Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

A “whale” is a term used in “Free to Play” (F2P) games used to describe players who sink hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars into a game. It’s derived from the “ecosystem” of F2P games in general and “Pay to Win” (P2W) games in particular. The free players are the content of the “minnows” who occasionally drop a few dollars of the game, the “minnows” are the content of the “fish,” and so on up to the “whales” who are the primary source of income for the game runner.

For example, a few years ago I was hooked on F2P (more accurately, pay to continue) mostly single-player “gatcha” (Japanese version of loot boxes) game, to the point where I changed my sleep schedule slightly to take full advantage of “bonus” health gained while I slept. I never paid a cent to continue, or on the “gatchas” except… after a year I decided they’d truly earned $40 dollars from me. After all, an hour a day of fun challenges, number-crunching, and interesting short stories, added up to nearly 400 hours of game play, which is more much more entertainment than AAA games I’d played.

I would not, in any way, considered a whale, even though I spent a little money on a free to play game.

By the the time the game went into actual maintenance mode, my best team of characters (who could be called upon to reinforce other players teams in the single-player campaign) was close to the top 10% of the player base. The top 5% teams consisted of fully developed characters who could not be recruited through the main game, only by opening “gatchas”. When I crunched the numbers, in order to have fully developed those characters, they had to have spent thousands of dollars just for a decent chance of getting the one they needed. Keep in mind this was not a PvP game. You didn’t compete at all with other players, or even cooperate with them directly. The main motivation for developing a character was to unlock or continue their usually heartwarming short story.

Those players are whales.

In the case of Star Citizen, the role of “free players” as the base of the proverbial food chain are the basic package buyers: the $45 (on sale) or $60 “starter ships” that are, in my limited experience, so bad at getting players started that players either volunteer (or are hired) to be crew for other players, or are willing to drop a couple hundred dollars for one the game’s true starter ships, that are worthy of the name.

Asking for money, or borrowing another player’s ship, because you’re an ”Elite Refugee” works as well. ;)

At any rate, once you’ve spent about a thousand dollars, you get “High Admiral” status (IIRC) and can now see the expensive ships and game packages, including the fabulous $20,000+ Legatus package. Back when CIG was still promising to have thousands of player in a single instance, there was quite a bit of speculation by the “uber whales” to have battles with multiple capital ships crewed by scores (if not hundreds) of F2P players.

And what you describe also shows why the typical SC white knight defense of "Its not pay to win, there is nothing to win" is pure guff, because P2W means a lot more than just paying to gain a competitive advantage over others.
 
You really need to get a grasp on the difference between biased, rose tinted fanboisism 'opinion' and hard cold facts LA, more manure isn't appreciated.
Hard cold fact : 67% more funding for the first 4 months of 2022 (when compared to the first 4 months of 2021)
 
Last edited:
Every since i was a wide eyed child watching Star Wars i knew i wanted to play a game like that.

Fortunately, unlike CR, i know my limitations and that I'd never pull off a game that could work as well as the game in my imagination.

Well, the problem with the industry is it fears ridicule and failure.

For all of CR's faults, he has many, his passion is genuine, that passion to make his dreams a reality has brought us a few genuinely great and ground breaking games, and yes they were all birthed in difficulty.

So, here it is, i too want to live the Star Wars experience, and while CR will NOT going get us there he will get us somewhere towards it, which is a lot more than can be said for any of the multi-billion $ publishers, he has already got us further than any of the others, to me at least.

CR is a complicated man and probably not all good, but he does have a dream and at least he is willing to try.
 
Well, the problem with the industry is it fears ridicule and failure.

For all of CR's faults, he has many, his passion is genuine, that passion to make his dreams a reality has brought us a few genuinely great and ground breaking games, and yes they were all birthed in difficulty.

So, here it is, i too want to live the Star Wars experience, and while CR will NOT going get us there he will get us somewhere towards it, which is a lot more than can be said for any of the multi-billion $ publishers, he has already got us further than any of the others, to me at least.

CR is a complicated man and probably not all good, but he does have a dream and at least he is willing to try.

His passion caused Freelancer to have to be finished by another developer. Wing Commander 1 and to a lesser extent 2 were good games for their time. Later ones he had less involvement in and by the time 4 trundled around the series was losing it. Strike Commander was less than it was advertised to be, decent game, but not what was advertised.

Prior to that, well... depends on how many fond memories you have of Stryker's Run.

Basically, its the Wing Commander franchise most people remember CR for, and that's it really.

