I challenge your numbers. From information given out by CIG and Chris Roberts, backers were able to roughly calculate a conversion rate of 4.6 $ pledge package price equivalent per hour of non-hardcore gameplay (that means: not 100 % cash-earning missions 100 % of the time).
Subject to change like all things in the game right now. I have been in enough beta's to know that the earning rate for in game money is one of the last things that is changed and more often than not in a big way down so to call this a final number is way to premature.
At the end of the day it will depend on if the numbers work out. They will look at the cash shop and decide if $4.60 a hour is a good conversion number or not. If it's to high (and it does seem high from other games I have played) it will be dropped. I have played games where free player time is considered almost worthless where you spending hundreds if not thousands of hours to earn what someone could buy for the cost of lunch. Think about it this way. How would that $200 ship start to look if your ingame earning rate was more like the equivalent of 20 cents a hour? Would most people spend 1000 hours earning a ship plus whatever else it took to earn the weapons and insurance in game? I'm not saying it will be that low as I just don't know but don't assume it won't change because it almost assuredly will to some extent.
Not to mention the long term value of Life Time Insurance. That feature seems more Pay 2 Win to me than anything else we have seen but that's me.
It's not pay to win because it's not a game, yet. It's just a bunch of ideas being developed with proof-of-tech demos handed out to the supporters. People aren't winning anything when they pay $$ for ships. All they can do is fantasize that one day, they'll actually get to fly their virtual ship in a virtual universe. But as of now, it's just money thrown into the void.
I make spreadsheets at work - I don't want to make them for the games I play.
Well it's p2w but think of it this way. If he had not done it this way, the company would not have received so much cash as it has. This will do so they have afford to take time to develop the game and hopefully make an awesome exerience for most of us.
I challenge your numbers. From information given out by CIG and Chris Roberts, backers were able to roughly calculate a conversion rate of 4.6 $ pledge package price equivalent per hour of non-hardcore gameplay (that means: not 100 % cash-earning missions 100 % of the time).
Subject to change like all things in the game right now. I have been in enough beta's to know that the earning rate for in game money is one of the last things that is changed and more often than not in a big way down so to call this a final number is way to premature.
At the end of the day it will depend on if the numbers work out. They will look at the cash shop and decide if $4.60 a hour is a good conversion number or not. If it's to high (and it does seem high from other games I have played) it will be dropped. I have played games where free player time is considered almost worthless where you spending hundreds if not thousands of hours to earn what someone could buy for the cost of lunch. Think about it this way. How would that $200 ship start to look if your ingame earning rate was more like the equivalent of 20 cents a hour? Would most people spend 1000 hours earning a ship plus whatever else it took to earn the weapons and insurance in game? I'm not saying it will be that low as I just don't know but don't assume it won't change because it almost assuredly will to some extent.
Not to mention the long term value of Life Time Insurance. That feature seems more Pay 2 Win to me than anything else we have seen but that's me.
Udon, i think you are making two mistakes.
Mistake 1:
I am speaking about a backer calculated pledge package price equivalent. Not the conversion rate of real world cash to in game cash (which is described here
This UEC conversion rate may be changed. I personally think that the backer calculated pledge package price equivalent won't change much - it fits in well with the typical advancement rate of a typical Chris Roberts game.
Mistake 2:
In your post you basically describe a Free-to-Play game like World of Tanks and its monetization scheme. Star Citizen IS NOT - by definition - a Free-to-Play game. If you want to compare it with something, Guild Wars 2 might be a much better fit. There is no premium ammo cash shop in Star Citizen like you find it in World of Tanks. By definition there won't be an item that you can ONLY get for real world cash and not in game with in game means. Star Citizen is NOT like F-2-P games like War Thunder, were its easy to get the first planes but getting insanely tedious grinding up to the higher tier planes.
And w.r.t. to Life Time Insurance :
" ...Like in real-life insurance should be a relatively small part of your regular in game expenses which will also include paying landing fees, trade tariffs (if in a system with lots of infrastructure and law and order), fuel..."
Insurance cost will be quite small, so any advantage LTI brings will be small. This is NOT like in EVE were you could burn through 20 ships and clones in one PvP sortie or big battle. Your pilot would be PERMADEAD in Star Citizen if you do that. LTI would only have a big influence if Star Citizen would allow an EVE style endless dying and replacing cycle - which it does not.
