Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ai Shizuka]

I have nothing against wealthy people spending 1k/2k/10k on fake ships.
Also, I have nothing against people speculating the market. I did it myself, on a very limited scale, gaining 200€ from my transactions.
And everything on sale will be available in game, so nobody is buying an unfair advantage. This has been very clear from day 1.

But I went from "Oh my god this seriously is my perfect game. The one I've been waiting for all these years" to "It really looks like they are going to delay the release as long as possible to keep milking the fanboys".
Wich isn't wrong. It is exactly what I would be doing.
Game developers aren't charity foundations. They want to make big profits.

But I totally changed my stance. Now it's just mmo n. 3780943, waiting to be released, maybe, at some unspecified point in the future.
And, with all the stretch goals, it's seriously starting to look very bloated. I really doubt they'll manage to keep good quality standards on everything.

[Shadowlord]

You know, this starts to make blowing $60 on Spore on release (or pre-order) not look like quite as bad a decision by comparison.

[Tellemurius]

Welp my machine is officially old now as the alpha is eating up my ram in insane amounts.

From what I can tell how Robert Industries is handling with the stretch goals is alot of outsourcing for art and coding. Even then all the internal employees are being overwork to piece this game together from each module brought. Pay is somewhat good and for something that can make a huge dent in your resume, I wouldn't be able to turn it down for that type of offer.

[Retropunch]

Whilst I definitely think they're milking it for all it's worth, I do sorta have the feeling they might deliver. I mean they've got quite a number of experienced people on board from what I've read, and they seem to be going on a sensible route with modularising things (if they did the 'we just can't possibly release it till it's 100%! u jst wait k.' thing then I'd be less pleased). From what I've seen in the videos it does seem pretty awesome and that they've actually managed to do a lot of stuff.
15
I'm wondering how they're going to pull it all together into one coherent piece and deliver the scope everyone imagines, but as they've basically said 'no compromises on computing power used' then they can really push the boat out, instead of the usual constraints to console format.

We might see quite a big jump with this, as it's the first big commercial game that isn't restrained by consoles in the last 10 or so years.

[Mattk50]

It's probably been said to death, but you're not paying for a ship, you're contributing to the development and getting something out of it in return. You shouldn't pledge more than you have allowance for -- keep in mind that there are many very wealthy people in this world who wouldn't bat an eye at buying something "fake" for 1k USD/EUR.

That's really dumb. That's the exact same thing as saying "pre-order microtransactions today!"

After all, if you buy an item in any free to play game with money, you're just contributing to the game's development and getting something in return.
Playing an online shooter and they release a $40 OP gun that you buy? You're only just contributing to the shooter's development and getting something in return.

In this case it's extremely true. None of the ships are actually worth their price, your out of your mind if you think a mustang, one of the starter ships, will end up being valued by players at these prices. In a game like eve, for you to get a ship worth what the start ships cost in this you need to be quite a ways into the game. Eve's titan would have a real world equivalent value the same as the idris when it was being sold in the store. That's ridiculous.

It's not a purchase simply because the ship values are disjointed from reality. It's a pledge, it says right in the store. Besides, ship sales are ending once the PTU launches.

[lijacote]

It's probably been said to death, but you're not paying for a ship, you're contributing to the development and getting something out of it in return. You shouldn't pledge more than you have allowance for -- keep in mind that there are many very wealthy people in this world who wouldn't bat an eye at buying something "fake" for 1k USD/EUR.

That's really dumb. That's the exact same thing as saying "pre-order microtransactions today!"

After all, if you buy an item in any free to play game with money, you're just contributing to the game's development and getting something in return.
Playing an online shooter and they release a $40 OP gun that you buy? You're only just contributing to the shooter's development and getting something in return.

