144 million? Are you people seriously insane? I imagine the employees are having one heckuva party with all this money....Im still waiting for the announcement that they have bought their own island.
Star Citizen Backers have passed the 152 (almost 153) million dollar mark over the weekend. (152,935,673 $)
Number of "Star Citizens" is currently at 1,831,858
(up from 1,819,266 ... + 12,592 since the 151 million mark)
Number of "UEE Fleet": 1,320,329
(up from 1,278,049 .... + 42,280 since the 151 million mark)
Noteworthy was the introduction of the NOX speeder bike of Xian manufacturing style. A vehicle that is clearly very popular with the Star Citizen backers (see the jump in UEE Fleet numbers).
Star Citizen has become "Too big to fail." and constantly needs to be bailed out by its followers until a product is released. The quality of the product doesn't matter, nor do they need to justify spending so much money to produce it, it just has to release.
Number of "Star Citizens" is currently at 1,855,132
(up from 1,841,163 ... + 13.969 since the 154 million mark)
Number of "UEE Fleet": 1,362,886
(up from 1,330,267 .... + 32.619 since the 154 million mark)
Noteworthy
was the new ground combat vehicle and the devs and community together creating star systems with the available tools. Bugs are being burned down for Alpha 3.0 in impressive numbers.
Well assuming the numbers are around the same in terms of "pledges" for aug-dec then CIG is on track to make around 2% less this year then last year (roughly $643,390) which would keep the trending going in the negative.
So looking at this, if each of those 14,000 new accounts bought a $45 package they account for $630,000 leaving $1,370,000 coming from the remaining 18,619 ships sold, for an average of $73.60
Well assuming the numbers are around the same in terms of "pledges" for aug-dec then CIG is on track to make around 2% less this year then last year (roughly $643,390) which would keep the trending going in the negative.
To put it into perspective:
around 2 % less after 4.5 years ....
and still significantly more successful than most other crowdfunding video game projects in their whole crowdfunding campaign period ....
e.g. in 2017
Phönix Point $765,948 Banner Saga 3 $416,986 Sunless Skies £377,952
Well assuming the numbers are around the same in terms of "pledges" for aug-dec then CIG is on track to make around 2% less this year then last year (roughly $643,390) which would keep the trending going in the negative.
To put it into perspective:
around 2 % less after 4.5 years ....
and still significantly more successful than most other crowdfunding video game projects in their whole crowdfunding campaign period ....
e.g. in 2017
Phönix Point $765,948 Banner Saga 3 $416,986 Sunless Skies £377,952
My point was that their total amount is in decline. Of course I was just extrapolating data from previous years to estimate the remaining time in this year so that 2% less could turn into a positive or get worse.
Youre trying to cloud the facts with data that doesn't have any relevancy to what I said. Great they raised so much more then other games but the money train is showing signs of slowing so far
It'd be kinda weird of SC's revenue stream wasn't slowing down. Revenue almost always slows down for any game as it gets older. The biggest burst of revenue is at the start for most things. After that, you won't see as many people buying simply because most people who wanted to buy in already have. In SC's case, there's only so many ships each individual person can buy before they've reached their personal limit. And there's the normal attrition that should be expected too of course.
Of course, the whole point of the cash influx in the first place is supposed to fund the game. And as time goes by, more money gets used. By that point though there isn't enough data to come to anything really conclusive about Star Ocean because we neither know how much it's spending over time and we DEFINITELY don't know when the darn thing will ever be released. Certainly they probably (hopefully Oo) have enough money to go a long while but when they can't even give an accurate estimate of their latest alpha build more than a month in advance, asking for an accurate estimate of the game release is foolishness.
Once/if they make it to launch, game sales would be able to pick up the funding pace again. Assuming the game is good (or just plain monetized "well", at least).
