"You can pay $50 to $100
for a claim to a plot of virtual land in a game that isn't out yet
thanks to Star Citizen's land purchasing system that lets you secure a
4km x 4km "lot" or an 8km x 8km "estate" for your outlay. You don't need
a land license to build in Star Citizen, but owning the land offers you
protection against vandals, who will be committing an in-game crime for
messing around with your private property. You can't choose where your
plot goes yet, because Star Citizen's planned universe doesn't exist
yet, but in the meantime you can look at a picture of a patch of Moon
and dream."
Quote from the article is what Star Citizen is doing.
Still doesn't encourage gambling or prey upon children, they are selling things that will eventually be in the game and are advertised as such, in that sense they are totally transparent in what they are doing, as opposed to loot box microtransations etc that you find in EA games and lately in Destiny 2 etc. which are by far a lot worse and are not transparent at all after all didn't Bungie throttle the xp gains from players in order to try and get them to make more microtransactions? and that only got changed when they were called out on it. Sorry, but while i might not be a fan of SC it is by no means the worst offender there is, far from it.
Apples and oranges.
Star Citizen is rather unique in its approach. Whether or not it deserves a spot in the article is somewhat irrelevant. It is noteworthy.
As others in this thread have noted, you can only hope the things they are selling will one day be in the game. People have paid thousands (let alone hundreds) of dollars for ships that are still not in the game, years later.
It's an "offender" (if you want to call it that) in an entirely different way.
Your correct in that they are 'different' but i am not sure offender can really be used in that context, SC is a game that is in development and the people buying into that must be aware of the risks that can be associated with buying things so early in the games development, nor are they, at least as far as i know, selling things that are an absolute requirement to progress within the game. Compare this to games that have been released with dlc and loot boxes that directly affect and are a requirement to play the game, Destiny 2 recently released a dlc that unless you bought it you were locked off from the end game content that you were previously able to play before the dlc was released, making the dlc purchase a requirement if you wanted to continue playing the end game content, or SW:BF2's progression being based on loot boxes, which after all the fuss kicked up they are now saying that they may never enable microtransactions in the game, though this is EA so read into that what you will. In short buying things directly is not gambling, nor does it encourage gambling, loot boxes on the other hand are an insidious greed based form of dlc that does encourage gambling, i think from a moral standpoint alone that is enough to make them a significantly worse 'offender' than anything CIG has done, whether you are a fan of SC or not.
"As loot boxes go Call of Duty WW2's aren't too bad."
Predatory practices like gambling never are at their start. We have seen this in cash shops so many times I feel my fingers will bleed if I have to type it again.
But things are changing, they used to start with loot boxes that you only earned in game then slowly moved the game to loot boxes that could only be bought containing game breaking items. Now they are not even bothering to do that, we have kicked up so little fuss that they start as buyable.
Because this is a world where EA and Bungie exist, while Star Citizen does not (or at the very least since some fanboys insist that 3.0 counts as it existing, the items it's selling don't).
As bad as EA and Bungie's cash shop practices were, you at least got something that existed in their game. Star Citizen you're basically buying potentially years in advance for something that may not exist at all.
This justification of yours lol
Where are you attacking the "season passes" then? It's the same logic, you are buying potentially years in advance for something that you don't know what you will get. --'
season passes are for a game already released. yes you are buying content for the future but the big difference is SC is still a long ways from release (if ever).
Because this is a world where EA and Bungie exist, while Star Citizen does not (or at the very least since some fanboys insist that 3.0 counts as it existing, the items it's selling don't).
As bad as EA and Bungie's cash shop practices were, you at least got something that existed in their game. Star Citizen you're basically buying potentially years in advance for something that may not exist at all.
This justification of yours lol
Where are you attacking the "season passes" then? It's the same logic, you are buying potentially years in advance for something that you don't know what you will get. --'
season passes are for a game already released. yes you are buying content for the future but the big difference is SC is still a long ways from release (if ever).
Several companies and games sell future content in advance way before the game is out or said expansions are still in the works. It's called the lifetime pass.
