Star Citizen Development Discussion (Is Derek Smart Right?)

[rivethead]

And that's another thing! It's great these whales are purchasing fleets that would make the the US Navy seem modest by comparison, but I'm sure I'll be cursing them if this game launches. I know that I "can" get the same or better ships. But these guys will be chomping at the bit to flex what they paid some serious scratch for. I don't blame them. But holy hell, it will not be fun to compete against. I'll be like steamboat willy trying to haul some goods in my Aurora running from a star destroyer with a bay full of TIE fighters. I feel like that could be somewhat demoralizing.

I, too, am in for the $45 for my beloved Aurora, although I also made a mistake and spent $50 for a Reliant one drunken evening during a Christmas break. No more money from me. Ever.

But I'm not really worried about the scenario you describe (I used to be). I believe (perhaps mistakenly) that every ship in the game will be the "best" at something. For example, Auroras are probably going to be the best at delivering medical supplies to moon outposts....short runs through UEE controlled space from planets. I can't imagine larger, more powerful, more expensive ships will want to play in that space...the economic consequences of running those ships will likely make it not worth the effort for the reward (shooting up tiny Auroras and looting medical supplies).

 

[KMFJD]

we can play space bartender though

 

[KMFJD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1224931033390419968

Expanse author wasn't to happy with CIG either

 

[Fanatical Meat]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1224931033390419968

Expanse author wasn't to happy with CIG either

Meh it’s probably for some voip/Skype like feature in the “future”
On without option to opt out is crappy but it is early access and this is a risk I spoke about earlier. I’d like to see what this guy claims because for all we know it didn’t happen as told.

 

[Skel]

thread is almost 4 years old and the game is not any closer to being complete now as it was in 2016

It feels like so much longer.

I don't think the space game genre is dead. On the contrary, it's enjoying a bit of a rebirth, despite Star Citizen. Smaller studios are having some success with space games (look at Rebel Galaxy) and I think that's going to continue into the future. The Mandalorian, The Expanse, etc. tv shows certainly aren't hurting that.

No single ship in Star Citizen cost $10K. There are packages of many ships that cost that amount. Ships are just tools to do a "job" in the video game. You can walk into a Home Depot today and buy a toolset for $500. Or you can buy a single screwdriver for $7. It's the exact same concept with Star Citizen ships. There really isn't a lot of "balancing" needed for ships, although larger, more powerful ships will have adverse economic burdens to consider when using them. Again, it's just like tools - a power screwdriver is more expensive and requires electricity to work. And it works fast. But a regular screwdriver works too....only slower and with man power.....but much cheaper.

I have no idea who the whales are or how they remain enticed to keep funding this game development. It's definitely cult-like. While it's quite possible that SQ42 will turn out to be a "mediocre mess" and Star Citizen a flop, I don't think that will have any impact on the legalities of crowdfunding. Cloud Imperium are horrible communicators, but one thing they're not horrible at is disclosing the risks and forcing people to acknowledge the risks whenever they want to hand CIG money. It's all there for the backer, they just have to read it. Most don't. That's not a CIG problem. That's a backer problem.

Yes, Chris Roberts thinks he's building the next Rockstar games. And he has zero track record to give anyone confidence that he can do it. That's a huge concern for me, since we've already seen signs that he (and CIG) want to act like they're Rockstar or Blizzard (see the hype around the annual Citizencon conference for example).

I've been under the impression that most of the ships aren't available to play so no one knows how they'll stack up, but I have a hard time thinking that a $500 ship won't completely dominate a $50 ship in every regard. I know that you can (will) be able to do a bunch of stuff, but even things like mining will highlight the P2W design of this game as those with money sunk in will be in a much better place than those trying to eek their way through. This is where the pay to win/macro transactions will be really evident. I'm amused by the fact that a game to escape the real world's problems has recreated the have and the have nots.

