They might have pissed YOU off and some others. But the growing number of backers - some 35.000 new backers per month at the moment - says something different. Do not equal your opinion with that of the majority of customers that are backing Star Citizen.
Does plus 35000 new backers per month sounds like a strategy thats backfiring ?
Have fun
Yes yes yes, I'm speaking for myself. Obviously this is me relating my personal opinion, I mean, does this even really need to be said? WTF.
The real goal of a company is to make money without pissing it's customers off. SC was pitched and sold as something totally different to the mass ship selling CoD in space game that it's morphed into.
They might have pissed YOU off and some others. But the growing number of backers - some 35.000 new backers per month at the moment - says something different. Do not equal your opinion with that of the majority of customers that are backing Star Citizen.
Does plus 35000 new backers per month sounds like a strategy thats backfiring ?
Have fun
this place is just the hater enclave of people with different agendas against Star Citizen or crowdfunding haters in general.
So many entities with a vested interest in talking down SC, the thing is, reality is grossly different than how the haters display the project.
Gamers are not dumb buying into everything they read on a forum. They can look at game footage themselves, try out the game in its current state, watch streams etc.
The growing budget is not coming out of thin air. It really doesn't matter what they write here the project will grow and CIG will become a major game industry player when the game is released. I can think of a few who don't like to see this happening.
Not sure. They do have gotten in plenty of money on this already but I for one will be playing Elite instead due to this.
Loke ... play BOTH. Like i do. I backed both games. And i have 2 years of E:D play ahead of me before SC even launches (the FULL persistent universe game, many more modules can be tested before that). I am looking forward to both. Perfect timing IMHO - enough of a seperation in time to have enough game time for both games.
Not sure. They do have gotten in plenty of money on this already but I for one will be playing Elite instead due to this.
Loke ... play BOTH. Like i do. I backed both games. And i have 2 years of E:D play ahead of me before SC even launches (the FULL persistent universe game, many more modules can be tested before that). I am looking forward to both. Perfect timing IMHO - enough of a seperation in time to have enough game time for both games.
Have fun
please stop this thread derailing "play both" thing, Elite is not even a gane to "play", it's "Space Engine"-esque planet watching with a strap-on cockpit demo you could show to kids in an astronomy museum, they just forgot to add the "game" part to it. Don't turn this into another Elite comparison circlejerk. In a few weeks the magazine reviews will end the Star Citizen comparison era anyway. Elite only has 2% to do with Star Citizen, as much as Kerbal Space Program or Space Engineers have to do with Star Citizen. Some "space setting".
You know what's a game to pass the time, X-Wing and Tie Fighter -- now avaialble on gog.com for ten bucks.
Not sure. They do have gotten in plenty of money on this already but I for one will be playing Elite instead due to this.
Loke ... play BOTH. Like i do. I backed both games. And i have 2 years of E:D play ahead of me before SC even launches (the FULL persistent universe game, many more modules can be tested before that). I am looking forward to both. Perfect timing IMHO - enough of a seperation in time to have enough game time for both games.
Have fun
please stop this thread derailing "play both" thing, Elite is not even a gane to "play", it's "Space Engine"-esque planet watching with a strap-on cockpit demo you could show to kids in an astronomy museum, they just forgot to add the "game" part to it. Don't turn this into another Elite comparison circlejerk. In a few weeks the magazine reviews will end the Star Citizen comparison era anyway. Elite only has 2% to do with Star Citizen, as much as Kerbal Space Program or Space Engineers have to do with Star Citizen. Some "space setting".
You know what's a game to pass the time, X-Wing and Tie Fighter -- now avaialble on gog.com for ten bucks.
You sound so butthurt about Elite, rabidly butthurt. It's a strange thing to see someone get so worked up about a game they have no intention of playing...
on topic - I also agree that people should play both, each game provides a totally different experience and it would be a shame to miss out on either of them. What interests me the most about SC is the SQ42 part and I'm looking forward to the first set of missions sometime next year.
Everything you ever wanted to know about the Star Citizen crowdfunding project, exact numbers of backers per month since start of the campaign, projected funding development, average pledge per citizen !, population growth .... you name it.
Many thanks to the following data wizards, that made all this possible:
Shadowrunner -> Michael Espebu, Ser Erris -> Chistoph Linden, Lastof -> James Titmuss, Nehkara15 -> Eric Olson, Moon -> Chris Schneider, Mageoftheyear -> David Watson
Not sure. They do have gotten in plenty of money on this already but I for one will be playing Elite instead due to this.
Loke ... play BOTH. Like i do. I backed both games. And i have 2 years of E:D play ahead of me before SC even launches (the FULL persistent universe game, many more modules can be tested before that). I am looking forward to both. Perfect timing IMHO - enough of a seperation in time to have enough game time for both games.
Have fun
please stop this thread derailing "play both" thing, Elite is not even a gane to "play", it's "Space Engine"-esque planet watching with a strap-on cockpit demo you could show to kids in an astronomy museum, they just forgot to add the "game" part to it. Don't turn this into another Elite comparison circlejerk. In a few weeks the magazine reviews will end the Star Citizen comparison era anyway. Elite only has 2% to do with Star Citizen, as much as Kerbal Space Program or Space Engineers have to do with Star Citizen. Some "space setting".
You know what's a game to pass the time, X-Wing and Tie Fighter -- now avaialble on gog.com for ten bucks.
You sound so butthurt about Elite, rabidly butthurt. It's a strange thing to see someone get so worked up about a game they have no intention of playing...
on topic - I also agree that people should play both, each game provides a totally different experience and it would be a shame to miss out on either of them. What interests me the most about SC is the SQ42 part and I'm looking forward to the first set of missions sometime next year.
This is the problem with the SC fans, they are blind fanatics. They keep shelling out 200+ on a new ship every month and try to deflect anything bad being said about CR, ICG or SC. The forums are a mess where people boast about spending $1,000 on a virtual ship that they can't use yet, while chanting helmet, helmet, helmet. There is a threshold at a point where you are funding raising for a game compared to taking advantage of your culist fanbase.
The whole selling ship fiasco is going to burn one of two parties. Either those that realize the ship they bought isn't worth as much in game, or those who get utterly raped by those with the expensive ships. There is absolutely no way around this. Next we have the never ending feature creep which CR was removed from prior games for doing. They can't even handle their workload now, yet keep adding more and more to their pile.
Huge fallouts with major players like Eric Patterson(We all know he didn't leave for family reasons) and admittions about a horrible workplace by past employees. The only thing we have right now is a arena where pay to win is blantant and the ship combat feels off despite which preferene whether KB&M, HOTA, or console controller.
I am glad people on RSI forums are starting to wake up and not ride on CR's Idris as much. Whether we get a good game or not depends, but it will completely kill crowd funded games if it flops.
Its going to be interesting when the game launches and its nothing like everything that has been promised.
This pretty much sums up exactly what's going to happen. And has happened with just about every game that has ever been hyped on this site since the 1st "WoW Killer".
Not sure. They do have gotten in plenty of money on this already but I for one will be playing Elite instead due to this.
Loke ... play BOTH. Like i do. I backed both games. And i have 2 years of E:D play ahead of me before SC even launches (the FULL persistent universe game, many more modules can be tested before that). I am looking forward to both. Perfect timing IMHO - enough of a seperation in time to have enough game time for both games.
Have fun
please stop this thread derailing "play both" thing, Elite is not even a gane to "play", it's "Space Engine"-esque planet watching with a strap-on cockpit demo you could show to kids in an astronomy museum, they just forgot to add the "game" part to it. Don't turn this into another Elite comparison circlejerk. In a few weeks the magazine reviews will end the Star Citizen comparison era anyway. Elite only has 2% to do with Star Citizen, as much as Kerbal Space Program or Space Engineers have to do with Star Citizen. Some "space setting".
You know what's a game to pass the time, X-Wing and Tie Fighter -- now avaialble on gog.com for ten bucks.
You sound so butthurt about Elite, rabidly butthurt. It's a strange thing to see someone get so worked up about a game they have no intention of playing...
on topic - I also agree that people should play both, each game provides a totally different experience and it would be a shame to miss out on either of them. What interests me the most about SC is the SQ42 part and I'm looking forward to the first set of missions sometime next year.
This is the problem with the SC fans, they are blind fanatics. They keep shelling out 200+ on a new ship every month and try to deflect anything bad being said about CR, ICG or SC. The forums are a mess where people boast about spending $1,000 on a virtual ship that they can't use yet, while chanting helmet, helmet, helmet. There is a threshold at a point where you are funding raising for a game compared to taking advantage of your culist fanbase.
The whole selling ship fiasco is going to burn one of two parties. Either those that realize the ship they bought isn't worth as much in game, or those who get utterly raped by those with the expensive ships. There is absolutely no way around this. Next we have the never ending feature creep which CR was removed from prior games for doing. They can't even handle their workload now, yet keep adding more and more to their pile.
Huge fallouts with major players like Eric Patterson(We all know he didn't leave for family reasons) and admittions about a horrible workplace by past employees. The only thing we have right now is a arena where pay to win is blantant and the ship combat feels off despite which preferene whether KB&M, HOTA, or console controller.
I am glad people on RSI forums are starting to wake up and not ride on CR's Idris as much. Whether we get a good game or not depends, but it will completely kill crowd funded games if it flops.
Why would it ? Did any messed up mmo to release ever stop the flow of crap comming out ? If the game flop it flops, won't have any impact on crowdfunding.
Originally posted by Rhoklaw I find it a huge red flag when they don't discuss the importance of ships in the game. They don't say whether a $2000 ship will crush a hundred $50 ships without so much as breaking a sweat. There's a reason behind this and once it's finally explained how ships will work, you will see a lot of people pissed off.
They have already stated several times over the year that purchaseing a ship is more used for insurance purposes. If you BUY the ship with money then when the ship is blown up you will get it replaced for free.
If you play the game without using money, you can get the EXACT same ship but if it gets blown up you ownly be recouped whatever the ingame insurance package you bought (if any).
There are ZERO differences (other then skins) between the purchased ships and the ships you get ingame. The only difference is purchased (with cash) ships are freely replaced on destruction. Where ships bought ingame with ingame credits when they get exploded you are only reimbursed your insurance / nothing if you did not insure your ship.
There was a whole dev article covering all of this right on there website.
Originally posted by IsilithTehroth Originally posted by rpmcmurphyOriginally posted by DocBrodyOriginally posted by ErillionOriginally posted by Loke666Not sure. They do have gotten in plenty of money on this already but I for one will be playing Elite instead due to this.
Loke ... play BOTH. Like i do. I backed both games. And i have 2 years of E:D play ahead of me before SC even launches (the FULL persistent universe game, many more modules can be tested before that). I am looking forward to both. Perfect timing IMHO - enough of a seperation in time to have enough game time for both games.Have funplease stop this thread derailing "play both" thing, Elite is not even a gane to "play", it's "Space Engine"-esque planet watching with a strap-on cockpit demo you could show to kids in an astronomy museum, they just forgot to add the "game" part to it. Don't turn this into another Elite comparison circlejerk. In a few weeks the magazine reviews will end the Star Citizen comparison era anyway. Elite only has 2% to do with Star Citizen, as much as Kerbal Space Program or Space Engineers have to do with Star Citizen. Some "space setting".You know what's a game to pass the time, X-Wing and Tie Fighter -- now avaialble on gog.com for ten bucks. You sound so butthurt about Elite, rabidly butthurt. It's a strange thing to see someone get so worked up about a game they have no intention of playing...on topic - I also agree that people should play both, each game provides a totally different experience and it would be a shame to miss out on either of them. What interests me the most about SC is the SQ42 part and I'm looking forward to the first set of missions sometime next year.This is the problem with the SC fans, they are blind fanatics. They keep shelling out 200+ on a new ship every month and try to deflect anything bad being said about CR, ICG or SC. The forums are a mess where people boast about spending $1,000 on a virtual ship that they can't use yet, while chanting helmet, helmet, helmet. There is a threshold at a point where you are funding raising for a game compared to taking advantage of your culist fanbase.
