do you think this game will flop

[Eduard the weeb]

I think with over 3 years of waiting this game will flop?

like if you look at past games with alot of hype almost nothing can live up to it like even if no man sky was everything promised we still probably not have been satisfied 

[Wauthar]

inb4 people start yammering about not knowing which game...

 

Simply said, we don't know.

 

Personally, I trust CIG to give us what they promise, eventually.

Besides, if you took the time to read some threads in this sub-forum, you would have seen that this question gets asked a lot.

[Eduard the weeb]

2 minutes ago, Wauthar said:

inb4 people start yammering about not knowing which game...

 

Simply said, we don't know.

 

Personally, I trust CIG to give us what they promise, eventually.

Besides, if you took the time to read some threads in this sub-forum, you would have seen that this question gets asked a lot.

oh sorry lol I didn't know it was asked often but that to be expected I guess

[Nocte]

8 minutes ago, Eduard the weeb said:

no man sky

NMS got released though it wasn’t what they promised. 

 

I’d rather have a game delayed a few years (especially considering the massive scope of star citizen), rather than having an half-completed game. 

 

I can see the frustration of people who backed it etc. (I don’t even own it as I am waiting for more content, might actually buy it with 3.0 released), but people would even be more frustrated if it becomes NMS v2. 

[Corwin111]

2 hours ago, Eibe said:

...might actually buy it with 3.0 released), but people would even be more frustrated if it becomes NMS v2. 

3.0 WAS released almost about a month ago. It's live.

 

That said, it is of course, a buggy mess - just like every other .0 SC release so far. And just like every other .0 release so far, it will get fixed up in the coming months.

 

If you come at it with the mindset of "buying it", you will likely be disappointed. What some people fail to understand is that they're not "buying" anything, they're pledging their money to support a crowdfunding project that is still very much in development - and getting to participate in its alpha test as a bonus.

 

Otherwise I do agree with your post.  

[dalekphalm]

22 hours ago, Eduard the weeb said:

I think with over 3 years of waiting this game will flop?

like if you look at past games with alot of hype almost nothing can live up to it like even if no man sky was everything promised we still probably not have been satisfied 

Will it flop? I personally don't think so. There's solid progress in development every week. They recently moved to quarterly large updates to ensure a more frequent update schedule. It'll probably be at least another year before release though - They've got version Alpha 4.0 scheduled for when they introduce expansion into other solar systems.

 

The fact that it's been 3 years? That means literally nothing. Regularly, it takes AAA game developers 3 to 5 years to make a traditional "large scale" AAA game. SC is unlike anything we've seen. Elite maybe comes close, but is quite a bit different, in many key areas.

 

The reason why people often feel like it'll fail, is because they aren't used to being able to see EVERYTHING behind the scenes with a large scale game development. Normally, a AAA dev/publisher won't give you any info at all, until it's about a year (or less) from release. We got to see the details from day one.

 

Also keep in mind they essentially had to build their own engine while they were at it. They made heavy modifications to CryEngine to enable it to do the things they wanted.

 

I'm a backer, and I only spent like $40 on the game. I'm not upset with the progress. If it never comes out? Damn, that would suck - but I would be glad that they tried.

 

Also some people are upset about the in-game purchases - ships, etc. Most people seem to forget that those are entirely optional purchases. In-game, you will be able to earn "credits" through quests, trading, missions, etc, and use those credits to buy any ship. Once you pay the initial purchase price of the game, you can play the rest of the game without spending a dime (not including any potential DLC expansion packs - if any - but we're years away from having to worry about DLC).

[Guest]

I watched a discussion about it and it’s not going to flop. It’s simply being funded greatly by its audience, so they’re going to keep making it as long as they’re getting paid. 

[dalekphalm]

13 hours ago, fpo said:

I watched a discussion about it and it’s not going to flop. It’s simply being funded greatly by its audience, so they’re going to keep making it as long as they’re getting paid. 

Some of the detractors would argue they’ll intentionally never release the game so they can all get “paid” forever using crowdfunding income. 

 

But that’s kind of stupid, because they stand to make a lot more money by finishing and releasing it, to get those on the fence to buy the game, increased audience for in game micro transactions, etc. 

 

Not to mention the possibility of working on post launch dlc they can sell (and make even more money from). 

 

Being active and intentionally perpetually in early access doesn’t make a lot of sense when you’ve got the resources to finish the game. 

[Guest]

On 1/22/2018 at 12:03 PM, dalekphalm said:

Some of the detractors would argue they’ll intentionally never release the game so they can all get “paid” forever using crowdfunding income. 

 

But that’s kind of stupid, because they stand to make a lot more money by finishing and releasing it, to get those on the fence to buy the game, increased audience for in game micro transactions, etc. 

 

Not to mention the possibility of working on post launch dlc they can sell (and make even more money from). 

 

Being active and intentionally perpetually in early access doesn’t make a lot of sense when you’ve got the resources to finish the game. 

Some people are donating thousands of dollars in one go. 

Many people buy the 45 dollar ship, then buy the few hundred dollar ship. 

They already have DLC. Micro transactions. They may release the squadron 42 maybe, but they asked "Should we release this now" and the people funding the game, and paying for it said no, just keep developing it. So they're still getting huge donations. I don't believe they'll get more money. I think they'll get some initial people. As long as they say "We're still working on it" customers will say "We're still funding it." People want the game to succeed in features, so they're making it succeed in money. There's no reason to ever release it because you can always add a feature to a future space ship MMO game. Look at world of warcraft. about 20+ years in the making, and they're still releasing DLC, HOWEVER they're also getting subscribers. Yes the company may say "Okay, it's released but we're going to implement more features indefinitely" but saying "Pre-release build" exempts them from any flaws, bugs crashes and whatnot that will indefinitely occur. 

 

They already have their core audience, and know their core audience well. Eve has it's audience, and they pour money into that company. If Star citizen tries to get more people in by releasing the game, it can alienate their core audience funding the game by saying "Okay it's done." Core audience could say "No, it's not. You betrayed us. I'm leaving." The same thing occurred with the Star Wars MMO when it took 5 years for the first person to become a Jedi. They simplified the entire game alienating their entire core audience keeping the company afloat. Then the new players didn't really stick around. It is too risky from a business standpoint to take such a drastic turn. They already asked their audience. They don't want it released. Yes some 10% or less said "yeah, it's basically done" others said idk, but 60+ % said "Keep developing." That's the majority of your user-base. You give them something they'll pay for, or you'll lose your funding. To compare again to the star wars MMO, they tried to bring in a new audience by adding the Jedi class, and making it simpler. ... Sorry I'm just repeating myself. You just have to add more things the core audience wants.

 

For world of warcraft you can now instant any level if you pay. Yeah, some people are pissed, but the core audience doesn't care, and it helps fund the company. 

Blizzard is intending to release a Vanilla 1.0 world of warcraft, BUT it's entirely separate from the new World of Warcraft Legion and whatnot. This doesn't alienate the core audience embracing the new features they love, but brings in a new audience. Star Citizen cannot release-at least not for many years. (Likely when the game becomes unpopular, or the company tanks) or just never will. If anything, Squadron 42 May release, but there's issues with licensing as they have a license for only 1 game, and they're making 2 so who knows. 

 

EDIT:
In conclusion, yes, they can get paid forever by consumers donating thousands of dollars to make the game a reality. 

That is stupid, but the gamble of more money, is likely not more money. In a full release, they won't get continued funding, only initial money unless they go to a subscription which could alienate the core audience. People already donate as if a subscription, so it's basically an optional subscription that keeps it going. They already have DLC in the form of ships. 1 or more is over 1 thousand USD. around $750 from what I found as of 23 January 2018.

It doesn't make sense from a consumer stand point, but for a business, as long as they're positive in the profits, there is no reason to ever change. 

 

This is a metaphore:

Ask anyone with a desk job when the last time they got an upgrade from their company was. How many are still running unsupported XP, if not older Operating systems? Same concept. No reason to change if it works, and makes money. 

[Helly]

20 hours ago, fpo said:

but they asked "Should we release this now" and the people funding the game, and paying for it said no, just keep developing it.

Show me a source where this was asked. Don't make claims like this without backing it up with a source.

 

20 hours ago, fpo said:

If Star citizen tries to get more people in by releasing the game, it can alienate their core audience funding the game by saying "Okay it's done." Core audience could say "No, it's not. You betrayed us. I'm leaving."

Yes you're right, if they release the game now everyone is leaving, including me, because then they WOULD have betrayed us. Because this game isn't done. Nowhere near it in fact. They know it and all the backers know it, which is why they dont release it now. They're not even talking about any release but alpha releases.

 

20 hours ago, fpo said:

In a full release, they won't get continued funding, only initial money unless they go to a subscription which could alienate the core audience.

In a full release people have to buy the game to play it. At which point it will probably be a ~$60 game. How are they not getting funding when the game is released? Also SC is an MMO for which you can buy in-game money. people will do this and thus give them money (funding).

