• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

noyram23

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,372
Yes, much more fine imo. Since gambling is a legit problem in todays society.

And yes, they have had major problems with feature creep and management problems, but that doesn't change the fact regarding the monetization model.
Think about this you're paying $675 on top of $1000 for a non existent ship on a unfinished game, that ship will add features on the game in which has a huge problem with feature creep already.
They are offering ships, nobody is forced to buy them. It's very obvious that fans of this game want to get them, to try them out in game, get their friends on board, fly, have fun and experience some of the content that's in alpha. The game has over 2 million backers, some wanting online shared space and some waiting for Squadron 42 singleplayer content that is slowly approaching release.

I don't see why is that offending so many people.

Yes, game is large and not yet done, but it's very ambitious, it used brand new advanced tech, and it already offers a fun playground for those who want to fly in prerelease version.
You can do that same argument on mtx, lootbox and a lot of scummy things in the word, you don't have to buy them. They're taking advantage of people who clearly wants the game and invested a lot already.

Why do you need to pay for dinner to pay for $675, why does it cost $675 to begin with? Why do you have to spend $1000 already?

We're not offended, we're just calling out the devs on how gross their monetization is. It's same as calling out rampant mtx and lootboxes plaguing the industry right now.
 

Ryo Hazuki

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,507
I just don't understand why in-game items are costing $675. Can anyone explain or justify why items cost that much real money? It seems insane and a completely absurd price.
 

Deleted member 1589

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,576
If the game emphasis is on gameplay (like controlling the craft), the very first thing to lock down would be the gameplay and the everything else.

But the recent alpha builds shows extremely heavy emphasis on game visuals (very evident by the huge download and heavy on visual processing loads).

I would expect the game in early stages to literally be boxes of geometry to control and game world filled with less geometry and almost void of textures as I check around the gameplay, gameplay loop, flight controller etc.
This.
 
Dec 8, 2018
1,911
If the game emphasis is on gameplay (like controlling the craft), the very first thing to lock down would be the gameplay and the everything else.

But the recent alpha builds shows extremely heavy emphasis on game visuals (very evident by the huge download and heavy on visual processing loads).

I would expect the game in early stages to literally be boxes of geometry to control and game world filled with less geometry and almost void of textures as I check around the gameplay, gameplay loop, flight controller etc.

Hard to sell 675$ dollar triangles to whales.
 

fanboi

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,702
Sweden
If the game emphasis is on gameplay (like controlling the craft), the very first thing to lock down would be the gameplay and the everything else.

But the recent alpha builds shows extremely heavy emphasis on game visuals (very evident by the huge download and heavy on visual processing loads).

I would expect the game in early stages to literally be boxes of geometry to control and game world filled with less geometry and almost void of textures as I check around the gameplay, gameplay loop, flight controls etc.

Tbf, I am not part of any game development, so cant argue when this should be set. I belive I read somewhere that in Elite, which is one of the best in-regards to controling a craft, it came very late (the finished version). But don't quote me on that since I am unsure.
 

fanboi

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,702
Sweden
Think about this you're paying $675 on top of $1000 for a non existent ship on a unfinished game, that ship will add features on the game in which has a huge problem with feature creep already.

You can do that same argument on mtx, lootbox and a lot of scummy things in the word, you don't have to buy them. They're taking advantage of people who clearly wants the game and invested a lot already.

Why do you need to pay for dinner to pay for $675, why does it cost $675 to begin with? Why do you have to spend $1000 already?

We're not offended, we're just calling out the devs on how gross their monetization is. It's same as calling out rampant mtx and lootboxes plaguing the industry right now.

Yes? I agree their whole model is not a good one, but on the flipside, what should they replace it with? Since their community was in favour of continuing to add more ships and stuff. Yes, their management should have been better to mitigate the cost, but that is what it is, and they have become much much better in delivering stuff now.

And no, you can't do the same for lootboxes and the like since it triggers a part in the brain that caters to gambling.

Apex thread changed my mind regarding this.
 

fick

Alt-Account
Banned
Nov 24, 2018
2,261
Totally normal situation, not a scam.

The scope creep fits perfectly with a scam. The game can never release, and they will always need more "development" money.
 

hanmik

Editor/Writer at Popaco.dk
Verified
Oct 26, 2017
1,436
Who said 2021? I do believe they launch it later next year. Star Citzen is more complicated then SQ42 because they do not have to deal with a lot of networking tech.

