You’ve been able to do that since 2.0ish. Now there’s a trading and cargo system and a lot more missions and locations, though, as well as persistence (you can log out in a location in your ship’s bed and log back in in that location) and a lot of other small stuff.
(but there are bugs in the unreleased version of sc, therefore sc is d00med so why even bother amiright)
This guy’s brilliantly talented.
This is getting insane.
How many more features will they tack on with their “dream stapler”?
I’m all for huge ambitious game projects. That’s what gave us Crysis. But Crysis was a tight, focused experienced. What is SC going to do next? Focus on VR and manufacture a haptic gaming suit and rename Star Citizen to Star Oasis? Features =/= Games.
On another note, this is suspiciously timed well to fund their latest lawsuit… 
Next they’ll sell Safe Places.
Just stay away from the Cool-Aid.
In my book, brilliance is getting people to pay for individual game features. Ships, land, skins, whatever. You know you have a valuable property when people are willing to put significant money into the game just to change the game experience. That’s how much they value that game experience.
This is brilliance up there with Bitcoin and diamonds; the manufactured perception of value.
It’s a horribly, awfully, exploitative form of brilliance.
Like sunk cost fallacy.
(In a comedic way.)
If people want to “change” their game-experience, then your game is no good to begin with.
Seems that more and more people are starting to find that dubious;
I don’t mind people paying for flare or extra content in existing released games, up to a point. What CIG are doing can’t even be called micro-transactions.
Nonsense. Games are designed from the outset to have the game experience change. This is simply a case of whether the players want to play the game to cause those change or to pay to cause those changes.
Note that, in Battlescape, the change of game experience comes from killing enemy ships, getting bounties and spending that money to buy bigger ships.
I’ll offer the observation that when I was younger, grinds were somewhat fun. The life of a young person is almost defined by the process of moving up through the ranks of society to get access to all the stuff that adults have. A home, financial security, a family, and so forth. Now that I’m older, grinds have no appeal to me at all. That’s why I stick to games like ARMA, where I have immediate access to all the toys, and my gameplay revolves around how I use those toys with other players, not around how I’m going to grind out enough kills to get access to them.
Okay, so that’s one vote that doesn’t matter. Mine would be another that doesn’t matter. The point is that the publishers and the players seem to have worked out a system where the publishers are happy to sell changes to game experiences and the players are happy to buy them.
So don’t call them microtransactions. The name is of no consequence; it’s paying money in return for a change of game experience.
I don’t know how current this price list is, but the ones you show seem to be the inexpensive ones. According to this price list, the top-end destroyer goes for $3000.
Pay To Win
(not much of a “game” experience)
That is a big part of the matter in debate. People are actually turning away from that system:
With in game money, on actual,in-game, playable assets. (with frame-rates that range between 60 and 120, instead of 5 -25).
Well we should remember that Richard Garriott already started selling in-game land months or even years ago in his Shroud of the Avatar, where its even way more obvious that they only add stuff and assets for the next cash round. So that youtube guy would have better jumped onto that game first with his „suprise about his buy-land-discovery-thing“. I wouldnt call him brilliant. Although he is right with what he says.
Its odd, spacejay, RSI is planning to stop selling ships on release, the current sales are to fund the game. So for some reason you’re fine with ship sales in a game with a live economy, but if its needed to create the game then it’s a nono? Just odd.
For me, the land claims, ships and limited UEC sales all represent the same thing, paying to leg an initial leg up in the game’s economy(and land claims are supposed to be easily bought with uec). If they follow through on the ship sales thing, then upon release we’ll just be left with the monthly limited UEC purchasing (not even eve limits currency purchase in this way) and subscribers who are essentially paying for a star ciitzen magazine. Overall, the initial state will very obviously be biased towards players who bought bigger ships, but past that the idea is an economy pretty much with the same integrity as a game like EVE.
And again about the high ship $$ amounts, would you rather they be super cheap so that when release hits and ship sales end, everyone has a javelin capital ship they bought for $10? If they are doing it this way, it makes sense to put high prices on the ship.
also ark, the lawsuit was after the land claim thing
Huh? Lets call it „early access“ with an assumed release candidate March 2018 if I am not wrong. And at the point they started selling land years ago (I think they started that even ~3 years ago…) it was far far away from that and deeply in development.
Not with the development history and Crobbers history before that, the toxic community. the outright public lying and all the rest. Supposed limited Sales of supposed limited (digital) items (sunk cost fallacy)
The devil is in the how and why, and it’s all over the internet.
Their marketing model and community management resembles scientology.
It’s every management and business decision they’ve made up to now that is leading to the imminent implosion of that ‘bubble’.
Crytek has retained the services of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, a firm that Forbes Senior Editor Daniel Fisher once called “Wall Street’s most powerful law firm.” Their army of over 1,700 attorneys support a firm that advised more than one trillion dollars worth of deals in 2015 alone.
never thought i’d link something from breitbart, but there you go, even they picked up on that.
… We can talk about the “toxicity of the community” if you want, i have some bones to pick there too. There are a lot of people who feel more entitled to their own opinions or vision to be taken into account in proportion with how much they’ve backed, something that just doesn’t work. Those people threaten refunds if game balance doesnt change exactly how they want it, but so far CIG has proven themselves good at pissing these people off, which is a good sign for gameplay integrity at least.
But considering just in this thread a poster like zen exists, maybe you should be more hesitant to start assigning importance to collective assessments, your “side” might not fare so well and this line of thinking is incorrect anyways… I’ve seen a few shitty game devs in my time and more shitty communities, but CIG has handily dodged a lot of common pitfalls i’ve seen by this time in projects. Their main issue is slow development and selective bad PR, not exactly cardinal sins. Maybe I’m just too jaded after seeing too many derailed projects crash and burn with insane devs and terrible management, but these things seem like problems that can be dealt with. Their community management is imperfect but to me it looks better than most projects of their size, but again i have numerous criticisms. Just depends where the realistic bar is set, no?
If gamers want to buy land to protect assets they already purchased or earned in game, i.e. bases and ships, then to each their own. But I sure as shit didn’t see anything in the weekly march to feature creep 4 years ago about purchasing land. And yes, if Battlescape suddenly decided to add swimming pools on planets then it is perfectly well within their rights, but it’s unlikely it will be met with broad support. What’s more, comparing Land sales from a completed game, Shroud of Avatar, is slightly disingenuous given Star Citizen 4 years on isn’t even close to finished and appears to be a sinking ship, especially in lieu of being sued by Crytek.
Hmmm, you’re right. I’m not sure when the land claim started, but I don’t care enough to research. It looks like at least two months prior. So unless this particular money grab was a preemptive money grab, my allusions would be groundless.
Unfortunately for my wild conspiracy theories, I just don’t care.
Spending 1000’s of dollars on digital space-ships, the way people seem to be doing, seems like a much worse addiction to me then gambling.