What people are mixing is different business models and different game genre's and their ways to monetize.
Star Citizen made the list like many other crowdfunded games could, but since it's the one that generates more clicks and clicks means money it's there. It's as irrelevant and inconsequential as the rest of the "fluff" concerns that usually appear from time to time and it will fade into irrelevancy like usual.
Star Citizen is rather unique in its approach. Whether or not it deserves a spot in the article is somewhat irrelevant. It is noteworthy.
As others in this thread have noted, you can only hope the things they are selling will one day be in the game. People have paid thousands (let alone hundreds) of dollars for ships that are still not in the game, years later.
It's an "offender" (if you want to call it that) in an entirely different way.
So it is agreed, the article is complete nonsense and just more clickbait provided to us by OP ED.
Argh, white knights murdering the English language for their own agenda again. Please go and learn the proper use and meaning of the word "Fake" for the sake of everyone else's brain cells.
Argh, white knights murdering the English language for their own agenda again. Please go and learn the proper use and meaning of the word "Fake" for the sake of everyone else's brain cells.
Argh, white knights murdering the English language for their own agenda again. Please go and learn the proper use and meaning of the word "Fake" for the sake of everyone else's brain cells.
a thing that is not genuine; a forgery or sham.
FAKE NEWS!
While there isn't a clear definition of the term fake news, by many guidelines this Pcgamer article isn't one, its merely an opinion piece.
The heading of this thread is misleading as it uses the word, "worst" not mentioned in the article. Not fake news however, clickbaiting or sensationalizing is more accurate.
Definition
Fake news is a neologism[10] often used to refer to fabricated news. This type of news, found in traditional news, social media or fake news websites, has no basis in fact, but is presented as being factually accurate.[11]Michael Radutzky, a producer of CBS 60 Minutes, said his show considers fake news to be "stories that are provably false, have enormous traction [popular appeal] in the culture, and are consumed by millions of people".
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
"has no basis in fact, but is presented as being factually accurate."
F A K E . N E W S !
Well they definitely are not "micro" transactions so in that aspect I guess it is...
aGreed, they are not micro, SC has actual Micro Transactions but land claim is not in that category. and as Phry so expertly pointed out, even if the land claims were micro "Sorry, but while i might not be a fan of SC it is by no means the worst offender there is, far from it." Should not be anywhere on the radar for the list. Just more sensationalism to gain attention and clicks, it is not based on fact and is not based on reality.
"has no basis in fact, but is presented as being factually accurate."
F A K E . N E W S !
Well they definitely are not "micro" transactions so in that aspect I guess it is...
aGreed, they are not micro, SC has actual Micro Transactions but land claim is not in that category. and as Phry so expertly pointed out, even if the land claims were micro "Sorry, but while i might not be a fan of SC it is by no means the worst offender there is, far from it." Should not be anywhere on the radar for the list. Just more sensationalism to gain attention and clicks, it is not based on fact and is not based on reality.
FAKE NEWS!
Term microtransaction doesn't mean the size of the purchase. It may have once been used to refer to the size of the transaction, but now all real-money purchases of in-game stuff through the game's own RMT shop system are labeled as microtransactions.
Our language is constantly evolving as the world around us evolves. There's nothing you can do about that.
"has no basis in fact, but is presented as being factually accurate."
F A K E . N E W S !
Well they definitely are not "micro" transactions so in that aspect I guess it is...
aGreed, they are not micro, SC has actual Micro Transactions but land claim is not in that category. and as Phry so expertly pointed out, even if the land claims were micro "Sorry, but while i might not be a fan of SC it is by no means the worst offender there is, far from it." Should not be anywhere on the radar for the list. Just more sensationalism to gain attention and clicks, it is not based on fact and is not based on reality.
FAKE NEWS!
Term microtransaction doesn't mean the size of the purchase.
What codswallop. Of course it refers to the size, the clue is in the name.
Micro - small transaction - buy or sell
ever evolving language lol, you are going to try and use that as an excuse for this well defined and well used term xD. A microtransaction - or micropayment are items purchased for less then the £5 - £10 range as can be seen by anyone who bothers to research and not just make their own rubish up.