 

20 hours ago, fpo said:

Ask anyone with a desk job when the last time they got an upgrade from their company was.

What's this even got to do with anything? Is this another claim that there will be no more updates for this game? Is that really happening again after v1.0, v1.5,v2.0, v2.5, v2.6, v2.6.1? The ships are not DLC, but w/e. The ship that is >$1000 (which i can't even find so gimme a source on that to) is probably a capital ship. You do realize that those ships are the size of an entire level of normal shooter games right? you can literally get lost on those ships and walk around for a long time without seeing the same thing twice. Not difficult to imagine those ships are expensive.

 

You said so many weird and bullshit things in ur wall of text you gave me a headache... so good job on that

[dalekphalm]

24 minutes ago, Helly said:

Show me a source where this was asked. Don't make claims like this without backing it up with a source.

 

Yes you're right, if they release the game now everyone is leaving, including me, because then they WOULD have betrayed us. Because this game isn't done. Nowhere near it in fact. They know it and all the backers know it, which is why they dont release it now. They're not even talking about any release but alpha releases.

 

In a full release people have to buy the game to play it. At which point it will probably be a ~$60 game. How are they not getting funding when the game is released? Also SC is an MMO for which you can buy in-game money. people will do this and thus give them money (funding).

 

What's this even got to do with anything? Is this another claim that there will be no more updates for this game? Is that really happening again after v1.0, v1.5,v2.0, v2.5, v2.6, v2.6.1? The ships are not DLC, but w/e. The ship that is >$1000 (which i can't even find so gimme a source on that to) is probably a capital ship. You do realize that those ships are the size of an entire level of normal shooter games right? you can literally get lost on those ships and walk around for a long time without seeing the same thing twice. Not difficult to imagine those ships are expensive.

 

You said so many weird and bullshit things in ur wall of text you gave me a headache... so good job on that

Not to mention, to top if all off:

 

All games will be available for purchase using in-game currency, earned by playing the game, for free. The only money you need to spend, is the initial cost of the game (I think I spent $45 on the base Aurora ship - but I'm an original kickstarter).

 

20 hours ago, fpo said:

Some people are donating thousands of dollars in one go. 

Many people buy the 45 dollar ship, then buy the few hundred dollar ship. 

They already have DLC. They may release the squadron 42 maybe, but they asked "Should we release this now" and the people funding the game, and paying for it said no, just keep developing it. So they're still getting huge donations. I don't believe they'll get more money. I think they'll get some initial people. As long as they say "We're still working on it" customers will say "We're still funding it." People want the game to succeed in features, so they're making it succeed in money. There's no reason to ever release it because you can always add a feature to a future space ship MMO game. Look at world of warcraft. about 20+ years in the making, and they're still releasing DLC, HOWEVER they're also getting subscribers. Yes the company may say "Okay, it's released but we're going to implement more features indefinitely" but saying "Pre-release build" exempts them from any flaws, bugs crashes and whatnot that will indefinitely occur. 

 

They already have their core audience, and know their core audience well. Eve has it's audience, and they pour money into that company. If Star citizen tries to get more people in by releasing the game, it can alienate their core audience funding the game by saying "Okay it's done." Core audience could say "No, it's not. You betrayed us. I'm leaving." The same thing occurred with the Star Wars MMO when it took 5 years for the first person to become a Jedi. They simplified the entire game alienating their entire core audience keeping the company afloat. Then the new players didn't really stick around. It is too risky from a business standpoint to take such a drastic turn. They already asked their audience. They don't want it released. Yes some 10% or less said "yeah, it's basically done" others said idk, but 60+ % said "Keep developing." That's the majority of your user-base. You give them something they'll pay for, or you'll lose your funding. To compare again to the star wars MMO, they tried to bring in a new audience by adding the Jedi class, and making it simpler. ... Sorry I'm just repeating myself. You just have to add more things the core audience wants.

 

For world of warcraft you can now instant any level if you pay. Yeah, some people are pissed, but the core audience doesn't care, and it helps fund the company. 

Blizzard is intending to release a Vanilla 1.0 world of warcraft, BUT it's entirely separate from the new World of Warcraft Legion and whatnot. This doesn't alienate the core audience embracing the new features they love, but brings in a new audience. Star Citizen cannot release-at least not for many years. (Likely when the game becomes unpopular, or the company tanks) or just never will. If anything, Squadron 42 May release, but there's issues with licensing as they have a license for only 1 game, and they're making 2 so who knows. 

 

EDIT:
In conclusion, yes, they can get paid forever by consumers donating thousands of dollars to make the game a reality. 

That is stupid, but the gamble of more money, is likely not more money. In a full release, they won't get continued funding, only initial money unless they go to a subscription which could alienate the core audience. People already donate as if a subscription, so it's basically an optional subscription that keeps it going. They already have DLC in the form of ships. 1 or more is over 1 thousand USD. 

It doesn't make sense from a consumer stand point, but for a business, as long as they're positive in the profits, there is no reason to ever change. 

Ask anyone with a desk job when the last time they got an upgrade from their company was. How many are still running unsupported XP, if not older Operating systems? Same concept. No reason to change if it works, and makes money. 

Very few people are donating $1000 in one shot. Those are the whales, and they exist in every game market. Linus is one of them though (unless he got a refund) - he grabbed the Constellation package, I believe (Corvette sized multi-crewed ship).

 

Most people buy the $45 base package. And that's it. Most people aren't buying the upgrades.

 

They already have DLC? What DLC? No they don't. The game isn't even finished yet. Unless you mean the ship purchases? Those are micro-transactions, not DLC's.

 

You might consider Squadron 42 a DLC, kind of. It's a stand alone package, but it's launched through the same launcher. And you can buy them separately or as a bundle.

 

No, the devs did not ask if we should release it now. WTF. That's ridiculous. The devs know the game is at least a year (probably 2) from being done. The backers know this too.

 

Once the game finishes, they will sell copies for probably $60 for the base ship. They will make more sales. There's absolutely no way that the entire core audience has bought the game. Why? Because I know for a fact there are multiple people who enjoy this genre, that are waiting until the game comes out (or flops) before buying.

 

Not to mention,  yes, there will be some people that continue to purchase ships via Micro transactions - these people will help fund the game long term.

 

Quote

Ask anyone with a desk job when the last time they got an upgrade from their company was. How many are still running unsupported XP, if not older Operating systems? Same concept. No reason to change if it works, and makes money. 

What? I mean, sure, there are some businesses that are irresponsible and don't keep up with IT equipment.

 

But I'm rocking an i7-6700 + 16GB of RAM in my workstation at work. And regular office staff generally have an i7 (Haswell or newer) + 8GB of RAM.

 

We treat our staff properly, and regularly replace equipment every 4-5 years.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Helly said:

Show me a source where this was asked. Don't make claims like this without backing it up with a source.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2014/6/24/5833336/star-citizen-community-votes-to-keep-stretch-goals-as-funding-sails

Quote

In a full release people have to buy the game to play it. At which point it will probably be a ~$60 game. How are they not getting funding when the game is released? Also SC is an MMO for which you can buy in-game money. people will do this and thus give them money (funding).

Can’t you buy game money now anyway? If you sell it for $60 you wouldn’t have a good reason to sell $3000 ships (The highest price ones I found are $700~) or you’ll get EA Battlefront 2 all over again. 

If they make the game free to play, (1 it’s already free) then you can’t get the additional 45$ minimum funding. (It’s free to play, you just have to own a ship.) 

 

Could your theory work? I think it might, but the present business models works so there’s no need to change to that. 

Quote

What's this even got to do with anything? Is this another claim that there will be no more updates for this game? Is that really happening again after v1.0, v1.5,v2.0, v2.5, v2.6, v2.6.1? The ships are not DLC, but w/e. The ship that is >$1000 (which i can't even find so gimme a source on that to) is probably a capital ship. You do realize that those ships are the size of an entire level of normal shooter games right? you can literally get lost on those ships and walk around for a long time without seeing the same thing twice. Not difficult to imagine those ships are expensive.

That was a metaphor. There’s no reason for the company to ever declare “okay, we’re done.” 

Yes, like Minecraft they can say “released!” And send out updates. However, it would be smarter to say “we didn’t finish” to excuse any bugs, or issues. It’s bulletproof because it’s “not final.” 

People are paying for the game, and playing it no matter how “alpha” it is. 

 

 

The ships are like DLC, as you pay for them and get them. Like buying a new gun in Planetside 2. 

 

I cannot find the >$1000 ship. I found the $750 ship. I’m presuming they lowered the price, however it’s still very expensive. It’s not important the price, but people CAN buy better stuff, so they will spend more money to get it. That’s anything where people can upgrade. 

People pay more for better graphics card even if they can play the games they like. 