Originally posted by Pyuk It's not pay to win because it's not a game, yet. It's just a bunch of ideas being developed with proof-of-tech demos handed out to the supporters. People aren't winning anything when they pay $$ for ships. All they can do is fantasize that one day, they'll actually get to fly their virtual ship in a virtual universe. But as of now, it's just money thrown into the void.
Correct.
By definition, a game can not be pay to win, when there is no game.
Pay 2 Develop, you think they could have raised 66 million selling the promise of boxed copies and t-shirts, I think not. I donated money because I liked what CR's vision was, then I donated more because I liked Arena Commander, then I donated more because I enjoy all the: behind the scenes information and videos, the "talk shows", the videos of ships, the racing, and the interesting way they have released lore. The ships I have received in the process, well that's a great bonus.
The whole slew of people screaming Pay 2 Win at game developers is just wasted breath at this point, it's not P2W anymore, it's the new norm of how game developers monetize games, specifically MMOs. If you don't like it go play something that doesn't use that type of monetization.
Once upon a time having a monthly subscription was profitable because the market wasn't saturated with games as it is today, developers had to find a way for games with a smaller player base to be profitable enough for them to create, develop, and maintain them.
The fact remains that people with money will be the ones that game developers cater to, F2P players that spend nothing are doing nothing to further the development and progress, so why would they be catered to. Most people should be happy they are offered something for free, but most just complain.
Market owner offers bum on the street that is starving a loaf of bread, bum says "what no butter and jelly?" People are very amusing.
Here's the thing tho. Those 683,984 backers have absolutely no say in how the game will progress. Yes they can make suggestions and the devs can implement them if they choose or they can tell those backers too bloody bad.
--> You don't have much of an idea how close the communication between the community and the developers is in many many forums threads, do you ? Pro Tip: Check out the "Ask a dev" Section
--> As has been often said: it is simply impossible to make a design decision that every single one of those 683.984 backers like. You will always have some that don't like the decision, no matter how you decide. But that is in the nature of the subject. That is NOT equal to telling the backers "too bloody bad". At some point CIG has to decide, otherwise no game gets done.
If the devs decide to do a complete 180 and go in a whole new direction and make this a call of duty clone(will never happen but using a extreme impossible example) then too bad, so sad they already have your money and you still have no say.
--> Which would be against everything the team stands for ... as almost every gaming journalist has stated when he visited the team. They ALL report meeting an EXTREMELY dedicated team willing to go the extra mile to create the best space sim ever (and then some ...)
also given Chris' past history of him over reaching and then needing to get bailed out by large companies who then cut the fat so to speak I wouldn't exactly be praising Chris for his feature creep and missing deadlines
--> We are going in circles with that argument. You bring it up, i call it irrelevant ... because Chris Roberts is NOT dealing with a large company anymore, but with a group of backers that have stated time and time again that they want to give him all the time he needs to get the job done as planned. There is NO FIXED DEADLINE. Its done when its done. So IT DOES NOT MATTER if Chris misses some deadlines set down 2 years ago. Try to grasp this concept - and you may begin to understand how most of the backers think.
---> And - going back to the topic of the thread - the current monetization strategy (no matter if its called P2W or not) brings in enough cash to not only give the team enough time, but also enough money to do it. I know, some people think that CIG just takes the money and runs .... or takes the money and uses it for women, drugs and fast cars (insert idiotic conspiracy theory XX here). I can only assume that none of the people that think this have ever met (part of ) the team in person - this is CIG and not a two man indy (scammer ?!) team like SuperCrit or SMP. I further have to assume that these people also think every one of the gaming journalists that spoke well of CIG is deaf, dumb and blind.
--> Have fun
I'll respond to your green points one by one
Your first point has nothing to do with what I originally posted. My point was that all those people who have given money have no voice in how the game progresses in the end. Yes there is a ask a dev section of the forums, which is a nice thing for the devs to do, I agree, but they are asking questions and not putting up suggestions which the devs can choose to completely ignore because no one is there to exert some level of control on the project.
