Star Citizen Legatus Pack, every item in the game for $27,000

[James]

On 5/29/2018 at 4:58 AM, Lathlaer said:

It's actually pretty smart if you think about it. It's the same principle that makes all those Nigerian Princess spam emails so poorly written.

 

If they make it possible for people who already spent $1k, they are providing a sense of exclusiveness and are weeding out people who wouldn't spend that amount anyway. If someone gives them $1k it's a signal that they can try to rope them for more. Meanwhile, rational people will not be salty for seeing a $27k purchase option visible.

"signal", "rational" - spoken like a true economist!

[Tokyo_Raven]

On 5/29/2018 at 1:54 PM, LunaP0n3 said:

"Micro"transactions this aint.

Those are macrotransactions.

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, Cole5 said:

-snip-

Seriously? He's not allowed to have a dissenting opinion without being labelled an actual shill? That's a toxic attitude for this community.

 

If you're going to disagree with him, attack his points, not his character.

[SansVarnic]

Cant say I would spend that kind of money to play the thing but I do play SC with my pack. 

 

On 5/29/2018 at 7:02 AM, ScratchCat said:

So this is a product marketed at the niche who play Star Citizen, the niche within this niche who would spend over $1000 on the game and then the niche within the niche within the niche who would be willing to pay the same as a car or even two cheaper cars.

Did I mention the game isn't even finished yet and required a $2500 PC to play at at high settings?

I play with a 4760 2 core hyper-threaded processor and a gtx1080 [before that a gtx 960]. Plays it pretty well on high with no issue even the 960 held up well with little issue.

that thing cost me about $700ish to build. Might wanna look into the reqs one more time. (I bought the 1080 mostly for F@H not SC but it does make it look a bit nicer)

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Cant say I would spend that kind of money to play the thing but I do play SC with my pack. 

 

I play with a 4760 2 core hyper-threaded processor and a gtx1080 [before that a gtx 960]. Plays it pretty well on high with no issue even the 960 held up well with little issue.

that thing cost me about $700ish to build. Might wanna look into the reqs one more time. (I bought the 1080 mostly for F@H not SC but it does make it look a bit nicer)

SC used to be terribly optimized, where you needed a $1000-$1500 PC to play it with decent frames.

 

It's still not exactly "optimized", but they devote a lot more resources to optimizations these days then they used to. Now, you can turn down settings and get decent frames on cheaper hardware.

[Cole5]

46 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Seriously? He's not allowed to have a dissenting opinion without being labelled an actual shill? That's a toxic attitude for this community.

 

If you're going to disagree with him, attack his points, not his character.

I didnt realize being paid to shut down dissenters was an offensive job? I Just wanna know, it seems like a pretty easy job.

[SansVarnic]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

SC used to be terribly optimized, where you needed a $1000-$1500 PC to play it with decent frames.

 

It's still not exactly "optimized", but they devote a lot more resources to optimizations these days then they used to. Now, you can turn down settings and get decent frames on cheaper hardware.

yeah I know, been playing on/off for 3+ years now. Earlier it was hard on the system but its gotten a lot better.  

 

 

I enjoy the game, I dont believe this whole "its a scam deal", the creator is pretty upfront about the whole project. The monetary prices will change and the only way to get ships (from my understanding) will have to be via the internal monetary system with exception to the starter packs of course, after the official release. I could be wrong though.

[Princess Luna]

9 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

.

A quick look at the recommended hardware makes one not feel that safe about how serious they are I mean it almost seems like whoever wrote is has no understanding of PC hardware in the first place:

System Requirements

Minimum System Requirements^[19] for Star Citizen, as of March 16, 2016 (Star Citizen Alpha 2.2.2) are:^[20]

• OS (Operating System): Windows 7 service pack 1 (64 bit), or Windows 8 (64 bit)
• Processor: Quad core CPU more that Intel i5 1700 ---> cool CPU
• RAM: 8GB Memory
• GPU (Graphics Card): DirectX 11 graphics card with at least 4GB Video RAM ---> talk about specifics

Recommended System Requirements As of June 11, 2016, Alpha 2.4.0 are:

• OS (Operating System) - Windows 7 (64-bit), Windows 8 or 8.1 (64-bit) or Windows 10 (64-bit)
• Disk space - 200 GB SSD ---> a game actually requiring SSD?
• Processor - Quad Core CPU (Intel Core i7-4770K or comparable) -any quad core cpu... starting with a haswell i7 lol
• RAM - 16 GB RAM
• GPU (Graphics Card): DirectX - Version 11- AMD A10-7700K, AMD Radeon HD 7990, GeForce GTX 780 or similar with at least 4GB Video RAM ---> an outdated poor performing APU same level as a GTX 780? ok

 

 I mean... really? looks like they are not even trying... how do you spend 30 thousand dollars on a game that can't even list its required specs consistently.

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, Cole5 said:

I didnt realize being paid to shut down dissenters was an offensive job? I Just wanna know, it seems like a pretty easy job.

My friend, please stop while you are ahead. You've been a member of the forums for over 2 years now. You know what you're doing is attacking the personal character of another forum user. And you know that's wrong.

 

You assume that @Helly is a "paid shill" because he isn't on the "let's shit all over SC again" bandwagon. That's a damn bold claim to make.

 

He's not shutting down dissenters. He's providing an alternative view point, backed by facts and his own personal experience.

 

I mean, half of the claims about the game not being actively worked on are immediately dismissed by taking a cursory look at this:

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/roadmap/board/1-Star-Citizen

 

The game is going slow, but steady, with large improvements made in each quarterly update. Hell, in the next couple of updates, the economy/missions/trading, etc, will be significantly fleshed out to the point where there's pretty much a full game there, just confined to one (VERRRY LARGE) star system.

 

As Wil Wheaton says: be excellent to one another.

 

Don't be a dick.

Just now, SansVarnic said:

yeah I know, been playing on/off for 3+ years now. Earlier it was hard on the system but its gotten a lot better.  

 

 

I enjoy the game, I dont believe this whole "its a scam deal", the creator is pretty upfront about the whole project. The monetary prices will change and the only way to get ships (from my understanding) will have to be via the internal monetary system with exception to the starter packs of course, after the official release. I could be wrong though.

Agreed - I haven't had a chance to play the recent builds on modern hardware yet though. I parted and sold off my HD 7950 build a while ago because I was never using it - it never ran SC particularly well anyway, so no loss there.

 

I was able to dive in a bit with a GTX 1070 at work when we built our HTC Vive PC, but I was only able to get into Arena Commander and the Hanger (firewall issues, and I didn't have time to configure the correct ACL's). It did look gorgeous though.

 

4 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

A quick look at the recommended hardware makes one not feel that safe about how serious they are I mean it almost seems like whoever wrote is has no understanding of PC hardware in the first place:

System Requirements

Minimum System Requirements^[19] for Star Citizen, as of March 16, 2016 (Star Citizen Alpha 2.2.2) are:^[20]

• OS (Operating System): Windows 7 service pack 1 (64 bit), or Windows 8 (64 bit)
• Processor: Quad core CPU more that Intel i5 1700 ---> cool CPU
• RAM: 8GB Memory
• GPU (Graphics Card): DirectX 11 graphics card with at least 4GB Video RAM ---> talk about specifics

Recommended System Requirements As of June 11, 2016, Alpha 2.4.0 are:

• OS (Operating System) - Windows 7 (64-bit), Windows 8 or 8.1 (64-bit) or Windows 10 (64-bit)
• Disk space - 200 GB SSD ---> a game actually requiring SSD?
• Processor - Quad Core CPU (Intel Core i7-4770K or comparable) -any quad core cpu... starting with a haswell i7 lol
• RAM - 16 GB RAM
• GPU (Graphics Card): DirectX - Version 11- AMD A10-7700K, AMD Radeon HD 7990, GeForce GTX 780 or similar with at least 4GB Video RAM ---> an outdated poor performing APU same level as a GTX 780? ok

 

 I mean... really? looks like they are not even trying... how do you spend 30 thousand dollars on a game that can't even list its required specs consistently.

Where did you get that link? I can't find an officially published Minimum Requirements page. If you got that from starcitizen.wikia.com, you know know that this is a community/fan driven site, and the Developers have no official capacity on there.

 

I can comment on a bit of this:

SSD: No, not required, but it makes seamless loading wayyyyy better.

 

GPU, you can play the game on a pretty low end GPU - even an HD 7850, if you turn down the settings. Getting good performance on high settings, something like a GTX 1050 would be the lowest I'd go.

 

CPU wise, pretty much anything quad core that's "modern" - and I'd say even as far back as SandyBridge would be fine. People run it on dual-core w/ HT CPU's all the time, and it works, although not necessarily the best.

 

But again, these specs, I don't think they're official.

[suicidalfranco]

So you're telling me that ponzi scheme now deliver products and keeps you costantly updated on the state of the project? What a time to be alive.

I remember when ponzi scheme were all smoke and hand gestures

[dalekphalm]

36 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

So you're telling me that ponzi scheme now deliver products and keeps you costantly updated on the state of the project? What a time to be alive.

I remember when ponzi scheme were all smoke and hand gestures

Edit for clarity: I missed the "obvious" sarcasm. This was my fault for not re-reading your post.

 

 

 

Though I will leave the below still, because there ARE people in this thread who are claiming this to be a ponzi scheme with a straight face:

This quite literally not a ponzi scheme.

 

Ponzi scheme has a specific, literal, definition. Please look it up.

 

You can still claim it's a "scam", if you want (though if it is a scam, it's a shitty scam, since they're spending the money they make on... making the game - which is available to play right now in Alpha form, with new features added constantly). But if you claim it's a ponzi scheme, you're quite frankly, factually 100% incorrect.

[suicidalfranco]

12 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

This quite literally not a ponzi scheme.

 

Ponzi scheme has a specific, literal, definition. Please look it up.

 

You can still claim it's a "scam", if you want (though if it is a scam, it's a shitty scam, since they're spending the money they make on... making the game - which is available to play right now in Alpha form, with new features added constantly). But if you claim it's a ponzi scheme, you're quite frankly, factually 100% incorrect.

>not picking up the obvious sarcasm

[dalekphalm]

18 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

>not picking up the obvious sarcasm

>not using the industry standard "/s"

 

Although, to be fair, this is mostly on me

[jasonvp]

1 hour ago, Princess Cadence said:

A quick look at the recommended hardware makes one not feel that safe about how serious they are I mean it almost seems like whoever wrote is has no understanding of PC hardware in the first place:

It's comical that folks have to spend time trying to find any and everything wrong or out of place with Star Citizen.  Clearly CR must be doing something right to have hit such a nerve with folks.  But let's first address this inane post with:

 

Ignore their SysReq for now.  Seriously: just ignore it.  Even they know it can't be taken seriously yet because they're not even remotely close to done optimizing the game.  It's still server locked, meaning you can throw a beast of a PC at it, or a low-end, and you're likely going to get the same in-game frame rate when connected to the PU.  They know that's an issue, everyone playing it knows that's an issue, and it's something the alpha testers are living with.

 

It won't stay that way when they release the game.  In other words: it's work in progress.  Therefore: ignore the SysReq page.  It'll change.  Probably numerous times before the game is launched.

 

Folks who spend on this expensive ship pack aren't spending "30 thousand dollars on a game",  They're spending <insert dollar amount here> to support the continued development of it.  And I'm with a few others that don't understand why people are so bent out of shape about this ship pack.  I certainly won't pay for it.  I haven't that kind of liquidity.  But CIG is just charging what they think the market will bear.  Why is that a problem?  People who can afford that kind of coin aren't going to be put out by spending it.  It's a level of wealth and income few to no one here can grasp or relate to.  Big deal.  Move on.

 

Finally, some thoughts:

Last I checked, I think he's got five studios?  LA, Texas, UK, Germany, and I thought one other.  Maybe it's four.  Either way, running studios like that costs real, honest-to-God money.  Paying expensive salaries, paying for the buildings, paying the insurance (health, real estate, et al), along with the various taxes and whatnot.  Then there are the Hollywood actors he's already paid.  Mark Hamill doesn't come cheaply.  Neither does Andy Serkis.  Gillian Anderson.  Gary Oldman.  Mark Strong.  On and on.  And these weren't just voice actors, either.  They were in full MoCap suits spending a lot of time getting body and facial expressions mapped.  Not cheap.

 

So before folks too heavily criticize the amount of money CIG has pulled in (and continue to pull in), think through all of their various costs.  What they're doing isn't inexpensive in the least.  And they don't have a AAA publisher backing them up, either.

[Cole5]

12 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

It's comical that folks have to spend time trying to find any and everything wrong or out of place with Star Citizen.  Clearly CR must be doing something right to have hit such a nerve with folks.  But let's first address this inane post with:

 

Ignore their SysReq for now.  Seriously: just ignore it.  Even they know it can't be taken seriously yet because they're not even remotely close to done optimizing the game.  It's still server locked, meaning you can throw a beast of a PC at it, or a low-end, and you're likely going to get the same in-game frame rate when connected to the PU.  They know that's an issue, everyone playing it knows that's an issue, and it's something the alpha testers are living with.

 

It won't stay that way when they release the game.  In other words: it's work in progress.  Therefore: ignore the SysReq page.  It'll change.  Probably numerous times before the game is launched.

 

Folks who spend on this expensive ship pack aren't spending "30 thousand dollars on a game",  They're spending <insert dollar amount here> to support the continued development of it.  And I'm with a few others that don't understand why people are so bent out of shape about this ship pack.  I certainly won't pay for it.  I haven't that kind of liquidity.  But CIG is just charging what they think the market will bear.  Why is that a problem?  People who can afford that kind of coin aren't going to be put out by spending it.  It's a level of wealth and income few to no one here can grasp or relate to.  Big deal.  Move on.

 

Finally, some thoughts:

Last I checked, I think he's got five studios?  LA, Texas, UK, Germany, and I thought one other.  Maybe it's four.  Either way, running studios like that costs real, honest-to-God money.  Paying expensive salaries, paying for the buildings, paying the insurance (health, real estate, et al), along with the various taxes and whatnot.  Then there are the Hollywood actors he's already paid.  Mark Hamill doesn't come cheaply.  Neither does Andy Serkis.  Gillian Anderson.  Gary Oldman.  Mark Strong.  On and on.  And these weren't just voice actors, either.  They were in full MoCap suits spending a lot of time getting body and facial expressions mapped.  Not cheap.

 

So before folks too heavily criticize the amount of money CIG has pulled in (and continue to pull in), think through all of their various costs.  What they're doing isn't inexpensive in the least.  And they don't have a AAA publisher backing them up, either.

True, if they did there would be a game by now.

[Princess Luna]

17 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

It's comical that folks have to spend time trying to find any and everything wrong or out of place with Star Citizen. 

Only thing comical here is that you chosen the wrong person to pick on a discussion to defend your beloved game, I don't care at all to this game, never even followed any thing about it and I spent a minute worth of time googling the specs  

 

A couple of things you wrote though are comical on it's own right though:

17 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

Folks who spend on this expensive ship pack aren't spending "30 thousand dollars on a game",  They're spending <insert dollar amount here> to support the continued development of it.

You realize all in all that's literally the same thing? just differently worded lol.

17 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

Not cheap.

Oh really? I had nooo idea that making a high end game from scratch was expensive ohhh ohhh rolls eyes

17 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

It's a level of wealth and income few to no one here can grasp or relate to.  Big deal.  Move on.

I play games on a TITAN V for fun, so yeah... my level of wealth is fine, it has nothing to do with being too poor to understand the appeal or what not as you seem to make it sound lmao... I just thought it's funny how this game is such a premium thing and yet it has some really sluggish mistakes here and there.

17 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

So before folks too heavily criticize the amount of money CIG has pulled in (and continue to pull in), think through all of their various costs.  What they're doing isn't inexpensive in the least.  And they don't have a AAA publisher backing them up, either.

Heavily criticizing? really? I don't care at all because it ain't my money it's not me investing hard just to be able to play a game, I mean if it was an investment with returns and what not I could understand the high figures but either ways that's how they make budget and if they are trying to release a triple A they are a AAA publisher themselves... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Misanthrope]

Hello SC enthusiasts.

 

I am here to say that you're entitled to pay for the continued development of this game but I want to tell you that you're being taken advantage of by accepting that in your world view, it is now ok to donate money for developing a product while getting to "test" that product in the meantime before it is released.

 

What these people are doing is basically taking advantage of crowd sourcing to circumvent a lot of the publisher-client relationships and the consumer protections that should be afforded to you by agreeing to actually pay for a product/service and have certain basic guarantees and let game publishers take on the risk, big or small, on funding said game development since other investments also have certain protections under the law.

 

I am extremely happy that you are all very exited about this game. It is an overall positive that you've found a piece of entertainment that satisfies you so much. All I am saying here is that you're perhaps not aware that there are consequences to the precedent set by the continued success of Star Citizen and it's commercial model, precedents than other companies with varying degrees of talent and scruples might use to push the industry into a very regrettable predatory state that utilizes what we often refer to as "hype" (Which is basically marketing and PR work) to get out of some very basic assumptions about the relationship between product and service providers and their customers.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Hello SC enthusiasts.

 

I am here to say that you're entitled to pay for the continued development of this game but I want to tell you that you're being taken advantage of by accepting that in your world view, it is now ok to donate money for developing a product while getting to "test" that product in the meantime before it is released.

 

What these people are doing is basically taking advantage of crowd sourcing to circumvent a lot of the publisher-client relationships and the consumer protections that should be afforded to you by agreeing to actually pay for a product and have certain basic guarantees and let game publishers take on the risk, big or small, on funding said game development since other investments also have certain protections under the law.

 

I am extremely happy that you are all very exited about this game. It is an overall positive that you've found a piece of entertainment that satisfies you so much. All I am saying here is that you're perhaps not aware that there are consequences to the precedent set by the continued success of Star Citizen and it's commercial module, precedents than other companies with varying degrees of talent and scruples might use to push the industry into a very regrettable predatory state that utilizes what we often refer to as "hype" (Which is basically marketing and PR work) to get out of some very basic assumptions about the relationship between product and service providers and their customers.

Your points do have merit, but aside from scale, this is no different from any other "Alpha" or "early access' business model that is already rampant within the industry.

 

And say what you will about crowdsourcing, and whether it should exist in the games industry, but it basically relies heavily on early access, since few gamers would otherwise have the patience to wait for a full game dev cycle to finish before touching the game.

 

Certainly, it would be nice if RSI could have entirely funded the game on their own, while still getting the scope that they wanted. But Roberts specifically went down the crowdfunding route because he was fed up with publisher restrictions in the dev cycle (specifically, pushing for a game release even when the game isn't ready).

 

Is that the best route? Do the publishers have a point? Maybe to both. There's no perfect way to make a game - most especially one this ambitious. I'm content to wait and see how it all plays out, and only having given $60 or so to the project, I don't feel taken advantage of.

 

Would I prefer if I was getting a ROI with some sort of interest based on after-launch sales? Hell yes. But until that sort of structure exists, we're stuck with either no crowdsourcing, or Kickstarter/Indigogo style crowdsourcing.

[Misanthrope]

18 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Your points do have merit, but aside from scale, this is no different from any other "Alpha" or "early access' business model that is already rampant within the industry.

And that's precisely the problem: Testing (alpha, beta or otherwise) was at one point a necessary step in the development of a game. A step that companies needed to invest on as part of their development to finalize their game.

 

Let's see how this has been pushed, little by little:

 

1) Game publishers used to hire testers or otherwise user their team and/or resources to complete these tasks

 

2) Marketing department noticed that their strategy of building up expectations (Hype) was working so well that the number one request from the people expecting the release of the products was to have a taste of it, so they decided to delegate certain parts of the testing to the general public in some form or another (Closed or open beta testing, for certain periods, etc.)

 

This was effectively in my view already a big issue since it turned labor necessary for developing a game into another monetized part of the game since people invested their time and effort to test the games for them without receiving any actual compensation whatsoever for their labor or work on the game

 

3) This was then pushed further into extracting commercial value by selling the access to this testing in a limited way with the inclusion of partner deals with other companies and later even direct sale through 'special edition' access that among regular "extras" that came with the game the gamer also, partially, paid for the benefit of testing the game for them.