"You can pay $50 to $100
for a claim to a plot of virtual land in a game that isn't out yet
thanks to Star Citizen's land purchasing system that lets you secure a
4km x 4km "lot" or an 8km x 8km "estate" for your outlay. You don't need
a land license to build in Star Citizen, but owning the land offers you
protection against vandals, who will be committing an in-game crime for
messing around with your private property. You can't choose where your
plot goes yet, because Star Citizen's planned universe doesn't exist
yet, but in the meantime you can look at a picture of a patch of Moon
and dream."
Quote from the article is what Star Citizen is doing.
Still doesn't encourage gambling or prey upon children, they are selling things that will eventually be in the game and are advertised as such, in that sense they are totally transparent in what they are doing, as opposed to loot box microtransations etc that you find in EA games and lately in Destiny 2 etc. which are by far a lot worse and are not transparent at all after all didn't Bungie throttle the xp gains from players in order to try and get them to make more microtransactions? and that only got changed when they were called out on it. Sorry, but while i might not be a fan of SC it is by no means the worst offender there is, far from it.
Apples and oranges.
Star Citizen is rather unique in its approach. Whether or not it deserves a spot in the article is somewhat irrelevant. It is noteworthy.
As others in this thread have noted, you can only hope the things they are selling will one day be in the game. People have paid thousands (let alone hundreds) of dollars for ships that are still not in the game, years later.
It's an "offender" (if you want to call it that) in an entirely different way.
Your correct in that they are 'different' but i am not sure offender can really be used in that context, SC is a game that is in development and the people buying into that must be aware of the risks that can be associated with buying things so early in the games development, nor are they, at least as far as i know, selling things that are an absolute requirement to progress within the game. Compare this to games that have been released with dlc and loot boxes that directly affect and are a requirement to play the game, Destiny 2 recently released a dlc that unless you bought it you were locked off from the end game content that you were previously able to play before the dlc was released, making the dlc purchase a requirement if you wanted to continue playing the end game content, or SW:BF2's progression being based on loot boxes, which after all the fuss kicked up they are now saying that they may never enable microtransactions in the game, though this is EA so read into that what you will. In short buying things directly is not gambling, nor does it encourage gambling, loot boxes on the other hand are an insidious greed based form of dlc that does encourage gambling, i think from a moral standpoint alone that is enough to make them a significantly worse 'offender' than anything CIG has done, whether you are a fan of SC or not.
Except it's not that early in development, from a chronological standpoint.
The 'they need to do it because they are crowd funding the game' argument held more water in 2013. To date SC has been 7 years in development and raised over 8 times the amount Roberts thought he would need, including what he hoped to get from outside investors. 8times.
Draw your own conclusions, but I think the above is the main reason their newly rolled out land grab (macro)transaction is raising so many eyebrows.
The ships are no different, but everyone seems to have gotten acclimatized to the idea by now. The thought of a $2,500 ship still makes me a little gobsmacked.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
"You can pay $50 to $100
for a claim to a plot of virtual land in a game that isn't out yet
thanks to Star Citizen's land purchasing system that lets you secure a
4km x 4km "lot" or an 8km x 8km "estate" for your outlay. You don't need
a land license to build in Star Citizen, but owning the land offers you
protection against vandals, who will be committing an in-game crime for
messing around with your private property. You can't choose where your
plot goes yet, because Star Citizen's planned universe doesn't exist
yet, but in the meantime you can look at a picture of a patch of Moon
and dream."
Quote from the article is what Star Citizen is doing.
Still doesn't encourage gambling or prey upon children, they are selling things that will eventually be in the game and are advertised as such, in that sense they are totally transparent in what they are doing, as opposed to loot box microtransations etc that you find in EA games and lately in Destiny 2 etc. which are by far a lot worse and are not transparent at all after all didn't Bungie throttle the xp gains from players in order to try and get them to make more microtransactions? and that only got changed when they were called out on it. Sorry, but while i might not be a fan of SC it is by no means the worst offender there is, far from it.
Apples and oranges.
Star Citizen is rather unique in its approach. Whether or not it deserves a spot in the article is somewhat irrelevant. It is noteworthy.
As others in this thread have noted, you can only hope the things they are selling will one day be in the game. People have paid thousands (let alone hundreds) of dollars for ships that are still not in the game, years later.
It's an "offender" (if you want to call it that) in an entirely different way.
Your correct in that they are 'different' but i am not sure offender can really be used in that context, SC is a game that is in development and the people buying into that must be aware of the risks that can be associated with buying things so early in the games development, nor are they, at least as far as i know, selling things that are an absolute requirement to progress within the game. Compare this to games that have been released with dlc and loot boxes that directly affect and are a requirement to play the game, Destiny 2 recently released a dlc that unless you bought it you were locked off from the end game content that you were previously able to play before the dlc was released, making the dlc purchase a requirement if you wanted to continue playing the end game content, or SW:BF2's progression being based on loot boxes, which after all the fuss kicked up they are now saying that they may never enable microtransactions in the game, though this is EA so read into that what you will. In short buying things directly is not gambling, nor does it encourage gambling, loot boxes on the other hand are an insidious greed based form of dlc that does encourage gambling, i think from a moral standpoint alone that is enough to make them a significantly worse 'offender' than anything CIG has done, whether you are a fan of SC or not.
Except it's not that early in development, from a chronological standpoint.
The 'they need to do it because they are crowd funding the game' argument held more water in 2013. To date SC has been 7 years in development and raised over 8 times the amount Roberts thought he would need, including what he hoped to get from outside investors. 8times.
Draw your own conclusions, but I think the above is the main reason their newly rolled out land grab (macro)transaction is raising so many eyebrows.
The land sell does raise eyebrows, but if you coat your arguments with inflated nonsense, one automatically assumes you used that same methodology for your conclusion on the sale of land.
You have provided nothing here that suggests my assumption isn't correct.
"You can pay $50 to $100
for a claim to a plot of virtual land in a game that isn't out yet
thanks to Star Citizen's land purchasing system that lets you secure a
4km x 4km "lot" or an 8km x 8km "estate" for your outlay. You don't need
a land license to build in Star Citizen, but owning the land offers you
protection against vandals, who will be committing an in-game crime for
messing around with your private property. You can't choose where your
plot goes yet, because Star Citizen's planned universe doesn't exist
yet, but in the meantime you can look at a picture of a patch of Moon
and dream."
Quote from the article is what Star Citizen is doing.
Still doesn't encourage gambling or prey upon children, they are selling things that will eventually be in the game and are advertised as such, in that sense they are totally transparent in what they are doing, as opposed to loot box microtransations etc that you find in EA games and lately in Destiny 2 etc. which are by far a lot worse and are not transparent at all after all didn't Bungie throttle the xp gains from players in order to try and get them to make more microtransactions? and that only got changed when they were called out on it. Sorry, but while i might not be a fan of SC it is by no means the worst offender there is, far from it.
Apples and oranges.
Star Citizen is rather unique in its approach. Whether or not it deserves a spot in the article is somewhat irrelevant. It is noteworthy.
As others in this thread have noted, you can only hope the things they are selling will one day be in the game. People have paid thousands (let alone hundreds) of dollars for ships that are still not in the game, years later.
It's an "offender" (if you want to call it that) in an entirely different way.
Your correct in that they are 'different' but i am not sure offender can really be used in that context, SC is a game that is in development and the people buying into that must be aware of the risks that can be associated with buying things so early in the games development, nor are they, at least as far as i know, selling things that are an absolute requirement to progress within the game. Compare this to games that have been released with dlc and loot boxes that directly affect and are a requirement to play the game, Destiny 2 recently released a dlc that unless you bought it you were locked off from the end game content that you were previously able to play before the dlc was released, making the dlc purchase a requirement if you wanted to continue playing the end game content, or SW:BF2's progression being based on loot boxes, which after all the fuss kicked up they are now saying that they may never enable microtransactions in the game, though this is EA so read into that what you will. In short buying things directly is not gambling, nor does it encourage gambling, loot boxes on the other hand are an insidious greed based form of dlc that does encourage gambling, i think from a moral standpoint alone that is enough to make them a significantly worse 'offender' than anything CIG has done, whether you are a fan of SC or not.
Except it's not that early in development, from a chronological standpoint.
The 'they need to do it because they are crowd funding the game' argument held more water in 2013. To date SC has been 7 years in development and raised over 8 times the amount Roberts thought he would need, including what he hoped to get from outside investors. 8times.
Draw your own conclusions, but I think the above is the main reason their newly rolled out land grab (macro)transaction is raising so many eyebrows.
The land sell does raise eyebrows, but if you coat your arguments with inflated nonsense, one automatically assumes you used that same methodology for your conclusion on the sale of land.
You have provided nothing here that suggests my assumption isn't correct.
I'm not too concerned with your assumptions.
Roberts quoted the game as being in development since 2011, and stated that he would need 20 million including outside investment to complete his vision.
Anything else is revisionist history. Do you really want me to go digging up those links?
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
"You can pay $50 to $100
for a claim to a plot of virtual land in a game that isn't out yet
thanks to Star Citizen's land purchasing system that lets you secure a
4km x 4km "lot" or an 8km x 8km "estate" for your outlay. You don't need
a land license to build in Star Citizen, but owning the land offers you
protection against vandals, who will be committing an in-game crime for
messing around with your private property. You can't choose where your
plot goes yet, because Star Citizen's planned universe doesn't exist
yet, but in the meantime you can look at a picture of a patch of Moon
and dream."
Quote from the article is what Star Citizen is doing.
Still doesn't encourage gambling or prey upon children, they are selling things that will eventually be in the game and are advertised as such, in that sense they are totally transparent in what they are doing, as opposed to loot box microtransations etc that you find in EA games and lately in Destiny 2 etc. which are by far a lot worse and are not transparent at all after all didn't Bungie throttle the xp gains from players in order to try and get them to make more microtransactions? and that only got changed when they were called out on it. Sorry, but while i might not be a fan of SC it is by no means the worst offender there is, far from it.
Apples and oranges.
Star Citizen is rather unique in its approach. Whether or not it deserves a spot in the article is somewhat irrelevant. It is noteworthy.
As others in this thread have noted, you can only hope the things they are selling will one day be in the game. People have paid thousands (let alone hundreds) of dollars for ships that are still not in the game, years later.
It's an "offender" (if you want to call it that) in an entirely different way.
Your correct in that they are 'different' but i am not sure offender can really be used in that context, SC is a game that is in development and the people buying into that must be aware of the risks that can be associated with buying things so early in the games development, nor are they, at least as far as i know, selling things that are an absolute requirement to progress within the game. Compare this to games that have been released with dlc and loot boxes that directly affect and are a requirement to play the game, Destiny 2 recently released a dlc that unless you bought it you were locked off from the end game content that you were previously able to play before the dlc was released, making the dlc purchase a requirement if you wanted to continue playing the end game content, or SW:BF2's progression being based on loot boxes, which after all the fuss kicked up they are now saying that they may never enable microtransactions in the game, though this is EA so read into that what you will. In short buying things directly is not gambling, nor does it encourage gambling, loot boxes on the other hand are an insidious greed based form of dlc that does encourage gambling, i think from a moral standpoint alone that is enough to make them a significantly worse 'offender' than anything CIG has done, whether you are a fan of SC or not.
Except it's not that early in development, from a chronological standpoint.
The 'they need to do it because they are crowd funding the game' argument held more water in 2013. To date SC has been 7 years in development and raised over 8 times the amount Roberts thought he would need, including what he hoped to get from outside investors. 8times.
Draw your own conclusions, but I think the above is the main reason their newly rolled out land grab (macro)transaction is raising so many eyebrows.
