What a horrible game !

rpmcmurphy

Here's an example of the post-release business model



Note that the 2 games are "extras", the main course are the ships...

maskedweasel

rpmcmurphy said:

Here's an example of the post-release business model



Note that the 2 games are "extras", the main course are the ships...

But apparently this business model is considered "crowdfunding"

MaxBacon

maskedweasel said:

Sea of thieves technical alpha required insider access, so it wasn't really a "free" play weekend necessarily, but it was also a prelude to beta, they were at their final stage of alpha, instead of what isn't even being considered a pre-alpha.  

But we've already established that what SC is doing, isn't based around testing and instead based around trying to drum up business. 

The financials listed were almost from a year ago, and I'm not sure what it's trying to prove. They should easily have had enough funding to complete the game, and that they're continuing to count development costs accrued as profit should be worrisome, but I really don't care enough dredge through the documents looking for inconsistencies.  

It's trivial.  

The financials are always from a year ago, that's how filing works. It just shows that reality gap between what people think it's obscene amounts of money, and how much it costs to maintain operations and pay wagers of hundreds, it simply shows they need the continuous funding to maintain the continuous development of this project, as the money gets re-invested, not profit (that wording is not about pledge income it's the studio company setup), profit can't be considered profit until the contract is earned (aka game delivered), that wouldn't be the case if SC was like steam early access games where you buy the unfinished product not entitled to the finished one.

MaxBacon

rpmcmurphy said:

Here's an example of the post-release business model

To all that was stated those packages are not the post-release model, the starter packages are, and they currently stand as 2 ships, it's said that more ships will be added to that then. So no, the fleet packages are not the post-release business model, unless you want to provide sources it is? :P 

Erillion

rpmcmurphy said:

Here's an example of the post-release business model



Note that the 2 games are "extras", the main course are the ships...

Once again shows that you have no idea what you talk about.

According to our current information only starter ships will be sold post-release. The convoy pack you showed will not be sold. 


Have fun 

maskedweasel

MaxBacon said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Here's an example of the post-release business model

To all that was stated those packages are not the post-release model, the starter packages are, and they currently stand as 2 ships, it's said that more ships will be added to that then. So no, the fleet packages are not the post-release business model, unless you want to provide sources it is? :P 

 Perhaps you can enlighten us about the post-release payment model then. Apparently, from what we're being told, it's "Crowdfunding". 

Erillion

maskedweasel said:

MaxBacon said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Here's an example of the post-release business model

To all that was stated those packages are not the post-release model, the starter packages are, and they currently stand as 2 ships, it's said that more ships will be added to that then. So no, the fleet packages are not the post-release business model, unless you want to provide sources it is? :P 

 Perhaps you can enlighten us about the post-release payment model then. Apparently, from what we're being told, it's "Crowdfunding". 

And another that has no idea what he is talking about. 

No one has claimed that the post-release model is based on crowdfunding. That is only what you think you read. 


Have fun

P.S. 
Still waiting for the quotes from the official FAQ you claim to refer to. 

MaxBacon

maskedweasel said:

 Perhaps you can enlighten us about the post-release payment model then. Apparently, from what we're being told, it's "Crowdfunding". 

It is publicly known, SC is sold with starter packages as seen here: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/star-citizen/fly-now (it's stated they'll add more ships to the ones already there). And the main model will be the currency microtransaction, like EvE and such, you buy currency, beyond that like skins and such not fully confirmed outside of "character slots", when you buy a package you buy a character slot.

Erillion

Let's not forget they plan to sell Story DLCs for SQ42


Have fun

rpmcmurphy

Erillion said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Here's an example of the post-release business model



Note that the 2 games are "extras", the main course are the ships...

Once again shows that you have no idea what you talk about.

According to our current information only starter ships will be sold post-release. The convoy pack you showed will not be sold. 


Have fun 

Oh sweet summer child, it's you that doesn't know what you are talking about. You hold onto this childish pipedream that nothing but starter ships will be sold despite no remaining evidence to support your position apart from nonsensical excuses like "Chris was tipsy and mispoke" and "the community manager knows more than the CEO"...