Squadron is supposed to be finished and feature ready late this year (2019).. and they will then launch an alpha in Q1 of 2020 and a Beta in Q2 2020.. with a full release later.. call me a sceptic, but I don't believe they will manage to hit their launch dates this time (they missed at least to launch dates for SQ42 before)..

And why even have an Alpha and a Beta for a single player game? why? isn't it just for buying time, and showing the public some kind of product.. ?
 

Skade

Member
Oct 28, 2017
8,869
So "complicated to grasp and unfinished" is something to be applauded? After almost a decade of development? For a space sim where it should be one if not the most important aspect of the game. And difficult to maneuver does not equal good or we would be steering our cars sitting backwards with the pedals in the roof.

They did a complete rework of the flight model this year (or late last year), added athmospheric flight and just added a hover mode a few months ago. They are working on it. The gameplay of a game always evlove, sometimes drastically, until release. This is no different. They iterate, see what work and what doesn't with the players and advance slowly. Flying is very different today than it was two years ago. And flying two years ago was very different than it was four years ago. Things change.

And for the complicated part. It's meant to be somewhat realistic and far from the usual arcadey flight models of most space sims where it's just a "planes in space". Thus, it's obviously harder to grasp. But it's not that hard either.
 

noyram23

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,372
Yes? I agree their whole model is not a good one, but on the flipside, what should they replace it with? Since their community was in favour of continuing to add more ships and stuff. Yes, their management should have been better to mitigate the cost, but that is what it is, and they have become much much better in delivering stuff now.

And no, you can't do the same for lootboxes and the like since it triggers a part in the brain that caters to gambling.

Apex thread changed my mind regarding this.
I thought they have $200 million already? Also Is there no other way than asking for $675 plus $275 dinner, not to mention initial $1000 to continue funding the game? I mean if that's needed to fund the game then this whole thing is fucked already to be honest
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,139
Somewhere South
I think is telling that the overwhelming majority of people that look at the way this "game" is shaping up, the development and funding process, and think it's ok, that everything is going to be fine, are those that are already invested in it, that got money in.

Any person coming in fresh just takes a glance and goes "hell naw".
 
Oct 25, 2017
41,368
Miami, FL
I think Star Citizen will never be finished. Meaning that eventually the game will "launch" but be managed as a GaaS title / MMO. They'll continually add new ships to the game, sold in this pretty disgusting way, targeting whales to fund the production of more and more planets. The game will continually expand until people stop playing. I think it's less disgusting than loot boxes though. These ships do get added to the game, or people would stop buying them (the 890 Jump was added very recently - a previous big money ship).

I think Squadron 42 (the single player game, kept mostly under wraps like any traditional game dev process) will release 2020 or 2021 though, for PC and next gen consoles. That's the point we'll see fully polished gameplay systems, which are always late in game dev anyway. I imagine Star Citizen will enter some kind of release state on PC and next gen consoles within a year after that.


No idea on the % of ships available, but they're added regularly enough. 890 Jump being the most recent. Gameplay systems have been trickling in too the past year or so, with bounty hunting, mining, mission running, trading, smuggling, piracy, exploration of planets etc available. All still need futher polish, and many will obviously benefit once new planets and systems are added. It's got a long way to go, but with SQ42 still a good year or two out, the systems side really isn't look so bad. I think the main thing Star Citizen needs to push all these gameplay systems is more planets and systems to push the space-sim sandbox potential. Most of that focus is understandably on SQ42 right now though, but presumably all planets made for that game will also be pushed into Star Citizen, and then the team focuses entirely on content for Star Citizen.
So just to confirm, you feel that SC is as much as 4 years away from some sort of release state, which won't even be anywhere near complete because it will be managed like a GAAS title (in this case, that means released in an feature incomplete state with the intention of continuing to build on the game after launch).

Which means they will need to continue selling ships for 3-4 more years, at a development cost on release reaching or exceeding $350 million dollars. Give or take. Since their cash on hand is limited and willingness to continue buying ships will fade, I feel like SQ42 might have to come out a little sooner in order to inspire some confidence and give these donations a boost.

I remain very concerned about the P2W aspect of this game and the inherent imbalance it will create. I don't play mobile games where P2W is common, so this is all new to me. In games like these, grinding to buy a cool new ship is the end goal and reason to play every day. Giving people the option to just skip months or even years of regular grinding...I wonder how well that will go over. But were years away from finding out how currency rewards and ship prices are.

Anyway, do you have any concern about their ability to keep the necessary flow of raised funds to continue to pay staff over an additional 3-5 year development time table + life after launch with regular GAAS updates?
 
Last edited:

fanboi

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,702
Sweden
I thought they have $200 million already? Also Is there no other way than asking for $675 plus $275 dinner, not to mention initial $1000 to continue funding the game? I mean if that's needed to fund the game then this whole thing is fucked already to be honest

I guess they want to cater to their "high-end" backers, as in giving more exclusive deals and a possibility to have exclusive insight and treatment. I don't think it is needed to finish the game, no.
 

fanboi

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,702
Sweden
I think is telling that the overwhelming majority of people that look at the way this "game" is shaping up, the development and funding process, and think it's ok, that everything is going to be fine, are those that are already invested in it, that got money in.

Any person coming in fresh just takes a glance and goes "hell naw".

By using their tracker, they have sold 245 000 games equialvent to 60 USD, while some of those are reoccuring backers, I have no doubt a majority are new backers.

vGChujJ.png
 

noyram23

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,372
I guess they want to cater to their "high-end" backers, as in giving more exclusive deals and a possibility to have exclusive insight and treatment. I don't think it is needed to finish the game, no.
They know high end backers will easily give them money, if they don't need it then don't ask, just finish the game first then offer actual content for sale like how most business goes.
 

fanboi

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,702
Sweden
They know high end backers will easily give them money, if they don't need it then don't ask, just finish the game first then offer actual content for sale like how most business goes.

I mean, making money is the sole goal for a company, how they do it is irrelevant from a business standpoint, where you have good ways and bad ways and ways inbetween. Since this caters to a very small % of their total backers, I think this is just to offer them a bit extra for being a backer + possible to purchase an exclusive content.
 

noyram23

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,372
I mean, making money is the sole goal for a company, how they do it is irrelevant from a business standpoint, where you have good ways and bad ways and ways inbetween. Since this caters to a very small % of their total backers, I think this is just to offer them a bit extra for being a backer + possible to purchase an exclusive content.
Of course they want to make money that's why it's called monetization, even pyramiding whole point is making money. There's line a between a gross and proper one though and if you can't see why this one is gross then i'm not sure what I can tell you anymore. Just good luck I guess?
 

KKRT

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,544
I think you can better show new footage then old AC stuff, like from Terada his last video is amazing:

Yeah, i could have added Terada video, you are right. I wanted to showcase something i did, not really that great of a player in starting ship two years ago and that was very fun already :)

--
That comparison can be totally moot without knowing how the economy will work on the final game and the, possibly, rampant inflation the game could suffer after the introduction of so much "real money" into the game's economy.
Yes, you are right, but some economy mechanics are already in, we can buy and rent ships and they are not that expensive in relation to what can be earn per hour and we know that they are planning to 10x NPCs affecting economy that there are players, so players arent completely dominating economy, but are part of it.
 

fanboi

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,702
Sweden
Of course they want to make money that's why it's called monetization, even pyramiding whole point is making money. There's line a between a gross and proper one though and if you can't see why this one is gross then i'm not sure what I can tell you anymore. Just good luck I guess?

Agree to disagree maybe? :)

But I agree, it is not the best way to do it, but I don't see any other way since this game wouldn't be done by conventional means since no publisher would risk it I believe. Sure they could have managed it much better initialy, but they seem to have become much much better as of now.
 
Jul 17, 2018
480
Here's a fun game you can play in every SC thread, the Star Citizen Defence Bingo:
'they're making two games not one'
'it's the most ambitious game ever made'
'people have the right to spend their money as they wish'
'people wanted Chris Roberts to sell more ships'
'the development didn't really start until [insert year here]'
'it's not a scam because they employ over 500 people'
'you don't know how the game development works'
'why don't you look at [insert a non-crowdfunded AAA game] before you say anything?'
'you should maybe look at this before posting *inserts a playlist of 1500 PR videos*'

See how many of the above you can spot.
 
Dec 8, 2018
1,911
They did a complete rework of the flight model this year (or late last year), added athmospheric flight and just added a hover mode a few months ago. They are working on it. The gameplay of a game always evlove, sometimes drastically, until release. This is no different. They iterate, see what work and what doesn't with the players and advance slowly. Flying is very different today than it was two years ago. And flying two years ago was very different than it was four years ago. Things change.

And for the complicated part. It's meant to be somewhat realistic and far from the usual arcadey flight models of most space sims where it's just a "planes in space". Thus, it's obviously harder to grasp. But it's not that hard either.

It's still shit and garbage compared to almost every other space game in the last 10 years.

And realistic? You think engineers try to aim to make planes, spacecraft as hard to fly as they can or do you think if they could they would make them as easy as possible to maneuver. In the time SC takes place there is literally no point in having a hard to maneuver spacecraft and everything should be as easy or even easier to maneuver than LEGO Star Wars space combat if realistic is what they are aiming at.
 

VectorPrime

Banned
Apr 4, 2018
11,781
Here's a fun game you can play in every SC thread, the Star Citizen Defence Bingo:
'they're making two games not one'
'it's the most ambitious game ever made'
'people have the right to spend their money as they wish'
'people wanted Chris Roberts to sell more ships'
'the development didn't really start until [insert year here]'
'it's not a scam because they employ over 500 people'
'you don't know how the game development works'
'why don't you look at [insert a non-crowdfunded AAA game] before you say anything?'
'you should maybe look at this before posting *inserts a playlist of 1500 PR videos*'

See how many of the above you can spot.

You can make a BINGO board.
 

luffie

Member
Dec 20, 2017
798
Indonesia
ok, important question guys:
How much do they expect to cash in from this event?
I mean, i didn't read the details, but what is the total participants for the dinner? for how many days?

So assuming everyone buys the ship, its 675+275=950
and so 950x???
Anybody willing to calculate?
 
OP
OP
Noodle

Noodle

Banned
Aug 22, 2018
3,427
Since this caters to a very small % of their total backers, I think this is just to offer them a bit extra for being a backer + possible to purchase an exclusive content.

"If you think about it they're doing them a favour!"

That small % are the whales. They're doing it because they know they can gouge the most money out of them.
 

Darkstorne

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,826
England
So just to confirm, you feel that SC is as much as 4 years away from some sort of release state, which won't even be anywhere near complete because it will be managed like a GAAS title (in this case, that means released in an feature incomplete state with the intention of continuing to build on the game after launch).

Which means they will need to continue selling ships for 3-4 more years, at a development cost on release reaching or exceeding $350 million dollars. Give or take. Since their cash on hand is limited and willingness to continue buying ships will fade, I feel like SQ42 might have to come out a little sooner in order to inspire some confidence and give these donations a boost.

I remain very concerned about the P2W aspect of this game and the inherent imbalance it will create. I don't play mobile games where P2W is common, so this is all new to me. In games like these, grinding to buy a cool new ship is the end goal and reason to play every day. Giving people the option to just skip months or even years of regular grinding...I wonder how well that will go over. But were years away from finding out how currency rewards and ship prices are.

Anyway, do you have any concern about their ability to keep the necessary flow of raised funds to continue to pay staff over an additional 3-5 year development time table + life after launch with regular GAAS updates?
Almost, but not quite. The underlined I don't agree with. I think in the next 24 months SQ42 (the single player $60 AAA game) will release for PC and next gen consoles. It will use the same core sandbox gameplay systems and mechanics that Star Citizen will, but be single player, with a full campaign. Think The Elder Scrolls / Fallout but in space. Those gameplay systems will have parity in Star Citizen around the same time, so I expect some form of SC release not too long afterwards, so yes, up to 4 years from now. The release of SQ42 will provide a huge funding boost of course.

So mechanics-wise SC will feel complete at release, but by GaaS aspect I mean managed like an MMO with constant expansions (in this case new star systems). I don't mean managed the same way it is now, where game mechanics are still being figured out and added. Though I wouldn't be surprised if new mechanics are added as part of big updates, the same way MMOs get new classes and gameplay mechanics in expansions. Sadly, I think the current funding system of over-priced ships will also continue, since it clearly works so well for them. While that's potentially good news if it means free content for the majority of the playerbase, funded by the few, it does indeed raise serious concerns about P2W and exploitation. And while some players use the argument that like any MMO there will always be players ahead of you in the curve, especially if you don't play from day 1, I'm not convinced that excuses the ability to pay for advancement.

Mostly I'm interested in the solo game (SQ42) so P2W doesn't bother me much. I look at the progress SC has made so far and get super excited about how all of that will transfer to an epic solo space sim in a year or two. I seem to take a middle-ground of feeling disgusted by the funding model of this game, but following the dev process close enough to know that the money is genuinely being used to produce something impressive. I don't defend the game's funding practices, but I also don't pretend it's a scam with nothing being produced.
 

MisterR

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,463
The game itself is doing fine. Dreams has been in development longer than Star Citizen, but where's the concern trolling for that game? Era is stuck in a circle jerk of concern trolling for Star Citizen as a playable game, and it's embarrassing to read through any thread about it here.
Defending this shit is what's embarrassing.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,139
Somewhere South

OléGunner

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,278
Airborne Aquarium
Thing is the tickets sold out in 45 seconds.. And people don't stop buying these $500+ ships
At this point, it seems to me Star Citizen community is just enthralled at spending never ending money on an incomplete project.

I honestly can't knock Chris Roberts hustle, there's millions of easy dollaroos to be made
 

Vimto

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,714
I just don't understand why in-game items are costing $675. Can anyone explain or justify why items cost that much real money? It seems insane and a completely absurd price.

Because its mainly a donation to support the development of the game, since the game is fully funded by fan donations. ( well, i think they have an investor now? )
 
OP
OP
Noodle

Noodle

Banned
Aug 22, 2018
3,427
Here's a fun game you can play in every SC thread, the Star Citizen Defence Bingo:
'they're making two games not one'
'it's the most ambitious game ever made'
'people have the right to spend their money as they wish'
'people wanted Chris Roberts to sell more ships'
'the development didn't really start until [insert year here]'
'it's not a scam because they employ over 500 people'
'you don't know how the game development works'
'why don't you look at [insert a non-crowdfunded AAA game] before you say anything?'
'you should maybe look at this before posting *inserts a playlist of 1500 PR videos*'

See how many of the above you can spot.

"It's not a scam because it's out"
"You can't say it's bad, it's not out-out"
"It's taking so long because they're making 2 games at once"
"Development for Squadron 42/Star Citizen will go fast because the work they do for Star Citizen/Squadron 42 overlaps"
 

rebelcrusader

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,833
Star Citizen continues to impress with their ability to drain money from morons

I hope that the game actually gets finished because so far its been impressive
 
Jul 17, 2018
480
"It's not a scam because it's out"
"You can't say it's bad, it's not out-out"
"It's taking so long because they're making 2 games at once"
"Development for Squadron 42/Star Citizen will go fast because the work they do for Star Citizen/Squadron 42 overlaps"

'The tech behind it insane, like nothing else out there'
'It's still early alpha, bugs are expected'
'The development really picked up in [insert a timeframe here]'
'I spent [insert aby amount from $25 to $5000] and had lots of fun with it already'
'After they implement [insert feature here] in the next patch everything will come together way faster'
 

Luckett_X

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,410
Leeds, UK

This looks like it plays absolutely dreadfully. Take away all the proto-RTX or whatevers, and its the most basic looking space dogfighting possible and a janky FPS that reminds me of PS2 gen attempts at the genre. Which I guess makes sense as thats when Chris Roberts last made a game.

People post clips like this expecting it to explain why people stan for this game? It's crazy to me. You build a game with basic geometry and cubes first, not start with graphic card stress testing nonsense and then hope a game will layer over the top. "I'm sure that game design stuff we can just finangle in at the end!"
 

Mechaplum

Enlightened
Member
Oct 26, 2017
18,834
JP
Also realism in space travel with Newtonian physics is unfathomably boring. You get stuff like in the expanse where you'll need to make a flip halfway for the decel burn, and where designs are utilitarian. Please don't use realism as an excuse.
 

tr1b0re

Member
Oct 17, 2018
1,329
Trinidad and Tobago
It's funny, last night I was actually considering buying this, now after going through this thread, I think I'll give it a few more years

Years...can't say I've ever said that about a game before
 

jonamok

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,138
I hope it never, ever releases. Because reading this mental shit is massively more entertaining than playing the game ever will be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.