The land sell does raise eyebrows, but if you coat your arguments with inflated nonsense, one automatically assumes you used that same methodology for your conclusion on the sale of land.
You have provided nothing here that suggests my assumption isn't correct.
I'm not too concerned with your assumptions.
Roberts quoted the game as being in development since 2011, and stated that he would need 20 million including outside investment to complete his vision.
Anything else is revisionist history. Do you really want me to go digging up those links?
I am well aware of the single quote that is meaningless in context and does not correlate with facts. I am also aware that Star citizens development changed course between the 10 and 66 million stretch goals and has stayed pretty much exactly as laid out in those designs way over 3 years ago.
Feel free to shovel shite. Everyone is more than able to see it for what it is, which was part of my point
Now without out that nonsense you could formulate a good argument against land grab. But perhaps that is beyond you and you must use others useless propaganda push points.
"You can pay $50 to $100
for a claim to a plot of virtual land in a game that isn't out yet
thanks to Star Citizen's land purchasing system that lets you secure a
4km x 4km "lot" or an 8km x 8km "estate" for your outlay. You don't need
a land license to build in Star Citizen, but owning the land offers you
protection against vandals, who will be committing an in-game crime for
messing around with your private property. You can't choose where your
plot goes yet, because Star Citizen's planned universe doesn't exist
yet, but in the meantime you can look at a picture of a patch of Moon
and dream."
Quote from the article is what Star Citizen is doing.
Still doesn't encourage gambling or prey upon children, they are selling things that will eventually be in the game and are advertised as such, in that sense they are totally transparent in what they are doing, as opposed to loot box microtransations etc that you find in EA games and lately in Destiny 2 etc. which are by far a lot worse and are not transparent at all after all didn't Bungie throttle the xp gains from players in order to try and get them to make more microtransactions? and that only got changed when they were called out on it. Sorry, but while i might not be a fan of SC it is by no means the worst offender there is, far from it.
Apples and oranges.
Star Citizen is rather unique in its approach. Whether or not it deserves a spot in the article is somewhat irrelevant. It is noteworthy.
As others in this thread have noted, you can only hope the things they are selling will one day be in the game. People have paid thousands (let alone hundreds) of dollars for ships that are still not in the game, years later.
It's an "offender" (if you want to call it that) in an entirely different way.
Your correct in that they are 'different' but i am not sure offender can really be used in that context, SC is a game that is in development and the people buying into that must be aware of the risks that can be associated with buying things so early in the games development, nor are they, at least as far as i know, selling things that are an absolute requirement to progress within the game. Compare this to games that have been released with dlc and loot boxes that directly affect and are a requirement to play the game, Destiny 2 recently released a dlc that unless you bought it you were locked off from the end game content that you were previously able to play before the dlc was released, making the dlc purchase a requirement if you wanted to continue playing the end game content, or SW:BF2's progression being based on loot boxes, which after all the fuss kicked up they are now saying that they may never enable microtransactions in the game, though this is EA so read into that what you will. In short buying things directly is not gambling, nor does it encourage gambling, loot boxes on the other hand are an insidious greed based form of dlc that does encourage gambling, i think from a moral standpoint alone that is enough to make them a significantly worse 'offender' than anything CIG has done, whether you are a fan of SC or not.
Except it's not that early in development, from a chronological standpoint.
The 'they need to do it because they are crowd funding the game' argument held more water in 2013. To date SC has been 7 years in development and raised over 8 times the amount Roberts thought he would need, including what he hoped to get from outside investors. 8times.
Draw your own conclusions, but I think the above is the main reason their newly rolled out land grab (macro)transaction is raising so many eyebrows.
The land sell does raise eyebrows, but if you coat your arguments with inflated nonsense, one automatically assumes you used that same methodology for your conclusion on the sale of land.
You have provided nothing here that suggests my assumption isn't correct.
Interesting. But you have nothing either. Else it wouldn't be an assumption, it would be a conclusion.
Also, yelling fake news to spice things up is inflating your posts with nonsense too, can I now conclude the rest of what you post is nonsense too?
