maps, or infinite area maps (as for space games..), or spherical planets if we go that way - it was made for a flat, small, square map for FPS games. There was never any actual WAN network code as the original engine was made at a time where multiplayer was equal to LAN parties, so the implementation was the "naive" version of multiplayer networking where you can assume there is no latency or packet loss. I try and stress that point because it's integral to the main engine loop and how it's coded in its very core. See the horribly glitchy, warping, teleporting moves on multiplayer streams in SC ? that's it, no WAN lag compensation, no movement prediction, no rollback code.
Also, the "made for a technological demo" aspect means there is a lot of hard coded parts, undocumented code, and cruft in the layers below, that only the people who coded that at the time can still understand, if they can actually remember what was in their mind when they coded that.
These are usually big, bright red flags when choosing a software library..
(*) i'll add that the physics engine in there is terrible. And coding on that engine is notoriously difficult and frustrating.
Let's do a quick exercise here. Tell me, how would a 2012 bought Hornet Ghost fare against a more recently bought Sabre or Arrow ?
Did you buy a box of nails ? Some planks ? Get prepared for disappointment.
These are all gone under the heap along with space kitty, VR support, etc.
Last edited:
And when that happens I will accept it as fact. Until it happens I stay with my current view. The thing about Chris Roberts is that he says and promises a lot and we usually discover in hindsight what he really meant at the time or that he simply exaggerated the point. It happens quite a few times so far. Until something becomes reality I remain suspicious and wait for it to happen....so I m judging it on the current state. I know and remember that statement...its usually used to dimiss SCs current P2W status and tho you dont do that I dismiss that future promise because CIG is struggling with all kinds of things so lets see if that particular statement will survive the test of (development) time.
Fact is that the ship sales are a really nice income source for CIG so its hard to believe they will simply drop it at release. Personally I expect them to keep the store purchase options while making the ships earnable ingame. But regardless....even if what Chris stated at the time becomes reality then Star Citizen STILL would be P2W because the people who used the ship sale options during development start out with a distinct ingame advantage over somebody who starts from scratch. That people will eventually end up at the same power level is irrelevant. Spending real life cash results in an inagame advantage = P2W but I know that I have rather harsh interpretations on this one. And if it ends to be indeed P2W thats not bad in itself....it simply needs to own it then...thats all.
See you are more accepting then I am but regardless if its "fine" or not it would still be P2W theres no denying that. People refuse the term because it carries an inherent negative impression. CIG cannot make the game P2W then transform it via words into not being P2W (there is nothing to win, what does "win" mean anyway etc). I usually immediately disqualify P2W games from my list of "interests" and the western world is still torn about this particular mechanic especially when you encounter it in full prize games which Star Citizen will be.
I see your argument but to be honest "half as good as he promised" is already a loooooong stretch. They gotta overcome so many technical hurdles to make the game they envisioned even possible on that scale. And next comes the real work....adding content. If CIG would use procgen generated content it would require a procgen system in place that is so advanced that it can churn out challenging and compelling gameplay options. And from where I m standing this is yet another critical tool that CIG YET has to develop. So far they provided rather bland and handcrafted content. Star Citizen the vision would require a serious step-up from what we have now. Please continue to remain optimistic but realize that your hope stands on a whole lot of "maybes" and future "ifs" for Star Citizen to become the reality you expect it to be.
Long gameplay also is too simple a statement because it has a wide range of options, not all of them welcome.
An extremely grindy game pushing insane time and ingame requirements at you will take hundreds even thousands of hours to overcome but I doubt it ll be very enjoyable in the long run. I suppose you are talking about Skyrim level of longevity which comes from content density, quality and mod capability. All things Star Citizen doesnt have at this very moment (def "no" on the mod part too).
Star Citizen might offer you extreme immersion which you value but it wont have VR support so your immersion is limited to your own fantasy and the regular screen. And then again, how much simple immersion is worth to you is dependant on you. I simply dont accept that immersion is worth 45 bucks or more or lifts the game on the same stage as a "real" game.
Tinfoil heresy I m sure
As all we are doing is talking anyway lets assume for a second this is indeed whats going to happen.
CIG cancels SQ42 for "reasons". Not delayed but outright canceled. if you participate in that thought of train (just hypothetical mind you) what would you expect to happen to SCs development?
I could see them just adding SQ42 as a menu option in SC to void the lawsuit - SQ42 is supposed to come with Star Marine / Arena Commander anyway so would kinda make sense. It all seems bizarre to me when you have a project swimming in money and they come unstuck over buying 1 licence rather than 2.
Was nice to get a rundown from an actual lawyer, rather than just the usual internet experts
I'm sure the recent $46m investors are thrilled in any case. For their investment in promoting the advertising of Sqn 42, they have to date had a total of 2 promotional videos they can watch as their funding circles the drainTinfoil heresy I m sure
As all we are doing is talking anyway lets assume for a second this is indeed whats going to happen.
CIG cancels SQ42 for "reasons". Not delayed but outright canceled. if you participate in that thought of train (just hypothetical mind you) what would you expect to happen to SCs development?