Perhaps I'm wrong and misunderstanding as I don't know all the ins and outs on this 'game'. I personally can't help but see this as a very entertaining soap opera about a game. If and when anything ever gets released in a proper form (I speak of a release that doesn't get the "it's a alpha/beta/whatever" so you really can't judge it yet) then we can see if I'm right.

 

[Skel]

we can play space bartender though

Finally.. I can get a game where I can work a job to pay for my game's lifestyle. Forget making my real life better.. now I can do shifts at a space bar.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1224931033390419968

Expanse author wasn't to happy with CIG either

This is a perfect example of Hanlon's razor.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I, too, am in for the $45 for my beloved Aurora, although I also made a mistake and spent $50 for a Reliant one drunken evening during a Christmas break. No more money from me. Ever.

But I'm not really worried about the scenario you describe (I used to be). I believe (perhaps mistakenly) that every ship in the game will be the "best" at something. For example, Auroras are probably going to be the best at delivering medical supplies to moon outposts....short runs through UEE controlled space from planets. I can't imagine larger, more powerful, more expensive ships will want to play in that space...the economic consequences of running those ships will likely make it not worth the effort for the reward (shooting up tiny Auroras and looting medical supplies).

Pretty much me right here except I was in the very first wave $25 or $30 for the Aurora, later that year I got a $50 or $100 visa gift card from a work event. Came home and bought a cutlass black (the mini pirate gunship thing) then said that’s it I’m not spending more money.
This wraps into two points I have.
First I capped my budget because I know any random game I think I may like has a 80% chance of being something I don’t like or I enjoy playing for about 30 minutes to an hour then I put it aside and never revisit it again. Budgeting is important
Secondly early access has risks associated with it. Everyone should be smart enough not to spend sacred money on any game and especially a game that has not released. Fine to be disappointed but that is the only valid complaint.
Understand that any money spent on early access is a risk similar to putting money down on a craps table. You may win, you may loose, you may survive for a second roll or third. Be excited when you point number comes up, don’t be pissed if you lose. That is the game.

 

[rivethead]

It feels like so much longer.



I've been under the impression that most of the ships aren't available to play so no one knows how they'll stack up, but I have a hard time thinking that a $500 ship won't completely dominate a $50 ship in every regard. I know that you can (will) be able to do a bunch of stuff, but even things like mining will highlight the P2W design of this game as those with money sunk in will be in a much better place than those trying to eek their way through. This is where the pay to win/macro transactions will be really evident. I'm amused by the fact that a game to escape the real world's problems has recreated the have and the have nots.

Perhaps I'm wrong and misunderstanding as I don't know all the ins and outs on this 'game'. I personally can't help but see this as a very entertaining soap opera about a game. If and when anything ever gets released in a proper form (I speak of a release that doesn't get the "it's a alpha/beta/whatever" so you really can't judge it yet) then we can see if I'm right.

You have to be able to define "win". Sure a Hammerhead (gunship) will own an Aurora in seconds. Is that a "win"? Sure, if SC was a space combat game. But I think it's going to be more a space economic sim. The costs of operating that Hammerhead are going to outweigh the gain from blowing up a lowly Aurora. Sure there are going to be trolls who won't care (in the short run). It remains to be seen if CIG can build a system to penalize these greifers/trolls. They have the ability to play "God" and spawn in any number of Idrises to harass and destroy a Hammerhead that gets a reputation for griefing. But will they? We don't know what that will look like.

It's all part of the risk of putting down money in a kickstarter video game...personally I don't think SC will ever be "released". CIG are going to keep calling this an "alpha" forever (until the money runs out).

 

[rivethead]

Pretty much me right here except I was in the very first wave $25 or $30 for the Aurora, later that year I got a $50 or $100 visa gift card from a work event. Came home and bought a cutlass black (the mini pirate gunship thing) then said that’s it I’m not spending more money.
This wraps into two points I have.
First I capped my budget because I know any random game I think I may like has a 80% chance of being something I don’t like or I enjoy playing for about 30 minutes to an hour then I put it aside and never revisit it again. Budgeting is important
Secondly early access has risks associated with it. Everyone should be smart enough not to spend sacred money on any game and especially a game that has not released. Fine to be disappointed but that is the only valid complaint.
Understand that any money spent on early access is a risk similar to putting money down on a craps table. You may win, you may loose, you may survive for a second roll or third. Be excited when you point number comes up, don’t be pissed if you lose. That is the game.

I still think I "win" if SQ42 is ever released and has even remotely close to the cliche storyline that's already been leaked. $95 for a 20-30 hour space opera where the hero saves the world by shooting bad guys in space ships (and gets to "interact" with Luke Skywalker, Gimli, Sirius Black, Sir Davos, Geralt of Rivia and Agent Skully)? Yeah, I could do worse.

 

[zinfamous]

It feels like so much longer.



I've been under the impression that most of the ships aren't available to play so no one knows how they'll stack up, but I have a hard time thinking that a $500 ship won't completely dominate a $50 ship in every regard. I know that you can (will) be able to do a bunch of stuff, but even things like mining will highlight the P2W design of this game as those with money sunk in will be in a much better place than those trying to eek their way through. This is where the pay to win/macro transactions will be really evident. I'm amused by the fact that a game to escape the real world's problems has recreated the have and the have nots.

Perhaps I'm wrong and misunderstanding as I don't know all the ins and outs on this 'game'. I personally can't help but see this as a very entertaining soap opera about a game. If and when anything ever gets released in a proper form (I speak of a release that doesn't get the "it's a alpha/beta/whatever" so you really can't judge it yet) then we can see if I'm right.

I think I may have made this comment ~2-3 years ago in this thread, but I believe that THIS is actually the SC game. It is all it ever will be [this = this thread, the forums, the drama, the lawsuits, everything], probably all it was ever meant to be.

 

[Skel]

You have to be able to define "win". Sure a Hammerhead (gunship) will own an Aurora in seconds. Is that a "win"? Sure, if SC was a space combat game. But I think it's going to be more a space economic sim. The costs of operating that Hammerhead are going to outweigh the gain from blowing up a lowly Aurora. Sure there are going to be trolls who won't care (in the short run). It remains to be seen if CIG can build a system to penalize these greifers/trolls. They have the ability to play "God" and spawn in any number of Idrises to harass and destroy a Hammerhead that gets a reputation for griefing. But will they? We don't know what that will look like.

It's all part of the risk of putting down money in a kickstarter video game...personally I don't think SC will ever be "released". CIG are going to keep calling this an "alpha" forever (until the money runs out).

What part isn't effected by the ability to buy a bigger/better ship? Seems (again I might be wrong) that even simple stuff like hauling materials across the systems would be effected with the type and size of the ship. If I can afford a bigger tougher ship to do this, I'll do much much better than the poor fool that is trying to grind his way up to the larger ship. The only thing I can think of that wouldn't be effected would be the FPS stuff.. including Bar-tending. I wouldn't be surprised, in fact I'd be really surprised if they didn't sell upgraded armor and weapons for the FPS. This 'game' relies on P2W and Micro/Macro transactions. I highly doubt this will change even if somehow this game gets a proper release. It's how they're grinding out money out of people that already own enough to play the 'game'.

I think I may have made this comment ~2-3 years ago in this thread, but I believe that THIS is actually the SC game. It is all it ever will be [this = this thread, the forums, the drama, the lawsuits, everything], probably all it was ever meant to be.

I've found more enjoyment from these threads than I have from most games. If nothing else it's a soap opera that keeps on giving.

 

[Artorias]

Nahh. No Man's Sky is still trundling along, and it apparently is a much better game now with updates. Star Citizen is way off the radar of a lot of people.

It's hard to make a space flight sim that is fun to play and doesn't suck.

All I wanted was Freelancer 2. A story with some space trading on the side. You think it would be easy money for any competent publisher.

 

[DrMrLordX]

All I wanted was Freelancer 2. A story with some space trading on the side. You think it would be easy money for any competent publisher.