The 2nd point after the link makes a bit more sense and I can agree with you on part of it. No one is going to be pleased with every decision made by the team but again the dev team can decide that they are going to implement a puzzle that involves you having to shoot a chick pea off of a hummingbirds head from 400 yards away without the aid of a scope on a character who has late stage Parkinson's disease and you only have one bullet. Failure to do so means you are locked out of FPS combat for 1 hour and everytime you die you have to redo the puzzle in order to respawn. Will gamers be pleased by this decision? I would say its a big hell no but they have no say in the matter because they already have their money and the team owes them nothing.
I used that example, like the one above, as a case of an extreme situation that will never happen. I know the team is dedicated to creating an awesome space game but my point is still that they can do whatever they want with the game and the most the backers can do is whine on the forums, maybe do chargebacks that can impact your credit rating.
I keep bringing up the argument that Chris Roberts had to be bailed out by a large company because you are ignoring the facts. Chris Roberts was head of Digital Anvil, the dev studio responsible for creating Freelancer. He made some very grandiose promises about what the game could deliver and when he announced it officially he gave a specific date for release. He missed the release date by about 2 and a half years and openly admitted that his company needed large sums of money in order to finish the game. That's where Microsoft stepped in to buy them out. Before that he was an entity unto himself but his mismanagement and touting of features that were beyond his teams reach almost made sure freelancer never saw the light of day. You need to understand that the circular argument we are having is because you refuse to accept the facts that are laid out in front of you.
As for your last point I don't believe that Chris Roberts is taking the money and running or blowing it on drugs/women/cars/whatever but what happens if the money stops coming in? Adding extra features is great and can make for a more robust and fun game for people playing it but perhaps they need to get the framework down and in place before they start spending resources on developing something that was never in the original plan.
Star Citizen was a great idea at the time and has become trash as time went by, with all these stretch goals, really? C'mon man. It looks more of a scam than a actual game being in the works, just to grab money and to declare bankrupt at the end. Nothing will surprise me out of this game. To be avoided at all cost, if you bought a ship like me a few years ago, demand a refund, probably the best move you'll make in your lifetime.
Bigger ships equal better attack and defense, as well as a lot more cash coming in earlier.
**snip**
I think you are making the mistake many people make ... they apply standards from e.g. EVE Online to this game.
A bigger ship is NOT better than a smaller ship and does NOT automatically equal better attack and defense. Bigger ships in Star Citizen are NOT Titans or Motherships (and if you consider a Titan in EVE semi-invincible, i can show you an interesting shipwreck monument in the deep south of EVE ;-)
A bigger ship in Star Citizen just fulfills another role compared to a smaller ship. That does not make it better or worse than the smaller ship.
A bigger ship without (player controlled) fighter escort (consisting of smaller ships) is easy meat for any small group of (player controlled) torpedo bombers. Its like stone, scissors and paper - there is always someone out there that can beat you. Every Chris Roberts game so far has followed those principles and this one is no exception according to the currently available information. Unprotected bigger ships flown by a single player are even more in danger ... as they can be boarded and captured by (player controlled) marines in FPS combat, using some fancy flying and a boarding action gunship.
And w.r.t. more cash coming in earlier ... as the bigger ships only can use large jump points, which usually leads to longer routes, a smaller ship with somewhat smaller cargo space able to use smaller jump points and shorter routes may actually generate more cash per time unit than your larger ship. Only time will tell, as no one has tested this part of the game yet. So you just express a personal opinion, not a fact.
Have fun
No no mistake you are just jumping from the smallest to the biggest ship. There are many ships between those 2 points.
I think it was you that posted the list of ships here>P so you know as well as i do that the freelancer will be better than the starter aurora as an example. Bigger better armed and defense and cargo better money making. All along the line the people who buy the ships now will be what is for sure pay to win territory for a while.
Trying to argue that is just not being honest...no matter your "opinion" since it is not opinion it is fact. And it is fact that that pay to win will slowly go away over the months as well. Not any argument there as well. Just being honest.
The Freelancer is in the same category as the ship I have, the Constellation. And we know its supposed to take some 60 hours of non-hardcore gameplay to get such a type of ship, starting with a starter ship. Knowing many hard-core MMO players out there that basically means quite a few of them will have one after the first long weekend of gaming.
So the advantage you speak of will IMHO not last months ... more like weeks at most.
And from playing many MMO's i know that the first weeks are not representative for a multiplayer game. Some go for server firsts, some go for max level (not that there are any levels in SC), some go for leaderboard wins .... then many multi-game guild caravans move on to the next game. And things start to settle down to normal. In these turbulent competitive first weeks any initial advantages will evaporate quickly IMHO.
