While some of us rage against lootboxes others are fine with things like this, in an industry that was supposed to "save us from publishers". Oh well ... hope the game eventually gets made for you investors.
Makes me laugh when I think of some of those other games I spent WAY more on and uninstalled after 15 mins xD
Guess you're not a very wise with your purchases then. Star Citizen would love you as a customer
I am a customer, I spent $35 years ago, are you not reading or taking in what I am saying?
And you're here defending an 850$ jpeg, including future price increases when the jpeg is available in game. As I said, CIG loves these kind of customers. Who wouldn't.
It's ridiculous because it's crowdfunded? I see plenty of crowdfunded games out there, past and present, who made due with what they raised and then built upon the game they released to the public with sales they earned. Not this selling pictures of ships for hundreds to thousands of dollars and constantly begging for more.
They fund how much they need to continue operations that widely agreed it's a cost of millions a month, that needs such continuous funding to ensure dev at this scale, nothing new here.
Just beating the same ol'dead horse, I guess we haven't been having enough drama around so this thread was necessary lol
Why do people say, "You don't have to buy one." Like it's something that never occurred to the other person?
Only rebuttal they have when you bring up the insane price for a picture
It is the only rebuttal needed. This issue is always brought up as if CIG are somehow forcing their customers to pay HUGE amounts of money to scam them and proof of the scam that is Star Citizen and Chris Roberts, when in reality it is usually limited, adds little to the coffers compared to their everyday small sales that constitute pretty much the huge majority of backers.
It's ridiculous because it's crowdfunded? I see plenty of crowdfunded games out there, past and present, who made due with what they raised and then built upon the game they released to the public with sales they earned. Not this selling pictures of ships for hundreds to thousands of dollars and constantly begging for more.
They fund how much they need to continue operations that widely agreed it's a cost of millions a month, that needs such continuous funding to ensure dev at this scale, nothing new here.
Just beating the same ol'dead horse, I guess we haven't been having enough drama around so this thread was necessary lol
Considering the lack of Star Citizen in-game content. The content created outside the game more than makes up for it.
While some of us rage against lootboxes others are fine with things like this, in an industry that was supposed to "save us from publishers". Oh well ... hope the game eventually gets made for you investors.
The 'save from investors' in the gaming industry has proven by a LARGE margin to have worked.
just not for this specific game as of yet
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
- A Publisher would sell an 850$ ship for the sake of profit. - SC sells an 850$ ship to continue to fund their operations on the game dev.
Money goes back into the game dev, instead of it being considered profit, and that is obviously the point here, as SC has a dev team with one upkeep of millions every month.
If people prefer to be ignorant to that to just rage at the company who develops the game fine, but that doesn't change the core flaw in such comparison.
Makes me laugh when I think of some of those other games I spent WAY more on and uninstalled after 15 mins xD
Guess you're not a very wise with your purchases then. Star Citizen would love you as a customer
I am a customer, I spent $35 years ago, are you not reading or taking in what I am saying?
And you're here defending an 850$ jpeg, including future price increases when the jpeg is available in game. As I said, CIG loves these kind of customers. Who wouldn't.
Why would I care if a few others spend that much on the game if it isn't going to affect my game play any? they could sell an entire planet fo.........
Makes me laugh when I think of some of those other games I spent WAY more on and uninstalled after 15 mins xD
Guess you're not a very wise with your purchases then. Star Citizen would love you as a customer
I am a customer, I spent $35 years ago, are you not reading or taking in what I am saying?
And you're here defending an 850$ jpeg, including future price increases when the jpeg is available in game. As I said, CIG loves these kind of customers. Who wouldn't.
Why would I care if a few others spend that much on the game if it isn't going to affect my game play any? they could sell an entire planet fo.........
wooooooaaaaaaahh
I got to write to CR, brb.
Yeah, you really need to tell CR they can sell SC real estate... nothing like that is planned
If you think selling ships for real cash won't affect the game then I don't know what to tell you.
- A Publisher would sell an 850$ ship for the sake of profit. - SC sells an 850$ ship to continue to fund their operations on the game dev.
Money goes back into the game dev, instead of it being considered profit, and that is obviously the point here, as SC has a dev team with one upkeep of millions every month.
If people prefer to be ignorant to that to just rage at the company who develops the game fine, but that doesn't change the core flaw in such comparison.
well fair enough, I was just trying to divert the attention away from ONE game being an example of an entire industry wide model. By suggesting (in effect) that my love of 7 days to die is a failure because of a different game.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Why do people say, "You don't have to buy one." Like it's something that never occurred to the other person?
Only rebuttal they have when you bring up the insane price for a picture
It is the only rebuttal needed. This issue is always brought up as if CIG are somehow forcing their customers to pay HUGE amounts of money to scam them and proof of the scam that is Star Citizen and Chris Roberts, when in reality it is usually limited, adds little to the coffers compared to their everyday small sales that constitute pretty much the huge majority of backers.
Everything a person buys in a game is voluntary and everybody knows that. Just because a person thinks something in game is expensive doesn't imply they feel forced to buy it.
I'm just in awe of an $850.00 ship for sale who's final design and specs are unknown at this point and may not be known for years, is saying this ship is a bargain because you'll have to pay $100 more if you want to wait and see the physical ship and then another $100 if you want to wait to see a working model which may be subjected to reworks.
Apparently a lot of people do think it's worth it and I hope they enjoy their new ship.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Except big publishers get shit on as well so it's not double standards. Big publishers tend to actually realease games first though and then push the crappy revenue models. CIG being true to form is doing it backwards again and pushing the revenue model before the game.
Your argument is pretty ridiculous. Obviously, for any crowdfunded project the revenue model has to come first; because is from that revenue model that development is made possible in the first place. --'
Not for profit, yet to maintain operations. But evil CIG I guess, this dead horse has been beaten for years and years and years, not beaten enough I see.
It's ridiculous because it's crowdfunded? I see plenty of crowdfunded games out there, past and present, who made due with what they raised and then built upon the game they released to the public with sales they earned. Not this selling pictures of ships for hundreds to thousands of dollars and constantly begging for more.
So crowdfunding should be limited because you don't like it when backers want to pledge for what is on offer? Now being as most people only spent a small amount of money on SC (from $20 - 60 ish). What is it you are suggesting? That a company should only be able to raise funds before they start work? what is it that you want exactly? please help
Or maybe, go the route Elite is traveling and build the base game that was originally advertised, using the continued crowdfunding revenue to build upon that.
That would entice me much more to give them money. It's why Elite has my cash, but CIG hasn't received a dime from me, actually.
If Star Citizen was built as originally pitched I don't think they would have ever been able to expand it into the game it is trying to become now, which is why most people were happy to let CIG go for the bigger vision, it looked far more promising as an experience. Since that first push for a larger game they are doing exactly what you are talking about here, it is just taking longer.
Interesting that you have no problem giving money to Elite, I refused to pay the extortionate amount of money for the game and its expansions! How much money did you pay for that to date?! I played the original a lot but couldn't imagine playing that now, I thought about it for the PvP for a short while, right up until I heard that people can just vanish onto their own server if they like?? anyway, I am not here to bash ED, I am more than sure it suits a lot of people just fine.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
I'll take a fun game, if smaller in scope, over lofty promises whose efficacy have yet to be determined.
Why do people say, "You don't have to buy one." Like it's something that never occurred to the other person?
Only rebuttal they have when you bring up the insane price for a picture
It is the only rebuttal needed. This issue is always brought up as if CIG are somehow forcing their customers to pay HUGE amounts of money to scam them and proof of the scam that is Star Citizen and Chris Roberts, when in reality it is usually limited, adds little to the coffers compared to their everyday small sales that constitute pretty much the huge majority of backers.
Everything a person buys in a game is voluntary and everybody know that. Just because a person thinks something in game is expensive doesn't imply they feel forced to buy it.
I'm just in awe of an $850.00 ship for sale who's final design and specs are unknown at this point and may not be known for years is saying this ship is a bargain because you'll have to pay $100 more if you want to wait and see the physical ship and then another $100 if you want to wait to see a working model which may be subjected to reworks.
Apparently a lot of people do think it's worth it and I hope they enjoy their new ship.
I sort of find the whole thing fascinating that more and more people are starting to spend money in the digital world in a way that would previously have been reserved for the physical world and how that isn't a Star Citizen thing, it is a whole new cultural dimension shift thing.
Why do people say, "You don't have to buy one." Like it's something that never occurred to the other person?
Only rebuttal they have when you bring up the insane price for a picture
It is the only rebuttal needed. This issue is always brought up as if CIG are somehow forcing their customers to pay HUGE amounts of money to scam them and proof of the scam that is Star Citizen and Chris Roberts, when in reality it is usually limited, adds little to the coffers compared to their everyday small sales that constitute pretty much the huge majority of backers.
Everything a person buys in a game is voluntary and everybody know that. Just because a person thinks something in game is expensive doesn't imply they feel forced to buy it.
I'm just in awe of an $850.00 ship for sale who's final design and specs are unknown at this point and may not be known for years is saying this ship is a bargain because you'll have to pay $100 more if you want to wait and see the physical ship and then another $100 if you want to wait to see a working model which may be subjected to reworks.
Apparently a lot of people do think it's worth it and I hope they enjoy their new ship.
I sort of find the whole thing fascinating that more and more people are starting to spend money in the digital world in a way that would previously have been reserved for the physical world and how that isn't a Star Citizen thing, it is a whole new cultural dimension shift thing.
I wasn't aware of a large market for taking money for things you don't get to view, at the very least, nailed down specifications for, prior to purchase.
Does Wal-Mart carry TVs whose designs aren't even determined yet? I must've missed those last time I was there.
Why do people say, "You don't have to buy one." Like it's something that never occurred to the other person?
Only rebuttal they have when you bring up the insane price for a picture
It is the only rebuttal needed. This issue is always brought up as if CIG are somehow forcing their customers to pay HUGE amounts of money to scam them and proof of the scam that is Star Citizen and Chris Roberts, when in reality it is usually limited, adds little to the coffers compared to their everyday small sales that constitute pretty much the huge majority of backers.
Everything a person buys in a game is voluntary and everybody know that. Just because a person thinks something in game is expensive doesn't imply they feel forced to buy it.
I'm just in awe of an $850.00 ship for sale who's final design and specs are unknown at this point and may not be known for years is saying this ship is a bargain because you'll have to pay $100 more if you want to wait and see the physical ship and then another $100 if you want to wait to see a working model which may be subjected to reworks.
Apparently a lot of people do think it's worth it and I hope they enjoy their new ship.
I sort of find the whole thing fascinating that more and more people are starting to spend money in the digital world in a way that would previously have been reserved for the physical world and how that isn't a Star Citizen thing, it is a whole new cultural dimension shift thing.
I wasn't aware of a large market for taking money for things you don't get to view, at the very least, nailed down specifications for, prior to purchase.
Does Wal-Mart carry TVs whose designs aren't even determined yet? I must've missed those last time I was there.
spoken like a man who has never witnessed bargain hunters storage wars!
Why do people say, "You don't have to buy one." Like it's something that never occurred to the other person?
Only rebuttal they have when you bring up the insane price for a picture
It is the only rebuttal needed. This issue is always brought up as if CIG are somehow forcing their customers to pay HUGE amounts of money to scam them and proof of the scam that is Star Citizen and Chris Roberts, when in reality it is usually limited, adds little to the coffers compared to their everyday small sales that constitute pretty much the huge majority of backers.
Everything a person buys in a game is voluntary and everybody know that. Just because a person thinks something in game is expensive doesn't imply they feel forced to buy it.
I'm just in awe of an $850.00 ship for sale who's final design and specs are unknown at this point and may not be known for years is saying this ship is a bargain because you'll have to pay $100 more if you want to wait and see the physical ship and then another $100 if you want to wait to see a working model which may be subjected to reworks.
Apparently a lot of people do think it's worth it and I hope they enjoy their new ship.
I sort of find the whole thing fascinating that more and more people are starting to spend money in the digital world in a way that would previously have been reserved for the physical world and how that isn't a Star Citizen thing, it is a whole new cultural dimension shift thing.
I wasn't aware of a large market for taking money for things you don't get to view, at the very least, nailed down specifications for, prior to purchase.
Does Wal-Mart carry TVs whose designs aren't even determined yet? I must've missed those last time I was there.
first off all I dont see it as a purchase but rather a donation. Second off, why do people always get so outraged at the OPTION of not buying something?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Why do people say, "You don't have to buy one." Like it's something that never occurred to the other person?
Only rebuttal they have when you bring up the insane price for a picture
It is the only rebuttal needed. This issue is always brought up as if CIG are somehow forcing their customers to pay HUGE amounts of money to scam them and proof of the scam that is Star Citizen and Chris Roberts, when in reality it is usually limited, adds little to the coffers compared to their everyday small sales that constitute pretty much the huge majority of backers.
Everything a person buys in a game is voluntary and everybody know that. Just because a person thinks something in game is expensive doesn't imply they feel forced to buy it.
I'm just in awe of an $850.00 ship for sale who's final design and specs are unknown at this point and may not be known for years is saying this ship is a bargain because you'll have to pay $100 more if you want to wait and see the physical ship and then another $100 if you want to wait to see a working model which may be subjected to reworks.
Apparently a lot of people do think it's worth it and I hope they enjoy their new ship.
I sort of find the whole thing fascinating that more and more people are starting to spend money in the digital world in a way that would previously have been reserved for the physical world and how that isn't a Star Citizen thing, it is a whole new cultural dimension shift thing.
I agree, people have rented apartments bought houses and cars based on internet transactions alone. Ebay carries a lot of that stuff for example.
I heard CR use to sell cars. It would explain the preorder focus and the attention to car brochure like detail.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Why do people say, "You don't have to buy one." Like it's something that never occurred to the other person?
Only rebuttal they have when you bring up the insane price for a picture
It is the only rebuttal needed. This issue is always brought up as if CIG are somehow forcing their customers to pay HUGE amounts of money to scam them and proof of the scam that is Star Citizen and Chris Roberts, when in reality it is usually limited, adds little to the coffers compared to their everyday small sales that constitute pretty much the huge majority of backers.
Everything a person buys in a game is voluntary and everybody know that. Just because a person thinks something in game is expensive doesn't imply they feel forced to buy it.
I'm just in awe of an $850.00 ship for sale who's final design and specs are unknown at this point and may not be known for years is saying this ship is a bargain because you'll have to pay $100 more if you want to wait and see the physical ship and then another $100 if you want to wait to see a working model which may be subjected to reworks.
Apparently a lot of people do think it's worth it and I hope they enjoy their new ship.
I sort of find the whole thing fascinating that more and more people are starting to spend money in the digital world in a way that would previously have been reserved for the physical world and how that isn't a Star Citizen thing, it is a whole new cultural dimension shift thing.
I agree, people have rented apartments bought houses and cars based on internet transactions alone. Ebay carries a lot of that stuff for example.
I heard CR use to sell cars. It would explain the preorder focus and the attention to car brochure like detail.
and what is the point of the analogy in the first place? Why does it even matter either way, I have no problem with the option of just not buying something I see as a rip off, walmart or not
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Why would I care if a few others spend that much on the game if it isn't going to affect my game play any?
Maybe you will care when they blow up your tiny $35 ship and your cargo you worked all morning for.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
Why would I care if a few others spend that much on the game if it isn't going to affect my game play any?
Maybe you will care when they blow up your tiny $35 ship and your cargo you worked all morning for.
so we should reduce game mechanics to the lowest level of intelligence out there becasue he didnt know what he was getting into? we need everyone to stay in the same safe space created because of that possibility?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Maybe you will care when they blow up your tiny $35 ship and your cargo you worked all morning for.
You'll not be flying ships around without insurance; if anything pirates who steal other player's ships will have a real hard time ensuring those ships. At the lower end, you'll lose your cargo sure, upgrades as well, it's not about a permanent loss of a ship.
Why do people say, "You don't have to buy one." Like it's something that never occurred to the other person?
Only rebuttal they have when you bring up the insane price for a picture
It is the only rebuttal needed. This issue is always brought up as if CIG are somehow forcing their customers to pay HUGE amounts of money to scam them and proof of the scam that is Star Citizen and Chris Roberts, when in reality it is usually limited, adds little to the coffers compared to their everyday small sales that constitute pretty much the huge majority of backers.
Everything a person buys in a game is voluntary and everybody know that. Just because a person thinks something in game is expensive doesn't imply they feel forced to buy it.
I'm just in awe of an $850.00 ship for sale who's final design and specs are unknown at this point and may not be known for years is saying this ship is a bargain because you'll have to pay $100 more if you want to wait and see the physical ship and then another $100 if you want to wait to see a working model which may be subjected to reworks.
Apparently a lot of people do think it's worth it and I hope they enjoy their new ship.
I sort of find the whole thing fascinating that more and more people are starting to spend money in the digital world in a way that would previously have been reserved for the physical world and how that isn't a Star Citizen thing, it is a whole new cultural dimension shift thing.
I agree, people have rented apartments bought houses and cars based on internet transactions alone. Ebay carries a lot of that stuff for example.
I heard CR use to sell cars. It would explain the preorder focus and the attention to car brochure like detail.
I am more thinking of people viewing digital items, that will always remain digital as assets. Crypto currencies as an example and moving on to things like second life where people have jobs in game to design digital assets that they sell and make their living out of, I guess you could include things you talk about where people trade items without ever handling them. High status that many people seek can now be achieved solely within a digital profile, this is culturally relatively new and developing. I guess this is a bit too OT.
Now - I dont know much about Star Citizen. I remember reading about it some years ago and it sounded fascinating and all that. But... (#Looks into it a little)
850$ for a ship in a game that is not released sounds just absurd. I mean... the game literally doesn't exist. Like others here say, it's a JPEG of a promise.
It is widely known that people pay high prices for stuff in-games, legally or illegally acquiring something they want. But this... It's not even a sketchy deal of buying virtual currency on some against-the-rules 3rd party website. This is literally equivalent of giving your money to a stranger that promises to pay you back with interest, 'some day soon'.
NOW! OKAY! This is a funding thing, right? You pay that amount for a limited ship in a game that doesn't exist, not for the ship - but because you want to support the project, right? I get it.
Well..... except....
They started developing the game in 2011. They started crowdfunding campaign in 2012, asking for2 000 000$, for initial planned release in 2014. The campaign was highly successful and surpassed the goal and stretch goals and the like. All in all - they got apparently nearly 40 000 000$ out of kickstarter.
Good so far, yeah?
Except... it's 2017. And they have gotten about 150 000 000$ by now. Thats 75x the amount of what they asked! And it's 3 years after the initial game is supposed to be released.
"Yea, but hey.... they got such a great response at first, they just wanted to make even better game for us backers!"
Am I right?
They just got so much money, they were not happy with their initial 'dream' for a game, so they went on to dream bigger, scrap the project and start from the beginning, right? 5 years ago, right? They are spending MILLIONS A MONTH on DEVELOPMENT to sell you more and more high-poly models of awesome capital ships and stuff that they will eventually put in the game, and you will enjoy the game YOU FUNDED, for MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION in a ship you spent 850$ for that's limited and awesome... in a game that's TOTALLY NOT PAY 2 WIN!
RIGHT?!
This Robert dude is a freaking genius. Dude was a designer, programmer. Created 'Starlancer' together with a bunch of other dudes and have been milking that space dream ever since.
At very least, you got some guy that's way over-achieving and just plain bad with planning a development cycle. And money.
They got way more money than they asked. The game is way over-due. And in all of this crowd-funding hype and pre-alpha releases, they don't even let their backers touch the game.
The "making it EVEN BETTER" talk is just bunch of BS. They had their base for a game. Their original backers backed a specific idea that they promoted. And now all of you got nothing to show for it, 5 years later. Because some dude called Robert likes to dream big, and likes to change his mind when he sees the $-$ signs in his eyes.
This reminds me one of these Harry Potter forums where everyone is in a big bubble, posting images and stories of their fantasies, saying "HOGWARTS IS REAL! Soon we'll get there!"
Let me leave you with some quotes from wiki.
Freelancer is a space trading and combat simulationvideo game developed by Digital Anvil and published by Microsoft Game Studios. It is a chronological sequel to Digital Anvil's Starlancer, a combat flight simulator released in 2000. The game was initially announced by Chris Roberts in 1999, and following many production schedule mishaps and a buyout of Digital Anvil by Microsoft, it was eventually released in March 2003.
In June 2000, Microsoft started talks to buy Digital Anvil. Roberts admitted that his team required large sums of money, which only a huge company could provide, to continue developing Freelancer with its "wildly ambitious" features and unpredictable schedule; the project had overshot its original development projection of three years by 18 months. Roberts trusted that Microsoft would not compromise his vision for Freelancer, and was convinced the software giant would not attempt the takeover if it did not believe Freelancer could sell at least 500,000 copies when released.[38] Roberts left the company on completion of the deal, but assumed a creative consultant role on Freelancer until its release. Microsoft instructed Digital Anvil to scale down the ambitions of the project and focus on finishing the game based on what was possible and the team's strengths.
Star Citizenand Squadron 42 are produced by Chris Roberts' company Cloud Imperium Games and its European counterpart Foundry 42 and marketed under the Cloud Imperium Games subsidiary Roberts Space Industries. Game development is financed by a record-breaking crowdfunding campaign. Development began in 2011.[3] Originally planned for a release in 2014, and again in 2016, there is as of 2017 no official release date, and the game is still in active development. Squadron 42 was originally announced for a late 2015 release, but was delayed. As of August 2017, the game's website lists 2017 for release.
I am more thinking of people viewing digital items, that will always remain digital as assets. Crypto currencies as an example and moving on to things like second life where people have jobs in game to design digital assets that they sell and make their living out of, I guess you could include things you talk about where people trade items without ever handling them. High status that many people seek can now be achieved solely with a digital profile, this is culturally relatively new and developing. I guess this is a bit too OT.
yes...and the questions you illustrate so well I find very interesting. I also see huge opportunities here for everyone involved if done correctly.
It does ask a core question, can a virtual world as it is now, be just as emotional rewarding as the real world? If the value exchange between the real world and how its done in the virtual world become similar well then given the enormous amount of importance we give to real life value exchange it only suggests that yes, virtual world is just as compelling. OR that many of the things we value in exchange in the real world are really just 'real life' visualizations. like vanity
very compelling questions.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
As I said, CIG loves these kind of customers.
Who wouldn't.
..Cake..
Just beating the same ol'dead horse, I guess we haven't been having enough drama around so this thread was necessary lol
..Cake..
just not for this specific game as of yet
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
- A Publisher would sell an 850$ ship for the sake of profit.
- SC sells an 850$ ship to continue to fund their operations on the game dev.
Money goes back into the game dev, instead of it being considered profit, and that is obviously the point here, as SC has a dev team with one upkeep of millions every month.
If people prefer to be ignorant to that to just rage at the company who develops the game fine, but that doesn't change the core flaw in such comparison.
wooooooaaaaaaahh
I got to write to CR, brb.
If you think selling ships for real cash won't affect the game then I don't know what to tell you.
..Cake..
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I'm just in awe of an $850.00 ship for sale who's final design and specs are unknown at this point and may not be known for years, is saying this ship is a bargain because you'll have to pay $100 more if you want to wait and see the physical ship and then another $100 if you want to wait to see a working model which may be subjected to reworks.
Apparently a lot of people do think it's worth it and I hope they enjoy their new ship.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I'll take a fun game, if smaller in scope, over lofty promises whose efficacy have yet to be determined.
Does Wal-Mart carry TVs whose designs aren't even determined yet? I must've missed those last time I was there.
Second off, why do people always get so outraged at the OPTION of not buying something?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I heard CR use to sell cars. It would explain the preorder focus and the attention to car brochure like detail.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
(#Looks into it a little)
850$ for a ship in a game that is not released sounds just absurd.
I mean... the game literally doesn't exist. Like others here say, it's a JPEG of a promise.
It is widely known that people pay high prices for stuff in-games, legally or illegally acquiring something they want. But this... It's not even a sketchy deal of buying virtual currency on some against-the-rules 3rd party website.
This is literally equivalent of giving your money to a stranger that promises to pay you back with interest, 'some day soon'.
NOW! OKAY!
This is a funding thing, right? You pay that amount for a limited ship in a game that doesn't exist, not for the ship - but because you want to support the project, right? I get it.
Well..... except....
They started developing the game in 2011.
They started crowdfunding campaign in 2012, asking for 2 000 000$, for initial planned release in 2014.
The campaign was highly successful and surpassed the goal and stretch goals and the like. All in all - they got apparently nearly 40 000 000$ out of kickstarter.
Good so far, yeah?
Except... it's 2017. And they have gotten about 150 000 000$ by now.
Thats 75x the amount of what they asked! And it's 3 years after the initial game is supposed to be released.
"Yea, but hey.... they got such a great response at first, they just wanted to make even better game for us backers!"
Am I right?
They just got so much money, they were not happy with their initial 'dream' for a game, so they went on to dream bigger, scrap the project and start from the beginning, right? 5 years ago, right?
They are spending MILLIONS A MONTH on DEVELOPMENT to sell you more and more high-poly models of awesome capital ships and stuff that they will eventually put in the game, and you will enjoy the game YOU FUNDED, for MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION in a ship you spent 850$ for that's limited and awesome... in a game that's TOTALLY NOT PAY 2 WIN!
RIGHT?!
This Robert dude is a freaking genius.
Dude was a designer, programmer. Created 'Starlancer' together with a bunch of other dudes and have been milking that space dream ever since.
At very least, you got some guy that's way over-achieving and just plain bad with planning a development cycle. And money.
They got way more money than they asked. The game is way over-due. And in all of this crowd-funding hype and pre-alpha releases, they don't even let their backers touch the game.
The "making it EVEN BETTER" talk is just bunch of BS.
They had their base for a game.
Their original backers backed a specific idea that they promoted. And now all of you got nothing to show for it, 5 years later. Because some dude called Robert likes to dream big, and likes to change his mind when he sees the $-$ signs in his eyes.
This reminds me one of these Harry Potter forums where everyone is in a big bubble, posting images and stories of their fantasies, saying "HOGWARTS IS REAL! Soon we'll get there!"
Let me leave you with some quotes from wiki.
In June 2000, Microsoft started talks to buy Digital Anvil. Roberts admitted that his team required large sums of money, which only a huge company could provide, to continue developing Freelancer with its "wildly ambitious" features and unpredictable schedule; the project had overshot its original development projection of three years by 18 months. Roberts trusted that Microsoft would not compromise his vision for Freelancer, and was convinced the software giant would not attempt the takeover if it did not believe Freelancer could sell at least 500,000 copies when released.[38] Roberts left the company on completion of the deal, but assumed a creative consultant role on Freelancer until its release.
Microsoft instructed Digital Anvil to scale down the ambitions of the project and focus on finishing the game based on what was possible and the team's strengths.
Development began in 2011.[3] Originally planned for a release in 2014, and again in 2016, there is as of 2017 no official release date, and the game is still in active development. Squadron 42 was originally announced for a late 2015 release, but was delayed. As of August 2017, the game's website lists 2017 for release.
It does ask a core question, can a virtual world as it is now, be just as emotional rewarding as the real world? If the value exchange between the real world and how its done in the virtual world become similar well then given the enormous amount of importance we give to real life value exchange it only suggests that yes, virtual world is just as compelling. OR that many of the things we value in exchange in the real world are really just 'real life' visualizations. like vanity
very compelling questions.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me