As for Star Citizen and Sqn 42 being included in one game launcher, that is already the case...the recently updated unified launcher (PTU and PU used to have sparate launchers) was always designed to have Sqn 42 in the drop down tabs which at the moment, only serve the PU and the PTU. However, as has been generally known for some time, Ci¬G had planned to release Sqn 42 as a standalone single player campaign game to the console market without the addition of Star Citizen, which will always be a PC only title...This would make sense of the 'promotional' investment by the Calders, as has already been mentioned in this thread.
The investment would serve absolutely no purpose in promoting Sqn 42 to a niche market where most of the copies that will ever be sold have already been paid for, I'm sure the Calders legal team aren't quite that naive as to take some mealy mouthing from Chris Roberts and his pet attorney as a contractually sound investment...they'll be seeking a financial return one way or another besides the 10% share of a business mired in legal and media controversy.
Last edited:
I'm sure the recent $46m investors are thrilled in any case. For their investment in promoting the advertising of Sqn 42, they have to date had a total of 2 promotional videos they can watch as their funding circles the drain
I thought they cashed out? Both directors they hired (in effect their 'voices' are now gone- replaced by Sandi and some Caman Islands lawyer guy).
Not as far as I was aware...Ci¬G created a separate shell company in the Caman islands tied to some dodgy 3rd party investment project...as far as I knew the Calders still had their seat on the board of Ci¬G.
"While this came as a surprise to Crytek (and undoubtedly will to the public who has pre-paid for squadron 42)"
<boggle>
I wonder how many people have pre-paid just for Squadron 42.
AFAIK I haven't said you are wrong. You may well be right that the game will be rubbish, it may be a total cash grab or it may not come out at all, and make no mistake I am gutted about the VR.
I am not not ready to give up on it yet, I guess I never had that much riding on it either money wise or (more importantly)excitement wise
For me Privateer was great but it was by far 2nd fiddle to elite, and so SC is very much so less.important to me than ED.
Things are looking a bit shaky on the game but am not ready to call it a scam yet, so long as you can get the base game at a reasonable level and until CR admits there will be "premium" cash only equipment I will try to remain neutral.
People paying 1000s for ship's...... So long as they are adults I just can't get that het up about it. (At launch everyone is assuming everyone will be raging P2W with all these ships being implausable to get in game without using real cash. However it is just as likely imo the rage will come from the other side of the coin..... With someone who paid £1K+ for their big ship getting all salty because 2 months in the unwashed masses have variants of their own...... I won't lie, if that happens I will kind of smile as i fly around with my shiny ships earned myself by actually playing the game with my $60 pledge package.
RE P2W like I said it's a very subjective issue. Some think ED is P2W since horizons. I disagree myself.
If you really want to be literal, my ED pledge allowed me to start with a specced cobra mkIII. I didn't take it but it was a good 100hrs+ before I had that amount of gear in game. (Back with launch earning rates. You could call that P2W if you take it to the extreme.
Wow that's a long post (not as long as yours tho
) just to say I am not saying you will be wrong, just that we don't know either way yet.
Last edited:
I agree but this also means that SQ42 probably never ever going to come out for the consoles.........I could see them just adding SQ42 as a menu option in SC to void the lawsuit - SQ42 is supposed to come with Star Marine / Arena Commander anyway so would kinda make sense. It all seems bizarre to me when you have a project swimming in money and they come unstuck over buying 1 licence rather than 2.
Was nice to get a rundown from an actual lawyer, rather than just the usual internet experts
Obviously I am wrong but.... Why don't CIG just buy another licence, surely cheaper than a long drawn out court case. Does a game engine licence really cost that much,?
(I guess that is an advantage frontier have for using their own)
There are for sure kids playing. They are one of the few demographics that can consistently do the grind to earn ships in game.
Not that many judging from experience although there are undoubtably some. Most backers got Sqn 42 attached to a game package since Ci¬G realised early on that more backers were purely interested in the PU with Sqn 42 being a "Meh, the Chris Roberts interactive movie was free with the package anyway." addition. Ci¬G have done their level best to promote Sqn 42 of course...since it's Chris Roberts magnum opus, but the general complaint for some time is that much needed PU devs and resources are increasingly being funnelled away from the PU that most backers continue to put their money up for and continues to suffer at the cost of Sqn 42's
Up until I had a hangar reshuffle and got rid of a couple of the bigger ships and bought another game package (as opposed to a standalone ship package) comprising of 5 medium ships with the store credit, I had never added Sqn 42 at all, since it used to be an optional addition as well as a separate purchase at a bargain bin price on buying a ship package...ships which can only be used in the PU. My original game package was the $100 Drake Loot&Scoot deluxe package containing a Cutlass black, a silly space scooter with some extras, no Sqn 42 included. I now have 2 game packages...as much as that never interested me...the LTI on all the ships in the entrepeneur package did.
Sqn 42 was a compulsory addition included in the Entrepeneur game package I traded the bigger ships for...and the only reason I have it now.
Last edited:
- Status