But again ... this is just my opinion, backed by some numbers i posted in other threads several times already. Only time will tell how long advantages will last after launch.
The Freelancer is in the same category as the ship I have, the Constellation. And we know its supposed to take some 60 hours of non-hardcore gameplay to get such a type of ship, starting with a starter ship. Knowing many hard-core MMO players out there that basically means quite a few of them will have one after the first long weekend of gaming.
So the advantage you speak of will IMHO not last months ... more like weeks at most.
And from playing many MMO's i know that the first weeks are not representative for a multiplayer game. Some go for server firsts, some go for max level (not that there are any levels in SC), some go for leaderboard wins .... then many multi-game guild caravans move on to the next game. And things start to settle down to normal. In these turbulent competitive first weeks any initial advantages will evaporate quickly IMHO.
But again ... this is just my opinion, backed by some numbers i posted in other threads several times already. Only time will tell how long advantages will last after launch.
Have fun
Heh yes we are not that far apart in fact... but you again seem to stop at those ships i named. The pay to win advantage does not stop there. It goes all along the ship chain and hauling chain on making more cash faster. The people starting those 60 hours or more ahead of the curve will continue that curve for a while. And possibly increase it in some cases.
Now will that curve last 1 month? 2? that is the end of the curve that is unknown. But that their IS a curve is not in doubt.
Heh yes we are not that far apart in fact... but you again seem to stop at those ships i named. The pay to win advantage does not stop there. It goes all along the ship chain and hauling chain on making more cash faster. The people starting those 60 hours or more ahead of the curve will continue that curve for a while. And possibly increase it in some cases.
Now will that curve last 1 month? 2? that is the end of the curve that is unknown. But that their IS a curve is not in doubt.
With no BIG money sinks to speak of at the moment, what would those with much initial starting cash and many ships DO with all that money ? Buy more ships you cannot fly, because you can fly only one ship at a time ?
Later in the game this money factor might be important, when you can get land, appartements, factories etc. ... but that will be quite some time after launch, when initial headstarts don't matter anymore.
I started reading that thread and over and over and over, the line that was repeated was "You can get that in game" But you, and that thread (to the point where I tired from reading the same reply) have not answered the OP's question.
Player 1 starts out with a better ship. Player 2 has to earn it. If it takes player 2, 3 months to earn an equivalent ship as what player 1 had from day 1, what has the ship that player 1 had allowed him to establish during his advantage from that 1st 3 months? It's the exact same argument used in other P2W games.......They are still P2W.
The argument "You can earn it in game" implies that players who bought better ships sit around idly doing nothing. But that won't be the case. They will be grinding themselves, but they will have better abilities to start off with. If this game has vertical progression, these players with better ships will be able to maintain, if not widen their leads and always stay ahead.
So, unless this game has some kind of progression plateau or horizontal progression system, I still see the same situation the OP sees.
There is a reason some people are willing to spend big money in games. Publishers and developers know this. They have gotten very clever when it comes to disguising how they cater to that need.
I started reading that thread and over and over and over, the line that was repeated was "You can get that in game" But you, and that thread (to the point where I tired from reading the same reply) have not answered the OP's question.
Player 1 starts out with a better ship. Player 2 has to earn it. If it takes player 2, 3 months to earn an equivalent ship as what player 1 had from day 1, what has the ship that player 1 had allowed him to establish during his advantage from that 1st 3 months? It's the exact same argument used in other P2W games.......They are still P2W.
The argument "You can earn it in game" implies that players who bought better ships sit around idly doing nothing. But that won't be the case. They will be grinding themselves, but they will have better abilities to start off with. If this game has vertical progression, these players with better ships will be able to maintain, if not widen their leads and always stay ahead.
So, unless this game has some kind of progression plateau or horizontal progression system, I still see the same situation the OP sees.
There is a reason some people are willing to spend big money in games. Publishers and developers know this. They have gotten very clever when it comes to disguising how they cater to that need.
OH, this is an easy one. Way I see it? (Way a rational person should see it)
You give money and are all "Heya Chris. Awesome game. Have some money to fund the project." And Chris is all "Aww. For me? Here, have an awesome ship as thanks." All the money really funds is the project... since every single ship will be buyable in-game. IIRC, Pay-to-Win usually defines mechanics that are only obtainable through purchase of cash... and unobtainable through in-game credits.
