Is Star Citizen 'Pay To Win' or 'Pay To Advance'?

Cotic

A good thread on reddit discussing whether Star Citizen is one or the other (or if it's all the same).

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6e5l9e/pay_to_win_or_pay_to_progress/

Elsabolts

Who cares ?

blorpykins

Neither.  More like pay for desired level of immersive experience.  None of the concept ships come with top shelf kit, some ships are total shit.  On top of that, lifetime insurance is a complete wash - it's been stated for years that all the insurance timers only clock down when in game - 6 months will last most folks more time than they spend in game.  Insurance considerations will be for ship upgrades and everyone will have to buy those in game.

Elsabolts

I will say Insurance may turn out to be more important then one thinks time will tell.

rpmcmurphy

Definitely P2W by the common usage of today and not the more appropriate usage of yesteryear.

How P2W it is after release will be interesting to see.

Erillion

http://www.starcitizenblog.de/2013/04/klarstellung-von-chris-roberts-zu.html

Chris Roberts on P2W in Star Citizen

"....

My reference to World of Tanks was purely about how I felt the ability for people that don't have 40 hours a week to sink into a game have the opportunity to spend some money to keep up (an early post called this Pay2BeEqual) or drive a sexy tank they don't have 200 hours of game time to earn. I think WoT has some similarities to SC because they are both skill based games so having better equipment may help you but it will NOT guarantee victory - which is very important and similar to real life (I can have a better sports car than you but if you're a better driver you'll probably be able to beat me on a road course). And it is encouraging to me that they are doing well financially as it is a PC game in what I would have considered a niche category, which at first glance is how you could categorize Star Citizen. Its going to cost significant money to make Star Citizen and more money to continue to run it. I would love to see Star Citizen hit a 10 year anniversary like Eve, and knowing that another online PC game is doing well makes me feel confident that SC has the potential for longevity that I think everyone would like to see (which was the context for my comments in the article).

For the record here are my simple rules for what I'm aiming for with Star Citizen (and personal play preference).

1) NO grind - basic gameplay should be fun.

2) NO subscription to play. Once you've bought the game you should be able to play and have fun without paying another penny. Maybe this is from all the MMOs I signed up for and then didn't have time to play yet still had to pay to keep my character (I think I paid over 2 years of subs for both WoW and SWG before I canceled, despite only playing them for the first month or so!)

3) NO unfair advantage to people with either too much money or too much time. I think its disingenuous for people to claim that they should have a big advantage just because they can commit 40 hours a week in play time over someone that can only spend 4. Both types of player have purchased the game and are both entitled to have fun. If I make a game that only caters to people that have lots of time and nothing else I'm cutting out a huge part of the audience. The same goes if I build a game that just caters to people that have money to burn (The Asian P2W game style). Just because someone plays one way doesn't mean everyone should play that way. Some people will want to just spend a few hours dogfighting, some may want spend dozens of hours doing trade runs and building up a merchant empire. Others may just want to explore corners of the galaxy. A big audience supplies lots of players to make the universe more interesting. A big audience also spreads the costs of running the persistent universe (as it costs money for new content and servers), which in turn makes it cheaper for all.

4) NO Pay2Win - You should never be able to buy anything with real money that you can't buy in with in game credits. Once fully live SC in-game items will only be purchasable with in-game credits. There will even be some items you can ONLY earn by playing / flying missions. All you will be able to spend money on that is gameplay related would be buying some in-game credits as you don't want or don't have enough time to earn the credits you need for your contemplated purchase. We'll cap purchase of in-game credits to avoid someone unbalancing the game / economy. Finally as I point out above skill will always play a factor - there will be no "magic spaceship of death" that will sweep all before it, so while you may have bought a more expensive spaceship / weapon a better pilot can still beat you (this is where people with lots of time get an advantage as they'll have spent a lot more time honing their combat skills!)

From my perspective my above 4 rules and solutions are the best compromise that factors the need to make the game fun for people with lots of time or little time, while allowing the game the ability to cover its running costs based on player's actual engagement with the game. I am confident we can balance all this in a way that works and doesn't feel unfair to any one group. Contributing additional money beyond your initial ship package will be entirely optional and not required to have fun or progression (but if you do short cut once in a while, know that you're money is going to support the development of the game and on-going content!)