Quote

You said so many weird and bullshit things in ur wall of text you gave me a headache... so good job on that

I’ll re-read it, but I thought I made sense in a lot of the comparisons. 

Is there anything specific that was straight nonsense? I understand the 1k usd ship as that’s no longer at >= 1k usd. Other than that I tried to help explain what I meant by comparing to other examples that actually occurred. 

[dalekphalm]

15 minutes ago, fpo said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2014/6/24/5833336/star-citizen-community-votes-to-keep-stretch-goals-as-funding-sails

Can’t you buy game money now anyway? If you sell it for $60 you wouldn’t have a good reason to sell $3000 ships or you’ll get EA Battlefront 2 all over again. 

If they make the game free to play, (1 it’s already free) then you can’t get the additional 45$ minimum funding. (It’s free to play, you just have to own a ship.) 

 

Could your theory work? I think it might, but the present business models works so there’s no need to change to that. 

That was a metaphor. There’s no reason for the company to ever declare “okay, we’re done.” 

Yes, like Minecraft they can say “released!” And send out updates. However, it would be smarter to say “we didn’t finish” to excuse any bugs, or issues. It’s bulletproof because it’s “not final.” 

People are paying for the game, and playing it no matter how “alpha” it is. 

 

 

The ships are like DLC, as you pay for them and get them. Like buying a new gun in Planetside 2. 

 

I cannot find the >$1000 ship. I found the $750 ship. I’m presuming they lowered the price, however it’s still very expensive. It’s not important the price, but people CAN buy better stuff, so they will spend more money to get it. That’s anything where people can upgrade. 

People pay more for better graphics card even if they can play the games they like. 

I’ll re-read it, but I thought I made sense in a lot of the comparisons. 

Is there anything specific that was straight nonsense? I understand the 1k usd ship as that’s no longer at >= 1k usd. Other than that I tried to help explain what I meant by comparing to other examples that actually occurred. 

The game may eventually become F2P, like 3-5 years after release - that's possible. But I'd suspect they would only do so if that was the only way to sustain the ongoing costs.

 

The game is not free right now. You have to buy at least the base package which includes SC (but not SQ42, unless you were an original backer, which included both - now you need to buy the more expensive bundle to get both).

 

I think you're wrong. I think ideally, they would "release" the first public full version (Let's call it Public 1.0), with all of the major components finished, with stretch goals finished.

 

Then, I think they will continue development, in an ongoing basis. It's now "public", and "done", but they'll likely keep expanding and adding to it, much like Elite: Dangerous does.

 

How they expand it, post launch, can be done in many ways. Up front DLC costs (Eg: "expansions"), or perhaps funded through Micro transactions (like they currently do with ship sales).

 

I wouldn't call the ships DLC. DLC implies it's an optional download that will add something to the game. If you don't buy the Constellation ship package, the game still exists. NPC's will still fly it. Other players can still fly it. You can still steal it from an NPC or another player. Or buy it with in-game currency. These are not typical of DLC, but rather, typical of optional micro-transactions to buy something with real money that you could simply choose to buy with in-game currency instead.

 

Yes some people will spend extra to outright buy a $750 ship. But not most. And those who do, actually make it cheaper for the rest of us to play the game.

[Guest]

I was hoping I could edit my replies, and respond to Dalekphalm's before you guys saw it, but here's my replies now; my edits will slash old text and have the new next to it. 

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Not to mention, to top if all off:

 

All games will be available for purchase using in-game currency, earned by playing the game, for free. The only money you need to spend, is the initial cost of the game (I think I spent $45 on the base Aurora ship - but I'm an original kickstarter).

Yes, but you have to pay to enter. 

The people funding the game aren't spending hours grinding to get everything for free. They're spending the money to get the things you grind for. 

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Very few people are donating $1000 in one shot. Those are the whales, and they exist in every game market. Linus is one of them though (unless he got a refund) - he grabbed the Constellation package, I believe (Corvette sized multi-crewed ship).

 

Most people buy the $45 base package. And that's it. Most people aren't buying the upgrades.

Most people aren't funding the game. Your petty $45 is nothing in the big picture. Not that I'm a major credidation, however in talks I have attended at a Game Development program-The people funding your game ARE the 1% of very few people donating $1000 in one shot. Believe it or not, but there are people out there that only play 1 free game, and spend tons of dollars funding the studios. You highly underestimate the amount that the "few people" are actually doing to fund this game. 

I adopted a lot of points stated in this video, and within it-there is an alignment with the talks I had attended. 

Spoiler

 

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

They already have DLC? What DLC? No they don't. The game isn't even finished yet. Unless you mean the ship purchases? Those are micro-transactions, not DLC's.

I did use the wrong word. I did mean Micro-transaction however I'm hoping you can see my point, without nitpicking. You have to pay to get the extra "content." Though you don't DOWNLOAD it, it's a micro-transaction but it's close enough that it's almost interchangeable, but I did use the wrong word. 

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

You might consider Squadron 42 a DLC, kind of. It's a stand alone package, but it's launched through the same launcher. And you can buy them separately or as a bundle.

It is a standalone package. I did acknowledge this in an earlier post. 

Spoiler

Quote

If anything, Squadron 42 May release, but there's issues with licensing as they have a license for only 1 game, and they're making 2 so who knows. 

 

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

No, the devs did not ask if we should release it now. WTF. That's ridiculous. The devs know the game is at least a year (probably 2) from being done. The backers know this too.

I linked a video above, but here's the article I linked to Helly

Spoiler

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2014/6/24/5833336/star-citizen-community-votes-to-keep-stretch-goals-as-funding-sails

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Once the game finishes, they will sell copies for probably $60 for the base ship. They will make more sales. There's absolutely no way that the entire core audience has bought the game. Why? Because I know for a fact there are multiple people who enjoy this genre, that are waiting until the game comes out (or flops) before buying.

Just because they sell more standalone copies doesn't mean they'll make more money. As I talked about in an earlier post. 

Spoiler

Quote

 If Star citizen tries to get more people in by releasing the game, it can alienate their core audience funding the game by saying "Okay it's done." Core audience could say "No, it's not. You betrayed us. I'm leaving."

Quote

That is stupid, but the gamble of more money, is likely not more money. In a full release, they won't get continued funding, only initial money unless they go to a subscription which could alienate the core audience.

 

It's a gamble to say "Maybe SOME people are waiting for the game to come out." That margin is very likely insignificant. You can play the game now, and there's tons of content. I don't know anyone that waited for Minecraft to come out before buying it. There were so many people buying it in alpha that there was no point really. 

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Not to mention,  yes, there will be some people that continue to purchase ships via Micro transactions - these people will help fund the game long term.

In how I stated above it's the very small 1% or insignificant population that donate the most money into a company. The company MUST pander to this audience to keep the company afloat. In mobile games a lot of them are free, but you CAN spend money. You or your friends may have spent 5-50 dollars maximum. However there are people spending hundreds weekly, if not daily. Those are the people funding the games. This is why they keep adding things you can buy so there are things for those crazy spenders to keep spending money on. 

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

What? I mean, sure, there are some businesses that are irresponsible and don't keep up with IT equipment.

 

But I'm rocking an i7-6700 + 16GB of RAM in my workstation at work. And regular office staff generally have an i7 (Haswell or newer) + 8GB of RAM.

 

We treat our staff properly, and regularly replace equipment every 4-5 years.

For the majority of businesses they keep the old equipment running as long as they can. This was a metaphor. 

If they stay in early access and it's working to fund the game, then there is no reason to say they are releasing. I talked about some benefits of saying "We're still working on it" above. This was an analogy of "if it's not broken don't fix it." Stay in Early access and people will keep funding you to help you finish it. 

I hope you can understand that analogy. If not, can you say what part you didn't understand and I can try to explain it differently? 

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

The game may eventually become F2P, like 3-5 years after release - that's possible. But I'd suspect they would only do so if that was the only way to sustain the ongoing costs.

I wasn't saying they'd move to a free to play model. I was trying to find a way for his theory to work, but stated the game is already Free to Play, you just need a ship. They already have plenty of funding for the ongoing costs, so I don't believe a released Free To Play would be a good idea. Free To Play itself brings out a negative reaction with most people as common monitization techniques that occur. Scroll up this post to see a bit of what I'm talking about in monetized of mobile games. 

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

The game is not free right now. You have to buy at least the base package which includes SC (but not SQ42, unless you were an original backer, which included both - now you need to buy the more expensive bundle to get both).

I was under the impression you could buy a ship secondhand (Each ship can transfer accounts at most 1 time) and play the game that way without having to buy a package. 

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

I think you're wrong. I think ideally, they would "release" the first public full version (Let's call it Public 1.0), with all of the major components finished, with stretch goals finished.

In the article I posted, it said Chris Robberts (The guy designing, and leading the Star Citizen team) keeps coming up with new ideas for the game, as well as adding stretch goals. 

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

Then, I think they will continue development, in an ongoing basis. It's now "public", and "done", but they'll likely keep expanding and adding to it, much like Elite: Dangerous does.

Exactly what I'm saying. I think they will stay in "Early access" forever because of the benefits of saying "We're not done yet. Please help us finish the game and donate today!!"

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

How they expand it, post launch, can be done in many ways. Up front DLC costs (Eg: "expansions"), or perhaps funded through Micro transactions (like they currently do with ship sales).

They make plenty of money with the microtransactions, but they can get continued donations through their "We need funding from customers to help develop the game" instead of "We have to finish this DLC before we get more money." The mile-markers like DLC and expansions are less profitable long term in my opinion as they get less donations, and not everyone buys DLC. As I've been saying-People keep donating money to the company, so they're getting funded by the small % (Which may very well be thousands of people) donating thousands of dollars. I'm sure there's additional private funding at this point that may have contracts to say "We'll fund you as long as you're in development." This helps the company keep making money, and develop the game without ever "coming out." If they release DLC whilst not "Out" they'll get slammed like ARK Survival Evolved with the "Why are they releasing DLC before finishing the game?"

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

I wouldn't call the ships DLC. DLC implies it's an optional download that will add something to the game. If you don't buy the Constellation ship package, the game still exists. NPC's will still fly it. Other players can still fly it. You can still steal it from an NPC or another player. Or buy it with in-game currency. These are not typical of DLC, but rather, typical of optional micro-transactions to buy something with real money that you could simply choose to buy with in-game currency instead.

I responded to this earlier. I mislabeled micro-transactions as DLC. I will edit this in my previous posts. 

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

Yes some people will spend extra to outright buy a $750 ship. But not most. And those who do, actually make it cheaper for the rest of us to play the game.

As I explained a few times, some people are funding the game. Most are not. In this statement you acknowledge the amount these people are actually doing to fund the game. They ARE funding the game. The insignificant petty 45$ ships, and small $60 purchases will not fund this company to the length they are at.

 

If they have a 750 dollar ship the fan base would say "You're done making the game. Why do you need 750 dollars?" This helps "develop the game." Electronic Arts had an aggressive monitization model AFTER a 60 dollar price tag. Star Citizen knows better than to do this. In fact people were mad at Microsoft for charging $10 for the Left 4 Dead map pack on Xbox when it was free on PC. (Video Staring at 5:28)

Spoiler

 

There are other games you may have seen that had Premium tags to enter the game, then included common Free To Play Monitization in the game on top of this. 

I cannot find the clip, however Portal 2 on Day 1 had instantly loading skins you could pay for in the game on PC. 

 

They don't want community backlash, nor to alienate their core audience as I explained earlier:

Spoiler

The same thing occurred with the Star Wars MMO when it took 5 years for the first person to become a Jedi. They simplified the entire game alienating their entire core audience keeping the company afloat. Then the new players didn't really stick around. 

 

[Archon42]

On 1/12/2018 at 10:58 PM, Eduard the weeb said:

I think with over 3 years of waiting this game will flop?

like if you look at past games with alot of hype almost nothing can live up to it like even if no man sky was everything promised we still probably not have been satisfied 

Diablo III began development in 2001 and was released for PC in 2012. We got (imho) a mediocre ARPG with nothing mind-blowing. Diablo III fans were happy to FINALLY get the next instalment. Everyone is happy? Yes? No? Top down hack and slash ARPG... nothing Torchlight I & II didn't more or less do as well, not to mention a multitude of other ARPGs. On the plus side, no one had to pay money to get development rolling. It was financed by Blizzard's overall income from other revenue streams.

Star Citizen Development began in 2011. As of 3.0, CIG has given us space combat, FPS shooter mode, EVA, ground vehicles, planetary landing, etc etc. Compared to the 'complexity' and 'depth' of a game like DIablo III, I'd say CIG managed to get a ton of stuff done in 'just' ~7yrs. Still alpha, so still unstable, but by no means an indication that it will fail to impress as a final product when the time comes. The problem here is having people pay to get the ball rolling (unlike D3), and people are unhappy over how long they are having to wait. Though we didn't see it happen, Blizzard surely had to justify keeping D3 under development to their investors.

Will SC flop? Honestly, it would take Bungee+Destiny 2 level utter stupidity/greed from the team to alienate the fans and drive away new players. Given how much confidence the SC team inspires in me, I find that unlikely, barring major misfortune like CR and a lot of the senior people dying in some mishap and EA taking over the project... Omg, just the thought of EA getting their grubby paws in SC made me ill... (T_T)

Just my 2 cents. Peace. \m/

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, fpo said:

I was hoping I could edit my replies, and respond to Dalekphalm's before you guys saw it, but here's my replies now; my edits will slash old text and have the new next to it. 

Yes, but you have to pay to enter. 

The people funding the game aren't spending hours grinding to get everything for free. They're spending the money to get the things you grind for. 

Most people aren't funding the game. Your petty $45 is nothing in the big picture. Not that I'm a major credidation, however in talks I have attended at a Game Development program-The people funding your game ARE the 1% of very few people donating $1000 in one shot. Believe it or not, but there are people out there that only play 1 free game, and spend tons of dollars funding the studios. You highly underestimate the amount that the "few people" are actually doing to fund this game. 

I adopted a lot of points stated in this video, and within it-there is an alignment with the talks I had attended. 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I did use the wrong word. I did mean Micro-transaction however I'm hoping you can see my point, without nitpicking. You have to pay to get the extra "content." Though you don't DOWNLOAD it, it's a micro-transaction but it's close enough that it's almost interchangeable, but I did use the wrong word. 

It is a standalone package. I did acknowledge this in an earlier post. 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I linked a video above, but here's the article I linked to Helly

  Reveal hidden contents

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2014/6/24/5833336/star-citizen-community-votes-to-keep-stretch-goals-as-funding-sails

Just because they sell more standalone copies doesn't mean they'll make more money. As I talked about in an earlier post. 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

It's a gamble to say "Maybe SOME people are waiting for the game to come out." That margin is very likely insignificant. You can play the game now, and there's tons of content. I don't know anyone that waited for Minecraft to come out before buying it. There were so many people buying it in alpha that there was no point really. 

In how I stated above it's the very small 1% or insignificant population that donate the most money into a company. The company MUST pander to this audience to keep the company afloat. In mobile games a lot of them are free, but you CAN spend money. You or your friends may have spent 5-50 dollars maximum. However there are people spending hundreds weekly, if not daily. Those are the people funding the games. This is why they keep adding things you can buy so there are things for those crazy spenders to keep spending money on. 

For the majority of businesses they keep the old equipment running as long as they can. This was a metaphor. 

If they stay in early access and it's working to fund the game, then there is no reason to say they are releasing. I talked about some benefits of saying "We're still working on it" above. This was an analogy of "if it's not broken don't fix it." Stay in Early access and people will keep funding you to help you finish it. 

I hope you can understand that analogy. If not, can you say what part you didn't understand and I can try to explain it differently? 

I wasn't saying they'd move to a free to play model. I was trying to find a way for his theory to work, but stated the game is already Free to Play, you just need a ship. They already have plenty of funding for the ongoing costs, so I don't believe a released Free To Play would be a good idea. Free To Play itself brings out a negative reaction with most people as common monitization techniques that occur. Scroll up this post to see a bit of what I'm talking about in monetized of mobile games. 

I was under the impression you could buy a ship secondhand (Each ship can transfer accounts at most 1 time) and play the game that way without having to buy a package. 

In the article I posted, it said Chris Robberts (The guy designing, and leading the Star Citizen team) keeps coming up with new ideas for the game, as well as adding stretch goals. 

Exactly what I'm saying. I think they will stay in "Early access" forever because of the benefits of saying "We're not done yet. Please help us finish the game and donate today!!"

They make plenty of money with the microtransactions, but they can get continued donations through their "We need funding from customers to help develop the game" instead of "We have to finish this DLC before we get more money." The mile-markers like DLC and expansions are less profitable long term in my opinion as they get less donations, and not everyone buys DLC. As I've been saying-People keep donating money to the company, so they're getting funded by the small % (Which may very well be thousands of people) donating thousands of dollars. I'm sure there's additional private funding at this point that may have contracts to say "We'll fund you as long as you're in development." This helps the company keep making money, and develop the game without ever "coming out." If they release DLC whilst not "Out" they'll get slammed like ARK Survival Evolved with the "Why are they releasing DLC before finishing the game?"

I responded to this earlier. I mislabeled micro-transactions as DLC. I will edit this in my previous posts. 

As I explained a few times, some people are funding the game. Most are not. In this statement you acknowledge the amount these people are actually doing to fund the game. They ARE funding the game. The insignificant petty 45$ ships, and small $60 purchases will not fund this company to the length they are at.