With that said, every "Oh, boo hoo. This game will be/is Pay-to-Win" thread I encounter makes me laugh. If people would only wake up and smell the roses, they might not have their heads stuck in the hyperbole clouds.
OH, this is an easy one. Way I see it? (Way a rational person should see it)
You give money and are all "Heya Chris. Awesome game. Have some money to fund the project." And Chris is all "Aww. For me? Here, have an awesome ship as thanks." All the money really funds is the project... since every single ship will be buyable in-game. IIRC, Pay-to-Win usually defines mechanics that are only obtainable through purchase of cash... and unobtainable through in-game credits.
With that said, every "Oh, boo hoo. This game will be/is Pay-to-Win" thread I encounter makes me laugh. If people would only wake up and smell the roses, they might not have their heads stuck in the hyperbole clouds.
^
Pay to make the game. They appreciate it, and give you a ship in return with lifetime insurance. I mean, you could just give them a few hundred dollars and receive nothing in return.
Pay to make the game. They appreciate it, and give you a ship in return with lifetime insurance. I mean, you could just give them a few hundred dollars and receive nothing in return.
And the fun thing is ... CIG would STILL have gotten most of that money if they gave nothing in return before launch.
Because the backers REALLY want to see this project suceed.
Considering that ships sell like hot buns before game even launches, do you really think that there will be no ships tobuy in shop after game launches? C'mon /grin
OH, this is an easy one. Way I see it? (Way a rational person should see it)
You give money and are all "Heya Chris. Awesome game. Have some money to fund the project." And Chris is all "Aww. For me? Here, have an awesome ship as thanks." All the money really funds is the project... since every single ship will be buyable in-game. IIRC, Pay-to-Win usually defines mechanics that are only obtainable through purchase of cash... and unobtainable through in-game credits.
With that said, every "Oh, boo hoo. This game will be/is Pay-to-Win" thread I encounter makes me laugh. If people would only wake up and smell the roses, they might not have their heads stuck in the hyperbole clouds.
^
Pay to make the game. They appreciate it, and give you a ship in return with lifetime insurance. I mean, you could just give them a few hundred dollars and receive nothing in return.
crowdfunding in a nutshell^. Really not a concept that is hard to understand
The only thing i can answer to you OP, is do you play games for end game or not? Is there a end game in this one?
If yes to #1 then possibly P2W if yes to #2 Then really it is a P2W game.
Reason i say this is that if you can buy item that you can get in games but will get you to end game way faster and make you rich as hell, then it is a P2W game if there is a end game. It is that simple.
If there is no end game and it is only a sandbox mmofps, then sorry to say this but it can not be a P2W game. Sure you will have to play more then others to get what they have, but it will still bring you no where at all except to say that you have mastered the game, the economy, etc,etc. But in a sense it will not make you better or worse then any other players that only play for fun, because there is no final point to the game itself like a mmorpg where some have raids and the ultimate point of playing is to have completed all the content and have all the best gear.
Edit : In a sense i am trying to say is that for it to be P2W is that it will give you a advantage on others to reach the final part of a game itself, and a sandbox game of any type that as no end game can not be P2W because you only play those games for fun because they never end in a sense except when you quit playing them.
Edit 2 : Also you can still board huge ships with friend kill the crew and the player in this one so in make no sense to have the biggest ship if you will lose it a few minutes or hours after you got it, to someone that that as a starter ship. Ships will not be the only factor in this one. The players skills and social aspect of the game will also play a factor here.
Originally posted by Sevenstar61 Considering that ships sell like hot buns before game even launches, do you really think that there will be no ships tobuy in shop after game launches? C'mon /grin
Yes, I think that. /grin
This is not a F2P game like "World of Tanks" with special tanks you can ONLY buy in the shop for real world money.
Important note: NO SHIPS, but there will be tuning kits with small effect, ship skins, deco items etc.
It all comes down to what you think about the CIG team and their motivation. If you think they are just in it for the money, you will believe in SC being P2W. If you believe they are in it to write a new chapter of gaming history - then you understand the point of view of most of the backers of the project.