I hope this allays some concerns. If not, I ask that you wait to you have a chance to actually play and see how everything will work and be balanced before making your mind up.

-Chris"

Have fun

spankybus

You can buy all the ships you want...if you are a crap pilot...you die...a lot. It is a game that is heavily player-skilled based.

Having said that, take two people with a comparable skill level and give one of them a Nicer ship...

Renoaku

Likely Pay 2 Advance Faster.

MaxBacon

Nobody knows, it's all speculative because this stuff has not gotten into a proper implementation in-game, nobody knows how it is going to work in detail, much less how will the game be balanced to tackle in the proposed monetization. (earning rates, prices, etc...)

The revenue model resembles Pay to Advance in the simple way it surrounds the currency you can earn being also sold for real money, that is the currency you use for everything.

So if you want to buy one ship/upgrade/whatever in-game, you can earn the currency to buy it, buy the currency to buy it, or both.

Elsabolts

MaxBacon said:

This is one of the biggest beating the dead horse discussions of this forum, thanks @Cotic to bring it back so we can keep beating it! O.o

Like nobody knows, it's all speculative because this stuff has not gotten into a proper implementation in-game, nobody knows how it is going to work, much less how will the game be balanced to tackle in the proposed monetization.

The revenue model resembles Pay to Advance in the simple way it surrounds the currency you can earn, being also sold for money, that is the currency you use for everything.

Monthly subscription will solve a lot of problems.

Xarko

Its "Pay to build another beach house for the CEO".

MaxBacon

Elsabolts said:

Monthly subscription will solve a lot of problems.

Monthly subs would kill* the game the same way they killed* many other MMO's before.
* By kill I mean forcing them to drop the subs, many falling into F2P afterward.

Elsabolts

MaxBacon said:

Elsabolts said:

Monthly subscription will solve a lot of problems.

Monthly subs would kill* the game the same way they killed* many other MMO's before.
* By kill I mean forcing them to drop the subs, many falling into F2P afterward.

You gotta remember this is a business and to keep content coming they will need a steady source of income. Just selling new ships will only go so far.

MaxBacon

Elsabolts said:

You gotta remember this is a business and to keep content coming they will need a steady source of income. Just selling new ships will only go so far.

Yes, but they already don't plan to sell new ships as for the model the game is to follow.

It has micro-transactions, the currency one is one big deal, the moment the game is ruled by one currency, UEC, you earn it, but you can also buy it, then even if you need currency to buy X ship in-game, you can still put money in to buy it.

OFC that will only be possible once the PU is more fleshed out that UEC can be integrated into it.

Anthur

I would label it more as Pay To Wait. Still waiting for anything that even remotely looks like a complete and fun game.

Erillion

Anthur said:

I would label it more as Pay To Wait. Still waiting for anything that even remotely looks like a complete and fun game.

Hmmm ... why is that ?  Hey, I know !

Because the game has not launched yet !  ;-)


Have fun

Kefo

Erillion said:

http://www.starcitizenblog.de/2013/04/klarstellung-von-chris-roberts-zu.html

Chris Roberts on P2W in Star Citizen

"....

My reference to World of Tanks was purely about how I felt the ability for people that don't have 40 hours a week to sink into a game have the opportunity to spend some money to keep up (an early post called this Pay2BeEqual) or drive a sexy tank they don't have 200 hours of game time to earn. I think WoT has some similarities to SC because they are both skill based games so having better equipment may help you but it will NOT guarantee victory - which is very important and similar to real life (I can have a better sports car than you but if you're a better driver you'll probably be able to beat me on a road course). And it is encouraging to me that they are doing well financially as it is a PC game in what I would have considered a niche category, which at first glance is how you could categorize Star Citizen. Its going to cost significant money to make Star Citizen and more money to continue to run it. I would love to see Star Citizen hit a 10 year anniversary like Eve, and knowing that another online PC game is doing well makes me feel confident that SC has the potential for longevity that I think everyone would like to see (which was the context for my comments in the article).

For the record here are my simple rules for what I'm aiming for with Star Citizen (and personal play preference).

1) NO grind - basic gameplay should be fun.

2) NO subscription to play. Once you've bought the game you should be able to play and have fun without paying another penny. Maybe this is from all the MMOs I signed up for and then didn't have time to play yet still had to pay to keep my character (I think I paid over 2 years of subs for both WoW and SWG before I canceled, despite only playing them for the first month or so!)

3) NO unfair advantage to people with either too much money or too much time. I think its disingenuous for people to claim that they should have a big advantage just because they can commit 40 hours a week in play time over someone that can only spend 4. Both types of player have purchased the game and are both entitled to have fun. If I make a game that only caters to people that have lots of time and nothing else I'm cutting out a huge part of the audience. The same goes if I build a game that just caters to people that have money to burn (The Asian P2W game style). Just because someone plays one way doesn't mean everyone should play that way. Some people will want to just spend a few hours dogfighting, some may want spend dozens of hours doing trade runs and building up a merchant empire. Others may just want to explore corners of the galaxy. A big audience supplies lots of players to make the universe more interesting. A big audience also spreads the costs of running the persistent universe (as it costs money for new content and servers), which in turn makes it cheaper for all.

4) NO Pay2Win - You should never be able to buy anything with real money that you can't buy in with in game credits. Once fully live SC in-game items will only be purchasable with in-game credits. There will even be some items you can ONLY earn by playing / flying missions. All you will be able to spend money on that is gameplay related would be buying some in-game credits as you don't want or don't have enough time to earn the credits you need for your contemplated purchase. We'll cap purchase of in-game credits to avoid someone unbalancing the game / economy. Finally as I point out above skill will always play a factor - there will be no "magic spaceship of death" that will sweep all before it, so while you may have bought a more expensive spaceship / weapon a better pilot can still beat you (this is where people with lots of time get an advantage as they'll have spent a lot more time honing their combat skills!)

From my perspective my above 4 rules and solutions are the best compromise that factors the need to make the game fun for people with lots of time or little time, while allowing the game the ability to cover its running costs based on player's actual engagement with the game. I am confident we can balance all this in a way that works and doesn't feel unfair to any one group. Contributing additional money beyond your initial ship package will be entirely optional and not required to have fun or progression (but if you do short cut once in a while, know that you're money is going to support the development of the game and on-going content!)

I hope this allays some concerns. If not, I ask that you wait to you have a chance to actually play and see how everything will work and be balanced before making your mind up.

-Chris"

Have fun

More hot air coming out of Chris mouth. Anyone who believes that drivel after Chris has changed his mind so many times already deserves to lose their money

CrazKanuk

Kefo said:

Erillion said:

http://www.starcitizenblog.de/2013/04/klarstellung-von-chris-roberts-zu.html

Chris Roberts on P2W in Star Citizen

"....

My reference to World of Tanks was purely about how I felt the ability for people that don't have 40 hours a week to sink into a game have the opportunity to spend some money to keep up (an early post called this Pay2BeEqual) or drive a sexy tank they don't have 200 hours of game time to earn. I think WoT has some similarities to SC because they are both skill based games so having better equipment may help you but it will NOT guarantee victory - which is very important and similar to real life (I can have a better sports car than you but if you're a better driver you'll probably be able to beat me on a road course). And it is encouraging to me that they are doing well financially as it is a PC game in what I would have considered a niche category, which at first glance is how you could categorize Star Citizen. Its going to cost significant money to make Star Citizen and more money to continue to run it. I would love to see Star Citizen hit a 10 year anniversary like Eve, and knowing that another online PC game is doing well makes me feel confident that SC has the potential for longevity that I think everyone would like to see (which was the context for my comments in the article).

For the record here are my simple rules for what I'm aiming for with Star Citizen (and personal play preference).

1) NO grind - basic gameplay should be fun.

2) NO subscription to play. Once you've bought the game you should be able to play and have fun without paying another penny. Maybe this is from all the MMOs I signed up for and then didn't have time to play yet still had to pay to keep my character (I think I paid over 2 years of subs for both WoW and SWG before I canceled, despite only playing them for the first month or so!)