It's gotten complicated. People want to push messy control schemes (Elite: Dangerous) or wonky physics models. There's the expectation of realism or . . . something vaguely approaching realism. You can't just remake games like Freelancer or . . . even the old Star Wars games like Xwing because nobody can agree on what a ship in space should handle like anymore, or what it should do. It used to be so easy.

 

[Dannar26]

No single ship in Star Citizen cost $10K. There are packages of many ships that cost that amount. Ships are just tools to do a "job" in the video game. You can walk into a Home Depot today and buy a toolset for $500. Or you can buy a single screwdriver for $7. It's the exact same concept with Star Citizen ships. There really isn't a lot of "balancing" needed for ships, although larger, more powerful ships will have adverse economic burdens to consider when using them. Again, it's just like tools - a power screwdriver is more expensive and requires electricity to work. And it works fast. But a regular screwdriver works too....only slower and with man power.....but much cheaper.

Well, there's certainly a difference between a contractor with professional grade tools, and a noobie DIY guy with a hammer, pliers, and duct tape. This difference will be apparent from day one, when and if this launches. If nothing else, this gives the whale players time to unite and monopolize the best resources. This could be resultant from the whales having played more, but I doubt you could argue that every ship has a niche unto itself. I imagine there are ships that do the same things, and some that are clearly better than others.

And how will the impact of outfitting said ships play in?

But I'm not really worried about the scenario you describe (I used to be). I believe (perhaps mistakenly) that every ship in the game will be the "best" at something. For example, Auroras are probably going to be the best at delivering medical supplies to moon outposts....short runs through UEE controlled space from planets. I can't imagine larger, more powerful, more expensive ships will want to play in that space...the economic consequences of running those ships will likely make it not worth the effort for the reward (shooting up tiny Auroras and looting medical supplies).

Good to know actually. I haven't played the game since the first iteration of Arena Commander, which I only messed around with to kill the NPC Vanduuls. Since then I know the flight model has changed among other things.

My fear is more in line with the oft cited EVE comparison. It doesn't matter what ship is the best when you're dealing with a goon squad that's choking out all of free space.

I've been under the impression that most of the ships aren't available to play so no one knows how they'll stack up, but I have a hard time thinking that a $500 ship won't completely dominate a $50 ship in every regard. I know that you can (will) be able to do a bunch of stuff, but even things like mining will highlight the P2W design of this game as those with money sunk in will be in a much better place than those trying to eek their way through. This is where the pay to win/macro transactions will be really evident. I'm amused by the fact that a game to escape the real world's problems has recreated the have and the have nots.

Perhaps I'm wrong and misunderstanding as I don't know all the ins and outs on this 'game'. I personally can't help but see this as a very entertaining soap opera about a game. If and when anything ever gets released in a proper form (I speak of a release that doesn't get the "it's a alpha/beta/whatever" so you really can't judge it yet) then we can see if I'm right.

In a traditional MMO like WoW, everybody is essentially equal at max level. What sets people apart is the gear. It's undeniable that people with the $500 ships will have the better ships to do the jobs that will earn them the most coin. And, not to mention, the ability to crush those who may threaten this income stream...

You have to be able to define "win". Sure a Hammerhead (gunship) will own an Aurora in seconds. Is that a "win"? Sure, if SC was a space combat game. But I think it's going to be more a space economic sim. The costs of operating that Hammerhead are going to outweigh the gain from blowing up a lowly Aurora. Sure there are going to be trolls who won't care (in the short run). It remains to be seen if CIG can build a system to penalize these greifers/trolls. They have the ability to play "God" and spawn in any number of Idrises to harass and destroy a Hammerhead that gets a reputation for griefing. But will they? We don't know what that will look like.

It's all part of the risk of putting down money in a kickstarter video game...personally I don't think SC will ever be "released". CIG are going to keep calling this an "alpha" forever (until the money runs out).

Both of those are interesting points. How will NPC security levels be handled? It's a good question to contemplate.

I hear you on the alpha. This is my fear, but it seems like the most realistic outcome.