That's one way to monetise (or rather fund the development of, as this is disappearing with release) your game, I suppose, but the righteousness of it would depend on the overall funding model. Star Citizen is a crowd-funded game, with these pledges mirroring Kickstarter levels. You can get the game at a low price-point, but you don't get the super extra goodies -- none of which are unavailable in the game, as far as I know. Were Star Citizen funded by, say, Ubisoft, and it wasn't just a pledge to get a ship and the game, but it was a game for 29.90, a ship for 36.90, insurance for 15.00... you get the idea.

If we want to condemn Star Citizen's model, we have to not treat it as if it were published using the normal method. Or would you go balls-to-the-walls silly enraged by the 5k EUR pledge levels where you get your face rendered in the game? Consistency, please.

[Chiefwaffles]

The point is that you're paying real world money for a virtual item, exactly like every other cash shop MMO out there. It doesn't matter how expensive it is, or how you only can only buy a ship.
I don't hate Star Citizen for it, but it's no different than any other cash shop out there. Just more expensive.

[10ebbor10]

There is alwys a difference. Wherether buying that item gets you an unfair advantage or not.

[Antioch]

I kinda fear for the moment when the nice dream of a huge living universe meets the cold hard reality of balance and the way different modules interact.

[Beggars` Sect]

Here`s how crowdfunding should work:

1) A wild project appears. Devs ask for a sum of money in exchange for delivering some content in a specified timeline.
2) People judge the money vs content vs time equation and either fund the project or not.
3) If funded, the devs start working on the project and concentrate on delivering the content promised within the timeline.

There is no stretch goals. All the extra cash they get from enthusiastic donators goes into a kitty dedicated to making sure their initial promise is delivered with as little delay as possible.

If all goes well and the funders are happy with the end product, the devs start working on add-ons, extensions, sequels, what have you. They use remaining money, if there`s any left and ask for more. Back to square one, with probability of the project being funded much higher thanks to proven track record.

This is actually close to the oft-derided studio-driven old school model, where dev teams operated within a granted budget and timeline. The ones with talent, good management and quality control thrived and delivered genre-defining classics. "Sequel model" worked brilliantly - look at progression in Quake 1-2-3 for example. With introduction of Internet-enabled models like DLCs, microtransactions and F2P it all went down the drain of course.

This modern milk cow BS is ridiculous and would be derided in the world outside videogaming as some sort of dishonest scheme (Project Cars anyone?) But "honesty" is dwarfed here with "moar polygons" kinda carrots and lots of well meaning and enthusiastic fans follows blindly. And as per usual there`s plenty of apologists and enablers on hand, armed with assorted trope - the awful "gaming is a business and businesses exist to make money, wha!" being nauseatingly worst.

It does not matter if the game in question will eventually release and may even be good - the point is the whole process is a rip off, hurts gaming in the long run and also promotes similar attitudes in the outside world.

[Mattk50]

There is no stretch goals. All the extra cash they get from enthusiastic donators goes into a kitty dedicated to making sure their initial promise is delivered with as little delay as possible.

you cant just put more money in  and make it go faster. The way development works, sometimes putting too many resources into a single task can cause delays. However, you can add more parrallel projects without interference, usually. Therefore star citizen's module system/stretch goals.

also personally i like DF's funding model the best, but it's not always possible.


Complaining about more polygons as a selling point to push graphics tech forward is rather silly in an age of woefully under performing console ports and an indie scene comprised of pixel graphics. Some of us are actually interested in pushing graphics tech forward. I realize on a dwarf fortress forum it may seem out of place, though.

[Retropunch]

I can't say this hurts gaming in the long run at all, and I can't see how it could be perceived that way. Whilst yes, it is charging extortionate amounts for virtual items - who are we to say that's not worthy of spending money on? I mean, by that logic you could say games don't deserve to be paid for as they are virtual. Secondly, the massive amount of funding it receives means the 'carrot' is obviously working - there's definitely a market for games that push the power boundaries.

While it could all turn out pay-to-play (and I really, really hope it doesn't) - it's been pretty honest in it's funding and they've delivered well so far. As I said before, if they hadn't delivered anything and kept taking money that'd be very different, but they seem to be sticking to their promises well.

[symonthewise]

Its extremely narrow minded to deride people paying money for virtual things. This is the economy of the future, virtual things have monetary value. Have you ever purchased a piece of software totally digitally? How is that grounded in any physical commodity. How about subscription service to software like an MMO? In what way is that money purchasing physical property. Even if you don't take part in it, many people do. It's the future now sadly, whining doesn't act as some sort of flux capacitor to reverse our temporal progress.


This is not to mention the generally ludicrous nature of luxury goods in the physical world that, while existing tangibly, are no where near as valuable as what has been paid for them. And physical items degrade! It's not like you buy one thing forever (you might as well be buying a subscription to a smartphone!). The distinction between digital goods and physical goods is very blurry.

I just don't see the criticism here. This game wouldn't have been made without its payment model, and they seem to be limping along towards some sort of completion which is an incredible success. Even if it is a game for old nerds who are willing to drop a grand on their hobby.

--- Oh I just read retropunches comment right above mine, basically said the same thing. Oh well..

[Shadowlord]

The point is that you're paying real world money for a virtual item, exactly like every other cash shop MMO out there. It doesn't matter how expensive it is, or how you only can only buy a ship.
I don't hate Star Citizen for it, but it's no different than any other cash shop out there. Just more expensive.

Is it more expensive than Star Trek Online's premium and lockbox starships? (No, I'm not going to run it to check the prices or anything, I escaped STO only a month ago and I don't want to get pulled back in.)

[Beggars` Sect]

The way development works, sometimes putting too many resources into a single task can cause delays. However, you can add more parrallel projects without interference, usually. Therefore star citizen's module system/stretch goals

Sure, because adding more things that then need to be fit into other things, all made by different subsidiaries is completely unlikely to cause delays, quality loss and interfere at all...no sir, never happened before.

You, and the following posts seem to miss the point completely. Rallying about pushing the gfx boundaries or (totally wtf ;) "economy of the future" just goes wildly off tangent here. Nobody`s denying the right for these things to exists - it`s just that the way the stretch goal driven crowdfunding model is deeply flawed and in extreme cases like this, dishonest.

Pretending everything is AOK is common amongst gaming public these days and betrays partially well-meaning naivety and also gamer`s variation of Stockholm Syndrome - we`ve been done over by Big Boys of AAA world like  EA for so long that when alternatives appeared people just blindly follow and let themselves to be exploited. I mean: "yes, it is charging extortionate amounts for virtual items - who are we to say that's not worthy of spending money on?"...ummm, what? Dude, if not "we" then who else is supposed to say something? We are the consumers, the ones who are supposed to be in charge, not the other way around...and also humans with some sort of moral compass.  You might as well say it`s junkie`s or gambler`s choice to spend their money on whatever they like and who are we to judge. And if you think it`s a far-out comparison you might want to read this:http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-04-18-driving-ambition-pcars-crowdfunding-and-the-fsa

And then, the usual "this game would`ve  never been made otherwise" which goes in hand with "pushing boundaries"...this is a fallacy and reason why I said y`all missed the point. Games have been pushing boundaries and being made since day one and that`s why I quoted the olden well-organised studio model operating within reasonable budget that kept on delivering games and improving in sequels and addons.  The fact that this game has been crowdfunded does not mean it could be done in similar way - after all they got multiple times over what they asked for shortly after the initial funding ended. Why not deliver a finished product as promised? And then start adding more stuff? At least most of Kickstarter projects have the goals limited (though new fashion is too keep the Paypal lines open) - whie SC is just a bottomless pit.

Simply put, stretch goals are the bane of crowdfunding. Too nebulous and easy to exploit - "so my game costs a million to make but for another 200k I will add a player house and a companion" (and also reserve the right to whatever delays are necessary)...yep, nothing wrong with that, right? Oh, I know "but look at this, that or this game, we wouldn`t have got more stuff"...ooops, GOTO 10, I`m afraid ;)