 

This blurred the line between game development, marketing and labor extraction.

 

4) Certain developers and publishers moved the line even further away by now asserting that there will be only partial investment and that these labor extraction from the end user/customer was now a big focus if not the principal funding method for the game. You are now told that the game requires such a great degree of artistic freedom that it cannot possibly exist without several levels of support from the customer. You are now an investor in the game. You are now also an active developer by testing the game, reporting bugs, even encouraging crowd suggestions and participation. You are now also in charge of marketing the game yourself (Self evident on this thread) and addressing any detractors since the core company and it's employees well they are too busy.

 

We have moved the bar from you being a customer, to you being a customer that also volunteer his own time (read: money by virtue of labor implied in said time investment) to contribute to the development of the game, to paying money in addition to having your value extracted by testing you know pay for this privilege, to actually becoming an investor in almost every sense of the word (With one of the only yet most critical exceptions is being legally protected in your investment)

 

I am very sorry but I see a direct escalation and an active eroding of consumer rights when it comes to videogames.

[dalekphalm]

36 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

And that's precisely the problem: Testing (alpha, beta or otherwise) was at one point a necessary step in the development of a game. A step that companies needed to invest on as part of their development to finalize their game.

 

Let's see how this has been pushed, little by little:

 

1) Game publishers used to hire testers or otherwise user their team and/or resources to complete these tasks

 

2) Marketing department noticed that their strategy of building up expectations (Hype) was working so well that the number one request from the people expecting the release of the products was to have a taste of it, so they decided to delegate certain parts of the testing to the general public in some form or another (Closed or open beta testing, for certain periods, etc.)

 

This was effectively in my view already a big issue since it turned labor necessary for developing a game into another monetized part of the game since people invested their time and effort to test the games for them without receiving any actual compensation whatsoever for their labor or work on the game

 

3) This was then pushed further into extracting commercial value by selling the access to this testing in a limited way with the inclusion of partner deals with other companies and later even direct sale through 'special edition' access that among regular "extras" that came with the game the gamer also, partially, paid for the benefit of testing the game for them.

 

This blurred the line between game development, marketing and labor extraction.

 

4) Certain developers and publishers moved the line even further away by now asserting that there will be only partial investment and that these labor extraction from the end user/customer was now a big focus if not the principal funding method for the game. You are now told that the game requires such a great degree of artistic freedom that it cannot possibly exist without several levels of support from the customer. You are now an investor in the game. You are now also an active developer by testing the game, reporting bugs, even encouraging crowd suggestions and participation. You are now also in charge of marketing the game yourself (Self evident on this thread) and addressing any detractors since the core company and it's employees well they are too busy.

 

We have moved the bar from you being a customer, to you being a customer that also volunteer his own time (read: money by virtue of labor implied in said time investment) to contribute to the development of the game, to paying money in addition to having your value extracted by testing you know pay for this privilege, to actually becoming an investor in almost every sense of the word (With one of the only yet most critical exceptions is being legally protected in your investment)

 

I am very sorry but I see a direct escalation and an active eroding of consumer rights when it comes to videogames.

I don't even disagree with you. But the reality is that boat has long since sailed. A kickstarter that doesn't have early access is almost guaranteed to be dead in the water.

 

Though, to be fair, Star Citizen DOES use paid QA testers. They test all their builds in-house on a private test universe before it ever hits the backers. So we're not exactly looking at the same situation as, say, Microsoft, who decides to fire their entire QA team and replace them with the Windows Insider group.

[Misanthrope]

19 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I don't even disagree with you. But the reality is that boat has long since sailed.

And at one point boats 1 through 3 also long since sailed. By accepting that there's nothing to be done about boat 4 you're enabling it's normalization and eventually clearing the waters for boat #5 in which you will get even less value for what you pay.

 

It is never too late to state that there is nothing to be done. Even if it doesn't changes a damn thing about Star Citizen, if I at least gave pause to someone who currently supports the game to re-think about renewing their support, then that's already a net positive.