 

[rivethead]

What part isn't effected by the ability to buy a bigger/better ship? Seems (again I might be wrong) that even simple stuff like hauling materials across the systems would be effected with the type and size of the ship. If I can afford a bigger tougher ship to do this, I'll do much much better than the poor fool that is trying to grind his way up to the larger ship. The only thing I can think of that wouldn't be effected would be the FPS stuff.. including Bar-tending. I wouldn't be surprised, in fact I'd be really surprised if they didn't sell upgraded armor and weapons for the FPS. This 'game' relies on P2W and Micro/Macro transactions. I highly doubt this will change even if somehow this game gets a proper release. It's how they're grinding out money out of people that already own enough to play the 'game'.

Bigger isn't necessarily better. Staying with my Aurora example, let's say a medical outpost needs 1 CU of supplies a week. An Auora can deliver those supplies and gets paid 1000 credits. Fuel cost 100, insurance 100, landing fees 100, wear and tear 100. So 600 profit.

A Caterpillar does the same mission. Despite being able to hold 100 CU, they deliver the 1 CU of medical supplies and get paid 1000 credits. Fuel cost 1000, insurance 1000, landing fees 500, wear and tear 200. So that ship loses 1700 credit on the mission.

You'll need the right ship for the right job to be economically efficient. And, again, I think SC is ultimately an economic sim in space.

Now, people might get bored of tiny med supply runs to moons. That gameplay might not appeal to eveyrone. Well then buy a different tool (ship) and try a different job with different gameplay.

That's the theory anyway. Still a LOT of unknowns to what we might ultimately get.

 

[rivethead]

I doubt you could argue that every ship has a niche unto itself

Well, essentially that's my argument in a nutshell. I think the intent IS that every ship will be the best at something. And by best, I mean the most economically efficient tool for a specific job. And each "job" is a type of gameplay...cargo runs, trading, repair, combat, exploration, mining.....and thus the motivation to buy a new ship (either in-game or with real money) is the desire to try a different type of gameplay.

With how big the SC universe could be, I think CIG could pull it off. I mean, I think the gameplay and code would allow it and it could be done. But I don't have a lot of faith in CIG management (actually, I have zero faith). I think CIG has really good developers and talented people. But the people at the top are so bad at their jobs, this project is likely going to result in a messy, unfinished alpha.

 

[Skel]

Bigger isn't necessarily better. Staying with my Aurora example, let's say a medical outpost needs 1 CU of supplies a week. An Auora can deliver those supplies and gets paid 1000 credits. Fuel cost 100, insurance 100, landing fees 100, wear and tear 100. So 600 profit.

A Caterpillar does the same mission. Despite being able to hold 100 CU, they deliver the 1 CU of medical supplies and get paid 1000 credits. Fuel cost 1000, insurance 1000, landing fees 500, wear and tear 200. So that ship loses 1700 credit on the mission.

You'll need the right ship for the right job to be economically efficient. And, again, I think SC is ultimately an economic sim in space.

Now, people might get bored of tiny med supply runs to moons. That gameplay might not appeal to eveyrone. Well then buy a different tool (ship) and try a different job with different gameplay.

That's the theory anyway. Still a LOT of unknowns to what we might ultimately get.

That would work if it was 1 for 1.. but those larger ships will allow them to carry much more than the smaller ships would. In your example the Aurora would carry 1CU a week of supplies and get paid the 1000 - all the upkeep and fuel = 600 profit.. the larger ship wouldn't carry 1 CU.. more like 1000 CU (I admit I'm just throwing amounts out there, but you'll see my point) get paid 1,000,000 CUs - the fees you listed 1700 = 998,300 CUs. The smaller ship might very well be able to eek out a living doing that (so bizarre to speak of jobs in video games.. ) and eventually buy other ships to do other thing, but that guy with the larger ships will be able to do just about everything in a much much shorter time frame. If the goal was to buy more/new ships to do other jobs/gameplays.. well that whale just won.

