My guess for why they are raising the credit cap is that the income from selling ships is starting to dry up so they need to create another revenue stream to keep bleeding the whales dry.
>>> the income from selling ships is starting to dry up >>>
It isn't.
Have fun
And how would you know that with such certainty?
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
Right now you can pay RL money for ships. Right now you can pay RL money for land. Right now you can pay RL money for credits.
P2W.
You were the one who had a go at me, I was talking about the revenue model of the game, not the crowdfunding pledges when you accused me of lying.
On the revenue model of the MMO you CAN'T buy ships for RL money. On the revenue model of the MMO you CAN'T buy land for RL money. On the revenue model of the MMO you CAN buy credits for RL money.
On the stated revenue model maybe. They already lifted the credit cap that was supposed to help stem the tide of P2W. They'll likely change models again because it will mean more money.
Even if they don't:
Right now you can pay RL money for ships. Right now you can pay RL money for land. Right now you can pay RL money for credits.
And then these things follow them into live. That is why your clarification actually has no bearing on whether or not the game is P2W. People are, right now, participating in the P2W aspects. Pretending like it isn't true doesn't make it not true.
On the stated revenue model maybe. They already lifted the credit cap that was supposed to help stem the tide of P2W. They'll likely change models again because it will mean more money.
Even if they don't:
Right now you can pay RL money for ships. Right now you can pay RL money for land. Right now you can pay RL money for credits.
And then these things follow them into live. That is why your clarification actually has no bearing on whether or not the game is P2W. People are, right now, participating in the P2W aspects. Pretending like it isn't true doesn't make it not true.
P2W.
There was never a change of model, the currency microtransaction was then and is now, the crowdfunding pledges were never the model, the microtransaction wasn't the focus until now because it has to reach the point this is all in-game first.
It will always be a matter of opinion, as it always was.
On the revenue model of the MMO you CAN'T buy ships for RL money. On the revenue model of the MMO you CAN'T buy land for RL money. On the revenue model of the MMO you CAN buy credits for RL money.
My guess for why they are raising the credit cap is that the income from selling ships is starting to dry up so they need to create another revenue stream to keep bleeding the whales dry.
>>> the income from selling ships is starting to dry up >>>
Unless hundreds of developers have been working for free for years, CIG is spending quite a bit on salaries of their approx. 500 employees.
And if i am not completely mistaken, this money is coming from selling pledge packages.
And as you can see from the crowdfunding data ... this income follows a typical pattern every year. And has been pretty steady and stable, gaining 190+ million dollar so far.
Agreed, 100%. Like or hate the game, there is no denying any longer that this game will be one of the ultimate P2W games on the market upon release.
This is so delusional
SC model doesn't compare to the model of MMO's like World of Tanks, hell if SC was to "be the ultimate", then SC would become one of the most profitable games in the world, what WOT generates in a few months greatly surpasses what SC crowdfunded in its history.
World of Tanks really isn't a good comparison:
It's not an MMO. It's a pvp arena game.
The tanks you can buy for RL money are generally inferior to their tech tree counterparts.
The need to spend gold, which is purchased with RL money, on premium ammo was done away with years ago. You can buy it with in game credits and most people only carry about 50% or less of their total ammo load with premium rounds (probably more in clan battles or other special events, though). It's way too expensive to run exclusively with premium rounds.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
On the stated revenue model maybe. They already lifted the credit cap that was supposed to help stem the tide of P2W. They'll likely change models again because it will mean more money.
Even if they don't:
Right now you can pay RL money for ships. Right now you can pay RL money for land. Right now you can pay RL money for credits.
And then these things follow them into live. That is why your clarification actually has no bearing on whether or not the game is P2W. People are, right now, participating in the P2W aspects. Pretending like it isn't true doesn't make it not true.
P2W.
There was never a change of model, the currency microtransaction was then and is now, the crowdfunding pledges were never the model, the microtransaction wasn't the focus until now because it has to reach the point this is all in-game first.