 

If they have a 750 dollar ship the fan base would say "You're done making the game. Why do you need 750 dollars?" This helps "develop the game." Electronic Arts had an aggressive monitization model AFTER a 60 dollar price tag. Star Citizen knows better than to do this. In fact people were mad at Microsoft for charging $10 for the Left 4 Dead map pack on Xbox when it was free on PC. (Video Staring at 5:28)

  Reveal hidden contents

 

There are other games you may have seen that had Premium tags to enter the game, then included common Free To Play Monitization in the game on top of this. 

I cannot find the clip, however Portal 2 on Day 1 had instantly loading skins you could pay for in the game on PC. 

 

They don't want community backlash, nor to alienate their core audience as I explained earlier:

  Reveal hidden contents

The same thing occurred with the Star Wars MMO when it took 5 years for the first person to become a Jedi. They simplified the entire game alienating their entire core audience keeping the company afloat. Then the new players didn't really stick around. 

 

 

Quote

The people funding the game aren't spending hours grinding to get everything for free. They're spending the money to get the things you grind for.

Dude, I don't know where you get these ideas, but the vast majority of SC players, are INDEED going to grind, to buy most of the things needed, in-game, without paying money.

 

Most backers, are going to be the ones who bought the base package with the cheapest ship. This is the same package you get if you buy the (eventual) retail game. You get one ship to start, some starting credits, and the universe is your playground to earn more money. Sure you can buy stuff with real money if you don't have a lot of free time, but most people are not going to do that.

 

The main benefit of a backer, is they get lifetime "insurance" on their ship, so that if it gets blown up, they get it back for free. Otherwise, you have to pay in-game credits to "repair" a blown up ship. Think of this as a "pre-order bonus".

 

And worst case scenario, your character becomes bankrupt and can't afford to repair a ship without insurance? You just "start over" with a new character, and the same base starting ship.

 

Quote

Most people aren't funding the game. Your petty $45 is nothing in the big picture. Not that I'm a major credidation, however in talks I have attended at a Game Development program-The people funding your game ARE the 1% of very few people donating $1000 in one shot. Believe it or not, but there are people out there that only play 1 free game, and spend tons of dollars funding the studios. You highly underestimate the amount that the "few people" are actually doing to fund this game.

I adopted a lot of points stated in this video, and within it-there is an alignment with the talks I had attended.

I don't understand your point here at all. "Most people" aren't funding the game? What? I'm only talking about Backers, and potential future purchasers. They're all funding the game. I'm not talking about the entire gaming industry, I'm only talking about backers and purchasers of SC.

 

My "petty" (wtf?) $45 is insignificant, yes. But when there are 10,000 of me, that $45 is now $450K. 20,000 of us? $700K. 50,000 of us? Over $2 Million dollars. You get the idea?

 

So yes, whales who buy the $1K ships will definitely contribute to revenue, but we're not talking about a traditional F2P model here. Everyone who plays, has to cough up some money to buy the game first.

 

Quote

I did use the wrong word. I did mean Micro-transaction however I'm hoping you can see my point, without nitpicking. You have to pay to get the extra "content." Though you don't DOWNLOAD it, it's a micro-transaction but it's close enough that it's almost interchangeable, but I did use the wrong word. 

But you're wrong here. You DO NOT have to pay for the extra content. You grind for it, just like any other "economy" based space game. Like the old Freelancer. Like Elite: Dangerous. Like the X series, etc.

 

Quote

Just because they sell more standalone copies doesn't mean they'll make more money. As I talked about in an earlier post. 

Uhm... what? Yes, of course selling more copies will make them more money. Selling more copies of the game doesn't cost them anything.

 

Quote

It's a gamble to say "Maybe SOME people are waiting for the game to come out." That margin is very likely insignificant. You can play the game now, and there's tons of content. I don't know anyone that waited for Minecraft to come out before buying it. There were so many people buying it in alpha that there was no point really. 

Only the most die hard fans have backed the game so far. The game is only just being fleshed out into an experience that has replay value. Hell, I'm an original backer, and I barely log in, because I'm waiting for more content (and optimizations).

 

There will most definitely be additional sales of the game, after it's released. Hell there are people here on the LTT forums that have clearly stated they won't buy it until it's done.

 

Quote

In how I stated above it's the very small 1% or insignificant population that donate the most money into a company. The company MUST pander to this audience to keep the company afloat. In mobile games a lot of them are free, but you CAN spend money. You or your friends may have spent 5-50 dollars maximum. However there are people spending hundreds weekly, if not daily. Those are the people funding the games. This is why they keep adding things you can buy so there are things for those crazy spenders to keep spending money on. 

Yeah I really don't see what the issue is with that. The company has a stated set of goals. They are getting extra funding via ship sales. Ships that everyone can buy in-game for "free". So far they haven't been pandering to the F2P business model, outside of ship sales. Only time will tell how it pans out.

 

Quote

 For the majority of businesses they keep the old equipment running as long as they can. This was a metaphor.

If they stay in early access and it's working to fund the game, then there is no reason to say they are releasing. I talked about some benefits of saying "We're still working on it" above. This was an analogy of "if it's not broken don't fix it." Stay in Early access and people will keep funding you to help you finish it.

I hope you can understand that analogy. If not, can you say what part you didn't understand and I can try to explain it differently? 

This is starting to get very confusing. Your points are muddled.

 

So, your thing about office equipment was an analogy about how they're gonna stay in Early Access? WTF.

 

There's no benefit to that. Eventually they would piss off their core audience by not finishing the game. The game has stated goals and features. These have been locked in for some time now. All indications are that they will work towards public release.

 

Quote

 was under the impression you could buy a ship secondhand (Each ship can transfer accounts at most 1 time) and play the game that way without having to buy a package. 

Can you post a source for this? As far as I'm aware, you can (legally or not, unsure) sell your actual account, ships and all, to another person. You might also be able to "transfer" a ship you bought and give it to another player.

 

But that does not give you access to the full game. It won't give you access to SQ42. It might give you access to the Hanger or Arena Commander, but those are essentially demos anyway. You need to have an existing account to access the PTU. And to get an account, you've got to buy the game.

 

Please correct me with a source if I am mistaken about this.

 

Quote

In the article I posted, it said Chris Robberts (The guy designing, and leading the Star Citizen team) keeps coming up with new ideas for the game, as well as adding stretch goals. 

Yeah... back in 2014, when the article was written. As stated, the stretch goals and long since been finalized. This has not been "an issue" since, like 2014, probably right around when that article was written.

 

Quote

Exactly what I'm saying. I think they will stay in "Early access" forever because of the benefits of saying "We're not done yet. Please help us finish the game and donate today!!"

Except that's not what I said. I said they will finish the game by completing their goals and stated feature list. After that, they'll add new content (through DLC, or patches, or whatever). Adding new content will be done after the game is already released.

 

Quote

The same thing occurred with the Star Wars MMO when it took 5 years for the first person to become a Jedi. They simplified the entire game alienating their entire core audience keeping the company afloat. Then the new players didn't really stick around.

Totally different scenario. The Star Wars MMO had many problems. The original version of Galaxies was a difficult game, and not casual friendly. It took work to become a Jedi (and very few couple even exist), which made sense for Canon purposes, but for a casual, was not good.

 

The combat change update did piss off the hardcore players, but it made it more accessible to the rest. The main problem was that the game just wasn't that good anyway, compared to the competition.

 

If CIG changes the entire way SC works in 5 years, and "dumbs it down", I'll let you have this point.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

 

Dude, I don't know where you get these ideas, but the vast majority of SC players, are INDEED going to grind, to buy most of the things needed, in-game, without paying money.

 

Most backers, are going to be the ones who bought the base package with the cheapest ship. This is the same package you get if you buy the (eventual) retail game. You get one ship to start, some starting credits, and the universe is your playground to earn more money. Sure you can buy stuff with real money if you don't have a lot of free time, but most people are not going to do that.

 

The main benefit of a backer, is they get lifetime "insurance" on their ship, so that if it gets blown up, they get it back for free. Otherwise, you have to pay in-game credits to "repair" a blown up ship. Think of this as a "pre-order bonus".

Did you read my response? I told you that the people you're talking about don't fund the game. You even acknowledged that in your own reply. 

Quote

And worst case scenario, your character becomes bankrupt and can't afford to repair a ship without insurance? You just "start over" with a new character, and the same base starting ship.

 

I don't understand your point here at all. "Most people" aren't funding the game? What? I'm only talking about Backers, and potential future purchasers. They're all funding the game. I'm not talking about the entire gaming industry, I'm only talking about backers and purchasers of SC.

 

My "petty" (wtf?) $45 is insignificant, yes. But when there are 10,000 of me, that $45 is now $450K. 20,000 of us? $700K. 50,000 of us? Over $2 Million dollars. You get the idea?

 

So yes, whales who buy the $1K ships will definitely contribute to revenue, but we're not talking about a traditional F2P model here. Everyone who plays, has to cough up some money to buy the game first.

I'm telling you that on their end the people dropping 1k on ships do that all the time. Your 45 dollars is petty as in insignificant compared to them. Yeah, you help. You pay 2~ people's salary with 450k dollars for 1 year. When someone drops a few thousand every month or so, they pay 1 person's salary themselves. You don't realize this because you aren't in the company, so it's mostly shielded from you. 

Quote

But you're wrong here. You DO NOT have to pay for the extra content. You grind for it, just like any other "economy" based space game. Like the old Freelancer. Like Elite: Dangerous. Like the X series, etc.

I acknowledged this and told you there are people pouring money into the game instead of grinding to fund this game. 

Quote

Uhm... what? Yes, of course selling more copies will make them more money. Selling more copies of the game doesn't cost them anything.

 

Only the most die hard fans have backed the game so far. The game is only just being fleshed out into an experience that has replay value. Hell, I'm an original backer, and I barely log in, because I'm waiting for more content (and optimizations).

 

There will most definitely be additional sales of the game, after it's released. Hell there are people here on the LTT forums that have clearly stated they won't buy it until it's done.

I said they'd make some more initial money once the game is done. If you look at sales figures for games, or anything- most of the time, 85+% of sales occur within the first day of release. Yes, they make a huge initial profit, but that doesn't last the company very long to keep at it. 

Take a look at this article:

Spoiler

Quote

 I remember we had a whale in one game that loved American Football despite living in Saudi Arabia. We built several custom virtual items in both his favorite team colors and their opponents, just to sell to this one guy. You better believe he bought them. And these are just vanity items. We will flat out adjust a game to make it behave just like it did last time the person bought IAP. Was a level too hard? Well now they are all that same difficulty

link

Spoiler

http://toucharcade.com/2015/09/16/we-own-you-confessions-of-a-free-to-play-producer/

Companies do everything to get these large spenders satisfied because they put out. 

I had sat in on a monitization lecture for games where a company literally went to the person's house, and fixed the person's computer for free so they could continue to spend 200 dollars every day on their game. People only do this because they actually spend the money. Your 10k people spending 45 dollars as I said exist, but in the grand scheme, you don't stick around. You admitted yourself, you aren't playing the game. You don't spend money. 
Here's another article talking about people's time spent in a game correlating to money spent:

Spoiler

https://kotaku.com/who-are-the-whales-driving-free-to-play-gaming-youd-1197333118

Quote

Yeah I really don't see what the issue is with that. The company has a stated set of goals. They are getting extra funding via ship sales. Ships that everyone can buy in-game for "free". So far they haven't been pandering to the F2P business model, outside of ship sales. Only time will tell how it pans out.

I didn't say there was an issue with people being able to buy ships. 

Quote

This is starting to get very confusing. Your points are muddled.

All I'm trying to explain is why the game will never leave early access. 

Quote

So, your thing about office equipment was an analogy about how they're gonna stay in Early Access? WTF.

Clearly you didn't understand it. I should have used a closer analogy, but thanks for not even trying to understand it. 

Quote

There's no benefit to that. Eventually they would piss off their core audience by not finishing the game. The game has stated goals and features. These have been locked in for some time now. All indications are that they will work towards public release.

The community has stated they want more features to continually be added. I doubt their core audience will feel betrayed by the label "early access" when they're getting more of the same that they ask for. 

No one complained that minecraft was in early access as more and more features were being added. 

Quote

Can you post a source for this? As far as I'm aware, you can (legally or not, unsure) sell your actual account, ships and all, to another person. You might also be able to "transfer" a ship you bought and give it to another player.

It was described in a video I linked, but here's another source

Spoiler

Accounts and things list

Spoiler

https://www.epicnpc.com/forums/353-Star-Citizen-Accounts-Items-Ships

Ship example

Spoiler

https://www.epicnpc.com/threads/1256043-Selling-Constellation-Aquila?s=d3f085c31900e6704bbb512f8f9cd47f

Quote

But that does not give you access to the full game. It won't give you access to SQ42. It might give you access to the Hanger or Arena Commander, but those are essentially demos anyway. You need to have an existing account to access the PTU. And to get an account, you've got to buy the game.

We're not talking about Squadron 42, we are talking about star citizen. You cannot buy the game. Only ships and packages. 

Quote

Please correct me with a source if I am mistaken about this.

See above. 

Quote

Yeah... back in 2014, when the article was written. As stated, the stretch goals and long since been finalized. This has not been "an issue" since, like 2014, probably right around when that article was written.

If you look at this page:

Spoiler

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals

You can see all the stretch goals have been accomplished 100%. Why would the game still be in early access right now? However at the top of the chart, you can see daily funding. Each day is over 40.000 USD a day. 4 years after your finalized stretch goals, and funding campaign. This is so they can get help to "develop" the game. There's no reason to say "Release build 1.0" ever. 

Quote

Except that's not what I said. I said they will finish the game by completing their goals and stated feature list. After that, they'll add new content (through DLC, or patches, or whatever). Adding new content will be done after the game is already released.

Did they say they'd have DLC? (link) Sounds bad for a game over 4 years in crowd sourced development. 

They can likely as I've been saying make more money through the donations, and whales donating so much money. 

Quote

Totally different scenario. The Star Wars MMO had many problems. The original version of Galaxies was a difficult game, and not casual friendly. It took work to become a Jedi (and very few couple even exist), which made sense for Canon purposes, but for a casual, was not good.

I explained this in the original comment I made explaining it. Casual gamers don't fund the game. They had a core audience that liked the difficult, hard core grind of the game. Do you know how long that game lasted as a non-casual friendly game? Released in 2000, and people liked doing the "boring" classes, and whatnot. However they simplified the game multiple times, and you can read about how players claimed they didn't like the simplifications, and "casual" change the game was making. 

Spoiler

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars_Galaxies

Maintaining a game company is not about pandering to casual games, it's about pandering to the people paying for your game. 

Imagine if Dark Souls made a huge change and just added in M16s, and made it so you can't lose souls, and you have recharging health to get a larger audience? The casuals wouldn't stay because they're casual. They don't stick with games. You admitted to this here:

Quote

Hell, I'm an original backer, and I barely log in

Your hardcore audience as linked in articles above spend the most time in game, and stick with it. 

Quote

The combat change update did piss off the hardcore players, but it made it more accessible to the rest. The main problem was that the game just wasn't that good anyway, compared to the competition.

And the game started to slow down, and lose players. 

Quote

If CIG changes the entire way SC works in 5 years, and "dumbs it down", I'll let you have this point.

That wasn't my point. You're looking at my points too much for face value, and ignoring my input. 

I said the company changed the game so much, it alienated the core audience. Right now the core audience funding the game wants it to be in development, and add more features to the base game. 

If they release, then they'd already have lost half of what the people funding the game want. 

If they add DLC to help monetize the game, that destroys the other point. People want it IN the game. At 40.000 dollars plus a day from a link I showed earlier, you better as heck stay in development and add stuff to the base game. 

This is in fact going up from the by month view reaching 6~ million dollars per month. 

Spoiler

 

 

When you quote me, please split my quote so I can more easily respond to things, and understand exactly what you're responding to like in my format. 

If you press enter twice~ it should split on the desktop. You may need to do it on a blank line. 

[Helly]

well i've got another headache from the bullshit ur spewing again.. so ill make this short

12 hours ago, fpo said:

If you look at this page:

  Hide contents

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals

You can see all the stretch goals have been accomplished 100%. Why would the game still be in early access right now?

you dont understand the strech goals page AT ALL. That list does NOT say 100% when its in-game and finished.... its 100% because the amount of funding associated with that goal was reached. for instance when they reached 10 million they said they would build their own mo-cap studio. Which they have as it has been shown in a few video's.

All that list says is that everything on there will be done or build into the game at some point. It doesn't mean that its already done.

 

12 hours ago, fpo said:

I said they'd make some more initial money once the game is done. If you look at sales figures for games, or anything- most of the time, 85+% of sales occur within the first day of release. Yes, they make a huge initial profit, but that doesn't last the company very long to keep at it.

The first day of release has yet to come. An alpha release does not count in this case. So that 85% of sales is probably 2 years in the future.

 

19 hours ago, fpo said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2014/6/24/5833336/star-citizen-community-votes-to-keep-stretch-goals-as-funding-sails

 

Can’t you buy game money now anyway? If you sell it for $60 you wouldn’t have a good reason to sell $3000 ships (The highest price ones I found are $700~) or you’ll get EA Battlefront 2 all over again.

As i also said before, when the game is released you CANNOT buy ANYTHING that is an in-game item with REAL money. ALL you can spend real money on at that point is a LIMITED amount of IN-GAME money. So the income at that point will come from that and game sales. That's IT, nothing else. They have stated this in quite a few video's in the past and afaik this has not changed.

Right now you can buy a limited amount of in-game money, but you can't spend it in-game. The money you buy is UEC. The money in the alpha game right now is aUEC. What's the difference? aUEC(the a means alpha ;)) is for testing and gets reset quite often. UEC on the website can be spend on hanger items and ship parts (weapons, shield gens, etc..), this can be done in the shop -> voyager direct option in the menu ;). If you want to just try another ship before you buy it you can earn REC through arena commander. REC can be spend in the option shop -> electronic access. This gives you access to the ship in the arena commander only i think, ur basically renting it. Just to try it out for a while (don't know how long, never actually tried it i do have 9654REC atm though.). And just so i gave all the info about it, to rent a vanduul ship you have to finish the vanduul swarm option in arena commander. Obviously the aUEC will be replaced by UEC at the gold release of the game (possibly before but has not been stated by CIG yet.).

 

They have also not stated ANYTHING about what happens after release. Because they're having enough work right not getting the game together to worry about later. I'm sure someone in the company has thought of what to do after release but they haven't said anything about it in any video afaik.

 

damn that was longer then i wanted it to be....

[Wauthar]

5 minutes ago, Helly said:

(don't know how long, never actually tried it

Rented items (ships, weapons and the such) will have 7x24 hours once you spend your REC. Every time you use one of these items, 1 'token' of 24h will be deducted from it. It escapes me at the moment if that 24h is IRL or in-game time, but I'm pretty sure it's real-time.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Helly said:

well i've got another headache from the bullshit ur spewing again.. so ill make this short

Can you debunk and link articles to my illegitimate arguments? I also said you can point out specific points you don't understand and I can try to reconstruct them in different ways. 

I started sharing links to a lot of my points, however you ignored most of them, and throw out a "I got a headache." You insisted on evidence, and yet you provide none yourself. 

Spoiler

On 1/23/2018 at 9:47 AM, Helly said:

Show me a source where this was asked. Don't make claims like this without backing it up with a source.

 

Quote

you dont understand the strech goals page AT ALL. That list does NOT say 100% when its in-game and finished.... its 100% because the amount of funding associated with that goal was reached. for instance when they reached 10 million they said they would build their own mo-cap studio. Which they have as it has been shown in a few video's.

All that list says is that everything on there will be done or build into the game at some point. It doesn't mean that its already done.

Can you provide me with their current goal page? That was the one I found, and the website is very confusing. However from these quotes here:

Spoiler

Quote

I don't want to build a game.
I want to build a universe.

 

Quote

More than a space combat sim, more than a first person shooter and more than an MMO: Star Citizen is the First Person Universe that will allow for unlimited gameplay.

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/about-the-game/spaceflight

There is unlimited work that can be done. This game has more depth than the game Eve Online, and yet Eve has been going since 2003 while they're still adding content to the game. This game can literally be developed till the end of time. Especially since the fanbase is funding it yet. 

Quote

The first day of release has yet to come. An alpha release does not count in this case. So that 85% of sales is probably 2 years in the future.

I don't think there has to be a release. They could have worked on core features alone, fixed the bugs and updated to high hell all then new stuff, then released. 

Quote

As i also said before, when the game is released you CANNOT buy ANYTHING that is an in-game item with REAL money. ALL you can spend real money on at that point is a LIMITED amount of IN-GAME money. So the income at that point will come from that and game sales. That's IT, nothing else. They have stated this in quite a few video's in the past and afaik this has not changed.

You can buy ships, and you can donate money to the company. 

Spoiler

Ships

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/ships

Donations:

Link:

Spoiler

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/subscriptions

Quote:

Quote

Once you accumulate 12 months of subscription time, 

 

Quote

Right now you can buy a limited amount of in-game money, but you can't spend it in-game. The money you buy is UEC. The money in the alpha game right now is aUEC. What's the difference? aUEC(the a means alpha ;)) is for testing and gets reset quite often. UEC on the website can be spend on hanger items and ship parts (weapons, shield gens, etc..), this can be done in the shop -> voyager direct option in the menu ;). If you want to just try another ship before you buy it you can earn REC through arena commander. REC can be spend in the option shop -> electronic access. This gives you access to the ship in the arena commander only i think, ur basically renting it. Just to try it out for a while (don't know how long, never actually tried it i do have 9654REC atm though.). And just so i gave all the info about it, to rent a vanduul ship you have to finish the vanduul swarm option in arena commander. Obviously the aUEC will be replaced by UEC at the gold release of the game (possibly before but has not been stated by CIG yet.).

There are still plenty of other ways to give money to the company:

Quote

Merchandise (clothes, posters, mat)

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/merchandise

Extras (ships skins, gift cards, additional)

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/extras

Quote

They have also not stated ANYTHING about what happens after release. Because they're having enough work right not getting the game together to worry about later. I'm sure someone in the company has thought of what to do after release but they haven't said anything about it in any video afaik.

That's because they can literally develop indefinitely. 

 

With people saying "We will just give you more and more money as much as we can" you would be very foolish to say "alright guys, let's put out a deadline!"

Spoiler

This article is from 2017. You cannot say that this is out of date. Especially from The New York Times. One of the most respected publishers in the world. 

Spoiler

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/technology/personaltech/video-game-raised-148-million-from-fans-now-its-raising-issues.html

Quote

For Matthew Slattery, 18, a Star Citizen backer from South Australia, the idea of being able to play the game while it was still in development was a big draw. He has pledged about $100 to date.

And before you say "No one will donate thousands of dollars" think again. This corresponds to an earlier post about how the small few literally fund an entire game's development. 

Quote

Clifford Zernicek, a 36-year-old designer from Houston, has pledged more than $15,000 to Star Citizen.

Not to mention if "Many" people ask to donate more than $10.000 US, then yes, it is a very valid point to say that this game is being funded without needing to make a release date. 

Quote

The minimum donation to support the game was $5, but players couldn’t get a ship to play in the game until they had given at least $30. The highest donation amount was $10,000. Cloud Imperium Games said many people contacted the studio to ask about giving even larger amounts.

 

Quote

damn that was longer then i wanted it to be....

It was shorter than it should have been. Please flesh out your points, and respond to everything, before saying I'm giving you a headache. Unless you've never used your brain before, and you're just using it for the first time, and learning a lot; presuming it doesn't pain you to have to realize the company doesn't actually care about the consumer. 

 

 

To reiterate my argument:
The game will not flop. The game will simply be developed for as long as they can be crowd funded. Because the fan-base seems to adore giving money to the company, and that there are many tactics to get money from the high paying consumers, they will continue to remain in development indefinitely from the perspective of this moment. 

If they do ever release, it will likely be when the game has lost its popularity. 

[Helly]

You keep saying things that don't make any sense. You want to see their goals and when you found that page you assumed those are it and the 100% meant that all those things were done and in the game. But you clearly didn't read any of them OR know anything about the game itself or you would have known that wasn't even remotely the case. On top of that you assume the game is somewhere near finished but at the same time you keep saying that it will be developed indefinitely. So which one is it?

 

You say you provide evidence but the first link of "evidence" you gave me was a link to a story from 2014 which talked about the stretch goals and you said it was a question to the community about RELEASING the game... so it wasn't evidence at all. After i saw that i stopped going to any link you posted because i took a page from your book and just made an assumption: that it was the same thing, just some link to a completely unrelated thing about this game.

 

It is clear to everyone here (well at least it should be), that you have neither bought this game or watched any of the video's on their youtube channel. How do i know this? Simply because if you had, most of the things you said you wouldn't have because they are simply not true or clearly explained in the many MANY hours of video's. Around the Verse and Happy Hour explain most of the things and i don't provide you evidence because this argument is not worth the hours of searching through those video's. Go watch both of those shows from the last 3 to 6 months and then come back.

 

In those video's you will see that these people are not in it for the money, they are extremely passionate people who want this game to be a reality as much as we do. They work towards a finished game with all the promised features in it. You are like most haters and just don't get the scale of what this game will be. You've just found a slightly more creative way of saying that this is a scam. Because by knowingly keeping this game in development forever without actually releasing, it would have been a scam to just get lots of money from the so called "whales".

[Guest]

Since you always miss my final paragraph, I'll put it here to respond to something you didn't get. 

4 hours ago, fpo said:

To reiterate my argument:
The game will not flop. The game will simply be developed for as long as they can be crowd funded. Because the fan-base seems to adore giving money to the company, and that there are many tactics to get money from the high paying consumers, they will continue to remain in development indefinitely from the perspective of this moment. 

If they do ever release, it will likely be when the game has lost its popularity. 

By all means, I do NOT want you to be wrong. I hope you are right in the end, however I'm telling you that NOW, this is how it is. It's how businesses work-to make money. If they were truly passionate, they would make the game free to play without requiring you to spend any money whatsoever. 

A comparison to a truly passionate group that does this:

Spoiler

Quote

No member is PAID or PROFITS

Spoiler

http://www.falloutthefrontier.com/support-us/

 

 

3 hours ago, Helly said:

You are like most haters and just don't get the scale of what this game will be.

1. I'm not a hater. Don't label someone pre-maturely. I think the game is very cool! It has the ambition never before seen fully created in a 3D game before. I never said it was a bad game. 

2. 

3 hours ago, Helly said:

In those video's you will see that these people are not in it for the money, they are extremely passionate people who want this game to be a reality as much as we do. They work towards a finished game with all the promised features in it.

Just because a company says something, doesn't mean it's true.

Quote

EA Sports. It's in the game

A common conception is the EA (Electronic Arts) doesn't sell you an entire game. They 'half finish it, keep it broken sell you dlc, and never finish it.'

3.

3 hours ago, Helly said:

You've just found a slightly more creative way of saying that this is a scam. Because by knowingly keeping this game in development forever without actually releasing, it would have been a scam to just get lots of money from the so called "whales".

I did acknowledge the point of it "being a scam" as I said they have the funds to also actually develop the game. A company can put out products AND do whatever they can to get big spenders to blow tons of money into the game. I kept telling you that they just. 

 

Quote

As long as they say "We're still working on it" customers will say "We're still funding it." People want the game to succeed in features, so they're making it succeed in money. There's no reason to ever release it because you can always add a feature to a future space ship MMO game.

4. 

3 hours ago, Helly said:

You keep saying things that don't make any sense.

You keep refusing to tell me specifically doesn't make sense, refute responding to my statements, and evidence directly, and call my arguments nonsense because if you shout the loudest, and curse it'll make you seem like you know what you're saying. 

4. 

3 hours ago, Helly said:

You want to see their goals

Yeah, I'm waiting on that link. 

5. 

3 hours ago, Helly said:

and when you found that page you assumed those are it and the 100% meant that all those things were done and in the game.

And then I accepted that those may not be and asked for you to show me where they're listed. 

6. 

3 hours ago, Helly said:

But you clearly didn't read any of them OR know anything about the game itself or you would have known that wasn't even remotely the case.

I'm not talking about how the game is played, only why the business is labeling itself as in development. 

7. 

3 hours ago, Helly said:

On top of that you assume the game is somewhere near finished but at the same time you keep saying that it will be developed indefinitely. So which one is it?

8. 

The following can indicate that the game is near finished:

22 hours ago, Archon42 said:

Star Citizen Development began in 2011. As of 3.0, CIG has given us space combat, FPS shooter mode, EVA, ground vehicles, planetary landing, etc etc. Compared to the 'complexity' and 'depth' of a game like DIablo III, I'd say CIG managed to get a ton of stuff done in 'just' ~7yrs. Still alpha, so still unstable, but by no means an indication that it will fail to impress as a final product when the time comes. The problem here is having people pay to get the ball rolling (unlike D3), and people are unhappy over how long they are having to wait. Though we didn't see it happen, Blizzard surely had to justify keeping D3 under development to their investors.

However, the game doesn't ever HAVE to be FINISHED. They can say "Well, we invented every possible combination of ship, weapon, and car... Let's create and now impliment aliens!" 

So the company CAN say

a. Okay build 1.0, it's done, but we'll add stuff.

b. It's now 2025, and we're still adding things, as well as coming up with great ideas! 

9. 

3 hours ago, Helly said:

You say you provide evidence but the first link of "evidence"

You requested evidence. 

10. 

3 hours ago, Helly said:

you gave me was a link to a story from 2014

Now I gave you one from 2017, so I corrected my error. Why are you dwelling on errors I fixed? I'm pandaring to your nit-picking, and yet you continue to refuse to acknowledge any of my points. 

11. 

3 hours ago, Helly said:

which talked about the stretch goals and you said it was a question to the community about RELEASING the game...

 

Yeah, that's my argument. Here's the second time I'll put the quote I said in this post, make sure you actually read it. 

4 hours ago, fpo said:

To reiterate my argument:
The game will not flop. The game will simply be developed for as long as they can be crowd funded. Because the fan-base seems to adore giving money to the company, and that there are many tactics to get money from the high paying consumers, they will continue to remain in development indefinitely from the perspective of this moment. 

If they do ever release, it will likely be when the game has lost its popularity. 

12. 

3 hours ago, Helly said:

so it wasn't evidence at all.

It was evidence for my argument. 

13. 

3 hours ago, Helly said:

After i saw that i stopped going to any link you posted

So you admit to not reading my arguments? Thanks for being honest. 

14. 

3 hours ago, Helly said:

because i took a page from your book and just made an assumption:

Where did I make an assumption without linking evidence, or explaining my point with a point to some kind of evidence? 

15. 

3 hours ago, Helly said:

that it was the same thing, just some link to a completely unrelated thing about this game.

Please actually tell me what you're talking about with a quote adjacent to your statements; and quote me. Your post I quoted in this reply doesn't have a quote. 

Spoiler

 

16. 

3 hours ago, Helly said:

It is clear to everyone here (well at least it should be), that you have neither bought this game

That's not incorrect, but my argument is this for the third time: (actually higher, but third time in this post.)

4 hours ago, fpo said:

To reiterate my argument:
The game will not flop. The game will simply be developed for as long as they can be crowd funded. Because the fan-base seems to adore giving money to the company, and that there are many tactics to get money from the high paying consumers, they will continue to remain in development indefinitely from the perspective of this moment. 

If they do ever release, it will likely be when the game has lost its popularity. 

17. 

3 hours ago, Helly said:

or watched any of the video's on their youtube channel.

If I have it's been a while. 

18. 

3 hours ago, Helly said:

How do i know this? Simply because if you had, most of the things you said you wouldn't have because they are simply not true

Did they state a specific release date? If not, my arguments are made clear. You simply have to read them. Take an Advil, and drink water. I know it's hard for an inactive brain to process new information. 

19. 

3 hours ago, Helly said:

or clearly explained in the many MANY hours of video's.

Then why don't you link them? Nothing from 2014 though. That information is too old. 

20. 

3 hours ago, Helly said:

Around the Verse and Happy Hour explain most of the things and i don't provide you evidence because this argument is not worth the hours of searching through those video's.

Then it's not worth mentioning if you won't bring it to the table. I spent my time bringing evidence, you spend yours. 

21. 

3 hours ago, Helly said:

Go watch both of those shows from the last 3 to 6 months and then come back.

Whenever you're ready to show me your counter arguments, please feel free to provide links and timestamps to what your argument it like I did. 

 

 

 

PS.

Dear Lord Mandalore, 

You were right. The Star Citizen community will call you a hater no matter what you have to say. Even if you never said the game was bad, and didn't talk about the gameplay at all. 

Sincerely,

Someone that argued with someone on the internet...

EVIDENCE LINK:

Spoiler

 

 

[dalekphalm]

@fpo your argument seems to be that the game will continually stay in Alpha, to milk people for money.

 

Our argument is that, according all indications, that's not true.

 

Ultimately, there's no way to "prove" this, until the game either comes out, or doesn't.

 

Here are some links.

 

1. Fan-made dev tracker - development promises (and their status):

http://starcitizen.wikia.com/wiki/Development_promises

 

2. Devtracker - Official - seems like Blogposts by Devs on progress, as well as some Q&A:

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/community/devtracker

 

3. Unofficial Wiki - dev tracker:

https://starcitizen.tools/Star_Citizen_Alpha_3.0.0

https://starcitizen.tools/Star_Citizen_Alpha_3.1.0

https://starcitizen.tools/Star_Citizen_Alpha_3.2.0

https://starcitizen.tools/Star_Citizen_Alpha_3.3.0

https://starcitizen.tools/Star_Citizen_Alpha_4.0.0

 

3.1: Unofficial Wiki - Stretch Goals tracker - shows the implementation progress of all stretch goals (How much has actually made it into the game):

https://starcitizen.tools/Stretch_Goals

 

 

4. Official Star Citizen Production Update page (Updated frequently with the "current status" of things):

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report

[KevinTipcorn]

Linus' reference to the game in a video today sums up my current attitude toward future prospects. 

https://youtu.be/ggIjr5Z0N10?t=1m57s

 

But I always get extra salty when I see CIG devs on twitch chats making unprompted defences about "we didn't promise" when people are just chatting amongst themselves about how it sucks when CIG changed a thing from how it was when they asked people to buy it.

Edited January 24, 2018 by KevinTipcorn
clarity

[dalekphalm]

40 minutes ago, KevinTipcorn said:

Linus' reference to the game in a video today sums up my current attitude toward future prospects. 

https://youtu.be/ggIjr5Z0N10?t=1m57s

 

But I always get extra salty when I see CIG devs on twitch chats making unprompted defences about "we didn't promise" when people are just chatting amongst themselves about how it sucks when CIG changed a thing from how it was when they asked people to buy it.

Devs can be sensitive about their work. Especially if they see lots of people bashing it for incorrect or otherwise misleading reasons. 

 

It can make them overreact, when a legitimate discussion or criticism is brought up. 

 

No excuse, but at least I can understand why some act like that.