And most backers that met the team during conventions (read their forum posts!, me being one of them) and most gaming journalists (read their articles !) that have visited CIG will assure you that its the latter and not the former motivation that drives THIS team.
Ships will not be the only factor in this one. The players skills and social aspect of the game will also play a factor here.
Well said.
There is no invincible solo pawn-mobile in Star Citizen.
If you try to solo fly a Javelin destroyer, a team of boarding player marines will smear your body parts across the inner cockpit window quicker than you can press the eject button. And maybe thank you later for that ... present.
It is P2W right now. I think anyone with a brain can see that. However, as long as its only pre release, i dont care too much in this situation.
The main reason is this. Like EVE, outfitting the ship will cost as much if not more than the ship itself took to obtain. So its not like someone with uber ship of the gods at release is gonna immediately be able to go and pwn everyone.
At the end of the day its one of those things thats part of kickstarting/crowdfunding a game. I'd rather the game exist with 1-3% of its population having some kind of initial advantage, than not exist at all.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Comments
Subject to change like all things in the game right now. I have been in enough beta's to know that the earning rate for in game money is one of the last things that is changed and more often than not in a big way down so to call this a final number is way to premature.
At the end of the day it will depend on if the numbers work out. They will look at the cash shop and decide if $4.60 a hour is a good conversion number or not. If it's to high (and it does seem high from other games I have played) it will be dropped. I have played games where free player time is considered almost worthless where you spending hundreds if not thousands of hours to earn what someone could buy for the cost of lunch. Think about it this way. How would that $200 ship start to look if your ingame earning rate was more like the equivalent of 20 cents a hour? Would most people spend 1000 hours earning a ship plus whatever else it took to earn the weapons and insurance in game? I'm not saying it will be that low as I just don't know but don't assume it won't change because it almost assuredly will to some extent.
Not to mention the long term value of Life Time Insurance. That feature seems more Pay 2 Win to me than anything else we have seen but that's me.
I make spreadsheets at work - I don't want to make them for the games I play.
Udon, i think you are making two mistakes.
Mistake 1:
I am speaking about a backer calculated pledge package price equivalent. Not the conversion rate of real world cash to in game cash (which is described here
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/faq/united-earth-credits
and here
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/uec
This UEC conversion rate may be changed. I personally think that the backer calculated pledge package price equivalent won't change much - it fits in well with the typical advancement rate of a typical Chris Roberts game.
Mistake 2:
In your post you basically describe a Free-to-Play game like World of Tanks and its monetization scheme. Star Citizen IS NOT - by definition - a Free-to-Play game. If you want to compare it with something, Guild Wars 2 might be a much better fit. There is no premium ammo cash shop in Star Citizen like you find it in World of Tanks. By definition there won't be an item that you can ONLY get for real world cash and not in game with in game means. Star Citizen is NOT like F-2-P games like War Thunder, were its easy to get the first planes but getting insanely tedious grinding up to the higher tier planes.
And w.r.t. to Life Time Insurance :
" ...Like in real-life insurance should be a relatively small part of your regular in game expenses which will also include paying landing fees, trade tariffs (if in a system with lots of infrastructure and law and order), fuel..."
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/12820-Insurance-FAQ-And-Update
Insurance cost will be quite small, so any advantage LTI brings will be small. This is NOT like in EVE were you could burn through 20 ships and clones in one PvP sortie or big battle. Your pilot would be PERMADEAD in Star Citizen if you do that. LTI would only have a big influence if Star Citizen would allow an EVE style endless dying and replacing cycle - which it does not.
Have fun
Correct.
By definition, a game can not be pay to win, when there is no game.
Pay 2 Develop, you think they could have raised 66 million selling the promise of boxed copies and t-shirts, I think not. I donated money because I liked what CR's vision was, then I donated more because I liked Arena Commander, then I donated more because I enjoy all the: behind the scenes information and videos, the "talk shows", the videos of ships, the racing, and the interesting way they have released lore. The ships I have received in the process, well that's a great bonus.
The whole slew of people screaming Pay 2 Win at game developers is just wasted breath at this point, it's not P2W anymore, it's the new norm of how game developers monetize games, specifically MMOs. If you don't like it go play something that doesn't use that type of monetization.
Once upon a time having a monthly subscription was profitable because the market wasn't saturated with games as it is today, developers had to find a way for games with a smaller player base to be profitable enough for them to create, develop, and maintain them.
