They will keep the large in-game grind to maximize profit through ship sales. It will be just as bad as anything EA or Ubisoft do.
With ED on sale, for the same price as the Prospector you could buy 21 copies of Elite Dangerous.
The Star Citizen Thread V10
- Thread starter Sir.Tj
- Start date
- Status
With ED on sale, for the same price as the Prospector you could buy 21 copies of Elite Dangerous.
More political commentary...do you play SC per chance...or are you just randomly guessing to fit in with the current trend setters?
As long as we stick to the topic we all get a say on SC.
Thanks for your reply Mole HD.
I was never really that bothered about the payships before. I just assumed if I bought the standard game I would be able to play something fairly fun that was subsidised by those who were more committed to Chris Roberts' vision. Keeping back a part of the game because I didn't pay for it is a bit of an eye-opener for me.
I haven't invested any money on Star Citizen. I'm waiting for it to be released, or at least a beta where all these sorts of details have been hammered out.
I was never really that bothered about the payships before. I just assumed if I bought the standard game I would be able to play something fairly fun that was subsidised by those who were more committed to Chris Roberts' vision. Keeping back a part of the game because I didn't pay for it is a bit of an eye-opener for me.
I haven't invested any money on Star Citizen. I'm waiting for it to be released, or at least a beta where all these sorts of details have been hammered out.
I enjoy reading your posts about the game but this is starting to feel like you're angry at people talking on your lawn
Yeah, can understand his enthusasm ok, and certainly nothing wrong with that, even if we disagree on what we think about the game and CIG. I do wish he wouldn't post in marketing speak though. I mean, if you like something, and in the face of skepticism, the last thing you want to do is look like you work for CIG's marketing department.
I'm fine with ships taking a long time to earn in game. When ED launched and i estimated the time for me to get an Anaconda without grinding would be a year at least, i was like, that's fine.
The problem i have is not if ships take time to unlock, but activities.
If i want to get into Star Citizen and be a miner, I should be able to start getting into that fairly quickly. ED does this well, you can do just about anything in the early ships. Not as effectively as in bigger ships, but you can do it, and with recent changes, most things are decently profitable as well. Passengers, mining, trade, combat, exploration, etc, all pay well (arguably too well, depending on your point of view).
If CIG can remove that barrier to entry for the various activities, then that will be a major plus in my books. I'm skeptical they would do that though, it seems to go against both their business model and their plans for the game. A lot of talk, especially from the richer backers, is how you will need to be part of an org (which of course they will be leaders of) if you want to survive and get a start.
Even from the PU we see how this might need to happen with players. PvPers camping the limited money making areas blasting anyone entering requiring people to group up to take them out and then go do the activities. Some people think this is great, this is emergent content, this is how an online game needs to be.
For me, I enjoy being part of a group, but not one where i need to submit to the authority of another player, or be dependent on their good will, to behave, or face getting kicked and being alone. And on top, my play time does not allow me to always be around to link up with other players. SC's respawn and save system also works against the solo style of play. If i have to log off, i have to log off, i don't have time to get somewhere to log off, perhaps not even time to get out of the seat and into the bunk so at least i wouldn't lose my ship (which i think is dumb in the extreme). Chances are, if going in a group, on someone else's ship, i'd be logging off mid flight, and when i login, i could be somewhere far from my last location, requiring summon ship, wait, long travel time, etc to get back on with what i was doing before that... assuming i even have a ship nearby to summon.
This is one thing i really need to see from Star Citizen. A viable solo experience. If a new player (or even a long term one) is dependent on being grouped up to achieve things, its not going to be a very viable game for me.
Oh, now this is interesting.
Immediately before doing the sell-off (it's dated May 23, but only signed by the 3 amigos), CIG wrote up Articles of Association, which you can see here (PDF). Interestingly they had no problem filing this one quickly, so it's sort of getting ignored with the latest shenanigans.
Mostly boilerplate stuff.
The juicy part is section 12, "Conflicts of Interest":
It rather looks as if, if Chris does something stupid/greedy at the director level, it can be declared a conflict of interest and he gets booted from the vote: it's then down to the other 4 to decide. (which might well be 2 vs 2, so not carried).
Which explains why there were 2 extra directors - to balance and Erin and Ortwin.
His 85% might be worth something if they had weighted voting at a General Meeting, but the Companies Act 2006 defaults to a simple majority unless weighted voting is specified in the Articles, and if you scroll down to section 36 and onward this just isn't here: His shareholding might as well be 1 share. And with the third new shareholder, he could be in deep doo-doo...
Chris "I've still got 85% so I'm in charge" Roberts is actually on a VERY short leash.
Which is, unironically, Good for Star Citizen.
EDIT: Hmm. Under the Act, The default shareholding required to demand a vote at a General Meeting is 5%: They've changed it to 10% (43.2.4) in the articles.
So Indus can demand a vote on something, but Ortwin can't.
Leashes for everyone!
(Kudos to Ortwin for trying to throw this into the memory hole. It didn't work, mate)
So the new directors hold the purse strings and also there's a conflict of interest mechanism to override him.
Microsoft barred him from entering the office, the new directors have put him on a short leash.
That's a really interesting find. Chris is 75% though not 85% afaik
I'm no expert but Chris' majority shareholding seems a bit of a red herring really.
If a business is running in the red - as the one in question here seems to be based on their own published info - it doesn't really matter who is notionally in charge - the person/people in charge are the ones providing the cash to allow your business to continue functioning.
No cash - no business.
If a business is running in the red - as the one in question here seems to be based on their own published info - it doesn't really matter who is notionally in charge - the person/people in charge are the ones providing the cash to allow your business to continue functioning.
No cash - no business.
No game = buckets of lulz
Yes, if there's something that the supporters in this thread have been adamant on, it's that fun is not contingent on its existence.
Yes, if there's something that the supporters in this thread have been adamant on, it's that fun is not contingent on its existence.
Thing is Tippis - I'm currently enjoying 3.4.1
Being trapped in your own turret with your head clipping through the console and your feet stuck out in space is quite the experience!
No game = buckets of lulz
The best thing is - from my pov - ios that this cash investment makes everyone think it's going to get done - which means the whales will keep on shovelling money into the Robert's family & friends Porsche and retirement fund - and also now into the pockets of the new investors) - which increases the likelihood of Sq42 actually getting released even though it's still not certain.
But the world needs the gift to unintentional comedy that Sq42 will inevitably be.
MST3K ought to pickup on it - I'm surprised they didn't do Wing Commander the movie - though "The Spoony" pretty much nailed it!
The difference Asp is that you dont disregard the obvious red flags, company problems and overall bad handling of business by CiG because you have fun. You are able to credit enjoyment while at the same time keep the big picture in your head. Others have a very sharp black/white view on the whole matter. Having fun means everybody who says something slightly negative about CiG must be a hater. I have fun so whoever says the game is bad is wrong. Having fun isnt even the topic most of the time, people in general wonder if Star Citizen ever will see the light of day and if it will be what Cash Roberts advertised it to be in 2012. I m not sure how "I have fun" fits into those questions really. You are a bit of a silly hat at times but to be honest, thats why I like you /kisses ^^
Jacques d'Orleans
Banned
Jacques d'Orleans
Banned
Just a friendly reminder that this is a family friendly forum. /falls from chair laughing
Jacques d'Orleans
Banned
It's not only to override him, this could become an issue for Ortwin and Erin too. Just sayin'
Yup a short leash, made out of concertina wire.
But as DLewth said, this is good for SC. To be frank, if they can manage to control Crobear or even better neutralize him permanently SC/SQ42 could have a real chance for success.
Of course! Star Citizen through all these years has been an ample supply of amusement. Some of the lulz generated are truly of legendary quality. Will we ever get the games we backed and paid for? Probably not. However, games are finite, and Star Citizen exists as an infinite Vision. It will continue to generate lulz until the end of time, and for that we should be grateful!
Also, ich liebe dich, wenn ich es spiel Raum Kommando, die Tränen kommen.
<apologies>
Yep, I'm sure you guys are right this time. 90 days tops.
And was this ever posted here?
[video=youtube;desAqe9xlAE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=desAqe9xlAE[/video]
- Status