This is pay to win, and this is the plan on how this game makes it's money. I have a very hard time seeing CIG making small cost ships the best at something as it would cause people to have less, if any reason to buy the larger/better ships. That's not getting into the risk of them alienating whales that are buying high costs ships. I can't image telling them that while they have high costs ship, this cheap one over here is much better for whatever job in the game. I don't fault CIG for it.. I personally don't like these games but when your whole business plan revolves around selling ships there has to be a reason to get people to buy them.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I’m okay with pay to win provided it doesn’t encourage trolls to just make the game not fun or a pain to play.
I sort of like the idea that people who spend money could control big portions of the galaxy and us mid price players need to decide if it’s worth it to be on their side.
Sort of like Eve, I hate how the game plays but I love the openness and complex schemes that come from its openness.

Edit: I haven’t played Eve more than one hour, just don’t like the interface, spreadsheets and you can’t leave your ship. I do love reading about the various exploits and scams.
Relating to SC yeah it would suck to work months to get a huge bank balance then lose it somehow, however it would be a great memorable experience.
Some of my favorite game memories were from the early days of EQ. Want to group up with friends? Travel to another town and meet them in the bank or pub.
Real early days allowed casters to charm players and gain control of their characters briefly. Fun having my warrior controlled by another player and watch him run into battle that’s impossible to win. Fun watching people charm the priest of discord and watch him go ape on all the city guards. Sometimes it was a pain but overall it was fun allowing people to be creative about how the game systems worked.

 

[Dannar26]

Well, essentially that's my argument in a nutshell. I think the intent IS that every ship will be the best at something. And by best, I mean the most economically efficient tool for a specific job. And each "job" is a type of gameplay...cargo runs, trading, repair, combat, exploration, mining.....and thus the motivation to buy a new ship (either in-game or with real money) is the desire to try a different type of gameplay.

I see your point quite clearly. But my assumption is that something like the Aurora is a kind of "compromises swiss army knife." It lets you get your feet wet in all the gameplay loops. I think Skel's point holds though. Maybe in the given scenario it would be overkill to do a mission with just an Aurora (something a whale backer surely has, right?). But why do a small potatoes mission when you can haul something bigger and badder?

With how big the SC universe could be, I think CIG could pull it off. I mean, I think the gameplay and code would allow it and it could be done. But I don't have a lot of faith in CIG management (actually, I have zero faith). I think CIG has really good developers and talented people. But the people at the top are so bad at their jobs, this project is likely going to result in a messy, unfinished alpha.

Sad, isn't it? Doesn't it feel like they're building this thing backwards? If the core gameplay isn't figured out, it doesn't matter how many planets, face recognition softwares, and bar citizens we have.

And the ships. Even with our discussion here, it's purely theoretical. How many ships will there be? Will they, in fact, make a better swiss army knife ship that is better than the Aurora in every way? What does it cost the player to lose a ship like that? How likely is that loss? Are all the more profitable endeavors inherently riskier?

That would work if it was 1 for 1.. but those larger ships will allow them to carry much more than the smaller ships would. In your example the Aurora would carry 1CU a week of supplies and get paid the 1000 - all the upkeep and fuel = 600 profit.. the larger ship wouldn't carry 1 CU.. more like 1000 CU (I admit I'm just throwing amounts out there, but you'll see my point) get paid 1,000,000 CUs - the fees you listed 1700 = 998,300 CUs. The smaller ship might very well be able to eek out a living doing that (so bizarre to speak of jobs in video games.. ) and eventually buy other ships to do other thing, but that guy with the larger ships will be able to do just about everything in a much much shorter time frame. If the goal was to buy more/new ships to do other jobs/gameplays.. well that whale just won.

This is pay to win, and this is the plan on how this game makes it's money. I have a very hard time seeing CIG making small cost ships the best at something as it would cause people to have less, if any reason to buy the larger/better ships. That's not getting into the risk of them alienating whales that are buying high costs ships. I can't image telling them that while they have high costs ship, this cheap one over here is much better for whatever job in the game. I don't fault CIG for it.. I personally don't like these games but when your whole business plan revolves around selling ships there has to be a reason to get people to buy them.