The fact remains that people with money will be the ones that game developers cater to, F2P players that spend nothing are doing nothing to further the development and progress, so why would they be catered to. Most people should be happy they are offered something for free, but most just complain.
Market owner offers bum on the street that is starving a loaf of bread, bum says "what no butter and jelly?" People are very amusing.
I'll respond to your green points one by one
Your first point has nothing to do with what I originally posted. My point was that all those people who have given money have no voice in how the game progresses in the end. Yes there is a ask a dev section of the forums, which is a nice thing for the devs to do, I agree, but they are asking questions and not putting up suggestions which the devs can choose to completely ignore because no one is there to exert some level of control on the project.
The 2nd point after the link makes a bit more sense and I can agree with you on part of it. No one is going to be pleased with every decision made by the team but again the dev team can decide that they are going to implement a puzzle that involves you having to shoot a chick pea off of a hummingbirds head from 400 yards away without the aid of a scope on a character who has late stage Parkinson's disease and you only have one bullet. Failure to do so means you are locked out of FPS combat for 1 hour and everytime you die you have to redo the puzzle in order to respawn. Will gamers be pleased by this decision? I would say its a big hell no but they have no say in the matter because they already have their money and the team owes them nothing.
I used that example, like the one above, as a case of an extreme situation that will never happen. I know the team is dedicated to creating an awesome space game but my point is still that they can do whatever they want with the game and the most the backers can do is whine on the forums, maybe do chargebacks that can impact your credit rating.
I keep bringing up the argument that Chris Roberts had to be bailed out by a large company because you are ignoring the facts. Chris Roberts was head of Digital Anvil, the dev studio responsible for creating Freelancer. He made some very grandiose promises about what the game could deliver and when he announced it officially he gave a specific date for release. He missed the release date by about 2 and a half years and openly admitted that his company needed large sums of money in order to finish the game. That's where Microsoft stepped in to buy them out. Before that he was an entity unto himself but his mismanagement and touting of features that were beyond his teams reach almost made sure freelancer never saw the light of day. You need to understand that the circular argument we are having is because you refuse to accept the facts that are laid out in front of you.
As for your last point I don't believe that Chris Roberts is taking the money and running or blowing it on drugs/women/cars/whatever but what happens if the money stops coming in? Adding extra features is great and can make for a more robust and fun game for people playing it but perhaps they need to get the framework down and in place before they start spending resources on developing something that was never in the original plan.
Again .. going in circles.
I am fully aware of the facts. We just draw different conclusions from the facts.
Lets agree to disagree.
Have fun
No no mistake you are just jumping from the smallest to the biggest ship. There are many ships between those 2 points.
I think it was you that posted the list of ships here>P so you know as well as i do that the freelancer will be better than the starter aurora as an example. Bigger better armed and defense and cargo better money making. All along the line the people who buy the ships now will be what is for sure pay to win territory for a while.
Trying to argue that is just not being honest...no matter your "opinion" since it is not opinion it is fact. And it is fact that that pay to win will slowly go away over the months as well. Not any argument there as well. Just being honest.
The Freelancer is in the same category as the ship I have, the Constellation. And we know its supposed to take some 60 hours of non-hardcore gameplay to get such a type of ship, starting with a starter ship. Knowing many hard-core MMO players out there that basically means quite a few of them will have one after the first long weekend of gaming.
So the advantage you speak of will IMHO not last months ... more like weeks at most.
And from playing many MMO's i know that the first weeks are not representative for a multiplayer game. Some go for server firsts, some go for max level (not that there are any levels in SC), some go for leaderboard wins .... then many multi-game guild caravans move on to the next game. And things start to settle down to normal. In these turbulent competitive first weeks any initial advantages will evaporate quickly IMHO.
But again ... this is just my opinion, backed by some numbers i posted in other threads several times already. Only time will tell how long advantages will last after launch.
Have fun
Heh yes we are not that far apart in fact... but you again seem to stop at those ships i named. The pay to win advantage does not stop there. It goes all along the ship chain and hauling chain on making more cash faster. The people starting those 60 hours or more ahead of the curve will continue that curve for a while. And possibly increase it in some cases.
Now will that curve last 1 month? 2? that is the end of the curve that is unknown. But that their IS a curve is not in doubt.
