Star Citizen (jointly) wins coveted award for worst MMO business model

rpmcmurphy

https://massivelyop.com/2019/12/12/massively-ops-2019-awards-worst-business-model/

Congrats SC!!

Erillion

If "worst business model" now means making loads of money, let me post this:

This is the top ten premium games by revenue for 2018, according to SuperData:

• 1. PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, Bluehole - $1.028 billion
• 2. FIFA 18, Electronic Arts - $790 million
• 3. Grand Theft Auto V, Take-Two Interactive - $628 million
• 4. Call of Duty: Black Ops IIII, Activision Blizzard - $612 million
• 5. Red Dead Redemption 2, Take-Two Interactive - $516 million
• 6. Call of Duty: WWII, Activision Blizzard - $506 million
• 7. FIFA 19, Electronic Arts - $482 million
• 8. Monster Hunter: World, Capcom - $467 million
• 9. Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege, Ubisoft - $440 million
• 10. Overwatch, Activision Blizzard - $429 million

Free2play or mobile gaming:

• 1. Fortnite, Epic Games - $2.4 billion
• 2. Dungeon Fighter Online, Nexon - $1.5 billion
• 3. League of Legends, Riot Games, Tencent - $1.4 billion
• 4. Pokemon GO, Niantic - $1.3 billion
• 5. Crossfire, Neowiz Games - $1.3 billion
• 6. Honour of Kings, Tencent - $1.3 billion
• 7. Fate/Grand Order, Aniplex - $1.2 billion
• 8. Candy Crush Saga, King, Activision Blizzard - $1.1 billion
• 9. Monster Strike, Mixi - $1.0 billion
• 10. Clash Royale, Supercell, Tencent - $0.9 billion

Star Citizen is not in that league ..... yet ;-)

Have fun

Amathe

I'm pretty sure OP's point was that SC has taken in crazy boatloads of money and is still in alpha with no release in sight. 

Now someone will say but you can go in the alpha and free fly around and pew pew a little.

Riveting. 

Kefo

Erillion said:

If "worst business model" now means making loads of money, let me post this:

This is the top ten premium games by revenue for 2018, according to SuperData:

• 1. PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, Bluehole - $1.028 billion
• 2. FIFA 18, Electronic Arts - $790 million
• 3. Grand Theft Auto V, Take-Two Interactive - $628 million
• 4. Call of Duty: Black Ops IIII, Activision Blizzard - $612 million
• 5. Red Dead Redemption 2, Take-Two Interactive - $516 million
• 6. Call of Duty: WWII, Activision Blizzard - $506 million
• 7. FIFA 19, Electronic Arts - $482 million
• 8. Monster Hunter: World, Capcom - $467 million
• 9. Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege, Ubisoft - $440 million
• 10. Overwatch, Activision Blizzard - $429 million

Free2play or mobile gaming:

• 1. Fortnite, Epic Games - $2.4 billion
• 2. Dungeon Fighter Online, Nexon - $1.5 billion
• 3. League of Legends, Riot Games, Tencent - $1.4 billion
• 4. Pokemon GO, Niantic - $1.3 billion
• 5. Crossfire, Neowiz Games - $1.3 billion
• 6. Honour of Kings, Tencent - $1.3 billion
• 7. Fate/Grand Order, Aniplex - $1.2 billion
• 8. Candy Crush Saga, King, Activision Blizzard - $1.1 billion
• 9. Monster Strike, Mixi - $1.0 billion
• 10. Clash Royale, Supercell, Tencent - $0.9 billion

Star Citizen is not in that league ..... yet ;-)

Have fun

Hey look at this straw man I’ve constructed to try and distract from the actual point the OP made!

Erillion

>>>

Now someone will say but you can go in the alpha and free fly around and pew pew a little.
>>>

There is so much more you can already do, as tons of videos and pictures (also in this subforum) show. Players are creative. And it goes back to the CORE of MMOs: Doing things together. NOT running through the pre-canned content in record time or be the first to down an in game raid boss.

Players come up with all kinds of things. And THAT is the charm of playing SC.

Have fun

PS:

From my list above I would rank  Grand Theft Auto V, Take-Two Interactive - $628 million as the most profitable MMO amongst the classic games (as even Rockstar itself classifies it as a massive online open world)

Erillion

Kefo said:

Hey look at this straw man I’ve constructed to try and distract from the actual point the OP made!

Hey look at the OP rehashing a discussion that ran about a week ago here already with basically the same arguments. Just added a link.

Have fun

https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/485883/star-citizen-ushers-in-a-new-business-model/p1

olepi

I made an earlier post about Star Citizen ushering in a new business model.

This survey doesn't take that into account. The new model is a continuous alpha, with no release date. People can pay a small fee up front, like $75, and play forever. It's actually a pretty good deal, if you enjoy whatever content they have at the time.

And it's obviously very good for the developer. They get hundreds of millions in free money, not investment money. They don't have to provide any return, to anybody. They don't even need to produce a game.

