It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
SBFord said:Because you're not the target demographic. We're talking the pre-teen / teen crowd. The rest of us are geezers.I can't, for the life of me, understand why folks would spend any significant amount of time watching streamers just play games.Jean-Luc_Picard said:Streamers and before that fan sites getting advantages predates "F2P".
And I'm not defending streamers, in my opinion most if not all of them on Twitch and Youtube are immature young adults with attention seeking problems and inflated egos who should find something better to do with their life.
Those streaming about alpha gameplay ala Pantheon streams are understandable, since the streamer has exclusive access to a game's development. And I guess I could see briefly watching a stream to get a feel for gameplay prior to purchase (though YouTube videos seem much better suited to this). But to spend significant amounts of time watching another player stream them playing the game I can boot up and experience myself? What?
It's utterly pointless to go off of words before we see any gameplay evidence. My original post asserted that neither side had any real convincing evidence to say what this game will eventually be like.It is utterly pointless asserting assumptions on possibilities. My post is based on known information as opposed to wild guesses and wishful thinking not 'it's to early to tell'. If you want to make an argument that reads like 'despite CIG's best intentions, Star citizen may end up as a trojan horse and spark off world war 3', be my guest, I won't be joining any of you.And yet, all of this has been hashed over in other games in development, too. You're attempting to submit "yea, it's too early to tell, so my interpretation must be right." That's not sound logic.I don't see the point in making predictions based on anything except the information we know so far. I am not exactly sure what it is people think can be dominated by paying for things. The economy is AI flooded with dev oversight, PvP will be optional and have a matchmaking system so PvP encounters are not hugely one sided. As I have stated before, after a while you won't know who has done what anyway.You could certainly assert it won't intentionally be so based upon Chris and Co.'s statements, but it's a tough balancing act between ensuring the ships bought now don't enable those players to dictate the game world and making those same ships seem worth the price you're charging for them now. Hell hath no fury like a backer scorned.
A large ship will always be useful for a large guild, there does not have to be any PvP involved for that to be correct. So what are people going to be mad about exactly?
If you want to assert it's too early to tell, then stop trying to assert why it won't be in the next breath. The information we know so far is simply the developer's intent. I made note of that. Unfortunately, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And beyond that, most devs have nothing but good intent in designing gameplay systems that are fair. Doesn't always go as planned, so unless you wanna continue arguing something you have no real gameplay evidence to support it with, how about you lose the last part of your post and simply say "it's too early to tell"?
As Jean mentioned, it's a non-dynamic form of entertainment. You can enjoy it and ponder the themes internally or with friends, but none of that is going to change the ending to American History X. You won't change a single second of it, actually. You have no input in the entertainment piece presented other than selecting which title you choose to watch.Sovrath said:Maybe that's the thing, it can be "active". I was discussing this with a friend of mine as we've seen others say that "TV" or watching movies isn't active. For us it is. Not only active "internally" but very social as well.I don't actively antagonize folks who watch them. Just don't understand the appeal.
Then again, aside from sports and watching things with the girlfriend, I don't watch TV in general, either.
I prefer actively participating in my entertainment.
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.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.Octagon7711 said: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.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.Kefo said:Only rebuttal they have when you bring up the insane price for a pictureOctagon7711 said:Why do people say, "You don't have to buy one." Like it's something that never occurred to the other person?
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.