With no BIG money sinks to speak of at the moment, what would those with much initial starting cash and many ships DO with all that money ? Buy more ships you cannot fly, because you can fly only one ship at a time ?
Later in the game this money factor might be important, when you can get land, appartements, factories etc. ... but that will be quite some time after launch, when initial headstarts don't matter anymore.
Have fun
@$# ; seriously guys ?
Hyperbole
OH, this is an easy one. Way I see it? (Way a rational person should see it)
You give money and are all "Heya Chris. Awesome game. Have some money to fund the project." And Chris is all "Aww. For me? Here, have an awesome ship as thanks." All the money really funds is the project... since every single ship will be buyable in-game. IIRC, Pay-to-Win usually defines mechanics that are only obtainable through purchase of cash... and unobtainable through in-game credits.
With that said, every "Oh, boo hoo. This game will be/is Pay-to-Win" thread I encounter makes me laugh. If people would only wake up and smell the roses, they might not have their heads stuck in the hyperbole clouds.
^
Pay to make the game. They appreciate it, and give you a ship in return with lifetime insurance. I mean, you could just give them a few hundred dollars and receive nothing in return.
And the fun thing is ... CIG would STILL have gotten most of that money if they gave nothing in return before launch.
Because the backers REALLY want to see this project suceed.
Have fun
Sith Warrior - Story of Hate and Love http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxKrlwXt7Ao
Imperial Agent - Rise of Cipher Nine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBBj3eJWBvU&feature=youtu.be
Imperial Agent - Hunt for the Eagle Part 1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQqjYYU128E
crowdfunding in a nutshell^. Really not a concept that is hard to understand
The only thing i can answer to you OP, is do you play games for end game or not? Is there a end game in this one?
If yes to #1 then possibly P2W if yes to #2 Then really it is a P2W game.
Reason i say this is that if you can buy item that you can get in games but will get you to end game way faster and make you rich as hell, then it is a P2W game if there is a end game. It is that simple.
If there is no end game and it is only a sandbox mmofps, then sorry to say this but it can not be a P2W game. Sure you will have to play more then others to get what they have, but it will still bring you no where at all except to say that you have mastered the game, the economy, etc,etc. But in a sense it will not make you better or worse then any other players that only play for fun, because there is no final point to the game itself like a mmorpg where some have raids and the ultimate point of playing is to have completed all the content and have all the best gear.
Edit : In a sense i am trying to say is that for it to be P2W is that it will give you a advantage on others to reach the final part of a game itself, and a sandbox game of any type that as no end game can not be P2W because you only play those games for fun because they never end in a sense except when you quit playing them.
Edit 2 : Also you can still board huge ships with friend kill the crew and the player in this one so in make no sense to have the biggest ship if you will lose it a few minutes or hours after you got it, to someone that that as a starter ship. Ships will not be the only factor in this one. The players skills and social aspect of the game will also play a factor here.
Yes, I think that. /grin
This is not a F2P game like "World of Tanks" with special tanks you can ONLY buy in the shop for real world money.
Important note: NO SHIPS, but there will be tuning kits with small effect, ship skins, deco items etc.
It all comes down to what you think about the CIG team and their motivation. If you think they are just in it for the money, you will believe in SC being P2W. If you believe they are in it to write a new chapter of gaming history - then you understand the point of view of most of the backers of the project.
And most backers that met the team during conventions (read their forum posts!, me being one of them) and most gaming journalists (read their articles !) that have visited CIG will assure you that its the latter and not the former motivation that drives THIS team.
Have fun
Well said.
There is no invincible solo pawn-mobile in Star Citizen.
If you try to solo fly a Javelin destroyer, a team of boarding player marines will smear your body parts across the inner cockpit window quicker than you can press the eject button. And maybe thank you later for that ... present.
Have fun
It is P2W right now. I think anyone with a brain can see that. However, as long as its only pre release, i dont care too much in this situation.
The main reason is this. Like EVE, outfitting the ship will cost as much if not more than the ship itself took to obtain. So its not like someone with uber ship of the gods at release is gonna immediately be able to go and pwn everyone.
At the end of the day its one of those things thats part of kickstarting/crowdfunding a game. I'd rather the game exist with 1-3% of its population having some kind of initial advantage, than not exist at all.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche