Why do people say, "You don't have to buy one." Like it's something that never occurred to the other person?
Only rebuttal they have when you bring up the insane price for a picture
It is the only rebuttal needed. This issue is always brought up as if CIG are somehow forcing their customers to pay HUGE amounts of money to scam them and proof of the scam that is Star Citizen and Chris Roberts, when in reality it is usually limited, adds little to the coffers compared to their everyday small sales that constitute pretty much the huge majority of backers.
Everything a person buys in a game is voluntary and everybody know that. Just because a person thinks something in game is expensive doesn't imply they feel forced to buy it.
I'm just in awe of an $850.00 ship for sale who's final design and specs are unknown at this point and may not be known for years is saying this ship is a bargain because you'll have to pay $100 more if you want to wait and see the physical ship and then another $100 if you want to wait to see a working model which may be subjected to reworks.
Apparently a lot of people do think it's worth it and I hope they enjoy their new ship.
I sort of find the whole thing fascinating that more and more people are starting to spend money in the digital world in a way that would previously have been reserved for the physical world and how that isn't a Star Citizen thing, it is a whole new cultural dimension shift thing.
I agree, people have rented apartments bought houses and cars based on internet transactions alone. Ebay carries a lot of that stuff for example.
I heard CR use to sell cars. It would explain the preorder focus and the attention to car brochure like detail.
I am more thinking of people viewing digital items, that will always remain digital as assets. Crypto currencies as an example and moving on to things like second life where people have jobs in game to design digital assets that they sell and make their living out of, I guess you could include things you talk about where people trade items without ever handling them. High status that many people seek can now be achieved solely with a digital profile, this is culturally relatively new and developing. I guess this is a bit too OT.
That would be like Second Life. Some people have left their real life jobs because their virtual world jobs paid better.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
The "making it EVEN BETTER" talk is just bunch of BS. They had their base for a game. Their original backers backed a specific idea that they promoted. And now all of you got nothing to show for it, 5 years later. Because some dude called Robert likes to dream big, and likes to change his mind when he sees the $-$ signs in his eyes.
Well in fairness he did put the idea to a vote to expand the game and the overwhelming majority backed that idea, those that were unhappy were free to get a refund and have been for many many years. I mean like you said, they got over x75 the original target, imagine if they had just released something that resembled a crappy $0.99 steam game!
didn't see much issue with the rest of your post xD
The "making it EVEN BETTER" talk is just bunch of BS. They had their base for a game. Their original backers backed a specific idea that they promoted. And now all of you got nothing to show for it, 5 years later. Because some dude called Robert likes to dream big, and likes to change his mind when he sees the $-$ signs in his eyes.
Well in fairness he did put the idea to a vote to expand the game and the overwhelming majority backed that idea, those that were unhappy were free to get a refund and have been for many many years. I mean like you said, they got over x75 the original target, imagine if they had just released something that resembled a crappy $0.99 steam game!
didn't see much issue with the rest of your post xD
If the the guy managed to spend 40 million to make an MMO that resembled a "crappy 0.99$ game", 150 million wouldn't fix the problem here..
From head to tail this is just an empty sack, standing on empty promises.
I don't really understand why would you even protect this project like that. Is the hype really that intense over all these years? That's the effect these high-poly models have? This is clearly just plain ridiculous. They are selling dreams and promises.
They asked for 2 million, imagine the content they could have provided for 40 million... the improvement in quality of the game and polish they could have provided. For the original idea that all of the backers liked so much they were willing to give 40 million instead the phuny 2. AND you could have played it 3 years ago. For 3 years you could have enjoyed a game, you've been waiting for 5 years. But no... lets ask for more money and work on the thing for years and years to come.
I have a picture of a bridge to sell you. It isn't fully built yet, and we have nowhere to put it, but we promise we'll deliver. That's SC's business model in a nutshell. Pretty hilarious actually.
I have a picture of a bridge to sell you. It isn't fully built yet, and we have nowhere to put it, but we promise we'll deliver. That's SC's business model in a nutshell. Pretty hilarious actually.
again,
1. its not a purchase its a donation. 2. frankly unless there is explicitly clear false information in the sales, then its up to the person to not buy it. you dont have to buy it and those consumers are not looking for you to be a justice projector
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I have a picture of a bridge to sell you. It isn't fully built yet, and we have nowhere to put it, but we promise we'll deliver. That's SC's business model in a nutshell. Pretty hilarious actually.
again,
1. its not a purchase its a donation. 2. frankly unless there is explicitly clear false information in the sales, then its up to the person to not buy it. you dont have to buy it and those consumers are not looking for you to be a justice projector
"I have a picture of a bridge. It isn't fully built yet, and we have nowhere to put it, but we can deliver if you donate to our cause!"
Three months later: "Here are some pictures of the rivets. Donate now and help us reach our goals!"
It's still hilarious. Sorry, but I'm way too skeptical and cynical to think this is going to end up being good for the industry.
Because people agreed to back the bigger vision. I think the original game would have been pretty shite tbh.
I have spent $35 (like most people who have backed this game) on the hope of a fun cool game. About a decade to develop the kind of game I want to play would not be unheard of. I won't stand around as some blind fanboi, I will defend the game against the weirdest of perceptions and assumptions though while things are still running in the 'reasonable to expect for this type of project' range however. It isn't like people are sitting around a clock waiting for SC to finish development xD. It's $35, I spent more watching the pretty average but over hyped Bladerunner 2049 last night ^^
I have a picture of a bridge to sell you. It isn't fully built yet, and we have nowhere to put it, but we promise we'll deliver. That's SC's business model in a nutshell. Pretty hilarious actually.
again,
1. its not a purchase its a donation. 2. frankly unless there is explicitly clear false information in the sales, then its up to the person to not buy it. you dont have to buy it and those consumers are not looking for you to be a justice projector
"I have a picture of a bridge. It isn't fully built yet, and we have nowhere to put it, but we can deliver if you donate to our cause!"
Three months later: "Here are some pictures of the rivets. Donate now and help us reach our goals!"
It's still hilarious. Sorry, but I'm way too skeptical and cynical to think this is going to end up being good for the industry.
well I hear what your saying and despite the concept of SC being very appealing to me personally I have not donated but for a different reason. YEARS ago his wife on stage said 'and as usual Chris is Late'. well that told me everything I needed to know.
HOWEVER, the industry 6 years ago was a horrid piece of shit and literally everything that has made it better is non-publisher AAA fuckballs focused approaches so I think we might be more open to ideas. because those days were for some grade a horseshit terrible games.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I have a picture of a bridge to sell you. It isn't fully built yet, and we have nowhere to put it, but we promise we'll deliver. That's SC's business model in a nutshell. Pretty hilarious actually.
again,
1. its not a purchase its a donation. 2. frankly unless there is explicitly clear false information in the sales, then its up to the person to not buy it. you dont have to buy it and those consumers are not looking for you to be a justice projector
No one is trying to justify or deny someone from buying or not buying anything. As I understand it, the discussion is about business model that Star Citizen has decided to fund its ventures with, and the amount of which they have achieved and/or delivered.
To me, it seems they have abused the generosity of the waiting audience and continue to do so with ridiculous BS like this "850$ ship in a game we might deliver some day to come"
If it's a donation, then ask for a donation. Tell the consumer "We need more money to deliver the product we promised you, please donate more money to us" and that's fine... If you want to donate 1$, or 850 000$ is up to the person donating. Dont sell a postcard for 850$ with a "PS - promise this will be your some day, xoxo, Roberts."
This is a item shop on steroids for A GAME THAT IS NOT RELEASED YET. How is this not ridiculous? Please, convince me, I'm open for discussion.
I have a picture of a bridge to sell you. It isn't fully built yet, and we have nowhere to put it, but we promise we'll deliver. That's SC's business model in a nutshell. Pretty hilarious actually.
again,
1. its not a purchase its a donation. 2. frankly unless there is explicitly clear false information in the sales, then its up to the person to not buy it. you dont have to buy it and those consumers are not looking for you to be a justice projector
No one is trying to justify or deny someone from buying or not buying anything. As I understand it, the discussion is about business model that Star Citizen has decided to fund its ventures with, and the amount of which they have achieved and/or delivered.
To me, it seems they have abused the generosity of the waiting audience and continue to do so with ridiculous BS like this "850$ ship in a game we might deliver some day to come"
If it's a donation, then ask for a donation. Tell the consumer "We need more money to deliver the product we promised you, please donate more money to us" and that's fine... If you want to donate 1$, or 850 000$ is up to the person donating. Dont sell a postcard for 850$ with a "PS - promise this will be your some day, xoxo, Roberts."
to be fair, it could very well turn out to be better than anything Electronic Arts has ever done.
I want you all to step back a second, very likely you enjoy The Witcher, you likely enjoy GTA 1-5, you likely enjoy STALKER, and the like. I personally think all those games are garbage. I hate them. I want something different. So if your idea of 'being good for the industry' is to go back to where 90% of all games where AAA titles then you can have that, not remotely interested in those shitty days.
So...as it stands in the industry you can still have your AAA format and CHOOSE to stay away from these ventures and leave the people who like these games the F alone.
how about that idea?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I have a picture of a bridge to sell you. It isn't fully built yet, and we have nowhere to put it, but we promise we'll deliver. That's SC's business model in a nutshell. Pretty hilarious actually.
again,
1. its not a purchase its a donation. 2. frankly unless there is explicitly clear false information in the sales, then its up to the person to not buy it. you dont have to buy it and those consumers are not looking for you to be a justice projector
No one is trying to justify or deny someone from buying or not buying anything. As I understand it, the discussion is about business model that Star Citizen has decided to fund its ventures with, and the amount of which they have achieved and/or delivered.
To me, it seems they have abused the generosity of the waiting audience and continue to do so with ridiculous BS like this "850$ ship in a game we might deliver some day to come"
If it's a donation, then ask for a donation. Tell the consumer "We need more money to deliver the product we promised you, please donate more money to us" and that's fine... If you want to donate 1$, or 850 000$ is up to the person donating. Dont sell a postcard for 850$ with a "PS - promise this will be your some day, xoxo, Roberts."
to be fair, it could very well turn out to be better than anything Electronic Arts has ever done.
I want you all to step back a second, very likely you enjoy The Witcher, you likely enjoy GTA 1-5, you likely enjoy STALKER, and the like. I personally think all those games are garbage. I hate them. I want something different. So if your idea of 'being good for the industry' is to go back to where 90% of all games where AAA titles then you can have that, not remotely interested in those shitty days.
So...as it stands in the industry you can still have your AAA format and CHOOSE to stay away from these ventures and leave the people who like these games the F alone.
how about that idea?
Why step from one extreme to the other?
Yeah, I enjoy Witcher, and GTA V... mainly because they are actual games that I can play. But that has nothing to do with this.
I like indie games as well. They can be "0.99$ steam games" - heck, even free. If it's a good game, it's a good game.
We can talk about other business practices in the gaming industry, but it still has nothing to do with this.
What does have something to do with this, is the fact that these these very same, innovative and great indie ideas might not be able to get a chance to stand in the future because of these monstrosities like Star Citizen here seems to be for me.
Indie game with no publisher? What a bunch of BS. Thing's ran by businessmen and lawyers, not indie game hobbyists or whatever they want to portray by saying "getting rid of publishers!"
Thing's an ego project for a guy in suit who once upon a time was part of creating semi-successful game.
To me, before it looks like an innovative indie project, it looks like a scheme by EA to kill the indie thing before it grew too big. "Show them it would never work! Mwhahahaa!"
The thing is item shop on steroids. Most highest funded "indie title" ever. And you're talking me about "go like your AAA titles if you want, leave these games F alone". Come on dude. People have donated 150m, if they asked 2m, and they have delivered nothing 5 years later. They might be the arrow-head in killing the phenomen of crowd-funded indie titles and innovative ideas that come with them.
Makes me laugh when I think of some of those other games I spent WAY more on and uninstalled after 15 mins xD
Guess you're not a very wise with your purchases then. Star Citizen would love you as a customer
I am a customer, I spent $35 years ago, are you not reading or taking in what I am saying?
And you're here defending an 850$ jpeg, including future price increases when the jpeg is available in game. As I said, CIG loves these kind of customers. Who wouldn't.
Why would I care if a few others spend that much on the game if it isn't going to affect my game play any? they could sell an entire planet fo.........
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I have a picture of a bridge to sell you. It isn't fully built yet, and we have nowhere to put it, but we promise we'll deliver. That's SC's business model in a nutshell. Pretty hilarious actually.
again,
1. its not a purchase its a donation. 2. frankly unless there is explicitly clear false information in the sales, then its up to the person to not buy it. you dont have to buy it and those consumers are not looking for you to be a justice projector
No one is trying to justify or deny someone from buying or not buying anything. As I understand it, the discussion is about business model that Star Citizen has decided to fund its ventures with, and the amount of which they have achieved and/or delivered.
To me, it seems they have abused the generosity of the waiting audience and continue to do so with ridiculous BS like this "850$ ship in a game we might deliver some day to come"
If it's a donation, then ask for a donation. Tell the consumer "We need more money to deliver the product we promised you, please donate more money to us" and that's fine... If you want to donate 1$, or 850 000$ is up to the person donating. Dont sell a postcard for 850$ with a "PS - promise this will be your some day, xoxo, Roberts."
to be fair, it could very well turn out to be better than anything Electronic Arts has ever done.
I want you all to step back a second, very likely you enjoy The Witcher, you likely enjoy GTA 1-5, you likely enjoy STALKER, and the like. I personally think all those games are garbage. I hate them. I want something different. So if your idea of 'being good for the industry' is to go back to where 90% of all games where AAA titles then you can have that, not remotely interested in those shitty days.
So...as it stands in the industry you can still have your AAA format and CHOOSE to stay away from these ventures and leave the people who like these games the F alone.
how about that idea?
Why step from one extreme to the other?....
because its been working that is why.
I dont know if SC has been working or not but I am telling you the non-publisher approach as been gangbusters crazy mega successful. It has literally made my gaming experience in this era the best ever in my 37 years of gaming. So as such, until there is massive failure I say lets give new ideas (instead of old bad ones) a chance.
more over, you do believe in market principles when it comes to entertainment products? if its not going to work people will not buy them. that is economics 101
meanwhile I am playing Empyrion - Galactic Survival thank you very much
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I have a picture of a bridge to sell you. It isn't fully built yet, and we have nowhere to put it, but we promise we'll deliver. That's SC's business model in a nutshell. Pretty hilarious actually.
again,
1. its not a purchase its a donation. 2. frankly unless there is explicitly clear false information in the sales, then its up to the person to not buy it. you dont have to buy it and those consumers are not looking for you to be a justice projector
Generally donations don't give you anything back with certainty other than a receipt for tax purposes. Sometimes you get to win something. Generally when you get something with certainty in exchange for money that would be called a purchase.
In this particular case I think you get access to some content immediately, so it isn't just in exchange for future promises as in most crowd funding cases.
So, while it may technically be a donation by legal definition, it could easily be seen as more of a purchase of promised future content and provisional current content.
That's the way I would look at it if I was considering buying into it.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I have a picture of a bridge to sell you. It isn't fully built yet, and we have nowhere to put it, but we promise we'll deliver. That's SC's business model in a nutshell. Pretty hilarious actually.
again,
1. its not a purchase its a donation. 2. frankly unless there is explicitly clear false information in the sales, then its up to the person to not buy it. you dont have to buy it and those consumers are not looking for you to be a justice projector
Generally donations don't give you anything back with certainty other than a receipt for tax purposes. Sometimes you get to win something. Generally when you get something with certainty in exchange for money that would be called a purchase.
In this particular case I think you get access to some content immediately, so it isn't just in exchange for future promises as in most crowd funding cases.
So, while it may technically be a donation by legal definition, it could easily be seen as more of a purchase of promised future content and provisional current content.
That's the way I would look at it if I was considering buying into it.
its a donation.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
3 uncertainties in the next 10 years,how much taxes we pay,how big will Blizzard be,and what year will SC announce a polished release.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
didn't see much issue with the rest of your post xD
From head to tail this is just an empty sack, standing on empty promises.
I don't really understand why would you even protect this project like that. Is the hype really that intense over all these years? That's the effect these high-poly models have?
This is clearly just plain ridiculous. They are selling dreams and promises.
They asked for 2 million, imagine the content they could have provided for 40 million... the improvement in quality of the game and polish they could have provided. For the original idea that all of the backers liked so much they were willing to give 40 million instead the phuny 2.
AND you could have played it 3 years ago.
For 3 years you could have enjoyed a game, you've been waiting for 5 years. But no... lets ask for more money and work on the thing for years and years to come.
How is this not ridiculous to you?
1. its not a purchase its a donation.
2. frankly unless there is explicitly clear false information in the sales, then its up to the person to not buy it. you dont have to buy it and those consumers are not looking for you to be a justice projector
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"I have a picture of a bridge. It isn't fully built yet, and we have nowhere to put it, but we can deliver if you donate to our cause!"
Three months later: "Here are some pictures of the rivets. Donate now and help us reach our goals!"
It's still hilarious. Sorry, but I'm way too skeptical and cynical to think this is going to end up being good for the industry.
I have spent $35 (like most people who have backed this game) on the hope of a fun cool game. About a decade to develop the kind of game I want to play would not be unheard of. I won't stand around as some blind fanboi, I will defend the game against the weirdest of perceptions and assumptions though while things are still running in the 'reasonable to expect for this type of project' range however. It isn't like people are sitting around a clock waiting for SC to finish development xD. It's $35, I spent more watching the pretty average but over hyped Bladerunner 2049 last night ^^
HOWEVER, the industry 6 years ago was a horrid piece of shit and literally everything that has made it better is non-publisher AAA fuckballs focused approaches so I think we might be more open to ideas. because those days were for some grade a horseshit terrible games.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
As I understand it, the discussion is about business model that Star Citizen has decided to fund its ventures with, and the amount of which they have achieved and/or delivered.
To me, it seems they have abused the generosity of the waiting audience and continue to do so with ridiculous BS like this "850$ ship in a game we might deliver some day to come"
If it's a donation, then ask for a donation. Tell the consumer "We need more money to deliver the product we promised you, please donate more money to us" and that's fine...
If you want to donate 1$, or 850 000$ is up to the person donating. Dont sell a postcard for 850$ with a "PS - promise this will be your some day, xoxo, Roberts."
This is a item shop on steroids for A GAME THAT IS NOT RELEASED YET.
How is this not ridiculous? Please, convince me, I'm open for discussion.
I want you all to step back a second, very likely you enjoy The Witcher, you likely enjoy GTA 1-5, you likely enjoy STALKER, and the like. I personally think all those games are garbage. I hate them. I want something different. So if your idea of 'being good for the industry' is to go back to where 90% of all games where AAA titles then you can have that, not remotely interested in those shitty days.
So...as it stands in the industry you can still have your AAA format and CHOOSE to stay away from these ventures and leave the people who like these games the F alone.
how about that idea?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Is it this one?
why the special rules here?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Stop getting my hopes up.
I'll wait for the Winter Sale-A-Thon and hopefully catch a "Buy 3 pixel ships for the Price of 2 sale"
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Yeah, I enjoy Witcher, and GTA V... mainly because they are actual games that I can play.
But that has nothing to do with this.
I like indie games as well. They can be "0.99$ steam games" - heck, even free. If it's a good game, it's a good game.
We can talk about other business practices in the gaming industry, but it still has nothing to do with this.
What does have something to do with this, is the fact that these these very same, innovative and great indie ideas might not be able to get a chance to stand in the future because of these monstrosities like Star Citizen here seems to be for me.
Indie game with no publisher? What a bunch of BS. Thing's ran by businessmen and lawyers, not indie game hobbyists or whatever they want to portray by saying "getting rid of publishers!"
Thing's an ego project for a guy in suit who once upon a time was part of creating semi-successful game.
To me, before it looks like an innovative indie project, it looks like a scheme by EA to kill the indie thing before it grew too big.
"Show them it would never work! Mwhahahaa!"
The thing is item shop on steroids. Most highest funded "indie title" ever. And you're talking me about "go like your AAA titles if you want, leave these games F alone".
Come on dude. People have donated 150m, if they asked 2m, and they have delivered nothing 5 years later. They might be the arrow-head in killing the phenomen of crowd-funded indie titles and innovative ideas that come with them.
THIS IS RIDICULOUS.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I dont know if SC has been working or not but I am telling you the non-publisher approach as been gangbusters crazy mega successful. It has literally made my gaming experience in this era the best ever in my 37 years of gaming. So as such, until there is massive failure I say lets give new ideas (instead of old bad ones) a chance.
more over, you do believe in market principles when it comes to entertainment products? if its not going to work people will not buy them. that is economics 101
meanwhile I am playing Empyrion - Galactic Survival thank you very much
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
In this particular case I think you get access to some content immediately, so it isn't just in exchange for future promises as in most crowd funding cases.
So, while it may technically be a donation by legal definition, it could easily be seen as more of a purchase of promised future content and provisional current content.
That's the way I would look at it if I was considering buying into it.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
its like people never took a single economics class
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me