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.
The "serious" question - not covered by the "opinions" that have mixed up business models with funding models article which is what might it mean.
Consider SWTOR. Its funding model was borrowings predicated on the company being able to repay its bonds and ultimately tap shareholders. Its original funding model was b2p with an ongoing subscription. This failed to cover the development cost and - as a result - it went f2p with a cash shop considered to be pretty restrictive since it locked lots of features.
Consider ESO (also developers of FO76) Funding model: development covered by - investors. Its a private company so we don't know more. Business nodel: ESO also launched as b2p + sub. Didn't get the numbers though and - probably - didn't cover its development costs let alone cover the cost of money or paying the investors a return. So it became: b2p + optional sub + cash shop.
Consider CU: Original funding model: crowdfunding. Proposed business model: b2p + low cost subscription. Now based on what has been published by CoH Homecoming (how the voluntary donations have been spent) the costs to run servers are low. This is just running costs no development costs are being paid off, no investors are getting a return. Simply a demonstration that the idea floated by MJ would be viable - or should that be would have been. Reason: CU's current funding model is basically investors. And they will have to be repaid and they will want a return.
And one can look at other games of course but what about SC?
Funding model: almost entirely crowdfunded / pre-orders. So what could the business model be.
Well first lets deal with the investment. Funding raised this year exceed the investment so reasonable to assume it could be paid off + a return. Doesn't mean that is what will happen of course. The key point though is that as it stands SC won't need a SWTOR type appraoch to recover the development costs + interest on loans + pay an ROI on everything.
So - option 1 - game covered simply by b2p sales may well be possible. Which means that Option 2 - a "gentle" MTX approach is - also viable. Cosmetics or whatever. The key point is that - as it stands - no outstanding development cost to repay, investors minor.
What - though - if RSI goes public. Once the game launches going public could raise a lot of money for CR etc. A lot more money than is being raised now!
Still no development That would bring in investors though. Would a gentle MTX approach still work? Or would it be one that tries to get every last cent out of players. Consider: Activision-Blizzard "bought themselves" out from Vivendi - through loans and investors etc. - and seem to have become "more aggressive" as a result.
As it stands - assuming it launches - SC has options. Including very gentle options. Whether that ends up being the case will depend on e.g. whether they need to bring in further investors, whether they take the company public, whether sales (funding) dries up and they have to get a non-trivial loan.
The opinions of the writers either oblivious to the distinction between Funding and Business models - and how the first influences the second - or simply don't want to discuss it though. And as said they are not journalists just people with opinions. Probably get a better discussion on these boards!
Massively and the delusional awards lol, I can just cringe as they just go with the game they "hate more" and not with anything factual.
So they prefer gambling loot boxes? They prefer models like World of Tanks that are not even mentioned?
Do these people live in their own little universe? I guess so, wait a bit they'll also give SC as they did for all these years the "most likely to fail in 2020" too, that when reality hits it becomes more successful than its previous year instead xD
I can't cringe this hard it's not good for my health --'
I agree Star Citizen is a disgrace with the way they are going about crowdfunding. They need to buckle down and give a release date. Say this is what will be in at launch and this is what is going to come after. Otherwise the game is never going to release because the whales will keep giving them more and more money.
That’s how Roberts originally pitched it. Doesn’t need to have everything and the kitchen sink like the old days and 2 more years and it will begin to feel stale(or was it 3 more years?)
Then the backers started chanting take as much time as you want while throwing copious amounts of money at them without any questions asked. Considering how hardcore Roberts failed at his last attempt at running a game studio why would he do something silly like give a release date when they can keep dreaming up features to sell to the rabid fans base every year for more and more money?
In my opinion as soon as they nail down an actual release date and what will be included with that they will crack the dream like exterior and scare money off and as soon as they release with something barebones and with the same bugs and tier 0 implementation they will shatter the dream and the money will almost completely dry up.
This is an interesting tale. Backers keep backing, so developers keep developing.....Backers keep backing so developers keep developing....See the pattern here?