The whole selling ship fiasco is going to burn one of two parties. Either those that realize the ship they bought isn't worth as much in game, or those who get utterly raped by those with the expensive ships. There is absolutely no way around this. Next we have the never ending feature creep which CR was removed from prior games for doing. They can't even handle their workload now, yet keep adding more and more to their pile.
Huge fallouts with major players like Eric Patterson(We all know he didn't leave for family reasons) and admittions about a horrible workplace by past employees. The only thing we have right now is a arena where pay to win is blantant and the ship combat feels off despite which preferene whether KB&M, HOTA, or console controller.
I am glad people on RSI forums are starting to wake up and not ride on CR's Idris as much. Whether we get a good game or not depends, but it will completely kill crowd funded games if it flops.
LOL Eric Patterson left because he did not want to move to LA from Texas. That is the reason behind that, but you can spen the dollar however you like. Eric was asked to move to LA because Chris was moving the heads to LA so he did not have to fly between the two locations all the time to manage to the game. Everyone but Eric was good to move and so Eric decided he wanted to part ways instead of up and move to a new location.
This is the problem with the SC fans, they are blind fanatics. **snip**
What a nice collection of conspiracy theories.
Lets start with Eric "Wingman" Patterson. Thats what HE has to say to you:
"Thank you all very much for the kind support. I have loved every minute at CIG, and will always support my good friend Chris and all of the wonderful people there.
I will still be around -- I love this game.
WM"
(both in HIS own livestream - where he has no obligation to buttkiss anyone (not that he is the type for it anyway !!) - and on the RSI forums). He seems to disagree with you. Too bad when reality hits you like a freight train.
Next : ship combat. Just because it "feels off" for you does not make it a universal truth that its not working. And lets not mention that we are talking about a pre-Alpha build here, that has a long way to go until it becomes a final version. We are in the playtesting phase. Thats what we are here to find out ... if anything "feels off", then WE can report it and have it changed.
And: P2W in Arena Commander ? I am a backer and subscriber. I can play any available ship in Arena Commander if I want. Although i have only pledged for one ship. And do you think one ship is too powerful in Arena Commander ? Excellent! Report it ! That is what we playtesters are DOING ! Giving feedback. Helping with balancing.
And SC fans being fanatics ? Paying 200+ $ on a new ship per month ? Once again *** excuse my French *** rubbish. You can see the numbers yourself in the data i posted earlier. Average pledge per player is around 100ish dollar. In toto. Anyone with some basic knowledge of math doing the calculations based on your claims would reach a sum of several hundred million dollars in funding by now if what you say is true. Which would be nice for Star Citizen, but unfortunately is not true.
There is no ship selling fiasco. Again - the numbers contradict you. A steady stream of tenthousands of new backers joins the game every month. Some even want ships - who would have guessed ?! Money for the game has to come from somewhere, and it should NOT be banks or publishers driven by the next quarter report and shareholder demands !
Lets look at "feature creep", shall we ? The last "feature" was promised in a stretch goal 10 months ago. The most recent "feature" stretch goal - pets in Star Citizen - is a feature already existing and available in the engine. With many available animal models. Amount of work needed to activate it in SC : Minimal. So ... which feature creep are you talking about ? Yes, the project is highly ambitious. Like most Chris Roberts projects. If he had a chance to create a game as he saw fit, he created legends (= e.g. Wing Commander). Even if he had to trim down his ideas the end result still was a great success (e.g. Freelancer). So ... we as backers now give him the time and money to do it right.
And yes, Chris Roberts (and WE the fans) push the team to work hard. VERY hard work. Not unusual for the industry, BTW. If they cannot handle the workload, the team needs either more time (which many do not want to give them) or more team members. So in my book, having more cash to pay those extra team members is a good thing. And if this money comes from more backers - more power to them. Come one, come all.
You call the SC fans cultists ? I call them dedicated, enthusiastic, optimistic - some of the greatest people i had the privilege to meet online (and offline). Many of them in their thirties and fourties, with families and everyday jobs, they grew up with Wing Commander, Freelancer and Elite. But being adults now did not make them stop dreaming. Or helping to shape a dream and making it reality.
Are forums sometimes insane ? Sure. Like most of the open game forums. Are there some nutcases amongst 670.000 people ? You bet ! Are they representative of the majority. No, they are not.
Wether we get a good game or not depends ON US. And that means team AND backers together.
I don't get the argument that it will be hard to run the game on a server at home and therefore not good. Just rent a good 1. There could be a business opportunity there. But u can mod it so mod it.
I think it is also stupid to worry about what other people are doing with their money. If someone is unaware that buying a ship is a way to fund the game and not a i win button then that is their fault for not researching a bit before they drop 1,000 on a funding package. Besides this game should be getting millions because it is a game many of us have been waiting for more than a decade.
+ it is a nice economy boost for the game dev industry. They keep hiring sub contractors to keep up which is nice to see them do because the sooner I can fly the better.
I don't see a lot of negative really. Chris still is making the game right imo. Even if all he gets right is the flight engine then that is more than we have gotten from the industry since Jumpgate.
Why not spend a few bucks on a good thing I say. Keep it coming.
I can't say their scheme back-fired. I think it has worked perfectly. For the first time in gaming history,at least on a scale so large,people have given a huge sum of money to a game that will never be. Hell, Roberts already made his money from this. After the first few months of the original kick-starter campaign, ( no, i didn't contribute), I began to wonder of this game might actually be vapor-ware, now I am sure of it. Recently they sold ships for $2,500 real dollars,lol,which sold -out quickly, all this with no real-game made. C'mon peeps, wake-up, stop drinking the kool-aid.This is a rip-off,pure and simple.
As far as I can see the game is just a cash shop attached to some vapourware. However, the monetisation system has been a huge success largely due to the old adage 'a fool and their money...'
Just played two hours vapourware and enjoyed it. Three PvP ship kills and then 10 waves of Vanduul.
Have fun
You can have fun and I am glad but the total player population of SC may suffer from how it's funding system came across as a huge vaporware scam. I love space MMOs but I won't play this one, the real life money class system will be very apparent in this new game.
The way the Devs have funded SC I wouldn't touch it with anyone's virtual pole. IMO a little bit of fund raising like this is OK, but the Devs of SC went way too far.
Same goes for other games that do this, games like SotA, I won't play them either.
You can have fun and I am glad but the total player population of SC may suffer from how it's funding system came across as a huge vaporware scam. I love space MMOs but I won't play this one, the real life money class system will be very apparent in this new game.
The way the Devs have funded SC I wouldn't touch it with anyone's virtual pole. IMO a little bit of fund raising like this is OK, but the Devs of SC went way too far.
Same goes for other games that do this, games like SotA, I won't play them either.
Hello Gardavsshade,
I do understand the concerns w.r.t. "real life money class system". Nothing but the launch of the game and the reality of the first few months will show to what extend this was a valid concern.
What i do not understand is some peoples misconception that Star Citizen is a "huge vaporware scam".
Not once in decades of reading gaming press and playing games have I seen a dev team that is so openly communicating the status of development of the game. It does not matter wether one likes what they say or not ... but at least one CAN read and see a lot if someone just uses Google a bit. There are game elements that can be tested, so the code clearly exists. And its no some pre-made game elements from an engine-design-kit like some fraudulent early-access-game-scammers have used in recent scandals.
SC is also not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme, as any check (e.g. on Wikipedia) of what a Ponzi scheme IS shows. I play EVE Online, I have seen plenty of artfully constructed Ponzi schemes ;-)
So in summary ...
yes, someone does not have to agree with the monetization scheme.
And yes, only time will tell if the ships from higher value pledge packages are overpowered (personally, i think the opposite is more likely and some backers will wail and gnash teeth come launch).
But IMHO a clear NO to accusations of "vapourware scams" or "SC is a Ponzi scheme" ... for verifyable, objective reasons.
You can have fun and I am glad but the total player population of SC may suffer from how it's funding system came across as a huge vaporware scam. I love space MMOs but I won't play this one, the real life money class system will be very apparent in this new game.
The way the Devs have funded SC I wouldn't touch it with anyone's virtual pole. IMO a little bit of fund raising like this is OK, but the Devs of SC went way too far.
Same goes for other games that do this, games like SotA, I won't play them either.
Hello Gardavsshade,
I do understand the concerns w.r.t. "real life money class system". Nothing but the launch of the game and the reality of the first few months will show to what extend this was a valid concern.
What i do not understand is some peoples misconception that Star Citizen is a "huge vaporware scam".
Not once in decades of reading gaming press and playing games have I seen a dev team that is so openly communicating the status of development of the game. It does not matter wether one likes what they say or not ... but at least one CAN read and see a lot if someone just uses Google a bit. There are game elements that can be tested, so the code clearly exists. And its no some pre-made game elements from an engine-design-kit like some fraudulent early-access-game-scammers have used in recent scandals.
SC is also not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme, as any check (e.g. on Wikipedia) of what a Ponzi scheme IS shows. I play EVE Online, I have seen plenty of artfully constructed Ponzi schemes ;-)
So in summary ...
yes, someone does not have to agree with the monetization scheme.
And yes, only time will tell if the ships from higher value pledge packages are overpowered (personally, i think the opposite is more likely and some backers will wail and gnash teeth come launch).
But IMHO a clear NO to accusations of "vapourware scams" or "SC is a Ponzi scheme" ... for verifyable, objective reasons.
Have fun
I refuse to drop huge quantities of money on a game without having any idea of the quality of the finished product. If money spent up front gives an in-game advantage (and the free insurance together with the early advantage of having a high level ship is clearly an in game advantage) then I doubt I will bother playing the game.
It is not necessarily a matter of whether the game is vapour ware; it is a matter of a developer looking for more and more money for cash shop items on an unknown product. It is also a matter of the ever-moving goal posts on the items they sell in their ever-expanding cash shop. How do I know the item I buy today won't be trumped by their merciless profiteering tomorrow?
I refuse to drop huge quantities of money on a game without having any idea of the quality of the finished product. If money spent up front gives an in-game advantage (and the free insurance together with the early advantage of having a high level ship is clearly an in game advantage) then I doubt I will bother playing the game.
It is not necessarily a matter of whether the game is vapour ware; it is a matter of a developer looking for more and more money for cash shop items on an unknown product. It is also a matter of the ever-moving goal posts on the items they sell in their ever-expanding cash shop. How do I know the item I buy today won't be trumped by their merciless profiteering tomorrow?
Two things to consider:
the devs already stated that the insurance in game is not very expensive. And it does not matter if your ship is life-time-insured or in-game-insured ... the insurance company will replace it the same way. Unless you plan to lose your ship every 10 mins (which IMHO wont really work due to the "Death of a Space Man" rule of the pilot dying a permadeath soon if you do it that way) there won't be much difference and for sure not a huge monetary advantage of the life-time-insurance over the normal insurance.
And there is always the possibility to "melt down" an older ship to "buy" a newer ship if you like the newer ones more. That way you don't have to spend any extra real life money on new pledge packages. If the value of the pledge package is similar, you just replace the old ship with a new one ... CIG offers a mechanic ("melting") for that.
I refuse to drop huge quantities of money on a game without having any idea of the quality of the finished product. If money spent up front gives an in-game advantage (and the free insurance together with the early advantage of having a high level ship is clearly an in game advantage) then I doubt I will bother playing the game.
It is not necessarily a matter of whether the game is vapour ware; it is a matter of a developer looking for more and more money for cash shop items on an unknown product. It is also a matter of the ever-moving goal posts on the items they sell in their ever-expanding cash shop. How do I know the item I buy today won't be trumped by their merciless profiteering tomorrow?
Two things to consider:
the devs already stated that the insurance in game is not very expensive. And it does not matter if your ship is life-time-insured or in-game-insured ... the insurance company will replace it the same way. Unless you plan to lose your ship every 10 mins (which IMHO wont really work due to the "Death of a Space Man" rule of the pilot dying a permadeath soon if you do it that way) there won't be much difference and for sure not a huge monetary advantage of the life-time-insurance over the normal insurance.
And there is always the possibility to "melt down" an older ship to "buy" a newer ship if you like the newer ones more. That way you don't have to spend any extra real life money on new pledge packages. If the value of the pledge package is similar, you just replace the old ship with a new one ... CIG offers a mechanic ("melting") for that.
You somewhat cherry picked and then veered wildly off topic there Erillion. They were talking about the advantages of having a large powerful ship as soon as the game releases while a new player who never pledged has to work to get enough cash in game to buy a small upgrade of a ship. Add on top of that the person who pledged doesn't have to worry about money for insurance because they have lifetime insurance.
How much of an advantage it will confer if/when the game releases we will have to wait and see but for now I will be holding onto my money and waiting until well after the reviews are in to see if I will even bother with it or not.
For melting down packages to upgrade the point is kind of moot if you drop 2500 dollars on a top end ship and CIG promises this will be the best ship we sell and then 6 months down the road they release a 3000 dollar ship that will absolutely destroy anything else in space, you still feel ripped off and jaded if you want to remain top class by having to melt down your original pledge and drop another 500 on top to get the next best thing. Repeat over and over and over
I refuse to drop huge quantities of money on a game without having any idea of the quality of the finished product. If money spent up front gives an in-game advantage (and the free insurance together with the early advantage of having a high level ship is clearly an in game advantage) then I doubt I will bother playing the game.
It is not necessarily a matter of whether the game is vapour ware; it is a matter of a developer looking for more and more money for cash shop items on an unknown product. It is also a matter of the ever-moving goal posts on the items they sell in their ever-expanding cash shop. How do I know the item I buy today won't be trumped by their merciless profiteering tomorrow?
Two things to consider:
the devs already stated that the insurance in game is not very expensive. And it does not matter if your ship is life-time-insured or in-game-insured ... the insurance company will replace it the same way. Unless you plan to lose your ship every 10 mins (which IMHO wont really work due to the "Death of a Space Man" rule of the pilot dying a permadeath soon if you do it that way) there won't be much difference and for sure not a huge monetary advantage of the life-time-insurance over the normal insurance.
And there is always the possibility to "melt down" an older ship to "buy" a newer ship if you like the newer ones more. That way you don't have to spend any extra real life money on new pledge packages. If the value of the pledge package is similar, you just replace the old ship with a new one ... CIG offers a mechanic ("melting") for that.
You somewhat cherry picked and then veered wildly off topic there Erillion. They were talking about the advantages of having a large powerful ship as soon as the game releases while a new player who never pledged has to work to get enough cash in game to buy a small upgrade of a ship. Add on top of that the person who pledged doesn't have to worry about money for insurance because they have lifetime insurance.
How much of an advantage it will confer if/when the game releases we will have to wait and see but for now I will be holding onto my money and waiting until well after the reviews are in to see if I will even bother with it or not.
For melting down packages to upgrade the point is kind of moot if you drop 2500 dollars on a top end ship and CIG promises this will be the best ship we sell and then 6 months down the road they release a 3000 dollar ship that will absolutely destroy anything else in space, you still feel ripped off and jaded if you want to remain top class by having to melt down your original pledge and drop another 500 on top to get the next best thing. Repeat over and over and over
Well I just logged back in, but your point was the argument I would have made, and rather more eloquently put. This is the sort of tactic of profiteering that was outlawed everywhere bar the internet years ago.
Only gamers would fall for these cheap tricks and then (worse) defend them. The mind boggles.
Remember this company has had to make NO outlay and take NO risk whatsoever to produce this product. And all the money they are earning off the back of cash shop items are paid for by your pledges, whilst they extend the programme and budget continuously, while you have no legal recourse whatsoever. More fool you.
Originally posted by maybebaked You sir are wrong yet again. The came is scheduled to come out in 2016. They are continuing to collect money, like a lot of other games do. You can buy a castle in Shroud of the Avatar for $5000. How is this any different? How does hype matter this far out from the full game actually being released?
And how is any of this different than people choosing to spend money in cash shops?
People get to do whatever the hell they want with their money.
A successfully monetized game makes a lot of money - people seem to have a problem with this for some reason.
To some folks dropping $100,000 on a video game is pocket change, to others spending $5 per year on video games is absurd.
Disposable income varies *greatly* because wealth varies greatly.
Precisely... If a guy is driving around in an 15' AMG Mercedez and you're driving around in a 95' Toyota Corolla, despite whether ot not you can afford to drive the higher priced car you choose to spend your money differently.
We clearly live in a class bases society predicated on wealth. This concept seems to be thrown out the door whenever gaming is brought into the discussion in which case everyone wants it to be communist Russia.
Blame capitalism, there are people with far more money than you or I that (as DMK said) can spend thousands++ on gaming and not even blink (whether they can or can't afford to no less)
I find anything that distorts or even removes gamesmanship and fair challenge from the MMORPG genre as distasteful and sad. The F2P model and cash shops specifically are notorious for this. The F2P model is so obnoxiously in your face and destroys any sense of immersion and is obviously designed to take advantage of the psychological and or emotional weaknesses of the player base.
Originally posted by maybebaked You sir are wrong yet again. The came is scheduled to come out in 2016. They are continuing to collect money, like a lot of other games do. You can buy a castle in Shroud of the Avatar for $5000. How is this any different? How does hype matter this far out from the full game actually being released?
And how is any of this different than people choosing to spend money in cash shops?
People get to do whatever the hell they want with their money.
A successfully monetized game makes a lot of money - people seem to have a problem with this for some reason.
To some folks dropping $100,000 on a video game is pocket change, to others spending $5 per year on video games is absurd.
Disposable income varies *greatly* because wealth varies greatly.
Precisely... If a guy is driving around in an 15' AMG Mercedez and you're driving around in a 95' Toyota Corolla, despite whether ot not you can afford to drive the higher priced car you choose to spend your money differently.
We clearly live in a class bases society predicated on wealth. This concept seems to be thrown out the door whenever gaming is brought into the discussion in which case everyone wants it to be communist Russia.
Blame capitalism, there are people with far more money than you or I that (as DMK said) can spend thousands++ on gaming and not even blink (whether they can or can't afford to no less)
I find anything that distorts or even removes gamesmanship and fair challenge from the MMORPG genre as distasteful and sad. The F2P model and cash shops specifically are notorious for this. The F2P model is so obnoxiously in your face and destroys any sense of immersion and is obviously designed to take advantage of the psychological and or emotional weaknesses of the player base.
What Wighty does not understand is that the intention of driving is not to race the AMG. The intention of gaming is...
everyone in the RSI forums knows perfectly well they are just making pledges for a game that will have everything available in game for regular credits you earn.
They "advertise" ships in the pledge store by saying "YOU DON`T NEED TO BUY THIS SHIP, you can wait and get it in the ingame universe with credits"
There will be no magic super weapons that are cash shop only.
There will be no skins that are cash shop only.
There is no "premium ammo" bullshit.
The ship hulls from the pledges still need to be outfitted with improved components, better weapons, overclocking which can only be bought in universe with credits.
There are countless videos of cheap ships with good twitch pilots defeating higher price ships with noob pilots.
Star Citizen is a FPS, there is no "I WIN" button.
Like in any FPS, give a noob a bazooka and the better player will still pwn him two dozen times with a slingshot.
Everyone who keeps spreading this BS about wrong monetization is only running an agenda or has absolutely no clue whatsoever.
Comments
Yes yes yes, I'm speaking for myself. Obviously this is me relating my personal opinion, I mean, does this even really need to be said? WTF.
this place is just the hater enclave of people with different agendas against Star Citizen or crowdfunding haters in general.
So many entities with a vested interest in talking down SC, the thing is, reality is grossly different than how the haters display the project.
Gamers are not dumb buying into everything they read on a forum. They can look at game footage themselves, try out the game in its current state, watch streams etc.
The growing budget is not coming out of thin air. It really doesn't matter what they write here the project will grow and CIG will become a major game industry player when the game is released. I can think of a few who don't like to see this happening.
Loke ... play BOTH. Like i do. I backed both games. And i have 2 years of E:D play ahead of me before SC even launches (the FULL persistent universe game, many more modules can be tested before that). I am looking forward to both. Perfect timing IMHO - enough of a seperation in time to have enough game time for both games.
Have fun
please stop this thread derailing "play both" thing, Elite is not even a gane to "play", it's "Space Engine"-esque planet watching with a strap-on cockpit demo you could show to kids in an astronomy museum, they just forgot to add the "game" part to it. Don't turn this into another Elite comparison circlejerk. In a few weeks the magazine reviews will end the Star Citizen comparison era anyway. Elite only has 2% to do with Star Citizen, as much as Kerbal Space Program or Space Engineers have to do with Star Citizen. Some "space setting".
You know what's a game to pass the time, X-Wing and Tie Fighter -- now avaialble on gog.com for ten bucks.
You sound so butthurt about Elite, rabidly butthurt. It's a strange thing to see someone get so worked up about a game they have no intention of playing...
on topic - I also agree that people should play both, each game provides a totally different experience and it would be a shame to miss out on either of them. What interests me the most about SC is the SQ42 part and I'm looking forward to the first set of missions sometime next year.
To determine the effectiveness of the monetizing strategy, here are more numbers than you can shake a stick at:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI/edit?pli=1#gid=1694467207Everything you ever wanted to know about the Star Citizen crowdfunding project, exact numbers of backers per month since start of the campaign, projected funding development, average pledge per citizen !, population growth .... you name it.
Many thanks to the following data wizards, that made all this possible:
Shadowrunner -> Michael Espebu, Ser Erris -> Chistoph Linden, Lastof -> James Titmuss, Nehkara15 -> Eric Olson, Moon -> Chris Schneider, Mageoftheyear -> David Watson
Have fun
This is the problem with the SC fans, they are blind fanatics. They keep shelling out 200+ on a new ship every month and try to deflect anything bad being said about CR, ICG or SC. The forums are a mess where people boast about spending $1,000 on a virtual ship that they can't use yet, while chanting helmet, helmet, helmet. There is a threshold at a point where you are funding raising for a game compared to taking advantage of your culist fanbase.
The whole selling ship fiasco is going to burn one of two parties. Either those that realize the ship they bought isn't worth as much in game, or those who get utterly raped by those with the expensive ships. There is absolutely no way around this. Next we have the never ending feature creep which CR was removed from prior games for doing. They can't even handle their workload now, yet keep adding more and more to their pile.
Huge fallouts with major players like Eric Patterson(We all know he didn't leave for family reasons) and admittions about a horrible workplace by past employees. The only thing we have right now is a arena where pay to win is blantant and the ship combat feels off despite which preferene whether KB&M, HOTA, or console controller.
I am glad people on RSI forums are starting to wake up and not ride on CR's Idris as much. Whether we get a good game or not depends, but it will completely kill crowd funded games if it flops.
MurderHerd
This pretty much sums up exactly what's going to happen. And has happened with just about every game that has ever been hyped on this site since the 1st "WoW Killer".
Why would it ? Did any messed up mmo to release ever stop the flow of crap comming out ? If the game flop it flops, won't have any impact on crowdfunding.
They have already stated several times over the year that purchaseing a ship is more used for insurance purposes. If you BUY the ship with money then when the ship is blown up you will get it replaced for free.
If you play the game without using money, you can get the EXACT same ship but if it gets blown up you ownly be recouped whatever the ingame insurance package you bought (if any).
There are ZERO differences (other then skins) between the purchased ships and the ships you get ingame. The only difference is purchased (with cash) ships are freely replaced on destruction. Where ships bought ingame with ingame credits when they get exploded you are only reimbursed your insurance / nothing if you did not insure your ship.
There was a whole dev article covering all of this right on there website.
please stop this thread derailing "play both" thing, Elite is not even a gane to "play", it's "Space Engine"-esque planet watching with a strap-on cockpit demo you could show to kids in an astronomy museum, they just forgot to add the "game" part to it. Don't turn this into another Elite comparison circlejerk. In a few weeks the magazine reviews will end the Star Citizen comparison era anyway. Elite only has 2% to do with Star Citizen, as much as Kerbal Space Program or Space Engineers have to do with Star Citizen. Some "space setting". You know what's a game to pass the time, X-Wing and Tie Fighter -- now avaialble on gog.com for ten bucks.
You sound so butthurt about Elite, rabidly butthurt. It's a strange thing to see someone get so worked up about a game they have no intention of playing... on topic - I also agree that people should play both, each game provides a totally different experience and it would be a shame to miss out on either of them. What interests me the most about SC is the SQ42 part and I'm looking forward to the first set of missions sometime next year.
This is the problem with the SC fans, they are blind fanatics. They keep shelling out 200+ on a new ship every month and try to deflect anything bad being said about CR, ICG or SC. The forums are a mess where people boast about spending $1,000 on a virtual ship that they can't use yet, while chanting helmet, helmet, helmet. There is a threshold at a point where you are funding raising for a game compared to taking advantage of your culist fanbase.
The whole selling ship fiasco is going to burn one of two parties. Either those that realize the ship they bought isn't worth as much in game, or those who get utterly raped by those with the expensive ships. There is absolutely no way around this. Next we have the never ending feature creep which CR was removed from prior games for doing. They can't even handle their workload now, yet keep adding more and more to their pile.
Huge fallouts with major players like Eric Patterson(We all know he didn't leave for family reasons) and admittions about a horrible workplace by past employees. The only thing we have right now is a arena where pay to win is blantant and the ship combat feels off despite which preferene whether KB&M, HOTA, or console controller.
I am glad people on RSI forums are starting to wake up and not ride on CR's Idris as much. Whether we get a good game or not depends, but it will completely kill crowd funded games if it flops.
LOL Eric Patterson left because he did not want to move to LA from Texas. That is the reason behind that, but you can spen the dollar however you like. Eric was asked to move to LA because Chris was moving the heads to LA so he did not have to fly between the two locations all the time to manage to the game. Everyone but Eric was good to move and so Eric decided he wanted to part ways instead of up and move to a new location.
What a nice collection of conspiracy theories.
Lets start with Eric "Wingman" Patterson. Thats what HE has to say to you:
"Thank you all very much for the kind support. I have loved every minute at CIG, and will always support my good friend Chris and all of the wonderful people there.
I will still be around -- I love this game.
WM"
(both in HIS own livestream - where he has no obligation to buttkiss anyone (not that he is the type for it anyway !!) - and on the RSI forums). He seems to disagree with you. Too bad when reality hits you like a freight train.
Next : ship combat. Just because it "feels off" for you does not make it a universal truth that its not working. And lets not mention that we are talking about a pre-Alpha build here, that has a long way to go until it becomes a final version. We are in the playtesting phase. Thats what we are here to find out ... if anything "feels off", then WE can report it and have it changed.
And: P2W in Arena Commander ? I am a backer and subscriber. I can play any available ship in Arena Commander if I want. Although i have only pledged for one ship. And do you think one ship is too powerful in Arena Commander ? Excellent! Report it ! That is what we playtesters are DOING ! Giving feedback. Helping with balancing.
And SC fans being fanatics ? Paying 200+ $ on a new ship per month ? Once again *** excuse my French *** rubbish. You can see the numbers yourself in the data i posted earlier. Average pledge per player is around 100ish dollar. In toto. Anyone with some basic knowledge of math doing the calculations based on your claims would reach a sum of several hundred million dollars in funding by now if what you say is true. Which would be nice for Star Citizen, but unfortunately is not true.
There is no ship selling fiasco. Again - the numbers contradict you. A steady stream of tenthousands of new backers joins the game every month. Some even want ships - who would have guessed ?! Money for the game has to come from somewhere, and it should NOT be banks or publishers driven by the next quarter report and shareholder demands !
Lets look at "feature creep", shall we ? The last "feature" was promised in a stretch goal 10 months ago. The most recent "feature" stretch goal - pets in Star Citizen - is a feature already existing and available in the engine. With many available animal models. Amount of work needed to activate it in SC : Minimal. So ... which feature creep are you talking about ? Yes, the project is highly ambitious. Like most Chris Roberts projects. If he had a chance to create a game as he saw fit, he created legends (= e.g. Wing Commander). Even if he had to trim down his ideas the end result still was a great success (e.g. Freelancer). So ... we as backers now give him the time and money to do it right.
And yes, Chris Roberts (and WE the fans) push the team to work hard. VERY hard work. Not unusual for the industry, BTW. If they cannot handle the workload, the team needs either more time (which many do not want to give them) or more team members. So in my book, having more cash to pay those extra team members is a good thing. And if this money comes from more backers - more power to them. Come one, come all.
You call the SC fans cultists ? I call them dedicated, enthusiastic, optimistic - some of the greatest people i had the privilege to meet online (and offline). Many of them in their thirties and fourties, with families and everyday jobs, they grew up with Wing Commander, Freelancer and Elite. But being adults now did not make them stop dreaming. Or helping to shape a dream and making it reality.
Are forums sometimes insane ? Sure. Like most of the open game forums. Are there some nutcases amongst 670.000 people ? You bet ! Are they representative of the majority. No, they are not.
Wether we get a good game or not depends ON US. And that means team AND backers together.
Have fun
It's going to be a good game; you know it is.
I don't get the argument that it will be hard to run the game on a server at home and therefore not good. Just rent a good 1. There could be a business opportunity there. But u can mod it so mod it.
I think it is also stupid to worry about what other people are doing with their money. If someone is unaware that buying a ship is a way to fund the game and not a i win button then that is their fault for not researching a bit before they drop 1,000 on a funding package. Besides this game should be getting millions because it is a game many of us have been waiting for more than a decade.
+ it is a nice economy boost for the game dev industry. They keep hiring sub contractors to keep up which is nice to see them do because the sooner I can fly the better.
I don't see a lot of negative really. Chris still is making the game right imo. Even if all he gets right is the flight engine then that is more than we have gotten from the industry since Jumpgate.
Why not spend a few bucks on a good thing I say. Keep it coming.
