Star Citizen Online - The search for more money

Tuco_sl said:

Wut

Click to expand...

Exactly my reaction to the trailblazer buy in to EQ:NL, too

They could easily just allow you to reload the settings of the deceased into char creation - anyone that wants to retain their look can do that anyway by going through the same motions. The thing people will hang themselves over is the loss of standings or contacts due to death, which I am fine with. It's a death penalty and those are required imo. I just dont want it to be too time-consuming to remake the same character if they force me to do it once per month.

Nija_sl said:

It's people trying to stop others from a catastrophe. Crowd funding is pyramid schemes for a new generation.

Also, you have no doubts? No doubts at all that someone can put together a AAA multiplayer game with $30M in 2013-2016?

Click to expand...

There are an amazing amount of good games made at a30m budget.

Krueger_sl said:

I've made full family trees for characters back when I role-played more, and I actually enjoy the thought of doing it again. But I know most people don't enjoy that, which is why I don't see this current system making it live. Or at least without some way of bypassing it, whether it be using in-game or real currency(and I think we all know which of those methods it would go...).

Click to expand...

Pretty sure I read somewhere that they would allow you to keep going beyond your final death but the cost would be... prohibitive. A reflection on both the relative wealth of the individual in society and the high cost of keeping a dead man alive. You can call it a cash grab if you will as part of the FTP model. To me it sounds like they will make it an unreasonably expensive amount to discourage its use. I'm sure that won't stop many but it should stop most from doing that. Including me... and I now own a fleet. In fact I refuse to spend any money on in game credits once game is launched. I'll buy the expected Mission Disks (mini expansions) but that's it.

The game isnt F2P.

Tuco, the plans for death penalty are having to remake a new character that inherits your assets and standings, with a penalty to the latter. This penalty only happens every x deaths too, not every time. Doesnt sound too punishing to me. Although I guess losing ships is implied too, with being blown up in space and all.

Another important point.

Investors want the safest/fastest return on investment. That's why you see watered down unfinished games that are made for an ever growing "wider" audience. It's why niche games have ended up in the "indie" pool and it's why we are drowning in mediocrity at the AAA title level.

Crowd funding is different in that the end result is not an expected winfall for investors/shareholders but rather a game that gives those that funded it what was "promised". So long as you have funding you can keep going and try to get to the "promise". It doesn't mean it will succeed. It only means that the focus shifted from the investor/shareholder to the players who funded the game.

Now I know there is one or two Angel Investors for SC but apart from that I'm not aware of any shareholders or major investors behaving like vultures waiting for the first sign of red before they pounce. Hey maybe I'm wrong. This definitely takes a measure of faith but it's not on the same level as taking your critically injured baby to a baptism instead of a hospital simply because you "believe". Despite the behavior of some on the official forums that's the vocal minority. Blind belief in something "special" is just as dangerous as passive acceptance of the norm. The Subscriber's Den has a much more level headed view on this that is similar to mine. They realize what they signed up for and that it can fail.

I won't lie. I will be upset if this goes sideways on us but I have no illusions either. I handed over my money with the full knowledge that this could turn into a Halo/Bungie. It's really up to the character of Chris Roberts. Most would not trust the man with more than a small pledge or not even that. That's fine. Some of us are willing to go much farther.

I just wanted to point out that there is more than just the two extremes. It's easy to focus on the Lemmings playing COD 6 or whatever the hell it's on this year and the Scientology types advocating eternal healing for your gaming soul on the other. So long as one is not blinded and commits to these games with realistic expectations I think that should be respected. But what do I know. Look at the forum meltdown right now in SC General Chat. A minority of Germans are having a brain aneurism because they can't fucking read English.

Mr Creed_sl said:

The game isnt F2P.

Tuco, the plans for death penalty are having to remake a new character that inherits your assets and standings, with a penalty to the latter. This penalty only happens every x deaths too, not every time. Doesnt sound too punishing to me. Although I guess losing ships is implied too, with being blown up in space and all.

Click to expand...

It's EVE-Lite not EVE. Insurance means you get the ship back in stock form or all of it including all mods if in UEE space. They want it to work just like car insurance. Which is both scary and hilarious but quite fitting.

Ukerric_sl said:

Yes. And like every F2P game, you can play the base game for free, or spend some cash for some extras, often to get some leg up on free players. I can choose to play the game for free, or to get some advance on you for 20$.

Click to expand...

Yes selling items for cash whatever they advance your "gaming expierience" is one thing.
Selling Alpha/Beta/Early access / leet beta infoz / secret sauze and thereby killing any QA jobs (well given SoE even got any) is an eintire different story. And dont tell me you forked over the 100 bucks cause you wanted the super cool backpack or whatever in game item on a game we have seen nothing but trailers yet.

Insurance is one of things very similar to EVE actually, imo anyway. Ship with basic fittings is more or less covered by insurance, if you fit expensive stuff you risk a loss.


Dyvim, if I had decided to go with Landmark alpha it would have been a) to *play* earlier and b) for the gimmicks. In no way do I care about having an advantage on folks that start 3 days later. I know some people dream about their "investment in early access" paying off in spades, but I think if you buy in with that attitude you are in for a rude awakening.

Dyvim_sl said:

Yes selling items for cash whatever they advance your "gaming expierience" is one thing.
Selling Alpha/Beta/Early access / leet beta infoz / secret sauze and thereby killing any QA jobs (well given SoE even got any) is an eintire different story. And dont tell me you forked over the 100 bucks cause you wanted the super cool backpack or whatever in game item on a game we have seen nothing but trailers yet.

Click to expand...

You have a right to your own opinions but you don't have a right to your own facts. Claiming that all we have seen is trailers is false. We already have a Hanger module with some basic functionality with some of the original ships. It's not much but it gives you a very rough idea of the scope of the game. Many here and elsewhere are waiting for the dog fighting module before they commit a penny. That's fine.

As to your first point to me that seems slightly hypocritical. It's A-OK to fork over money that is required in many F2P models to stay competitive (STO - ships, WoT - gold rounds/health/repair/speed etc). However it's not OK to fork over any sum of money before the game is launched for the same reason. I get it the game isn't out so why are you buying items for it. That argument by itself has merit and if that was the motivation for the player I would agree with you, however combined with your first? no Plus they won't be selling ships/upgrades at release or at least that's what they said. The only gameplay changing thing they will sell is in game currency up to a limit per day. I for one don't care to spend a penny on that. I want to earn that cash. I'm sure many others will fork over large sums to buy ships/mods etc.. that's their choice.

I personally did the former and spent retarded amounts of money in both STO and especially WoT to stay competitive in one of the top guilds. I stayed around the top 500 player mark even when I only played for a few hours a week. I could easily have made the top 50 maybe even the top 10 if I wished to sink the time into the game but by then I burned out. Reflecting back on it I would say half of what I spent was unnecessary primarily because I quit before I used up what I purchased. I have since quit every F2P game but one as they are all giant money sinks for a mediocre game. It's not that you can't play them for free, but do you want to be competitive or not? Back then I did.

Not a big fan of dog fighting, but I do want much much more small group content than EVE focuses on.

Mr Creed_sl said:

They could easily just allow you to reload the settings of the deceased into char creation - anyone that wants to retain their look can do that anyway by going through the same motions. The thing people will hang themselves over is the loss of standings or contacts due to death, which I am fine with. It's a death penalty and those are required imo. I just dont want it to be too time-consuming to remake the same character if they force me to do it once per month.

Click to expand...

I like the death penalty system and I'm looking forward to no respawns and death actually having a meaning. It's not too draconian, but there should be repercussions.

This is really the only thing I like about crowdfunding, in that a dev can create the game he wants without required 'respawns' due to possible player loss, or other mandated 'suit' changes such as creating your sandbox MMO for consoles as well as PCs.

Ukerric_sl said:

If you think your early adopters are replacing QA, you're delusional (well, if SOE thinks that, they're even more delusional, since they're supposed to be professionals).

Click to expand...

It doenst matter what i think, or you or this board in general. It only matters what the suits running the company think they can com through with, and lately no matter what shit they throw at the gaming community some will gladly lap it up, shrug and move on.

Anyway btt:

Gecko_sl said:

I like the death penalty system and I'm looking forward to no respawns and death actually having a meaning. It's not too draconian, but there should be repercussions.

This is really the only thing I like about crowdfunding, in that a dev can create the game he wants without required 'respawns' due to possible player loss, or other mandated 'suit' changes such as creating your sandbox MMO for consoles as well as PCs.

Click to expand...

I guess death penalty wont be too harsh and follow EVEs respawn/cloning model, maybe with rising revive/save costs.
Otherwise just a single bug exploited by a selected few in PvP could lead to heavy rage quitting by your avarage pilot joe(s).

Dyvim what suits? Last time I checked CIG had no board of directors or any of that bullshit overhead. It's up to Chris. He decides if he wants the game/company to sink or swim.

The death penalty is planned so you wake up in a hospital bed and depending on how you were injured your body would reflect it. Missing arm/leg etc that is then replaced with a cybernetic. After so many deaths the body "gives up" and you die for good unless you spend retarded amounts of money to keep going one or two more times. They really don't want anyone going on forever. Of course like anything that's subject to change. A vocal minority don't like that. The silent majority pile on the cash. Lets see who wins. Personally I hope they keep it the way they planned it. I think that's perfect and it adds a level of real danger and mortality as well as morality that even EVE doesn't have.

Draegan_sl said:

There are an amazing amount of good games made at a30m budget.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I still have hopes for this game. What concerns me beyond the whole hopium dealer angle that Chris has taken is that the only controls on spending are on the company itself and Chris Roberts in particular. The modern studio system where the overloards are EA, Activision etc sucks for game innovation but they do help to keep costs under control - in the context of the entertainment industry that is (even the most cost efficient game company looks like a leaking sieve compared to the "real" world private sector).

But there arenocontrols on this game. Chris can spend the money however he wants. If he put out a 8 bit, dos game and took the rest of the cash to buy a yacht, there is nothing anyone can do about it. That is the downside of crowdfunded games.

I don't think Chris is going to do that, I actually believe his passion for the game and genre will temper that impulse. But that doesn't mean the cash will be effectively used. His 33 million dollar game will probably be much less than a similar game produced in conventional way. What gives him the edge is that no existing studio was willing make the kind of game Chris and the rest of us wants, at any cost.

Variise_sl said:

Dyvim what suits? Last time I checked CIG had no board of directors or any of that bullshit overhead. It's up to Chris. He decides if he wants the game/company to sink or swim.

The death penalty is planned so you wake up in a hospital bed and depending on how you were injured your body would reflect it. Missing arm/leg etc that is then replaced with a cybernetic. After so many deaths the body "gives up" and you die for good unless you spend retarded amounts of money to keep going one or two more times. They really don't want anyone going on forever. Of course like anything that's subject to change. A vocal minority don't like that. The silent majority pile on the cash. Lets see who wins. Personally I hope they keep it the way they planned it. I think that's perfect and it adds a level of real danger and mortality as well as morality that even EVE doesn't have.

Click to expand...

Dyvim is talking generally or about Landmark there I think.

Death penalty: your in-game description is nice and all, but what matters is implementation. The effective difference is in EVE I have to go through the motions of moving my pod into a new ship if the pod got away (akin to your waking up in a hospital) or have to buy a new clone and then get into a new ship if the pod did not get away. In SC they replace clone buying with a faction hit and having to go through the character builder again. It's more mortality in a RP sense but to whom does RP/lore matter? Mechanically its a bigger nuisance to click through character creation then buying a new clone. It would be a different thing if your had real perma-death and the new character started with a clean slate faction-wise, but as is I doubt there is as much opposition to it.

Grim1_sl said:

Yes, and I still have hopes for this game. What concerns me beyond the whole hopium dealer angle that Chris has taken is that the only controls on spending are on the company itself and Chris Roberts in particular. The modern studio system where the overloards are EA, Activision etc sucks for game innovation but they do help to keep costs under control - in the context of the entertainment industry that is (even the most cost efficient game company looks like a leaking sieve compared to the "real" world private sector).

But there arenocontrols on this game. Chris can spend the money however he wants. If he put out a 8 bit, dos game and took the rest of the cash to buy a yacht, there is nothing anyone can do about it. That is the downside of crowdfunded games.

I don't think Chris is going to do that, I actually believe his passion for the game and genre will temper that impulse. But that doesn't mean the cash will be effectively used. His 33 million dollar game will probably be much less than a similar game produced in conventional way. What gives him the edge is that no existing studio was willing make the kind of game Chris and the rest of us wants, at any cost.

Click to expand...

If he delivers a good game the man deserves to set aside a mill for a nice car! Honestly though, after seeing the wasteful spending corporate game productions allow themselves and the dissapointing results in the MMO genre, I think Roberts can do no worse. It's not like with publisher-made games I could object to Smed or Kotick buying their yacht, so I'm no worse off with Roberts not having any supervision. On the contrary, with publishers *I know* those that call the shots do not have the quality or longevity of the game at heart. With crowdfunding there's at least a chance for that.