Yeah, this will go on as long as backers keep backing. Why would they actually stop that source of funding? (they won't)
This will be dragged out as long as funding is profitable.
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
Oh look, the real Chris Roberts is just as pretend as his game.
The numbers show more that gaming is very lucrative with very poor products leading the way.Also proves the gamer demographic is dumb enough to support very ho hum games.
There is a common theme in most all the money makers.....competitive player versus player.These games are feeding off of player egos.
I mentioned this when Blizzard was complaining about toxic players,yet their games are feeding the very competitive nature in people,profiting millions from it,they are aiding and abetting the toxic nature in gaming.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
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
Well it's true people are free to continue doing it wrong but for most of the rest a finished product where progression is retained is the starting point of any game.
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
This is an interesting tale. Backers keep backing, so developers keep developing.....Backers keep backing so developers keep developing....See the pattern here?
Yeah, this will go on as long as backers keep backing. Why would they actually stop that source of funding? (they won't)
This will be dragged out as long as funding is profitable.
Profit = money in - money out.
It can't both be "profitable" and forever "running out of money 90 days tops" though.
Now if it launches then - presumably - at some point in time development will reduce and it may become profitable. Depending on the business model, player retention, new sales etc. etc.
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
But you know full well that the 2011 date is legit, as Roberts and Freyermuth both claimed that in print, back when it was useful for them to pretend it. Of course, Crytech was doing most of the real work back then, but hey, what's a few lies amongst $300 million dollars....
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
This is an interesting tale. Backers keep backing, so developers keep developing.....Backers keep backing so developers keep developing....See the pattern here?
Yeah, this will go on as long as backers keep backing. Why would they actually stop that source of funding? (they won't)
This will be dragged out as long as funding is profitable.
Profit = money in - money out.
It can't both be "profitable" and forever "running out of money 90 days tops" though.
Now if it launches then - presumably - at some point in time development will reduce and it may become profitable. Depending on the business model, player retention, new sales etc. etc.
To consider SC profitable today though - just no.
It's not so much profit as it is 8 years of living large, being a big fish in a small pool, getting a large salary, per diem, adulation, etc. Getting to pretend to be a big director, a big game designer -- with no one who can interfere with the negatives of his overweening grandiosity.
Roberts continually adds some new shiny pyrite to any project he's in. It's not going to stop. It's in his nature.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
IF CIG were a clothing designer, they would work in the following manner:
Make a new sock (only one)...it would have holes and not fit quite right. while making that, they'd have sold you a picture of a pair of pants.
Instead of the sock team refining the sock until it fits correctly or even making the second one badly, they'd reassign that team to the pants...leaving the socks in a broken, incomplete state). The team would then labor over making the pants, forgetting most of what they knew about socks they didn't get to work.
Then they will sell you a picture of a sweater, while they work on the pants. When the pants hit, they only have one leg and its full of holes with the pockets are missing. they COULD refine the pants while the team still has the knowledge of the pants fresh in their head, but fuck that...on to the sweater.
And this goes on and on...eventually, they get back to the socks. But the team has been away from that workflow for so long, they can't remember jack shit about what they did the first time....so they just start over.
Meanwhile you, the customer, are wearing a bevy of fucked-up clothes that make you look like a hobo, wondering when they will ever finish any single article of clothing to a beta state.
For the next person that screams, "It's alpha," you are sup[posed to work alpha systems to a beta state so the entire project can move forward and eventually release. But CIG is making so much frickin money with its current Hobo strategy, why would they EVER change their biz model?
THIS is my main beef with the game, and why I almost never play it anymore. Everything in it is broken on some level. and they never fix/refine the issues before moving on to make other broken feature.
Its a fork with no tongs, or maybe a spoon with no handle...
Frank 'Spankybus' Mignone www.spankybus.com -3d Artist & Compositor -Writer -Professional Amature
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.
I'm pretty that not very many people object to making lots of money because you have a ton of players who love your game and will spend moderate amounts of money on it as a result. Star Citizen doesn't even have a launched game yet.
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.
Pot calling a kettle black.
...you truly lack any sort of self-reflection.
[mod edit]
There's plenty of things I think are good about the project and I have voiced those things here before whereas some people are unable to even accept there are any negatives whatsoever. [mod edit]
Star Citizen alpha is released and playable for years now, it's continuous updates along with the crescent in funding and player engagement showcases an ever evolving community happy with the game's direction.
Doesn't really matter what the haters personally think of it.
" ..no matter how good it is, it's not going to be $300M+ good."
I hope the whales which "invested" in this "game", when it will finally launch, they can say with a straight face : "This game worth the $300M+".
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy? Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
Star Citizen alpha is released and playable for years now, it's continuous updates along with the crescent in funding and player engagement showcases an ever evolving community happy with the game's direction.
Doesn't really matter what the haters personally think of it.
"Star Citizen alpha is released and playable for years now." These are your words. And you don't see this as in any way alarming?
One makes money off actual gameplay and the other makes money off selling you dreams of what gameplay might be if they can get it to work
....oh dear.
1) most of the time you are charged upfront before you can play the game thus they are not making money off actual gameplay
2) SC is playable anyway therefore it is on par with any released game in that regard
If you’re referring to pre orders that’s fine. Too bad we are talking about released games since that’s what was in the list.
SC is playable but it lacks what most of those games on the list have and that would be meaningful gameplay hence my comment about selling you dreams on how gameplay might be if they get it to work
Comments
The "serious" question - not covered by the "opinions" that have mixed up business models with funding models article which is what might it mean.
Consider SWTOR.
Its funding model was borrowings predicated on the company being able to repay its bonds and ultimately tap shareholders.
Its original funding model was b2p with an ongoing subscription. This failed to cover the development cost and - as a result - it went f2p with a cash shop considered to be pretty restrictive since it locked lots of features.
Consider ESO (also developers of FO76)
Funding model: development covered by - investors. Its a private company so we don't know more.
Business nodel: ESO also launched as b2p + sub. Didn't get the numbers though and - probably - didn't cover its development costs let alone cover the cost of money or paying the investors a return. So it became: b2p + optional sub + cash shop.
Consider CU:
Original funding model: crowdfunding.
Proposed business model: b2p + low cost subscription.
Now based on what has been published by CoH Homecoming (how the voluntary donations have been spent) the costs to run servers are low. This is just running costs no development costs are being paid off, no investors are getting a return. Simply a demonstration that the idea floated by MJ would be viable - or should that be would have been.
Reason: CU's current funding model is basically investors. And they will have to be repaid and they will want a return.
And one can look at other games of course but what about SC?
Funding model: almost entirely crowdfunded / pre-orders. So what could the business model be.
Well first lets deal with the investment. Funding raised this year exceed the investment so reasonable to assume it could be paid off + a return. Doesn't mean that is what will happen of course. The key point though is that as it stands SC won't need a SWTOR type appraoch to recover the development costs + interest on loans + pay an ROI on everything.
So - option 1 - game covered simply by b2p sales may well be possible.
Which means that Option 2 - a "gentle" MTX approach is - also viable. Cosmetics or whatever.
The key point is that - as it stands - no outstanding development cost to repay, investors minor.
What - though - if RSI goes public. Once the game launches going public could raise a lot of money for CR etc. A lot more money than is being raised now!
Still no development That would bring in investors though. Would a gentle MTX approach still work? Or would it be one that tries to get every last cent out of players.
Consider: Activision-Blizzard "bought themselves" out from Vivendi - through loans and investors etc. - and seem to have become "more aggressive" as a result.
As it stands - assuming it launches - SC has options. Including very gentle options. Whether that ends up being the case will depend on e.g. whether they need to bring in further investors, whether they take the company public, whether sales (funding) dries up and they have to get a non-trivial loan.
The opinions of the writers either oblivious to the distinction between Funding and Business models - and how the first influences the second - or simply don't want to discuss it though. And as said they are not journalists just people with opinions. Probably get a better discussion on these boards!
So they prefer gambling loot boxes? They prefer models like World of Tanks that are not even mentioned?
Do these people live in their own little universe? I guess so, wait a bit they'll also give SC as they did for all these years the "most likely to fail in 2020" too, that when reality hits it becomes more successful than its previous year instead xD
I can't cringe this hard it's not good for my health --'
Then the backers started chanting take as much time as you want while throwing copious amounts of money at them without any questions asked. Considering how hardcore Roberts failed at his last attempt at running a game studio why would he do something silly like give a release date when they can keep dreaming up features to sell to the rabid fans base every year for more and more money?
In my opinion as soon as they nail down an actual release date and what will be included with that they will crack the dream like exterior and scare money off and as soon as they release with something barebones and with the same bugs and tier 0 implementation they will shatter the dream and the money will almost completely dry up.
Backers keep backing, so developers keep developing.....Backers keep backing so developers keep developing....See the pattern here?
Yeah, this will go on as long as backers keep backing. Why would they actually stop that source of funding? (they won't)
This will be dragged out as long as funding is profitable.
There is a common theme in most all the money makers.....competitive player versus player.These games are feeding off of player egos.
I mentioned this when Blizzard was complaining about toxic players,yet their games are feeding the very competitive nature in people,profiting millions from it,they are aiding and abetting the toxic nature in gaming.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Continue with your testing though....
"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
It can't both be "profitable" and forever "running out of money 90 days tops" though.
Now if it launches then - presumably - at some point in time development will reduce and it may become profitable. Depending on the business model, player retention, new sales etc. etc.
To consider SC profitable today though - just no.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Roberts continually adds some new shiny pyrite to any project he's in. It's not going to stop. It's in his nature.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Make a new sock (only one)...it would have holes and not fit quite right. while making that, they'd have sold you a picture of a pair of pants.
Instead of the sock team refining the sock until it fits correctly or even making the second one badly, they'd reassign that team to the pants...leaving the socks in a broken, incomplete state). The team would then labor over making the pants, forgetting most of what they knew about socks they didn't get to work.
Then they will sell you a picture of a sweater, while they work on the pants. When the pants hit, they only have one leg and its full of holes with the pockets are missing. they COULD refine the pants while the team still has the knowledge of the pants fresh in their head, but fuck that...on to the sweater.
And this goes on and on...eventually, they get back to the socks. But the team has been away from that workflow for so long, they can't remember jack shit about what they did the first time....so they just start over.
Meanwhile you, the customer, are wearing a bevy of fucked-up clothes that make you look like a hobo, wondering when they will ever finish any single article of clothing to a beta state.
For the next person that screams, "It's alpha," you are sup[posed to work alpha systems to a beta state so the entire project can move forward and eventually release. But CIG is making so much frickin money with its current Hobo strategy, why would they EVER change their biz model?
THIS is my main beef with the game, and why I almost never play it anymore. Everything in it is broken on some level. and they never fix/refine the issues before moving on to make other broken feature.
Its a fork with no tongs, or maybe a spoon with no handle...
Frank 'Spankybus' Mignone
www.spankybus.com
-3d Artist & Compositor
-Writer
-Professional Amature
...you truly lack any sort of self-reflection.
Pass on what you have learned you must.
" ..no matter how good it is, it's not going to be $300M+ good."
I hope the whales which "invested" in this "game", when it will finally launch, they can say with a straight face : "This game worth the $300M+".
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
"Star Citizen alpha is released and playable for years now." These are your words. And you don't see this as in any way alarming?
You still haven't answered how does it make any difference though.
1) most of the time you are charged upfront before you can play the game thus they are not making money off actual gameplay
2) SC is playable anyway therefore it is on par with any released game in that regard
SC is playable but it lacks what most of those games on the list have and that would be meaningful gameplay hence my comment about selling you dreams on how gameplay might be if they get it to work