CIG go back on their word for virtually everything yet for some daft reason you believe this one thing is immune to any change, need I remind you that only recently they removed the cash 4 UEC cap that you repeatedly said would stop P2W ship owners from getting advantages....

rertez

MaxBacon said:

maskedweasel said:

Sea of thieves technical alpha required insider access, so it wasn't really a "free" play weekend necessarily, but it was also a prelude to beta, they were at their final stage of alpha, instead of what isn't even being considered a pre-alpha.  

But we've already established that what SC is doing, isn't based around testing and instead based around trying to drum up business. 

The financials listed were almost from a year ago, and I'm not sure what it's trying to prove. They should easily have had enough funding to complete the game, and that they're continuing to count development costs accrued as profit should be worrisome, but I really don't care enough dredge through the documents looking for inconsistencies.  

It's trivial.  

The financials are always from a year ago, that's how filing works. It just shows that reality gap between what people think it's obscene amounts of money, and how much it costs to maintain operations and pay wagers of hundreds, it simply shows they need the continuous funding to maintain the continuous development of this project, as the money gets re-invested, not profit (that wording is not about pledge income it's the studio company setup), profit can't be considered profit until the contract is earned (aka game delivered), that wouldn't be the case if SC was like steam early access games where you buy the unfinished product not entitled to the finished one.

Hasn't SC been "akin to early access" since the launch of Alpha 3.0? It was Chris Roberts to say that in an interview if I'm not mistaken. That was a main reason why people had high hopes for the 3.0 launch and if I remember correctly CIG also explained their delay with not meeting Chris's standards and it resulted Alpha 3.0 launching almost a year later than expected. And then 3.0 happened the way it did. Some backers found it good enogh and some found it lacking and rushed even though it was delayed and rescaled a couple of times.

Correct me if I'm wrong since I'm just a guy who casually picks up pieces of information about this project and I'm sure hard core fans are more knowlegable than me.

Erillion

Current official position - only starter ships (currently 2) will be sold post-release. 

'nuff said


Have fun

MaxBacon

rpmcmurphy said:

Oh sweet summer child, it's you that doesn't know what you are talking about. You hold onto this childish pipedream that nothing but starter ships will be sold despite no remaining evidence to support your position apart from nonsensical excuses like "Chris was tipsy and mispoke" and "the community manager knows more than the CEO"...

CIG go back on their word for virtually everything yet for some daft reason you believe this one thing is immune to any change, need I remind you that only recently they removed the cash 4 UEC cap that you repeatedly said would stop P2W ship owners from getting advantages....

Hey, you were the one making a statement that is not true, the information available stands until and if it changes. In proper terms, you misinform people by stating such, you could just say "I think this is what will be the post-launch revenue model".

rpmcmurphy

MaxBacon said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Here's an example of the post-release business model

To all that was stated those packages are not the post-release model, the starter packages are, and they currently stand as 2 ships, it's said that more ships will be added to that then. So no, the fleet packages are not the post-release business model, unless you want to provide sources it is? :P 

The Shadow Hornet is not a starter ship and that was the example given by CR. So unless you've got anything to back up your claims...

After release they will be selling all sorts of ship packages as well as concept ships, unlimited UEC etc.

Erillion

rertez said:

MaxBacon said:

maskedweasel said:

Sea of thieves technical alpha required insider access, so it wasn't really a "free" play weekend necessarily, but it was also a prelude to beta, they were at their final stage of alpha, instead of what isn't even being considered a pre-alpha.  

But we've already established that what SC is doing, isn't based around testing and instead based around trying to drum up business. 

The financials listed were almost from a year ago, and I'm not sure what it's trying to prove. They should easily have had enough funding to complete the game, and that they're continuing to count development costs accrued as profit should be worrisome, but I really don't care enough dredge through the documents looking for inconsistencies.  

It's trivial.  

The financials are always from a year ago, that's how filing works. It just shows that reality gap between what people think it's obscene amounts of money, and how much it costs to maintain operations and pay wagers of hundreds, it simply shows they need the continuous funding to maintain the continuous development of this project, as the money gets re-invested, not profit (that wording is not about pledge income it's the studio company setup), profit can't be considered profit until the contract is earned (aka game delivered), that wouldn't be the case if SC was like steam early access games where you buy the unfinished product not entitled to the finished one.

Hasn't SC been "akin to early access" since the launch of Alpha 3.0? It was Chris Roberts to say that in an interview if I'm not mistaken. That was a main reason why people had high hopes for the 3.0 launch and if I remember correctly CIG also explained their delay with not meeting Chris's standards and it resulted Alpha 3.0 launching almost a year later than expected. And then 3.0 happened the way it did. Some backers found it good enogh and some found it lacking and rushed even though it was delayed and rescaled a couple of times.

Correct me if I'm wrong since I'm just a guy who casually picks up pieces of information about this project and I'm sure hard core fans are more knowlegable than me.

You will find a detailed status of development thread here in this forum. With grafical representation of current status of work.


Have fun 

MaxBacon

rertez said:

Hasn't SC been "akin to early access" since the launch of Alpha 3.0? It was Chris Roberts to say that in an interview if I'm not mistaken. That was a main reason why people had high hopes for the 3.0 launch and if I remember correctly CIG also explained their delay with not meeting Chris's standards and it resulted Alpha 3.0 launching almost a year later than expected. And then 3.0 happened the way it did. Some backers found it good enogh and some found it lacking and rushed even though it was delayed and rescaled a couple of times.

Correct me if I'm wrong since I'm just a guy who casually picks up pieces of information about this project and I'm sure hard core fans are more knowlegable than me.

That does not imply that, in Steam it does because those are the terms of the store as to what are you buying. When you pledge SC, you are entitled to a product that is not released yet, instead of just being entitled to what the game was the moment you bought it (like with Steam's Early Access).

MaxBacon

rpmcmurphy said:

The Shadow Hornet is not a starter ship and that was the example given by CR. So unless you've got anything to back up your claims...

After release they will be selling all sorts of ship packages as well as concept ships, unlimited UEC etc.

In context, that's when CR said they planned to add more ships as starter ships beyond the Mustang and the Aurora, that's how far that went, this hasn't happened yet.

rpmcmurphy

Erillion said:

Current official position - only starter ships (currently 2) will be sold post-release. 
'nuff said
Have fun

Prove it then.

BeansnBread

I like how even the hardcore supporters use the word "currently" or "current" to describe the CIG position. They know it's going to change.

Also, their payment model will be $750/month for people that want to purchase in game credits. And Land sales. And of course, they will lighten their position on ship selling post release as well just like they did for the UEC cap release.

rpmcmurphy

rertez said:

MaxBacon said:

maskedweasel said:

Sea of thieves technical alpha required insider access, so it wasn't really a "free" play weekend necessarily, but it was also a prelude to beta, they were at their final stage of alpha, instead of what isn't even being considered a pre-alpha.  

But we've already established that what SC is doing, isn't based around testing and instead based around trying to drum up business. 

The financials listed were almost from a year ago, and I'm not sure what it's trying to prove. They should easily have had enough funding to complete the game, and that they're continuing to count development costs accrued as profit should be worrisome, but I really don't care enough dredge through the documents looking for inconsistencies.  

It's trivial.  

The financials are always from a year ago, that's how filing works. It just shows that reality gap between what people think it's obscene amounts of money, and how much it costs to maintain operations and pay wagers of hundreds, it simply shows they need the continuous funding to maintain the continuous development of this project, as the money gets re-invested, not profit (that wording is not about pledge income it's the studio company setup), profit can't be considered profit until the contract is earned (aka game delivered), that wouldn't be the case if SC was like steam early access games where you buy the unfinished product not entitled to the finished one.

Hasn't SC been "akin to early access" since the launch of Alpha 3.0? It was Chris Roberts to say that in an interview if I'm not mistaken. That was a main reason why people had high hopes for the 3.0 launch and if I remember correctly CIG also explained their delay with not meeting Chris's standards and it resulted Alpha 3.0 launching almost a year later than expected. And then 3.0 happened the way it did. Some backers found it good enogh and some found it lacking and rushed even though it was delayed and rescaled a couple of times.

Correct me if I'm wrong since I'm just a guy who casually picks up pieces of information about this project and I'm sure hard core fans are more knowlegable than me.