I can't say their scheme back-fired. I think it has worked perfectly. For the first time in gaming history,at least on a scale so large,people have given a huge sum of money to a game that will never be. Hell, Roberts already made his money from this. After the first few months of the original kick-starter campaign, ( no, i didn't contribute), I began to wonder of this game might actually be vapor-ware, now I am sure of it. Recently they sold ships for $2,500 real dollars,lol,which sold -out quickly, all this with no real-game made. C'mon peeps, wake-up, stop drinking the kool-aid.This is a rip-off,pure and simple.
Just played two hours "vapourware" and enjoyed it. Three PvP ship kills and then 10 waves of Vanduul.
Was worth the money i put into it. So from my perspective monetization strategy worked.
Have fun
You can have fun and I am glad but the total player population of SC may suffer from how it's funding system came across as a huge vaporware scam. I love space MMOs but I won't play this one, the real life money class system will be very apparent in this new game.
The way the Devs have funded SC I wouldn't touch it with anyone's virtual pole. IMO a little bit of fund raising like this is OK, but the Devs of SC went way too far.
Same goes for other games that do this, games like SotA, I won't play them either.
Hello Gardavsshade,
I do understand the concerns w.r.t. "real life money class system". Nothing but the launch of the game and the reality of the first few months will show to what extend this was a valid concern.
What i do not understand is some peoples misconception that Star Citizen is a "huge vaporware scam".
Not once in decades of reading gaming press and playing games have I seen a dev team that is so openly communicating the status of development of the game. It does not matter wether one likes what they say or not ... but at least one CAN read and see a lot if someone just uses Google a bit. There are game elements that can be tested, so the code clearly exists. And its no some pre-made game elements from an engine-design-kit like some fraudulent early-access-game-scammers have used in recent scandals.
SC is also not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme, as any check (e.g. on Wikipedia) of what a Ponzi scheme IS shows. I play EVE Online, I have seen plenty of artfully constructed Ponzi schemes ;-)
So in summary ...
yes, someone does not have to agree with the monetization scheme.
And yes, only time will tell if the ships from higher value pledge packages are overpowered (personally, i think the opposite is more likely and some backers will wail and gnash teeth come launch).
But IMHO a clear NO to accusations of "vapourware scams" or "SC is a Ponzi scheme" ... for verifyable, objective reasons.
Have fun
I refuse to drop huge quantities of money on a game without having any idea of the quality of the finished product. If money spent up front gives an in-game advantage (and the free insurance together with the early advantage of having a high level ship is clearly an in game advantage) then I doubt I will bother playing the game.
It is not necessarily a matter of whether the game is vapour ware; it is a matter of a developer looking for more and more money for cash shop items on an unknown product. It is also a matter of the ever-moving goal posts on the items they sell in their ever-expanding cash shop. How do I know the item I buy today won't be trumped by their merciless profiteering tomorrow?
Two things to consider:
the devs already stated that the insurance in game is not very expensive. And it does not matter if your ship is life-time-insured or in-game-insured ... the insurance company will replace it the same way. Unless you plan to lose your ship every 10 mins (which IMHO wont really work due to the "Death of a Space Man" rule of the pilot dying a permadeath soon if you do it that way) there won't be much difference and for sure not a huge monetary advantage of the life-time-insurance over the normal insurance.
And there is always the possibility to "melt down" an older ship to "buy" a newer ship if you like the newer ones more. That way you don't have to spend any extra real life money on new pledge packages. If the value of the pledge package is similar, you just replace the old ship with a new one ... CIG offers a mechanic ("melting") for that.
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/183430/consequences-of-melting-my-game-package-to-get-another-game-package
Have fun
You somewhat cherry picked and then veered wildly off topic there Erillion. They were talking about the advantages of having a large powerful ship as soon as the game releases while a new player who never pledged has to work to get enough cash in game to buy a small upgrade of a ship. Add on top of that the person who pledged doesn't have to worry about money for insurance because they have lifetime insurance.
How much of an advantage it will confer if/when the game releases we will have to wait and see but for now I will be holding onto my money and waiting until well after the reviews are in to see if I will even bother with it or not.
For melting down packages to upgrade the point is kind of moot if you drop 2500 dollars on a top end ship and CIG promises this will be the best ship we sell and then 6 months down the road they release a 3000 dollar ship that will absolutely destroy anything else in space, you still feel ripped off and jaded if you want to remain top class by having to melt down your original pledge and drop another 500 on top to get the next best thing. Repeat over and over and over
Well I just logged back in, but your point was the argument I would have made, and rather more eloquently put. This is the sort of tactic of profiteering that was outlawed everywhere bar the internet years ago.
Only gamers would fall for these cheap tricks and then (worse) defend them. The mind boggles.
Remember this company has had to make NO outlay and take NO risk whatsoever to produce this product. And all the money they are earning off the back of cash shop items are paid for by your pledges, whilst they extend the programme and budget continuously, while you have no legal recourse whatsoever. More fool you.
I find anything that distorts or even removes gamesmanship and fair challenge from the MMORPG genre as distasteful and sad. The F2P model and cash shops specifically are notorious for this. The F2P model is so obnoxiously in your face and destroys any sense of immersion and is obviously designed to take advantage of the psychological and or emotional weaknesses of the player base.
What Wighty does not understand is that the intention of driving is not to race the AMG. The intention of gaming is...
nothing backfired, zero nilch
everyone in the RSI forums knows perfectly well they are just making pledges for a game that will have everything available in game for regular credits you earn.
They "advertise" ships in the pledge store by saying "YOU DON`T NEED TO BUY THIS SHIP, you can wait and get it in the ingame universe with credits"
There will be no magic super weapons that are cash shop only.
There will be no skins that are cash shop only.
There is no "premium ammo" bullshit.
The ship hulls from the pledges still need to be outfitted with improved components, better weapons, overclocking which can only be bought in universe with credits.
There are countless videos of cheap ships with good twitch pilots defeating higher price ships with noob pilots.
Star Citizen is a FPS, there is no "I WIN" button.
Like in any FPS, give a noob a bazooka and the better player will still pwn him two dozen times with a slingshot.
Everyone who keeps spreading this BS about wrong monetization is only running an agenda or has absolutely no clue whatsoever.
PERIOD