Exactly, and this has a lasting impact. By the time I get my first fighter, some of these guys will literally command armadas. A friend of mine who plays EVE said "never fly anything you can't afford to lose." Simply put, the whale types will be able to outspend us right from the start. They'll be able to weather the attrition.

Now, to be fair, there have been cases in EVE where some noob gets a capital ship...then proceeds to wreck it almost instantly. Maybe some of the whales will be this bad. But I'd be willing to bet that most won't be that terrible.

I’m okay with pay to win provided it doesn’t encourage trolls to just make the game not fun or a pain to play.
I sort of like the idea that people who spend money could control big portions of the galaxy and us mid price players need to decide if it’s worth it to be on their side.
Sort of like Eve, I hate how the game plays but I love the openness and complex schemes that come from its openness.

I've never played EVE, but I've had friends that have. It honestly seems like a brilliant game...but one that I can't get into. The barrier to entry seems pretty steep. There's a lot to figure out, and once you've done that, it sounds like you need to join up with one of the player corps or get rolled.

Again, I feel that these whale types should be entitled to something. They're the ones that will have brought this game to us, the unwashed Aurora plebs who only pledged $30-40 bucks. But I do hope they can do it in a way that wont be crushing P2W.

 

[Dannar26]

Duplicate post.

Delete option isn't apparent...

 

[rivethead]

That would work if it was 1 for 1.. but those larger ships will allow them to carry much more than the smaller ships would. In your example the Aurora would carry 1CU a week of supplies and get paid the 1000 - all the upkeep and fuel = 600 profit.. the larger ship wouldn't carry 1 CU.. more like 1000 CU (I admit I'm just throwing amounts out there, but you'll see my point) get paid 1,000,000 CUs - the fees you listed 1700 = 998,300 CUs. The smaller ship might very well be able to eek out a living doing that (so bizarre to speak of jobs in video games.. ) and eventually buy other ships to do other thing, but that guy with the larger ships will be able to do just about everything in a much much shorter time frame. If the goal was to buy more/new ships to do other jobs/gameplays.. well that whale just won.

This is pay to win, and this is the plan on how this game makes it's money. I have a very hard time seeing CIG making small cost ships the best at something as it would cause people to have less, if any reason to buy the larger/better ships. That's not getting into the risk of them alienating whales that are buying high costs ships. I can't image telling them that while they have high costs ship, this cheap one over here is much better for whatever job in the game. I don't fault CIG for it.. I personally don't like these games but when your whole business plan revolves around selling ships there has to be a reason to get people to buy them.

You're right that the Cat can hold more....but the medical outpost only need 1 CU. So if you're going to do that mission you're only going to get 1000 credit. Now maybe you can piggy back missions and still profit. But the most efficient profit will be to make that run in Aurora. If you're interested listen to anything Tony Zuravic says. He's designing the economic model. He's not an eloquent speaker, but he's pretty talented (in my opinion). At the last Citizencon he did a presentation on how his system will work. It's pretty interesting.....and a great example of how I think CIG does have some talented people.

If "win" is defined as having all of the tools in the toolbox, yes it's pay to win. And yes, this is the model CIG are using to raking in obscene amounts of cash: sell an infinite (?) number of ships that do specific roles well. The problem with that model (in my opinion) is that it's style over substance. Ships are being (have been) sold that have no role. The gameplay for them hasn't been built. And, sadly, I suspect the gameplay for certain ships hasn't even been thought about by CIG leaders. The question isn't: does this ship play a role in our universe? The question (being asked) is: how many of these ships can we sell and how much money will we make?

That's a problem.

 

[rivethead]

Sad, isn't it? Doesn't it feel like they're building this thing backwards? If the core gameplay isn't figured out, it doesn't matter how many planets, face recognition softwares, and bar citizens we have.

Yes, I think it's very sad. Because the initial concept and potential were incredible. Money changes everything. This management team got too much money too quickly and their egos grew too fast. To be the evidence is in the Citizencons. They act like they're Blizzardcons. But Blizzard has actually created video games. And CIG hasn't. CIG hasn't done much more than sell dreams. I know there is an alpha and some people are "playing" it and getting enjoyment out of it. But I think, in reality, they're playing it and dreaming about what it could be...and that's preventing their ability to be objective about what they actually just "played".

I've said for (too many) years now: CIG are all about style and little about substance. They're building what potentially could be the most expensive, most beautiful, most boring video game ever made. But I still hold out hope that SQ42 will be substance.....a cliche story with Hollywood actors could, maybe, be entertaining enough to call it a success.

But SQ42 is hidden behind a veil....the roadmap showing them way behind schedule and little info on it. I think it's just as likely they announce it's cancellation (with bs like: "but all assets are being moved into Star Citizen so don't worry!) than they announce it's release date.

 

[Dannar26]

You're right that the Cat can hold more....but the medical outpost only need 1 CU. So if you're going to do that mission you're only going to get 1000 credit. Now maybe you can piggy back missions and still profit. But the most efficient profit will be to make that run in Aurora. If you're interested listen to anything Tony Zuravic says. He's designing the economic model. He's not an eloquent speaker, but he's pretty talented (in my opinion). At the last Citizencon he did a presentation on how his system will work. It's pretty interesting.....and a great example of how I think CIG does have some talented people.

Well I'm glad someone is thinking of balance in this respect because...

If "win" is defined as having all of the tools in the toolbox, yes it's pay to win. And yes, this is the model CIG are using to raking in obscene amounts of cash: sell an infinite (?) number of ships that do specific roles well. The problem with that model (in my opinion) is that it's style over substance. Ships are being (have been) sold that have no role. The gameplay for them hasn't been built. And, sadly, I suspect the gameplay for certain ships hasn't even been thought about by CIG leaders. The question isn't: does this ship play a role in our universe? The question (being asked) is: how many of these ships can we sell and how much money will we make?

That's a problem.

It feels like a borrowed time tactic. Create ships now; balance later. Much like the rest of this project, will it snowball beyond what's reasonably achievable?

Yes, I think it's very sad. Because the initial concept and potential were incredible. Money changes everything. This management team got too much money too quickly and their egos grew too fast. To be the evidence is in the Citizencons. They act like they're Blizzardcons. But Blizzard has actually created video games. And CIG hasn't. CIG hasn't done much more than sell dreams. I know there is an alpha and some people are "playing" it and getting enjoyment out of it. But I think, in reality, they're playing it and dreaming about what it could be...and that's preventing their ability to be objective about what they actually just "played".

Blizzard had good games first, and now controversy.

CIG has just had controversy.

Trust me, this is the type of game I've been salivating for since I heard about Star Wars Galaxies back in the early 2000's. I still miss that game even if it was a whole lot of open nothingness. If this game could deliver something approaching that, I'd be completely hooked.

I've said for (too many) years now: CIG are all about style and little about substance. They're building what potentially could be the most expensive, most beautiful, most boring video game ever made. But I still hold out hope that SQ42 will be substance.....a cliche story with Hollywood actors could, maybe, be entertaining enough to call it a success.

But SQ42 is hidden behind a veil....the roadmap showing them way behind schedule and little info on it. I think it's just as likely they announce it's cancellation (with bs like: "but all assets are being moved into Star Citizen so don't worry!) than they announce it's release date.

You make a good point. Just make Mark Hammill some kind of bar room NPC and call it day. Enjoy your alpha released game!

 

[rivethead]

All I wanted was Freelancer 2. A story with some space trading on the side. You think it would be easy money for any competent publisher.

I think you just described Rebel Galaxy and Rebel Galaxy Outlaw.....including the easy money part (I think the dev has done well with these titles).

 

[zinfamous]

Duplicate post.

Delete option isn't apparent...

Around here, you must suffer the indignity of a posting error until the heat death of the universe.