But never mind me and carry on, its amusing.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Interesting. But you have nothing either. Else it wouldn't be an assumption, it would be a conclusion.
Correct I don't have a conclusion on land sale, I think it was a marketing blunder but I don't know what or why it has occurred. Not sure why you felt the need to type that to me?
"You can pay $50 to $100
for a claim to a plot of virtual land in a game that isn't out yet
thanks to Star Citizen's land purchasing system that lets you secure a
4km x 4km "lot" or an 8km x 8km "estate" for your outlay. You don't need
a land license to build in Star Citizen, but owning the land offers you
protection against vandals, who will be committing an in-game crime for
messing around with your private property. You can't choose where your
plot goes yet, because Star Citizen's planned universe doesn't exist
yet, but in the meantime you can look at a picture of a patch of Moon
and dream."
Quote from the article is what Star Citizen is doing.
Still doesn't encourage gambling or prey upon children, they are selling things that will eventually be in the game and are advertised as such, in that sense they are totally transparent in what they are doing, as opposed to loot box microtransations etc that you find in EA games and lately in Destiny 2 etc. which are by far a lot worse and are not transparent at all after all didn't Bungie throttle the xp gains from players in order to try and get them to make more microtransactions? and that only got changed when they were called out on it. Sorry, but while i might not be a fan of SC it is by no means the worst offender there is, far from it.
Apples and oranges.
Star Citizen is rather unique in its approach. Whether or not it deserves a spot in the article is somewhat irrelevant. It is noteworthy.
As others in this thread have noted, you can only hope the things they are selling will one day be in the game. People have paid thousands (let alone hundreds) of dollars for ships that are still not in the game, years later.
It's an "offender" (if you want to call it that) in an entirely different way.
Your correct in that they are 'different' but i am not sure offender can really be used in that context, SC is a game that is in development and the people buying into that must be aware of the risks that can be associated with buying things so early in the games development, nor are they, at least as far as i know, selling things that are an absolute requirement to progress within the game. Compare this to games that have been released with dlc and loot boxes that directly affect and are a requirement to play the game, Destiny 2 recently released a dlc that unless you bought it you were locked off from the end game content that you were previously able to play before the dlc was released, making the dlc purchase a requirement if you wanted to continue playing the end game content, or SW:BF2's progression being based on loot boxes, which after all the fuss kicked up they are now saying that they may never enable microtransactions in the game, though this is EA so read into that what you will. In short buying things directly is not gambling, nor does it encourage gambling, loot boxes on the other hand are an insidious greed based form of dlc that does encourage gambling, i think from a moral standpoint alone that is enough to make them a significantly worse 'offender' than anything CIG has done, whether you are a fan of SC or not.
Except it's not that early in development, from a chronological standpoint.
The 'they need to do it because they are crowd funding the game' argument held more water in 2013. To date SC has been 7 years in development and raised over 8 times the amount Roberts thought he would need, including what he hoped to get from outside investors. 8times.
Draw your own conclusions, but I think the above is the main reason their newly rolled out land grab (macro)transaction is raising so many eyebrows.
The land sell does raise eyebrows, but if you coat your arguments with inflated nonsense, one automatically assumes you used that same methodology for your conclusion on the sale of land.
You have provided nothing here that suggests my assumption isn't correct.
I'm not too concerned with your assumptions.
Roberts quoted the game as being in development since 2011, and stated that he would need 20 million including outside investment to complete his vision.
Anything else is revisionist history. Do you really want me to go digging up those links?
I am well aware of the single quote that is meaningless in context and does not correlate with facts. I am also aware that Star citizens development changed course between the 10 and 66 million stretch goals and has stayed pretty much exactly as laid out in those designs way over 3 years ago.
Feel free to shovel shite. Everyone is more than able to see it for what it is, which was part of my point
Now without out that nonsense you could formulate a good argument against land grab. But perhaps that is beyond you and you must use others useless propaganda push points.
So sad, More FAKE NEWS!
Please do explain how it's rendered meaningless by context, because it sure looks like a qualified estimate to me. Also, what is the new estimate, please?