That seems very successful, unless you are a gamer who wants to buy and play a game.

rpmcmurphy

Erillion said:

If "worst business model" now means making loads of money, let me post this:

Look at this guy completely not reading the post and trying to deflect...

It's right there in the first quote Erillion, here I'll write it out for you seeing you missed it the first time due to your knee-jerking.

I think we should clarify here that “Worst Business Model for gamers” is the category because Star Citizen having generated more revenue than the GDP of a small country and still not actually delivering anything of value to gamers is definitely good for someone, just not gamers.

Erillion

>>>

actually delivering anything of value to gamers
>>>

A subset of the 2.461.976 Star Citizens may disagree.

>>>>
They RELEASED the game already

>>>>

Funny. I wonder what i am logging into almost every day ?! This is a PLAYABLE Alpha. Playable for free (!) often enough. And a lot of people have fun playing it already. More fun than in many of the so-called "released" games. Of course that is my personal opinion. Your mileage may vary.

Have fun

PS:

Hmm, 11 years.  Chris Roberts has announced "Star Citizen" in 2008? He did ?

Please post the link. 

Unless you mean "SOMETHING" like Star Citizen. THAT has been announced ever since Freelancer came out in 2003.  

rpmcmurphy

Yeah sure thing Erillion, I bet there are heroin addicts who feel they get value from heroin as well...

What they have released no way represents good value for $300 million, I think that is the obvious position here. Trying to claim something has been released and some people play it does not mean it can be argued it is a good ROI...

Amathe

If someone chooses (or has other motivations) to support a game no matter what, there is little point in trying to reason with them. You can point out the game nears $300 million in player donations. You can point out it's still in alpha. You can draw whatever inferences from that that you want. But if they still say "but it's so preeeeeety and you can fly for free and it's fun, fun, fun!" There's just no arguing with that. BIG REVEAl: That's how they raised all this money in the first place - from unquestioning, easily pleased fans.

Time will tell all.

Erillion

OldSchoolGamer said:

There he goes.... trying to deflect again

Erillion - DEVELOPMENT started in 2011 and that is on the official wiki page.  Chris Roberts and his secret project was in the news years before that.  Please, don't play work games with me.  Otherwise, we'll have to debate what the definition of is is.

There is no need to play word games.

2011 is NOT the same as "From the time Chris Roberts first announced this project it has now been 11 years".

Unless you are counting years differently than me.

And with Cloud Imperium Games founded in April 2012 I could even contest the number of 2011. Which is NOT a number given by Chris Roberts, but a quote from a reporter. But THAT discussion we had about a dozen times here in this subforum already ;-)

Have fun

Erillion

rpmcmurphy said:

Yeah sure thing Erillion, I bet there are heroin addicts who feel they get value from heroin as well...

What they have released no way represents good value for $300 million, I think that is the obvious position here. Trying to claim something has been released and some people play it does not mean it can be argued it is a good ROI...

>>>

I think that is the obvious position here.
>>>

That is YOUR position. NOT the "obvious" position.

People like me disagree. You know ..... people that actually PLAY Star Citizen ;-) on a regular basis.

Have fun

Erillion

Amathe said:

If someone chooses (or has other motivations) to support a game no matter what, there is little point in trying to reason with them. You can point out the game nears $300 million in player donations. You can point out it's still in alpha. You can draw whatever inferences from that that you want. But if they still say "but it's so preeeeeety and you can fly for free and it's fun, fun, fun!" There's just no arguing with that. BIG REVEAl: That's how they raised all this money in the first place - from unquestioning, easily pleased fans.

Time will tell all.

If you think Star Citizen fans are "...unquestioning, easily pleased fans..." you would be in for a mighty surprise if you ever wandered into the official Star Citizen forum ,-)

A few hundred thousand posts might make you reconsider "unquestioning" and certainly make you re-think the "easily pleased" :-D

Have fun

Amathe

So they've donated 250+ million to a game in perpetual alpha with no release date because they are discriminating, skeptical, cautious donors?  LMAO. Maybe sell those Rose Colored Glasses in the cash shop.

rpmcmurphy

Erillion said:

>>>

I think that is the obvious position here.
>>>

That is YOUR position. NOT the "obvious" position.

People like me disagree. You know ..... people that actually PLAY Star Citizen ;-) on a regular basis.

Have fun

No Erillion, if you look at other games and what they offer for development costs of $100 million, $200 million, $300 million, it is considerably more than what SC offers. In no way can you argue that SC has more content, more mechanics, more progression etc.

People like you disagree because you are unable to show any objectivity on the matter, you are unable to view any part of Star Citizen in a critical light. That's the only reason you disagree and make excuses, deflections and strawmen for all of SC's shortcomings.

Erillion

Amathe said:

So they've donated 250+ million to a game in perpetual alpha with no release date because they are discriminating, skeptical, cautious donors?  LMAO. Maybe sell those Rose Colored Glasses in the cash shop.

Many of those that i know want something new in gaming, taking controlled risks (in technology and time) by joining this crowdfunding campaign. Almost none of the people i know particulary care for a specific release date .... they care more about it being tested and working. Not like many of the current games coming out on specific release dates in whatever status the game is at that time. These backers are often actively participating in helping both in testing and making Star Citizen work. And most of them will support it as necessary to see it through to this end.

As an active backer-playtester you have anything BUT rose colored glasses on. You know perfectly well what is NOT working (yet). But you also see what is getting better all the time.

Have fun

TiamatRoar

rpmcmurphy said:

Erillion said:

>>>

I think that is the obvious position here.
>>>

That is YOUR position. NOT the "obvious" position.

People like me disagree. You know ..... people that actually PLAY Star Citizen ;-) on a regular basis.

Have fun

No Erillion, if you look at other games and what they offer for development costs of $100 million, $200 million, $300 million, it is considerably more than what SC offers. In no way can you argue that SC has more content, more mechanics, more progression etc.

People like you disagree because you are unable to show any objectivity on the matter, you are unable to view any part of Star Citizen in a critical light. That's the only reason you disagree and make excuses, deflections and strawmen for all of SC's shortcomings.

Well, to be fair, sometimes there are people who disagree because they benefit in some way to do so.  Although admittingly in that case, I'm not sure a person arguing in bad faith counts as disagreeing.

Erillion

rpmcmurphy said:

Erillion said:

>>>

I think that is the obvious position here.
>>>

That is YOUR position. NOT the "obvious" position.

People like me disagree. You know ..... people that actually PLAY Star Citizen ;-) on a regular basis.

Have fun

No Erillion, if you look at other games and what they offer for development costs of $100 million, $200 million, $300 million, it is considerably more than what SC offers. In no way can you argue that SC has more content, more mechanics, more progression etc.

People like you disagree because you are unable to show any objectivity on the matter, you are unable to view any part of Star Citizen in a critical light. That's the only reason you disagree and make excuses, deflections and strawmen for all of SC's shortcomings.

I disagree because i think you are wrong. Your position being based on little to no experience actually playing Star Citizen. Based on an inability to see that a lot of the current work is work on background tools - something you may not immediately see up front, but will make a big difference later when adding content will be much easier based on these tools.

I have not argued that SC at the moment has "more content, more mechanics, more progression". You may have this mixed up with other posters. But yes, if you ask me directly,  i think given time SC will be one of the games with A LOT of content, A LOT of mechanics and A LOT of progression.

People like me probably disagree with you because we see - after a lot of consideration - a lot more potential in Star Citizen than you do. And actively help to make this potential into something tangible and real. Which takes time and effort and - yes - money.

Have fun

Erillion

OldSchoolGamer said:

Right... because when Chris Roberts founded Cloud Imperium Games, LLC on April 10, 2012 there was no possible way on the face of the planet that he was working on this project long before that date.  The reporter who reported 2011 must be wrong.  The accounts in 2009 and 2010 that said Chris Roberts was working on a secret project must be wrong.  All we can go by is the founding date of April 10, 2012 and NOTHING could have possibly been in development before then because Erillion on the MMORPG.com forums says so.

>>>>

The accounts in 2009 and 2010 that said Chris Roberts was working on a secret project must be wrong. 
>>>>

Please go ahead and post a link to these "accounts in 2009 and 2010". I am not familiar with these reports. Enlighten me.

Have fun

Gutlard

If the peeps that are paying are enjoying the alpha good for them. Hopefully, they're all adults who have been successful at making their own decisions in life so far.

I hope when this is 'all over' and the game has 'gone gold' that it will be to the benefit of gaming in general, and not another negative that non-gamers can use against us.

See how mature I can be?

Gut Out!

sgel

Erillion said:

>>>

actually delivering anything of value to gamers
>>>

A subset of the 2.461.976 Star Citizens may disagree.

I mean considering what a small percentage of them are actually playing the game, they probably do agree

gervaise1

When people consider buying a game the first thing they think of is how much did it cost. Honest. 

(Pity people keep mixing up business model and funding model as well.)

Thane

well that is what happens when you give devs a nearly infinite ammount of time and money.

they develop. that is why we have deadlines no deadline? cool story, let's develop more!

Babuinix

I think we should clarify here that “Worst Business Model for gamers” is the category because Star Citizen having generated more revenue than the GDP of a small country and still not actually delivering anything of value to gamers is definitely good for someone, just not gamers.

The continuous increase of players and funding year after year says otherwise  

But what better way to piggyback-ride on some Star Citizen drama to get those $$clicks$$ lol

"Journalism"

Oh well

rpmcmurphy

Babuinix said:

I think we should clarify here that “Worst Business Model for gamers” is the category because Star Citizen having generated more revenue than the GDP of a small country and still not actually delivering anything of value to gamers is definitely good for someone, just not gamers.

The continuous increase of players and funding year after year says otherwise  

But what better way to piggyback-ride on some Star Citizen drama to get those $$clicks$$ lol

"Journalism"

It is an opinion piece, like literally, 12 opinions from 12 different people.

I don't think anyone is calling it "Journalism" you muppet.