That was from this Eurogamer interview https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-08-29-star-citizen-would-be-the-worst-scam-in-the-world

At Gamescom we're getting a good look at Star Citizen version 3.0. Are you in a state now that you'd term beta? What's next?

Chris Roberts: The term beta in terms of Star Citizen - with 3.0 the game is moving into a phase akin to Early Access. It'll build and grow from there, and then you could say 'well, it's not really Early Access anymore'. The price will probably go up a little bit and it will have much more of the features and content going on.

MaxBacon

BeansnBread said:

I like how even the hardcore supporters use the word "currently" or "current" to describe the CIG position. They know it's going to change.

Also, their payment model will be $750/month for people that want to purchase in game credits. And Land sales. And of course, they will lighten their position on ship selling post release as well just like they did for the UEC cap release.

No, it means it is what it is, you can't come here lime rpm having a go making statements out of his opinion.

Land sales are no post-launch revenue model. Also, you could put 750$ a month in the game currency before and after the max cap was removed (another point where @rpmcmurphy is spitting out BS with "unlimited UEC").

Hyperpsycrow

Stop calling me a troll you damm dimwits..just because i make a honest experience of the game

and tells how bad it is in the current state after 7 years of dev. I believe space robert has created a skeleton of a game and then he/they add new spaceships you can buy for ect 100+ $ Its pyramid scheme sort of..Its bitconnect all over again.

Think of it 7 years !!!

Wake up !

I feel sad for you people who bought over 100 $ of spaceships.

This game is not even worth 35 $.

If it was free to play then i would not even write this post.

BeansnBread

MaxBacon said:

BeansnBread said:

I like how even the hardcore supporters use the word "currently" or "current" to describe the CIG position. They know it's going to change.

Also, their payment model will be $750/month for people that want to purchase in game credits. And Land sales. And of course, they will lighten their position on ship selling post release as well just like they did for the UEC cap release.

No, it means it is what it is, you can't come here lime rpm having a go making statements out of his opinion.

Land sales are no post-launch revenue model. Also, you could put 750$ a month in the game currency before and after the max cap was removed (another point where @rpmcmurphy is spitting out BS with "unlimited UEC").

I mean, keep misrepresenting. The funny thing is that you are acting like I said it wasn't always $750/month for credits. I only said that it was part of their payment model, so thanks for giving a big agreement there.

$750/month for in game credits.

Erillion's old argument that the game isn't pay to win because of the 150k cap has already been destroyed. It'll be interesting to see how forgiving and how much your argument changes once they announce ships for sale. Just like when they removed the 150k cap of credits.

MaxBacon

BeansnBread said:

I mean, keep misrepresenting. The funny thing is that you are acting like I said it wasn't always $750/month for credits. I only said that it was part of their payment model, so thanks for giving a big agreement there.

$750/month for in game credits.

Erillion's old argument that the game isn't pay to win because of the 150k cap has already been destroyed. It'll be interesting to see how forgiving and how much your argument changes once they announce ships for sale. Just like when they removed the 150k cap of credits.

It's not misrepresenting.

It was always 750$ max per month in credits, and today it still is. The old argument is irrelevant if you could always put the same amount of UEC in the game, then what does change? The only thing you had to do to bypass the older cap was to spend and re-earn the UEC by the game (aka a trade run).

rpmcmurphy

MaxBacon said:

BeansnBread said:

I like how even the hardcore supporters use the word "currently" or "current" to describe the CIG position. They know it's going to change.

Also, their payment model will be $750/month for people that want to purchase in game credits. And Land sales. And of course, they will lighten their position on ship selling post release as well just like they did for the UEC cap release.

No, it means it is what it is, you can't come here lime rpm having a go making statements out of his opinion.

Land sales are no post-launch revenue model. Also, you could put 750$ a month in the game currency before and after the max cap was removed (another point where @rpmcmurphy is spitting out BS with "unlimited UEC").

The only person spitting out bullshit is you and Erillion. You both claim X but offer no proof to back up your claims. My position is based on CIG's continual walk-back of previous statements and their CEO saying something contrary to both of your claims.

Perhaps "unlimited" UEC was a bad choice of words but to my mind $750 per month (per account) on in-game currency might as well be 'unlimited', that's 12 AAA games in a month for comparison.

Any luck with that proof yet Max?