I'm dying to see this one.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Comments
Compare this to games that have been released with dlc and loot boxes that directly affect and are a requirement to play the game, Destiny 2 recently released a dlc that unless you bought it you were locked off from the end game content that you were previously able to play before the dlc was released, making the dlc purchase a requirement if you wanted to continue playing the end game content, or SW:BF2's progression being based on loot boxes, which after all the fuss kicked up they are now saying that they may never enable microtransactions in the game, though this is EA so read into that what you will.
In short buying things directly is not gambling, nor does it encourage gambling, loot boxes on the other hand are an insidious greed based form of dlc that does encourage gambling, i think from a moral standpoint alone that is enough to make them a significantly worse 'offender' than anything CIG has done, whether you are a fan of SC or not.
Predatory practices like gambling never are at their start. We have seen this in cash shops so many times I feel my fingers will bleed if I have to type it again.
But things are changing, they used to start with loot boxes that you only earned in game then slowly moved the game to loot boxes that could only be bought containing game breaking items. Now they are not even bothering to do that, we have kicked up so little fuss that they start as buyable.
..Cake..
What people are mixing is different business models and different game genre's and their ways to monetize.
Star Citizen made the list like many other crowdfunded games could, but since it's the one that generates more clicks and clicks means money it's there. It's as irrelevant and inconsequential as the rest of the "fluff" concerns that usually appear from time to time and it will fade into irrelevancy like usual.
People just want something to "concern" about.
well, it's released to some people >.>
HUZZAH!
FAKE NEWS!
The heading of this thread is misleading as it uses the word, "worst" not mentioned in the article. Not fake news however, clickbaiting or sensationalizing is more accurate.
Definition
Fake news is a neologism[10] often used to refer to fabricated news. This type of news, found in traditional news, social media or fake news websites, has no basis in fact, but is presented as being factually accurate.[11]Michael Radutzky, a producer of CBS 60 Minutes, said his show considers fake news to be "stories that are provably false, have enormous traction [popular appeal] in the culture, and are consumed by millions of people".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news
"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
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/FAKE NEWS!
Our language is constantly evolving as the world around us evolves. There's nothing you can do about that.
Micro - small
transaction - buy or sell
ever evolving language lol, you are going to try and use that as an excuse for this well defined and well used term xD. A microtransaction - or micropayment are items purchased for less then the £5 - £10 range as can be seen by anyone who bothers to research and not just make their own rubish up.
ok Mr. hibojematy?
The 'they need to do it because they are crowd funding the game' argument held more water in 2013. To date SC has been 7 years in development and raised over 8 times the amount Roberts thought he would need, including what he hoped to get from outside investors. 8 times.
Draw your own conclusions, but I think the above is the main reason their newly rolled out land grab (macro)transaction is raising so many eyebrows.
The ships are no different, but everyone seems to have gotten acclimatized to the idea by now. The thought of a $2,500 ship still makes me a little gobsmacked.
https://www.wired.com/2015/03/fans-dropped-77m-guys-buggy-half-built-game/
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
The land sell does raise eyebrows, but if you coat your arguments with inflated nonsense, one automatically assumes you used that same methodology for your conclusion on the sale of land.
You have provided nothing here that suggests my assumption isn't correct.
Roberts quoted the game as being in development since 2011, and stated that he would need 20 million including outside investment to complete his vision.
Anything else is revisionist history. Do you really want me to go digging up those links?
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Feel free to shovel shite. Everyone is more than able to see it for what it is, which was part of my point
Now without out that nonsense you could formulate a good argument against land grab. But perhaps that is beyond you and you must use others useless propaganda push points.
So sad, More FAKE NEWS!
Also, yelling fake news to spice things up is inflating your posts with nonsense too, can I now conclude the rest of what you post is nonsense too?
But never mind me and carry on, its amusing.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
lahnmir said: Rubbish! I have proven that it is FAKE NEWS! This is the opposite of nonsense, these are FACTS! This would make your conclusion incorrect.
And thank you, I will
I'm dying to see this one.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance