We get it. You're impatient and giddy about playing your dream game but until something better comes along it's not taking too long, it's taking exactly the time it needs to take.
All that money and CIG will still be running in the red. Again. Hopefully they have to keep taking on investors until those investors can wrest control of the Ship from the Miles Gloriosus managers.
Just imagine the game they could do if they were competent.
A bunch of you will be back here next year doing the same song-and-dance. Just like the last couple of years. But keep giving them money, or it'll be declared 'ready' when the money spigot stops.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Alas, human nature: when the company makes money "making" (and eternally marketing) the game, they are under NO compulsion to actually produce it. Wish that wasn't the case (and it usually isn't) but with this one (and a few others..[cough]identity[/cough] it certainly seems to be.
Alas, human nature: when the company makes money "making" (and eternally marketing) the game, they are under NO compulsion to actually produce it. Wish that wasn't the case (and it usually isn't) but with this one (and a few others..[cough]identity[/cough] it certainly seems to be.
I still fail to see the relation between number of funds raised or streamers and quality or progress of a game, not just SC. But hey, like how some people like to deflate everything to a scam or nothing some also like to inflate everything to biggest, best, most ambitious etc. Same coin, different side really.
/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
I still fail to see the relation between number of funds raised or streamers and quality or progress of a game, not just SC. But hey, like how some people like to deflate everything to a scam or nothing some also like to inflate everything to biggest, best, most ambitious etc. Same coin, different side really.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
For non-crowd funded titles true. And regarding SC title I have said that once they said they had raised enough money - maybe having reached the position of being able to attract external funding. As you say "so what" - although it obviously matters more for crowd funded titles.
The statement about SC having enough money was "questioned" however - suggestions that it would run out of money and never finish, 90 days tops etc. etc. So it was probably inevitable that there would be a response - and probably a benefit for SC as well. Lets face it if you are thinking of "pre-ordering" something you are less likely to do so if you think it will never release.
Hence this thread. And whilst a longer title - making it clear that it was about funding might have been more accurate - it was clear from the initial post that this thread was about money and never about "progress". (Which is a 100% valid question but there are other threads that discuss that.)
@coretex666 ;your comment "that these are not the right indicators which I believe is a factually accurate statement." isn't - factually accurate that is. Its complicated. At the end of the day a company may be superbly run and hit every milestone and kpi but if it goes under financially it doesn't matter. If margins are very tight, for example, it may be better to go with "looser" - but cheaper - control systems. Suffice to say its all about the interplay of financial, business and project/programme/portfolio management. And way beyond these threads!
I get posting the money raised over the year, but when I keep seeing people post paltry twitch numbers in the name of "space-sim competition" I can't help but chuckle. What other $300,000,000+ space sim games are out there? How many of them are paying streamers to play it also?
I dont dispute that funding is important for a project, but it is not the right - or better yet sufficient indicator for its success. His post does not address usage of the funds at all. If someone wants to discuss a complex topic, he should spend the time to make his point properly.
He cannot just state that "they collected the highest amount of donations for the project, so it was the best year ever". That is not how arguments are supposed to be made.
That is what I was trying to point out with my posts.
Oh I understand. And as a indicator about "progress" sure.
However the thread was never intended to discuss "progress" and it would have been better, imo, to have simply tweaked the title of the thread rather than have allowed it to be diverted into other areas. Maybe renamed it "Greatest ever funding year" say.
("Funding" - for SC now - equates to sales which for consumers products is a key metric.)
I dont dispute that funding is important for a project, but it is not the right - or better yet sufficient indicator for its success. His post does not address usage of the funds at all. If someone wants to discuss a complex topic, he should spend the time to make his point properly.
He cannot just state that "they collected the highest amount of donations for the project, so it was the best year ever". That is not how arguments are supposed to be made.
That is what I was trying to point out with my posts.
Oh I understand. And as a indicator about "progress" sure.
However the thread was never intended to discuss "progress" and it would have been better, imo, to have simply tweaked the title of the thread rather than have allowed it to be diverted into other areas. Maybe renamed it "Greatest ever funding year" say.
("Funding" - for SC now - equates to sales which for consumers products is a key metric.)
It doesn't even translate necessarily to game sales. It may be that the whales are just pouring more money into buying WAY overpriced ships.
I think a good metric would be to see how much is brought in by new game sales and how much is brought in by the same 8 whales who overpay for digital items.
>>> how much is brought in by the same 8 whales who overpay for digital items. >>>
With the number of "Star Citizens" at nearly 2.5 million, thinking that "the same 8 whales" are overpaying ... how does that sound to you? I know how it sounds to me.
Yes, not every "Star Citizen" is a paying backer. But a big portion of them are.
There MAY be a bit "more" than 8. And MAYBE not everyone is a "whale" ;-)
>>> how much is brought in by the same 8 whales who overpay for digital items. >>>
With the number of "Star Citizens" at nearly 2.5 million, thinking that "the same 8 whales" are overpaying ... how does that sound to you? I know how it sounds to me.
Yes, not every "Star Citizen" is a paying backer. But a big portion of them are.
There MAY be a bit "more" than 8. And MAYBE not everyone is a "whale" ;-)
Have fun
Don't misconstrue me as one of the "haters". Citing a number of box sales that spanned 8 years (2.5M) doesn't mean much, in fact, that number seems low for something that has been funded for that period of time.
I was referring to new game sales. Were more copies sold this year than any previous? That to me would be an good indicator of "best year ever" as the thread title suggests. It would also help to put into perspective how much the "whales" are funding the game.
There have been years with more new Star Citizens.
Money wise it is by far the most successful year so far (about + 10 million more than in the previous record year).
What you make of this numbers is up to you.
You find a much more detailed breakdown if you look up the "Star Citizen crowdfunding spreadsheet" maintained by fans on Reddit (easily found on Google with these search words).
("Funding" - for SC now - equates to sales which for consumers products is a key metric.)
It doesn't even translate necessarily to game sales. It may be that the whales are just pouring more money into buying WAY overpriced ships.
I think a good metric would be to see how much is brought in by new game sales and how much is brought in by the same 8 whales who overpay for digital items.
Well a "sale is a sale" or technically will be even if its only 8 whales.
Then again if 2.5M backers have all signed up for the current minimum*** price combo that's close to $200M. Which doesn't exactly leave much for the whales to make up.
Nah. 8 people paying $30M sounds much more likely than most people paying the minimum with a percentage paying more to bring the average up to c. $100.
No we don't know the split but the more you lean towards "whales" the greater the number of minimum cost packages there must be. And at the end of the day this is no different than e.g. CU selling "class packages" ($45 up to $425) check it out, that is a plug btw or Pantheon, another plug or Amazon New World selling a standard package or a more expensive deluxe package. (Not a plug New World doesn't need it).
*** $48 for SC; $54 for SQ42; $78 for an SC+SQ42 combo.
("Funding" - for SC now - equates to sales which for consumers products is a key metric.)
It doesn't even translate necessarily to game sales. It may be that the whales are just pouring more money into buying WAY overpriced ships.
I think a good metric would be to see how much is brought in by new game sales and how much is brought in by the same 8 whales who overpay for digital items.
Well a "sale is a sale" or technically will be even if its only 8 whales.
Then again if 2.5M backers have all signed up for the current minimum*** price combo that's close to $200M. Which doesn't exactly leave much for the whales to make up.
Nah. 8 people paying $30M sounds much more likely than most people paying the minimum with a percentage paying more to bring the average up to c. $100.
No we don't know the split but the more you lean towards "whales" the greater the number of minimum cost packages there must be. And at the end of the day this is no different than e.g. CU selling "class packages" ($45 up to $425) check it out, that is a plug btw or Pantheon, another plug or Amazon New World selling a standard package or a more expensive deluxe package. (Not a plug New World doesn't need it).
*** $48 for SC; $54 for SQ42; $78 for an SC+SQ42 combo.
Don't know about CU but pantheon is selling the game with different tiers that allow you in different stages of testing. They are not selling races or class unlocks behind a shop.
Well a "sale is a sale" or technically will be even if its only 8 whales.
Then again if 2.5M backers have all signed up for the current minimum*** price combo that's close to $200M. Which doesn't exactly leave much for the whales to make up.
Nah. 8 people paying $30M sounds much more likely than most people paying the minimum with a percentage paying more to bring the average up to c. $100.
No we don't know the split but the more you lean towards "whales" the greater the number of minimum cost packages there must be. And at the end of the day this is no different than e.g. CU selling "class packages" ($45 up to $425) check it out, that is a plug btw or Pantheon, another plug or Amazon New World selling a standard package or a more expensive deluxe package. (Not a plug New World doesn't need it).
*** $48 for SC; $54 for SQ42; $78 for an SC+SQ42 combo.
Don't know about CU but pantheon is selling the game with different tiers that allow you in different stages of testing. They are not selling races or class unlocks behind a shop.
I was just plugging Pantheon. And CU.
Pantheon does sell packages though from .... a shop! The basic package gives you one character slot. Which is $50. Many other packages are available up to $1,000+ and with a higher package you will get an extra character slot.
As I said though it was just a plug for Pantheon and CU.
Be good if they all came out but money is inevitably a factor. And the big difference is that SC has managed to attract "many backers"; most of whom will - almost certainly - be putting in the minimum. If Pantheon etc. could get a fraction of those numbers - simply putting in the minimum - it would add up.
>>> how much is brought in by the same 8 whales who overpay for digital items. >>>
With the number of "Star Citizens" at nearly 2.5 million, thinking that "the same 8 whales" are overpaying ... how does that sound to you? I know how it sounds to me.
Yes, not every "Star Citizen" is a paying backer. But a big portion of them are.
There MAY be a bit "more" than 8. And MAYBE not everyone is a "whale" ;-)
Have fun
Don't misconstrue me as one of the "haters". Citing a number of box sales that spanned 8 years (2.5M) doesn't mean much, in fact, that number seems low for something that has been funded for that period of time.
I was referring to new game sales. Were more copies sold this year than any previous? That to me would be an good indicator of "best year ever" as the thread title suggests. It would also help to put into perspective how much the "whales" are funding the game.
They count Free Fly registrations in that 2.5M number. And you're right, coming up on 8 years and multiple Free Fly throughout those years, isn't that much on average.
Also, in regards with "best year ever", they only care about the money part for some reason. I'd like to know how raising $300M for a tech demo, benefits gamers and the gaming community.
("Funding" - for SC now - equates to sales which for consumers products is a key metric.)
It doesn't even translate necessarily to game sales. It may be that the whales are just pouring more money into buying WAY overpriced ships.
I think a good metric would be to see how much is brought in by new game sales and how much is brought in by the same 8 whales who overpay for digital items.
Well a "sale is a sale" or technically will be even if its only 8 whales.
Then again if 2.5M backers have all signed up for the current minimum*** price combo that's close to $200M. Which doesn't exactly leave much for the whales to make up.
*** $48 for SC; $54 for SQ42; $78 for an SC+SQ42 combo.
We don't have 2.5 million buying the the combo package at current price, because for most Star Citizen's history packages have been cheaper.
Last year Star Citizen gained $176 for every new registration. Most of their money isn't coming from selling minimum price packages, it's coming from selling additional stuff.
("Funding" - for SC now - equates to sales which for consumers products is a key metric.)
It doesn't even translate necessarily to game sales. It may be that the whales are just pouring more money into buying WAY overpriced ships.
I think a good metric would be to see how much is brought in by new game sales and how much is brought in by the same 8 whales who overpay for digital items.
Well a "sale is a sale" or technically will be even if its only 8 whales.
Then again if 2.5M backers have all signed up for the current minimum*** price combo that's close to $200M. Which doesn't exactly leave much for the whales to make up.
*** $48 for SC; $54 for SQ42; $78 for an SC+SQ42 combo.
We don't have 2.5 million buying the the combo package at current price, because for most Star Citizen's history packages have been cheaper.
Last year Star Citizen gained $176 for every new registration. Most of their money isn't coming from selling minimum price packages, it's coming from selling additional stuff.
There might be 2.5M! - we don't know! - but its why I said "IF its only 8 whales" and "IF 2.5M" and (in the full post) "most people paying the minimum with a percentage paying more to bring the average up to c. $100."
And why previously I have suggested that current funding is - probably - a combination of: - new backers buying a package at some price point; - some previous backers adding SQ42 if they have previously only bought SC or vice versa; - some previous backers - as you say buying additional stuff e.g. changing to a different ship; - previous "Star Citizens" adding a package for the first time maybe
All of which will contribute to the $176 value you gave.
Sometimes - it seems - there are those who see a big number - e.g. Fortnite and $1.8B - and assume that people must be paying huge amounts of money. The simpler solution - its a big number because there are "many people" seems to pass them by.
Comments
We get it. You're impatient and giddy about playing your dream game but until something better comes along it's not taking too long, it's taking exactly the time it needs to take.
Just imagine the game they could do if they were competent.
A bunch of you will be back here next year doing the same song-and-dance. Just like the last couple of years. But keep giving them money, or it'll be declared 'ready' when the money spigot stops.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Ea is like a poo fingered midas ~ShakyMo
/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
The statement about SC having enough money was "questioned" however - suggestions that it would run out of money and never finish, 90 days tops etc. etc. So it was probably inevitable that there would be a response - and probably a benefit for SC as well. Lets face it if you are thinking of "pre-ordering" something you are less likely to do so if you think it will never release.
Hence this thread. And whilst a longer title - making it clear that it was about funding might have been more accurate - it was clear from the initial post that this thread was about money and never about "progress". (Which is a 100% valid question but there are other threads that discuss that.)
@coretex666 ;your comment "that these are not the right indicators which I believe is a factually accurate statement." isn't - factually accurate that is. Its complicated. At the end of the day a company may be superbly run and hit every milestone and kpi but if it goes under financially it doesn't matter. If margins are very tight, for example, it may be better to go with "looser" - but cheaper - control systems. Suffice to say its all about the interplay of financial, business and project/programme/portfolio management. And way beyond these threads!
However the thread was never intended to discuss "progress" and it would have been better, imo, to have simply tweaked the title of the thread rather than have allowed it to be diverted into other areas. Maybe renamed it "Greatest ever funding year" say.
("Funding" - for SC now - equates to sales which for consumers products is a key metric.)
Have fun
I think a good metric would be to see how much is brought in by new game sales and how much is brought in by the same 8 whales who overpay for digital items.
I was referring to new game sales. Were more copies sold this year than any previous? That to me would be an good indicator of "best year ever" as the thread title suggests. It would also help to put into perspective how much the "whales" are funding the game.
Well a "sale is a sale" or technically will be even if its only 8 whales.
Then again if 2.5M backers have all signed up for the current minimum*** price combo that's close to $200M. Which doesn't exactly leave much for the whales to make up.
Nah. 8 people paying $30M sounds much more likely than most people paying the minimum with a percentage paying more to bring the average up to c. $100.
No we don't know the split but the more you lean towards "whales" the greater the number of minimum cost packages there must be. And at the end of the day this is no different than e.g. CU selling "class packages" ($45 up to $425) check it out, that is a plug btw or Pantheon, another plug or Amazon New World selling a standard package or a more expensive deluxe package. (Not a plug New World doesn't need it).
*** $48 for SC; $54 for SQ42; $78 for an SC+SQ42 combo.
Pantheon does sell packages though from .... a shop! The basic package gives you one character slot. Which is $50. Many other packages are available up to $1,000+ and with a higher package you will get an extra character slot.
As I said though it was just a plug for Pantheon and CU.
Be good if they all came out but money is inevitably a factor. And the big difference is that SC has managed to attract "many backers"; most of whom will - almost certainly - be putting in the minimum. If Pantheon etc. could get a fraction of those numbers - simply putting in the minimum - it would add up.
Also, in regards with "best year ever", they only care about the money part for some reason. I'd like to know how raising $300M for a tech demo, benefits gamers and the gaming community.
Last year Star Citizen gained $176 for every new registration. Most of their money isn't coming from selling minimum price packages, it's coming from selling additional stuff.
GG.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
And why previously I have suggested that current funding is - probably - a combination of:
- new backers buying a package at some price point;
- some previous backers adding SQ42 if they have previously only bought SC or vice versa;
- some previous backers - as you say buying additional stuff e.g. changing to a different ship;
- previous "Star Citizens" adding a package for the first time maybe
All of which will contribute to the $176 value you gave.
Sometimes - it seems - there are those who see a big number - e.g. Fortnite and $1.8B - and assume that people must be paying huge amounts of money. The simpler solution - its a big number because there are "many people" seems to pass them by.
It does marketing real well. Marketing does not equal game design.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.