I wish I could see the rate they're spending their funders' money. That'd probably be a more valuable metric and thus more useful for a transparency display that people could actually use, if only because it's something that the people behind SC actually KNOW, rather than time estimates that keep getting proven wrong. Really, some people keep saying SC is the most transparent game development ever but it's all so meaningless if that transparency is too inaccurate to really gauge much. Meanwhile, the useage normally used for transparency in regards to what's typically used to gauge the on-going capabilities of a business project aren't there (the financials. I'm an accountant so constantly seeing "transparency" thrown around when there's very little financial transparency and when THAT kind of transparency is like, the most important thing to gauging a company's health is rather vexing).
So looking at this, if each of those 14,000 new accounts bought a $45 package they account for $630,000 leaving $1,370,000 coming from the remaining 18,619 ships sold, for an average of $73.60
That's number of registered accounts. Registering an account is free, and CIG hasn't released any official information on how many of those accounts are paying.
It'd be kinda weird of SC's revenue stream wasn't slowing down. Revenue almost always slows down for any game as it gets older. The biggest burst of revenue is at the start for most things. After that, you won't see as many people buying simply because most people who wanted to buy in already have. In SC's case, there's only so many ships each individual person can buy before they've reached their personal limit. And there's the normal attrition that should be expected too of course.
Yeah this is what I find silly of that discussion. Even though I expected the funding to slow down compared to past years since 2015, it still outperformed itself and shows stability.
But what you said is what happens, there's only so much some buy, just because there are twice the backers as years ago doesn't mean they should fund twice as much money per month, that limit is what results in the stability we see.
As with SC as with any game, released or in-dev. The biggest funding peaks as it shows is the release of the game, especially on the SC case where so many do not want to buy in early access and are waiting before buying in.
Each year has been performing slightly better than the previous, we're to see how 2017 plays out, especially Alpha 3.0, its reception and the impact it will have.
Comments
Number of "Star Citizens" is currently at 1,764,823
(up from 1,752,618 .... + 12,205 since the 144 million mark)
Number of "UEE Fleet": 1,231918
(up from 1,224,247 .... + 7671 since the 144 million mark)
Noteworthy was the iPAX East Free Fly Event with the Sabre interceptor as the available vehicle.
Have fun
Number of "Star Citizens" is currently at 1,774,786
(up from 1,764,823 .... + 9963 since the 145 million mark)
Number of "UEE Fleet": 1,242,504
(up from 1,231,918 .... + 10,586 since the 145 million mark)
Noteworthy was the release of patch Alpha 2.6.2 and the flight ready Drake Bucaneer.
Have fun
Number of "Star Citizens" is currently at 1,791,343
(up from 1,774,786.... + 16,557 since the 146 million mark)
Number of "UEE Fleet": 1,253,778
(up from 1,242,504 .... + 11,274 since the 146 million mark)
Noteworthy was the release of the production schedule for Alpha 3.0 and the new Banu Defender multi-crew fighter.
Have fun
Number of "Star Citizens" is currently at 1,796,567
(up from 1,791,343.... + 5224 since the 147 million mark)
Number of "UEE Fleet": 1,258,237
(up from 1,253,778 .... + 4459 since the 147 million mark)
Noteworthy was the release of the production schedule for Alpha 3.0 and the new Banu Defender multi-crew fighter.
Have fun
Number of "Star Citizens" is currently at 1,809,238
(up from 1,796,567.... + 12,671 since the 148 million mark)
Have fun
Number of "Star Citizens" is currently at 1,811,612
(up from 1,809,238.... + 2374 since the 149 million mark)
Noteworthy was the release of the Aegis Eclipse Stealth Bomber.Have fun
Number of "Star Citizens" is currently at 1,819,266
(up from 1,811,612.... + 7654 since the 150 million mark)
Number of "UEE Fleet": 1,278,049
(up from 1,258,237 .... + 19,812 since the 148 million mark)
(the UEE counter had a glitch during the 149 and 150 million marks)
Noteworthy was the large number of excellent fan made videos recently using the "Directors Tools" of Star Citizen.Have fun
Number of "Star Citizens" is currently at 1,831,858
(up from 1,819,266 ... + 12,592 since the 151 million mark)
Number of "UEE Fleet": 1,320,329
(up from 1,278,049 .... + 42,280 since the 151 million mark)
Noteworthy was the introduction of the NOX speeder bike of Xian manufacturing style. A vehicle that is clearly very popular with the Star Citizen backers (see the jump in UEE Fleet numbers).Have fun
Number of "Star Citizens" is currently at 1,832,311
(up from 1,831,858 ... + 453 since the 152.94 million mark)
Number of "UEE Fleet": 1,321,686
(up from 1,320,329 .... + 1357 since the 152.94 million mark)
Noteworthy was the HUGE interest in the NOX speeder bike - raising the crowdfunding level by almost 2 million in only a few days.Have fun
Edit: Thanks for the clarification @Erillion
Congrats all, always nice to ding on another million
Is it not in the very nature of crowdfunding projects that the backers enable the release of a product with the money they contribute?
Have fun
Number of "Star Citizens" is currently at 1,841,163
(up from 1,831,858 ... + 9305 since the 153 million mark)
Number of "UEE Fleet": 1,330,267
(up from 1,320,329 .... + 9938since the 153 million mark)
Noteworthy was the impressive first look at derelict ships and their exploration as part of the mission system. Alpha 3.0 is around the corner.Have fun
I missed when they went past 155 M$, but the numbers are here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI/edit#gid=1694467207
Number of "Star Citizens" is currently at 1,855,132
(up from 1,841,163 ... + 13.969 since the 154 million mark)
Number of "UEE Fleet": 1,362,886
(up from 1,330,267 .... + 32.619 since the 154 million mark)
Noteworthy was the new ground combat vehicle and the devs and community together creating star systems with the available tools. Bugs are being burned down for Alpha 3.0 in impressive numbers.Have fun
So looking at this, if each of those 14,000 new accounts bought a $45 package they account for $630,000 leaving $1,370,000 coming from the remaining 18,619 ships sold, for an average of $73.60
around 2 % less after 4.5 years ....
and still significantly more successful than most other crowdfunding video game projects in their whole crowdfunding campaign period ....
e.g. in 2017
Phönix Point $765,948
Banner Saga 3 $416,986
Sunless Skies £377,952
exception: Pillars of Eternity II $4,705,524
(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_crowdfunding_projects )
Have fun
Youre trying to cloud the facts with data that doesn't have any relevancy to what I said. Great they raised so much more then other games but the money train is showing signs of slowing so far
Of course, the whole point of the cash influx in the first place is supposed to fund the game. And as time goes by, more money gets used. By that point though there isn't enough data to come to anything really conclusive about Star Ocean because we neither know how much it's spending over time and we DEFINITELY don't know when the darn thing will ever be released. Certainly they probably (hopefully Oo) have enough money to go a long while but when they can't even give an accurate estimate of their latest alpha build more than a month in advance, asking for an accurate estimate of the game release is foolishness.
Once/if they make it to launch, game sales would be able to pick up the funding pace again. Assuming the game is good (or just plain monetized "well", at least).
I wish I could see the rate they're spending their funders' money. That'd probably be a more valuable metric and thus more useful for a transparency display that people could actually use, if only because it's something that the people behind SC actually KNOW, rather than time estimates that keep getting proven wrong. Really, some people keep saying SC is the most transparent game development ever but it's all so meaningless if that transparency is too inaccurate to really gauge much. Meanwhile, the useage normally used for transparency in regards to what's typically used to gauge the on-going capabilities of a business project aren't there (the financials. I'm an accountant so constantly seeing "transparency" thrown around when there's very little financial transparency and when THAT kind of transparency is like, the most important thing to gauging a company's health is rather vexing).
Also the "Ships sold" number for Star Citizen likely only counts addon ships sold, not those sold together with a game package:
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/3194283/#Comment_3194283
But what you said is what happens, there's only so much some buy, just because there are twice the backers as years ago doesn't mean they should fund twice as much money per month, that limit is what results in the stability we see.
As with SC as with any game, released or in-dev. The biggest funding peaks as it shows is the release of the game, especially on the SC case where so many do not want to buy in early access and are waiting before buying in.
Each year has been performing slightly better than the previous, we're to see how 2017 plays out, especially Alpha 3.0, its reception and the impact it will have.