Passion is important, but so is execution and planning.

PS: And its CR's own history which shows us he isn't capable of delivering on his dreams.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Hard cold fact : 67% more funding for the first 4 months of 2022 (when compared to the first 4 months of 2021)
According to whom? The same source that brought us SQ42 eta in 2014, then 2015 then “Answer The Call 2016” then “Answer The Call 2017” then beta Q2 2020 then Q3 2020, then “ready when it is ready”?

But CIG didn’t lie or misrepresent progress there at all, why would they misrepresent their own funding, right?

I mean they are still in operation, as crappy and incomplete as the current PU product is, that much we can ascertain. But from there to blindly believe their own tracker, not even independently audited, there is a bit of a stretch I reckon.
 
Last edited:
According to the fund tracker.
You are free to believe that CIG is lying on those numbers. But I think the previous financial reports were consistent with the tracker.

The financial blog also has to be taken on trust.

The only fully audited accounts CIG publish are for their UK arm, due to regional regulations. You can extrapolate a bit from those accounts to guess at their global operation, (and confirm fun things like the naughty dividend), but ultimately you'd still be extrapolating. With the sheer number of entities that CIG runs they could be moving money around in any number of ways. (The entire UK operation could be funded by investment cash alone, for example, and we'd have no way of discerning that. I'm not saying that's happening, but it underlines how we don't have 'cold hard' facts when it comes to CIG's overall financial state).
 
The financial blog also has to be taken on trust.

The only fully audited accounts CIG publish are for their UK arm, due to regional regulations. You can extrapolate a bit from those accounts to guess at their global operation, (and confirm fun things like the naughty dividend), but ultimately you'd still be extrapolating. With the sheer number of entities that CIG runs they could be moving money around in any number of ways. (The entire UK operation could be funded by investment cash alone, for example, and we'd have no way of discerning that. I'm not saying that's happening, but it underlines how we don't have 'cold hard' facts when it comes to CIG's overall financial state).
If CIG is not lying on the fund tracker, how do you explain +67% ?
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
If CIG is not lying on the fund tracker…
Did you believe CIG when they announced SQ42 for 2016? Did you believe them when they announced it for 2017? Did you believe them when they announced a beta for 2020? Did you believe CIG when they announced Theaters of War was imminent multiple times? Etc etc etc

The question rather is, given so many lies or misrepresentations why would you think CIG is not lying about the tracker?
 
Did you believe CIG when they announced SQ42 for 2016? Did you believe them when they announced it for 2017? Did you believe them when they announced a beta for 2020? Did you believe CIG when they announced Theaters of War was imminent multiple times? Etc etc etc

Reminds me of people who believe in doomsday cults, and whenever the deadline passes they just move on to the next date without their faith being shaken at all.
 
Did you believe CIG when they announced SQ42 for 2016? Did you believe them when they announced it for 2017? Did you believe them when they announced a beta for 2020? Did you believe CIG when they announced Theaters of War was imminent multiple times? Etc etc etc

The question rather is, given so many lies or misrepresentations why would you think CIG is not lying about the tracker?
So you think they lie on the fund tracker ? That perhaps the real funding is tanking because SC has a net loss of active players each month ?
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
So you think they lie on the fund tracker ? That perhaps the real funding is tanking because SC has a net loss of active players each month ?
I am simply offering you examples where CIG has continuously lied or grossly misrepresented key elements of the developement. Since you are the one using the tracker at face value the question is rather: Given all CIG previous lies/misrepresentations in key elements of the development why do you think the tracker is any different and exempt of those same lies/misrepresentations?
 
I am simply offering you examples where CIG has continuously lied or grossly misrepresented key elements of the developement. Since you are the one using the tracker at face value the question is rather: Given all CIG previous lies/misrepresentations in key elements of the development why do you think the tracker is any different and exempt of those same lies/misrepresentations?
Being (badly) wrong at estimating a release date while in the same time greatly expansing the goal of the project (=moving previous release dates given) is absolutely not the same thing as falsificating raw datas (funding tracker).
Do you think CIG is falsificating the fund tracker ?
 
Apparently they also sell hoverbikes for $25? Can you go to the cantina and buy premium drinks for $1? Successful mission! Let's celebrate! $5 cake! Watch my guy eating it!

This thing is so disgusting, it really is.

It's honestly fortunate that it hasn't ruined things by now. You look at what horse armour achieved. I guess everybody is waiting to see how things go closer to release if it ever releases.
 
Top Bottom