It will always be a matter of opinion, as it always was.
On the revenue model of the MMO you CAN'T buy ships for RL money. On the revenue model of the MMO you CAN'T buy land for RL money. On the revenue model of the MMO you CAN buy credits for RL money.
Link me to their model. I believe you are lying to me. Again.
You DO know that the vast majority of the Voyager Direct items has been bought with the UEC that was
a) in the pledge packages
b) stretch goal rewards
c) gifts from CIG to the backers,
do you not ?
Very little of that was bought with UEC that had been bought with the 1000:1 conversion.
Sure, some maybe did. I know no one that did it.
CIG has plans to sell some in game items for real life cash. They mentioned so far:
a) simple small starter ships
b) decorative items
c) basic ship modules
d) paint schemes
e) temporary boost items (with a small effect, low single digit percentage .. speed ? Turn rate ?)
f) story DLCs (which i think will be the major source of revenue)
g) UEC for cash at 1000:1 rate (i have already often posted here why this is a ridiculous rate and almost no one will use it ... following the example of all the other space games, where shortly after launch players make millions/billions/trillions of in game cash and no one gives a hares' fart about 1000 UEC for 1 buck).
Have fun
No Erillion, there are certainly people that have obtained VD items with gifted UEC but there has also been a lot of people that were buying items with cash. Pretending that such a thing did not occur just shows how willing you are to bend the truth because I cannot believe that someone who follows Star Citizen far more than me has not seen this over the years...
Again, you cannot categorically state that very little UEC has been bought, you simply do not have the facts to back that up. You can explain why you think it might be the case but presenting it as a authoritive statement is just foolhardy.
CIG have said they want UEC sales to be a major part of their income post release, you can add as many alternatives to the list as you want but it does not change CIG's statement on the matter.
The tanks you can buy for RL money are generally inferior to their tech tree counterparts.
The need to spend gold, which is purchased with RL money, on premium ammo was done away with years ago. You can buy it with in game credits and most people only carry about 50% or less of their total ammo load with premium rounds (probably more in clan battles or other special events, though). It's way too expensive to run exclusively with premium rounds.
Well if one is thinking these things you pledge for SC will be instant end-game best gear they're in for a surprise, the base ship hull and loadout is just the start.
And SC will be the same, like the currency valuation is highly expensive, if you were to buy one Idris once in-game with UEC, you'd be looking as it was hinted already at 3x more expensive, hence 1k ship becomes 3k, then if you say loose a battle and want to pay to not wait for delivery, you're looking at 25% of the ship total cost, so it'd be a 750$ only for that, it's ridonculous expensive, that alone would require you several months of buying currency, that's why the 750$ current cap feels a lot but with the current talked valuation, not so much.
My guess for why they are raising the credit cap is that the income from selling ships is starting to dry up so they need to create another revenue stream to keep bleeding the whales dry.
They're prpobably thinking better to do it now than after the game goes live... it certainly helps that they've stopped issuing refunds so people can't bail if they disapprove and I dare say they felt emboldend by recently winning that small claims case.
You can pay RL money for ships. You can pay RL money for land. You can pay RL money for credits.
You CAN'T buy ships for RL money. You CAN'T buy land for RL money. You CAN buy credits for RL money.
That is the monetization model stated and restated to sustain the game when released past its crowdfund.
Your fellow SC White Knight Erillion just confirmed the opposite. Do you really wanna keep saying you can't buy those things with RL money?
I think MaxBacon means ... cannot buy ships except starter ships. There HAS to be a way for a new player to get into space ;-)
With land ... he is correct ... to our current knowledge after launch you can buy land only with a significant amount of in game cash. Not directly with real life cash.
With UEC .. see my arguments that people wont bother with a 1000: 1 conversion rate, when players will make millions/billions/trillions of in game cash shortly after launch ... after the first player has learned how to gamble the trade system. All the other space games show that this is EXACTLY what has happened in all the other games shortly after they launched. With EVE being a prime example.
Have fun
Your post contains assumptions about the end game product, much like the assumption that having access to multiple high-priced ships will offer a distinct advantage that can be leveraged at release (or, likely with crowdfunded projects, before release, as there's usually a headstart period for backers).
If defenders are okay with assumptions of end-game product environment, it's basically a wash to continue debating. Both sides are assuming something will turn out the way that enables their prediction to come true.
And I didn't. That's the early confirmation of currency microtransaction and the move of the things to in-game earning, this has been reconfirmed over the years.
I feel like most of the arguments are coming from individuals that are only trying, or can only view the P2W scenario as a black or white situation, and I do not mean black or white as in a good vs evil stand point, but more of stark contrasts. I understand that many consumers have been burned by shady publishers in the past.
But...
Just like apples and oranges are not comparable in flavor, you can not compare one game to another, at least not entirely.
It is my understanding that SC will play much more like a "survival" game than a traditional MMO. Now, that of course does not clear up the reserved feelings or those set in stone, about P2W scenarios that most of us have. With that said, until the game is in a close to released state or at least more evidence of SC's economy in practice no one can say definitively that SC will absolutely be P2W.
I myself am weary of their financial model. As well I understand that this will impact the economy in some way. It is possible that it will only effect the games community and economy in a minor way. So I will dare to hold out hope that this will not define, not just SC's economy, but the game as a whole.
It does not hurt to throw around speculation, but do please try and provide insight from experience or factual information before saying one thing over another.
It is one thing to be an irrational voice in the crowd, but it is another to dignify yourself in a debate.
"We'll cap purchase of in-game credits to avoid someone unbalancing the game / economy."
Cap of total credits has been removed.
The daily cap has not been removed, that is the important cap.
The total credits cap was highly pointless, you could just spend your bought credits in-game and keep buying more, with or without the cap, you can spend a max of 750$ a month in currency.
"We'll cap purchase of in-game credits to avoid someone unbalancing the game / economy."
Cap of total credits has been removed.
The daily cap has not been removed, that is the important cap.
The total credits cap was highly pointless, you could just spend your bought credits in-game and keep buying more, with or without the cap, you can spend a max of 750$ a month in currency.
You can pay RL money for ships. You can pay RL money for land. You can pay RL money for credits.
You CAN'T buy ships for RL money. You CAN'T buy land for RL money. You CAN buy credits for RL money.
That is the monetization model stated and restated to sustain the game when released past its crowdfund.
Your fellow SC White Knight Erillion just confirmed the opposite. Do you really wanna keep saying you can't buy those things with RL money?
I think MaxBacon means ... cannot buy ships except starter ships. There HAS to be a way for a new player to get into space ;-)
With land ... he is correct ... to our current knowledge after launch you can buy land only with a significant amount of in game cash. Not directly with real life cash.
With UEC .. see my arguments that people wont bother with a 1000: 1 conversion rate, when players will make millions/billions/trillions of in game cash shortly after launch ... after the first player has learned how to gamble the trade system. All the other space games show that this is EXACTLY what has happened in all the other games shortly after they launched. With EVE being a prime example.
Have fun
So as of right now, can you buy all of those things with RL cash? If so, Max bacon is wrong and he should stop spreading his false narrative otherwise he's just...fake news.
Exactly. Erillion is someone I have watched for years defending this project. I respect him as he is very much a White Knight for the game yet he does not spread fake news. At the same time, I do not understand why the White Knights for the game will not readily admit that this game is and will be a P2W business model game. Chris selling $27,000 packages proves this point.
The tanks you can buy for RL money are generally inferior to their tech tree counterparts.
The need to spend gold, which is purchased with RL money, on premium ammo was done away with years ago. You can buy it with in game credits and most people only carry about 50% or less of their total ammo load with premium rounds (probably more in clan battles or other special events, though). It's way too expensive to run exclusively with premium rounds.
Well if one is thinking these things you pledge for SC will be instant end-game best gear they're in for a surprise, the base ship hull and loadout is just the start.
And SC will be the same, like the currency valuation is highly expensive, if you were to buy one Idris once in-game with UEC, you'd be looking as it was hinted already at 3x more expensive, hence 1k ship becomes 3k, then if you say loose a battle and want to pay to not wait for delivery, you're looking at 25% of the ship total cost, so it'd be a 750$ only for that, it's ridonculous expensive, that alone would require you several months of buying currency, that's why the 750$ current cap feels a lot but with the current talked valuation, not so much.
The Idris will cost far more than that in game considering what Chris said in 2016 when talking about prices ramping up hard and fast. Remember the Polaris example, a $750 ship costing 30 million UEC in game (a 40x multiplier). That would make the Idris cost the equivalent of $40,000 in game (40 million UEC) so the expediated recall cost using your 25% example would mean $10,000 and that is obviously not going to be the case.
As a side note if they do put ship prices that high it would take someone 1.5 years to earn a Polaris if they played 40 hours a week and were bringing in 10,000 UEC per hour. That is one of the reasons people are so against this pay to win crap.
"We'll cap purchase of in-game credits to avoid someone unbalancing the game / economy."
Cap of total credits has been removed.
The daily cap has not been removed, that is the important cap.
The total credits cap was highly pointless, you could just spend your bought credits in-game and keep buying more, with or without the cap, you can spend a max of 750$ a month in currency.
Only $750?
When you consider the planned in-game costs of ships and such being wanted around 3x more expensive than the current USD:UEC value, you are talking one 100$ ship becoming a 300$ one, the valuation of the currency is going to make it expensive to put up money in the game to try to progress that way.
One Idris would be 3000$, that is 4 months buying currency to get, it's a lot of money but not a lot of in-game worth.
The Idris will cost far more than that in game considering what Chris said in 2016 when talking about prices ramping up hard and fast. Remember the Polaris example, a $750 ship costing 30 million UEC in game (a 40x multiplier). That would make the Idris cost the equivalent of $40,000 in game (40 million UEC) so the expediated recall cost using your 25% example would mean $10,000 and that is obviously not going to be the case.
As a side note if they do put ship prices that high it would take someone 1.5 years to earn a Polaris if they played 40 hours a week and were bringing in 10,000 UEC per hour. That is one of the reasons people are so against this pay to win crap.
I mean yeah he mentioned millions of UEC.
If one Idris that on pledge costs 1000$, becomes 40,000$ on buying UEC to buy in-game, the valuation of the UEC against the dollar is enormous, the amount of people that would be capable to even pay that much makes it unlikely of this being capable to cause a dent on the economy.
And is that unfair? I don't think so because then the microtransaction won't be of much influence on the late-game type of stuff, capitals, the best gear, etc...
Well coming from the guy who said they don't sell ships for money...
How exactly do you think they get revenue?
No, I said that was not the revenue model of the game, the revenue model of the game is this, currency microtransaction, and the ship starter packages that is how you buy the game.
The concept sale crowdfunding is how they fund the game, this was never meant to be the actual revenue model of it, neither is the microtransaction model implemented in-game yet (hence why they couldn't have funded the game with it, get it?).
Repeating your opinion doesn't make it valid Repeating your opinion doesn't make it valid Repeating your opinion doesn't make it valid Repeating your opinion doesn't make it valid Repeating your opinion doesn't make it valid Repeating your opinion doesn't make it valid
Why did you repeat your opinion so many times then? Was it a test or .. Im confused. I say let these guy try and see what happens!
We need a virtual arm wrestling table with winner take all for the prize.
The reason I like these threads is to read your comments. It's like finding a happy puppy in the middle of a nuclear wasteland.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
Comments
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
Even if they don't:
Right now you can pay RL money for ships.
Right now you can pay RL money for land.
Right now you can pay RL money for credits.
And then these things follow them into live. That is why your clarification actually has no bearing on whether or not the game is P2W. People are, right now, participating in the P2W aspects. Pretending like it isn't true doesn't make it not true.
P2W.
There was never a change of model, the currency microtransaction was then and is now, the crowdfunding pledges were never the model, the microtransaction wasn't the focus until now because it has to reach the point this is all in-game first.
It will always be a matter of opinion, as it always was.
On the revenue model of the MMO you CAN'T buy ships for RL money.
On the revenue model of the MMO you CAN'T buy land for RL money.
On the revenue model of the MMO you CAN buy credits for RL money.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
No Erillion, there are certainly people that have obtained VD items with gifted UEC but there has also been a lot of people that were buying items with cash. Pretending that such a thing did not occur just shows how willing you are to bend the truth because I cannot believe that someone who follows Star Citizen far more than me has not seen this over the years...
Again, you cannot categorically state that very little UEC has been bought, you simply do not have the facts to back that up. You can explain why you think it might be the case but presenting it as a authoritive statement is just foolhardy.
CIG have said they want UEC sales to be a major part of their income post release, you can add as many alternatives to the list as you want but it does not change CIG's statement on the matter.
And SC will be the same, like the currency valuation is highly expensive, if you were to buy one Idris once in-game with UEC, you'd be looking as it was hinted already at 3x more expensive, hence 1k ship becomes 3k, then if you say loose a battle and want to pay to not wait for delivery, you're looking at 25% of the ship total cost, so it'd be a 750$ only for that, it's ridonculous expensive, that alone would require you several months of buying currency, that's why the 750$ current cap feels a lot but with the current talked valuation, not so much.
If defenders are okay with assumptions of end-game product environment, it's basically a wash to continue debating. Both sides are assuming something will turn out the way that enables their prediction to come true.
And I didn't. That's the early confirmation of currency microtransaction and the move of the things to in-game earning, this has been reconfirmed over the years.
But...
Just like apples and oranges are not comparable in flavor, you can not compare one game to another, at least not entirely.
It is my understanding that SC will play much more like a "survival" game than a traditional MMO. Now, that of course does not clear up the reserved feelings or those set in stone, about P2W scenarios that most of us have. With that said, until the game is in a close to released state or at least more evidence of SC's economy in practice no one can say definitively that SC will absolutely be P2W.
I myself am weary of their financial model. As well I understand that this will impact the economy in some way. It is possible that it will only effect the games community and economy in a minor way. So I will dare to hold out hope that this will not define, not just SC's economy, but the game as a whole.
It does not hurt to throw around speculation, but do please try and provide insight from experience or factual information before saying one thing over another.
It is one thing to be an irrational voice in the crowd, but it is another to dignify yourself in a debate.
Cap of total credits has been removed.
The total credits cap was highly pointless, you could just spend your bought credits in-game and keep buying more, with or without the cap, you can spend a max of 750$ a month in currency.
Have fun
As a side note if they do put ship prices that high it would take someone 1.5 years to earn a Polaris if they played 40 hours a week and were bringing in 10,000 UEC per hour. That is one of the reasons people are so against this pay to win crap.
One Idris would be 3000$, that is 4 months buying currency to get, it's a lot of money but not a lot of in-game worth.
If one Idris that on pledge costs 1000$, becomes 40,000$ on buying UEC to buy in-game, the valuation of the UEC against the dollar is enormous, the amount of people that would be capable to even pay that much makes it unlikely of this being capable to cause a dent on the economy.
And is that unfair? I don't think so because then the microtransaction won't be of much influence on the late-game type of stuff, capitals, the best gear, etc...
Talking about the revenue model of SC; not the crowdfunding pledges.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/The concept sale crowdfunding is how they fund the game, this was never meant to be the actual revenue model of it, neither is the microtransaction model implemented in-game yet (hence why they couldn't have funded the game with it, get it?).