3) NO unfair advantage to people with either too much money or too much time. I think its disingenuous for people to claim that they should have a big advantage just because they can commit 40 hours a week in play time over someone that can only spend 4. Both types of player have purchased the game and are both entitled to have fun. If I make a game that only caters to people that have lots of time and nothing else I'm cutting out a huge part of the audience. The same goes if I build a game that just caters to people that have money to burn (The Asian P2W game style). Just because someone plays one way doesn't mean everyone should play that way. Some people will want to just spend a few hours dogfighting, some may want spend dozens of hours doing trade runs and building up a merchant empire. Others may just want to explore corners of the galaxy. A big audience supplies lots of players to make the universe more interesting. A big audience also spreads the costs of running the persistent universe (as it costs money for new content and servers), which in turn makes it cheaper for all.

4) NO Pay2Win - You should never be able to buy anything with real money that you can't buy in with in game credits. Once fully live SC in-game items will only be purchasable with in-game credits. There will even be some items you can ONLY earn by playing / flying missions. All you will be able to spend money on that is gameplay related would be buying some in-game credits as you don't want or don't have enough time to earn the credits you need for your contemplated purchase. We'll cap purchase of in-game credits to avoid someone unbalancing the game / economy. Finally as I point out above skill will always play a factor - there will be no "magic spaceship of death" that will sweep all before it, so while you may have bought a more expensive spaceship / weapon a better pilot can still beat you (this is where people with lots of time get an advantage as they'll have spent a lot more time honing their combat skills!)

From my perspective my above 4 rules and solutions are the best compromise that factors the need to make the game fun for people with lots of time or little time, while allowing the game the ability to cover its running costs based on player's actual engagement with the game. I am confident we can balance all this in a way that works and doesn't feel unfair to any one group. Contributing additional money beyond your initial ship package will be entirely optional and not required to have fun or progression (but if you do short cut once in a while, know that you're money is going to support the development of the game and on-going content!)

I hope this allays some concerns. If not, I ask that you wait to you have a chance to actually play and see how everything will work and be balanced before making your mind up.

-Chris"

Have fun

More hot air coming out of Chris mouth. Anyone who believes that drivel after Chris has changed his mind so many times already deserves to lose their money

I'd need a definition of "hot air" and "drivel" before I could agree with you. There are many who seem to equate "want" or "would like" with "promise" with this project, so I need to make sure that we're aligned with our English on this here

Psychos1s

MaxBacon said:

Nobody knows, it's all speculative because this stuff has not gotten into a proper implementation in-game, nobody knows how it is going to work in detail, much less how will the game be balanced to tackle in the proposed monetization. (earning rates, prices, etc...)

The revenue model resembles Pay to Advance in the simple way it surrounds the currency you can earn being also sold for real money, that is the currency you use for everything.

So if you want to buy one ship/upgrade/whatever in-game, you can earn the currency to buy it, buy the currency to buy it, or both.

6 Years in and nobody knows think that says it all to be honest.

As for P2W yeah they say you can earn the ships in game but lets be honest anyone who has dropped wedge on this game is going to be starting with a serious advantage, if they aren't completely terrible that is.

It would be like starting on a fresh EvE server and having most the population in rifters while a few are rocking around in supers, the gap would be immense.

I just don't see based on the monetary value of some of the ships how they're gonna implement it, they're either going to make them massive grinds to get into which if they do might as well equate it to P2W or they make then relatively easy to get and end up pissing off a bunch of the whales that have dropped serious cash on the game.

MaxBacon

Psychos1s said:

6 Years in and nobody knows think that says it all to be honest.

As for P2W yeah they say you can earn the ships in game but lets be honest anyone who has dropped wedge on this game is going to be starting with a serious advantage, if they aren't completely terrible that is.

This is stuff that depends on implementation.  And mostly, after the game is actually released, or at least on BETA, that's when the monetization mechanic will be within the game. The currency microtransaction is something that already exists, but it's not implemented in-game, only with so we will start to see the values, the earning rates, the grind bar, all of that jazz.


I think the currency microtransaction is smart because you earn UEC in-game, you might want to buy X ship that costs let's say 100K UEC, you have 50K UEC from playing the game and buy for real cash the remaining 50K UEC, say 50$, I think that is a fair balance over the MMO's with premium currencies or direct cash purchases.

Kefo

CrazKanuk said:

Kefo said:

Erillion said:

http://www.starcitizenblog.de/2013/04/klarstellung-von-chris-roberts-zu.html

Chris Roberts on P2W in Star Citizen

"....

My reference to World of Tanks was purely about how I felt the ability for people that don't have 40 hours a week to sink into a game have the opportunity to spend some money to keep up (an early post called this Pay2BeEqual) or drive a sexy tank they don't have 200 hours of game time to earn. I think WoT has some similarities to SC because they are both skill based games so having better equipment may help you but it will NOT guarantee victory - which is very important and similar to real life (I can have a better sports car than you but if you're a better driver you'll probably be able to beat me on a road course). And it is encouraging to me that they are doing well financially as it is a PC game in what I would have considered a niche category, which at first glance is how you could categorize Star Citizen. Its going to cost significant money to make Star Citizen and more money to continue to run it. I would love to see Star Citizen hit a 10 year anniversary like Eve, and knowing that another online PC game is doing well makes me feel confident that SC has the potential for longevity that I think everyone would like to see (which was the context for my comments in the article).

For the record here are my simple rules for what I'm aiming for with Star Citizen (and personal play preference).

1) NO grind - basic gameplay should be fun.

2) NO subscription to play. Once you've bought the game you should be able to play and have fun without paying another penny. Maybe this is from all the MMOs I signed up for and then didn't have time to play yet still had to pay to keep my character (I think I paid over 2 years of subs for both WoW and SWG before I canceled, despite only playing them for the first month or so!)

3) NO unfair advantage to people with either too much money or too much time. I think its disingenuous for people to claim that they should have a big advantage just because they can commit 40 hours a week in play time over someone that can only spend 4. Both types of player have purchased the game and are both entitled to have fun. If I make a game that only caters to people that have lots of time and nothing else I'm cutting out a huge part of the audience. The same goes if I build a game that just caters to people that have money to burn (The Asian P2W game style). Just because someone plays one way doesn't mean everyone should play that way. Some people will want to just spend a few hours dogfighting, some may want spend dozens of hours doing trade runs and building up a merchant empire. Others may just want to explore corners of the galaxy. A big audience supplies lots of players to make the universe more interesting. A big audience also spreads the costs of running the persistent universe (as it costs money for new content and servers), which in turn makes it cheaper for all.

4) NO Pay2Win - You should never be able to buy anything with real money that you can't buy in with in game credits. Once fully live SC in-game items will only be purchasable with in-game credits. There will even be some items you can ONLY earn by playing / flying missions. All you will be able to spend money on that is gameplay related would be buying some in-game credits as you don't want or don't have enough time to earn the credits you need for your contemplated purchase. We'll cap purchase of in-game credits to avoid someone unbalancing the game / economy. Finally as I point out above skill will always play a factor - there will be no "magic spaceship of death" that will sweep all before it, so while you may have bought a more expensive spaceship / weapon a better pilot can still beat you (this is where people with lots of time get an advantage as they'll have spent a lot more time honing their combat skills!)

From my perspective my above 4 rules and solutions are the best compromise that factors the need to make the game fun for people with lots of time or little time, while allowing the game the ability to cover its running costs based on player's actual engagement with the game. I am confident we can balance all this in a way that works and doesn't feel unfair to any one group. Contributing additional money beyond your initial ship package will be entirely optional and not required to have fun or progression (but if you do short cut once in a while, know that you're money is going to support the development of the game and on-going content!)

I hope this allays some concerns. If not, I ask that you wait to you have a chance to actually play and see how everything will work and be balanced before making your mind up.

-Chris"

Have fun

More hot air coming out of Chris mouth. Anyone who believes that drivel after Chris has changed his mind so many times already deserves to lose their money

I'd need a definition of "hot air" and "drivel" before I could agree with you. There are many who seem to equate "want" or "would like" with "promise" with this project, so I need to make sure that we're aligned with our English on this here

https://www.facebook.com/RobertsSpaceIndustries/posts/542889172419776

lti will no longer be available after this date.

Kefo

Nyctelios said:

Again this... It would be P2W if the ship would be the only way of interacting with the world, like EvE, and just like EvE, you wouldn't be able to take it from the player who bought it.

This is not the case here.

I am looking forward, if the game launches, to take a shit ship and go around stealing shinny ones.

Just like in EvE online, where shinny ships are a target "just because", I bet my mana cost that people will harass high cost ships just for the sake of it (or to get it for himself/herself).

PW2 an absolute and unavoidable edge over who did not paid for the same thing, this is not the case because, again, you can take it and use it yourself.

Just because the mechanics are in place to steal ships (you can in eve as well btw) doesn't make the game not P2W. That person who had the ship taken can have it replaced

BeansnBread

The question when deciding to play the game isn't, "is it pay to win?" The question with this game is, "am I ok with pay to win?"

SpottyGekko

Nyctelios said:

...

I am looking forward, if the game launches, to take a shit ship and go around stealing shinny ones.

...

Do you not see the problem with this idea ?

If these ships are THAT easy to steal, what makes you think you will not have it stolen from you within hours of you stealing it ?

Let's face it, 5% of the player base will own fancy ships, and the other 95% will be trying to steal them. It's an MMO, after all. And many will be trying to steal just so that they can destroy it to grief the "rich" players...

In all likelihood, stealing a ship will be made very difficult (if not impossible) in "safer" areas. Otherwise the game will just devolve into chaos.

CrazKanuk

SpottyGekko said:

Nyctelios said:

...

I am looking forward, if the game launches, to take a shit ship and go around stealing shinny ones.

...

Do you not see the problem with this idea ?

If these ships are THAT easy to steal, what makes you think you will not have it stolen from you within hours of you stealing it ?

Let's face it, 5% of the player base will own fancy ships, and the other 95% will be trying to steal them. It's an MMO, after all. And many will be trying to steal just so that they can destroy it to grief the "rich" players...

In all likelihood, stealing a ship will be made very difficult (if not impossible) in "safer" areas. Otherwise the game will just devolve into chaos.

Actually, it's much more likely that 5% will own fancy ships and 100% of that 5% will park them, just like people do in EVE. 

Erillion

SpottyGekko said:

Nyctelios said:

...

I am looking forward, if the game launches, to take a shit ship and go around stealing shinny ones.

...

Do you not see the problem with this idea ?

If these ships are THAT easy to steal, what makes you think you will not have it stolen from you within hours of you stealing it ?

Let's face it, 5% of the player base will own fancy ships, and the other 95% will be trying to steal them. It's an MMO, after all. And many will be trying to steal just so that they can destroy it to grief the "rich" players...

In all likelihood, stealing a ship will be made very difficult (if not impossible) in "safer" areas. Otherwise the game will just devolve into chaos.

And like in almost all space games, by month 3 everyone who really wants it has fancy ships.

By Month 6 we will have billionaires (money earned in game).

By Month 12 trillionaires (money earned in game).

And thats only solo players ... orgs will reach those goals much sooner by pooling resources (which all boils down to "time invested" anyway).


No stealing needed for that result.

Although a LOT of stealing  (or "board and slaughter") will happen.


From my personal experience ... about 25 % of all orgs I know have been founded around the idea of pirates in cheap ship swarms/wolfpacks  overwhelming solo players with NPC crews in fancy big ships. Their reasoning ... even in safe areas ... what options does the advocacy have when the pirates have already boarded and keep the captured crew alive as hostages? Firing on those ships? Bringing in NPC marines ?  The player pirates are confident that they will slaughter the NPC marines unless CIG makes them 100 % invulnerable (which they most likely wont). So the pirates will do their utmost to quickly board a ship ... up to and including ramming the engines and shield generators with kamikaze ships.


And some of those 25 % of orgs plan to do insurance fraud with their OWN big ships to essentially double and triple them.  Will be interesting to see how CIG will react to that during Beta testing.




Have fun