PDA

View Full Version : 'Star Citizen' Released



Blah64
03-21-15, 12:30 PM
The base of what they call 'Star Citizen' was just released.

It is not the 'full' game, but it is supposed to be the base upon which all the other modules should be added to and integrated with (I think). Either way, they are brave enough to call this thing 'Star Citizen' itself, instead of just a 'module' like 'Arena Commander' was.

I checked it out, and I realized how very prettiful the thing is. I didn't donate an absurd amount (poor Muddog), so I am excited for it because even if it turns out to be nothing more than space porn, I will still be satisfied since it is just beautiful.

I think this game will actually motivate me to build a new PC. I have had no reason to stop using my 5 year old laptop since it has played everything just fine before.

maximusboomus
03-21-15, 03:22 PM
The base of what they call 'Star Citizen' was just released.

It is not the 'full' game, but it is supposed to be the base upon which all the other modules should be added to and integrated with (I think). Either way, they are brave enough to call this thing 'Star Citizen' itself, instead of just a 'module' like 'Arena Commander' was.

I checked it out, and I realized how very prettiful the thing is. I didn't donate an absurd amount (poor Muddog), so I am excited for it because even if it turns out to be nothing more than space porn, I will still be satisfied since it is just beautiful.

I think this game will actually motivate me to build a new PC. I have had no reason to stop using my 5 year old laptop since it has played everything just fine before.
Is it a reinstall or a full install needed? I haven't played it for 4-5mths...

grayman
03-21-15, 03:31 PM
Is it a reinstall or a full install needed? I haven't played it for 4-5mths...

They're strongly recommending a full install. And the download is 56gb or something huge like that. I uninstalled mine last night and I'm going to do a download overnight tonight.

salty99
03-21-15, 03:50 PM
I've been wanting to get in on this for a while. I've been following development but haven't donated or purchased anything.

Is it in a state where you buy or pre-order the game, or are people still donating at a certain price point for the level of content you want

maximusboomus
03-21-15, 03:58 PM
I've been wanting to get in on this for a while. I've been following development but haven't donated or purchased anything.

Is it in a state where you buy or pre-order the game, or are people still donating at a certain price point for the level of content you want
This.

The downloads are so massive I haven't yet attempted to play it for more than 20mins.

56GB will eat up a ton of space... And bandwidth.

Kanati
03-23-15, 05:02 PM
I've been eyeballing this for a long time... right up to the point where I just read that they've taken in over 75 million dollars in backing and yet still want to release ridicu-spensive DLC shit. They have a ship you can buy for 275 DOLLARS. That's a car payment for some people.

They can officially go fux themselves.

GrandMasterGuess
03-23-15, 05:09 PM
I have a $100 gifted to me. The 56 GB download will take me a week 24/7! I'll probably buy a ship in the $50-$75 range.

maximusboomus
03-23-15, 05:12 PM
I picked up this guy... https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/ships/aegis-avenger/Avenger

BuddyLee.
03-23-15, 05:17 PM
Its not close to done.

BL

grayman
03-23-15, 05:24 PM
I've been eyeballing this for a long time... right up to the point where I just read that they've taken in over 75 million dollars in backing and yet still want to release ridicu-spensive DLC shit. They have a ship you can buy for 275 DOLLARS. That's a car payment for some people.

They can officially go fux themselves.

As long as they keep to their business plan the money will go to developing more of the game in the future.

Also you don't have to spend real money to get those ships once the game launches. You can buy all of these ships with fake game money once the actual game is live.

And you won't have to buy DLCs when the expand the universe to more systems.

The $300 ship packages are for two types of people, the impatient people and the people who want to contribute to the development of this game. Most of the second type of people are also "subscribers" meaning they pay a monthly fee to fund content like "10 for the chairman" and a monthly news letter as well as some other perks that only they get.

You can get the base game with a ship for something like $50-$60. So stop crying. ;)

rush2049
03-23-15, 05:44 PM
As long as they keep to their business plan the money will go to developing more of the game in the future.

Also you don't have to spend real money to get those ships once the game launches. You can buy all of these ships with fake game money once the actual game is live.

And you won't have to buy DLCs when the expand the universe to more systems.

The $300 ship packages are for two types of people, the impatient people and the people who want to contribute to the development of this game. Most of the second type of people are also "subscribers" meaning they pay a monthly fee to fund content like "10 for the chairman" and a monthly news letter as well as some other perks that only they get.

You can get the base game with a ship for something like $50-$60. So stop crying. ;)

Yup, I agree 100%. Stop crying Kanati.

The prices of the ships are really just an extended in-development support contribution. Think of them like kickstarter rewards, sure only 40-60$ gets you the most basic ship and access to the released game (when it is done in 2016+). Or if you want to, you can buy a better starting ship for the game. All the ships are purchasable in game for not much game money.

The thing that I think is the best part of the purchasable packages is that you also get lifetime insurance instead of paying a monthly in-game fee for it. For you know, in case of theft, accidental collisions with asteroids, and maybe an 'accidental' attempted pirating.....

SourceSkills
03-23-15, 05:49 PM
I cant wait to fly my Freelancer.

maximusboomus
03-24-15, 06:16 AM
I'm happy I donated $75 to this project, I feel that even if I don't see a game, the diaries, sketches and renderings make it worth my while... The scope of this is indeed massive, so I am curious to see if it's possible. If he succeeds he'll make a game so big it'll change the market.

SmokenScion
03-24-15, 03:42 PM
its fucking space, black background with white specs for stars. Are you all insane?

dex71
03-24-15, 04:03 PM
its fucking space, black background with white specs for stars. Are you all insane?
Anyone who helps crowd-fund a game is insane.

If people want better games....STOP SENDING YOUR MONEY BEFORE THE DEVS PUT A FINISHED PRODUCT ON THE TABLE. Make them make a game that can compete with all of the other games before parting with your cash. They haven't earned it yet. Capitalism works. Make the best games at the best prices, and THEN win at the cash register.

SourceSkills
03-24-15, 04:09 PM
Smh

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

dex71
03-24-15, 04:20 PM
Smh

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Please grace us with a knowledge bomb. Tell us how sending folks $ who haven't done shit for you on the promise that maybe they will is a great idea. Let us know how strapped the game development companies are for cash to the point where they can no longer produce a product without trying to sell it before they make it.

SourceSkills
03-24-15, 04:30 PM
Nah im good.

dex71
03-24-15, 04:33 PM
Nah im good.
Smh

SourceSkills
03-24-15, 04:36 PM
no matter what i say you will disagree. i see no reason for you all to always come in these threads and say the same damn thing over and over again when you are constantly proven wrong by RSI and their dev teams. we are excited for this game you are not. lets just leave it at that.

grayman
03-24-15, 04:39 PM
no matter what i say you will disagree. i see no reason for you all to always come in these threads and say the same damn thing over and over again when you are constantly proven wrong by RSI and their dev teams. we are excited for this game you are not. lets just leave it at that.

QFT.

dex71
03-24-15, 04:49 PM
no matter what i say you will disagree. i see no reason for you all to always come in these threads and say the same damn thing over and over again when you are constantly proven wrong by RSI and their dev teams. we are excited for this game you are not. lets just leave it at that.
Nobody is saying you shouldn'ty be excited. You also have zero idea of how excited I am for this game (just a lucky guess that I couldn't care less about it).

However, I never even mentioned this game. What I said rings true in every game, and many many other facets of life. Don't pay until you get your widget. It makes the widget makers stay on top of their game and produce the best widgets. If they don't, they will quickly be replaced by a widget maker who does.

As for the "always come into these threads and say the same damn thing" bullshit, please link some of the numerous examples you are referring to, or shut your hole. Coming into a discussion with an arrogant "Smh" is douchy. Not backing your shit up shows that your arrogance doesn't equal competance. If you disagree, say so rather than just be a dick. I am open to being wrong (although you have an uphill climb with this one), but if you don't grace us with an argument, how will anyone be convinced you are right?

grayman
03-24-15, 05:01 PM
Anyone who helps crowd-fund a game is insane.

If people want better games....STOP SENDING YOUR MONEY BEFORE THE DEVS PUT A FINISHED PRODUCT ON THE TABLE. Make them make a game that can compete with all of the other games before parting with your cash. They haven't earned it yet. Capitalism works. Make the best games at the best prices, and THEN win at the cash register.

This is capitalism, clown. We're acting as investors instead of a big studio like EA. The difference is we're not pushing for a liquid capital return on our investment so we're not demanding they push an unfinished shit product to market before its fucking ready, say BF4 for example.

Instead we're pushing for the best damn game ever made, as our ROI (return on investment). And guess what, they're behind schedule *tears* but holy god is this game amazing so far and we haven't even scratched the fucking surface.

As investors we realize that we may NEVER get a finished game but guess what we DONT FUCKING CARE. Because IF this game is released and is half as good as what we believe its full potential is, then we will have been part of the beginning of a new era in game development. An era where the players have direct influence over how a game is made instead of being force feed horse shit like BF3.

I feel like you either don't like space sims or have an aversion to high risk high yield investments. Either way this is the wrong thread for you so kindly, fuck off.

SourceSkills
03-24-15, 05:04 PM
I just cant wait to get into the PU and fly my Freelancer around. Customize it and name it to. I am going to Han Solo that bitch up with hidden compartments and modified engines.

dex71
03-24-15, 05:15 PM
This is capitalism, clown. We're acting as investors instead of a big studio like EA. The difference is we're not pushing for a liquid capital return on our investment so we're not demanding they push an unfinished shit product to market before its fucking ready, say BF4 for example.

Instead we're pushing for the best damn game ever made, as our ROI (return on investment). And guess what, they're behind schedule *tears* but holy god is this game amazing so far and we haven't even scratched the fucking surface.

As investors we realize that we may NEVER get a finished game but guess what we DONT FUCKING CARE. Because IF this game is released and is half as good as what we believe its full potential is, then we will have been part of the beginning of a new era in game development. An era where the players have direct influence over how a game is made instead of being force feed horse shit like BF3.

I feel like you either don't like space sims or have an aversion to high risk high yield investments. Either way this is the wrong thread for you so kindly, fuck off.
lol.

Yes....I hate space games...and high risk investments. Clown.

You aren't an "investor". In fact, this so-called "investing" (lol) is taking the risk away from the game developers. If they don't put a quality product out, they aren't out anything as they have been playing with your money. All you have done is make sure they get paid before the work is done.

Put out the World changing game, and I'll be in. Then, I will "invest" my money in the product, and reward those who created (past tense) it. Until then, it's nothing but wind.

dex71
03-24-15, 05:16 PM
I just cant wait to get into the PU and fly my Freelancer around. Customize it and name it to. I am going to Han Solo that bitch up with hidden compartments and modified engines.
I bet you can beat his time in the Kessel run. 12 Parsaks is quick, but I think it can be done in 10.

grayman
03-24-15, 05:40 PM
lol.

Yes....I hate space games...and high risk investments. Clown.

You aren't an "investor". In fact, this so-called "investing" (lol) is taking the risk away from the game developers. If they don't put a quality product out, they aren't out anything as they have been playing with your money. All you have done is make sure they get paid before the work is done.

Put out the World changing game, and I'll be in. Then, I will "invest" my money in the product, and reward those who created (past tense) it. Until then, it's nothing but wind.

Wrong, at that point you're a consumer not an investor.

High risk investments are high risk because the people you're fronting money to could buy strippers and booze as instead of holding up their end of the deal as well as strong competition from competitors. Just like when you buy anything with credit (credit cards/cars/loans) the lender is taking a risk that you'll either not pay them back or use the money or property irresponsibly.

Consumers have a smaller sphere of influence than investors and as such have less potential to cause any meaningful change in the market. The iPhone wouldn't have revolutionized the cellphone/mobile computing markets if there weren't people/businesses/banks willing to invest in the idea because the product would've never made it to market for consumers like you purchase. (I don't care if didn't buy an iPhone)

So, yes we are investors. More importantly we're investors and gamers who are tired of the influence of the big studios who have consistently watered down potentially epic games for the sake of minimizing their bottom line cost to maximize returns for their stock holders.

I invested in this game because I believe that Chris Roberts and his team have the same problem with the big studios and I want to help them circumvent the monopoly that the big studios have on the A-list gaming title market.

If they make it, then they blaze a trail for other developers to follow. Then you can consume the shit out of the epicness that we funded with our investment.

dex71
03-24-15, 05:59 PM
Wrong, at that point you're a consumer not an investor.

High risk investments are high risk because the people you're fronting money to could buy strippers and booze as instead of holding up their end of the deal as well as strong competition from competitors. Just like when you buy anything with credit (credit cards/cars/loans) the lender is taking a risk that you'll either not pay them back or use the money or property irresponsibly.

Consumers have a smaller sphere of influence than investors and as such have less potential to cause any meaningful change in the market. The iPhone wouldn't have revolutionized the cellphone/mobile computing markets if there weren't people/businesses/banks willing to invest in the idea because the product would've never made it to market for consumers like you purchase. (I don't care if didn't buy an iPhone)

So, yes we are investors. More importantly we're investors and gamers who are tired of the influence of the big studios who have consistently watered down potentially epic games for the sake of minimizing their bottom line cost to maximize returns for their stock holders.

I invested in this game because I believe that Chris Roberts and his team have the same problem with the big studios and I want to help them circumvent the monopoly that the big studios have on the A-list gaming title market.

If they make it, then they blaze a trail for other developers to follow. Then you can consume the shit out of the epicness that we funded with our investment.
Consumers have ALL of the power. At ALL times. It's their dollars that companies and real investors are after.

As for the iphone.....Apple took the risk, not the consumers. Apple knew that they needed to put the best product they could out, so as to compete with all of the other phone companies. They developed their product as best they could because if it failed, it was their money they were playing with. I highly doubt it would be the product it is if the risk of financial ruin were removed. Nobody took the risk away from the iphone, so it HAD to be good, or else.

And as a gamer, you are a consumer. Wether you send them your money before you get the product, or after, your role is the same.

I hope it all works the way you hope it will. I know I will likely be a consumer if it is as good as some are saying, but if it isn't, I won't be one of the suckers crying foul because my "investment" didn't pay off the way I wanted it to. I'll be the one laughing.

grayman
03-24-15, 06:32 PM
Consumers have ALL of the power. At ALL times. It's their dollars that companies and real investors are after.

As for the iphone.....Apple took the risk, not the consumers. Apple knew that they needed to put the best product they could out, so as to compete with all of the other phone companies. They developed their product as best they could because if it failed, it was their money they were playing with. I highly doubt it would be the product it is if the risk of financial ruin were removed. Nobody took the risk away from the iphone, so it HAD to be good, or else.

And as a gamer, you are a consumer. Wether you send them your money before you get the product, or after, your role is the same.

I hope it all works the way you hope it will. I know I will likely be a consumer if it is as good as some are saying, but if it isn't, I won't be one of the suckers crying foul because my "investment" didn't pay off the way I wanted it to. I'll be the one laughing.

Wrong again. Consumers have limited to no power in the presence of limited market diversity. Anti-monopoly laws exist to prevent a company from becoming all powerful in their market to protect not only the consumer but the quality of the products that the market produces. The efficacy of said laws is debatable, naturally, because the big players in the market will over saturate the market and crush their competition essentially creating a market without any true competition for market shares.

EA and activision are the two primary players in the a-list FPS arena and have driven the cost of a game up over 100% in the past 10 years. Now they have little competition so they can get away with releasing games that don't work properly for the first 3 mo after release, don't have all of the promised functionality (no levolution in dragons teeth) and continue to be glitchy to this day. They don't have to worry about losing sales to a competitor because they dont really have one.

If a competitor like Cloud Imperium were able to break through the joint monopoly on the FPS market then we will see real market competition and the consumer will again regain their power to vote with their wallet. Until that happens we're stuck choosing between two or three inferior products.

If Star Citizen is released at $50-$60 and they don't charge for DLC content with each expansion of the persistent universe (which I believe is the plan) then the value of games like BF with a final price tag of $100-$120 will lose out because of its limited playability and small scope.

But until people invest in an unknown like Cloud Imperium they won't be able to compete with the big studios who hold the market share without going to them for funding. Which, naturally, defeats the purpose of competing against them.

Basically we're powerless as consumers if there is no market competition. And there can't be market competition without investors willing to risk a little cash to fund a new product which will create the diversity needed for healthy market competition to exist.

dex71
03-24-15, 06:54 PM
We consumers aren't forced to buy anything. If the games are that bad (which by the looks of the BF4 server being full for almost two years now, they aren't), consumers can choose to put their money towards some other form of entertainment. Movies, board games, sex toys, console games, flash games, card games, sat tv, guns, cars, all compete for our entertainment dollars.

We are NEVER powerless as consumers. We have the dollars everyone wants. Without us, there is no them. Just because some don't expect anything for their money doesn't mean we all have the same expectations. I wouldn't pay a contractor who isn't done with the job, either. Finish the game, and if it is worth it to me, I'll buy it. But certainly not before.

And as long as there are consumers, there will be companies trying to compete for our money. Pretty simple.

AetheLove
03-24-15, 08:38 PM
If someone wants to call this crowdfunding scheme "investing", then I have no quibble. They're putting up their money in the uncertain hope of getting a desired return.

If they want me to call it investing, then we're going to have a discussion about semantics and caveats.

In general I'm a big fan of these new crowdfunding business models. As long as everyone goes in with their eyes open, I think it's a good thing. It has allowed some good things to happen that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

In the gaming world, we've all seen franchises we loved devolve. The big developers take their game to where the safer money is. We've lost diversity. Crowdfunding may loosen that up again by taking some of the risk out of a new title, and if we get interesting things that couldn't have been made otherwise then that's a good thing.

I still worry about the consumer side. Maybe a startup like Cloud Imperium couldn't have done this any other way. All credit to them for getting this off the ground. But there's still a lot of people who have paid in advance and as far as I can tell the company could still screw them.

But I at least think that Star Citizen is a reasonable scenario. When the entrenched 800-pound-gorrila of gaming (EA) wants people to buy a game months ahead of release, I squeal as loud as Dex.

In general I don't like the shift towards pre-pay. In lots of markets I've noticed that shift. It's not just games, and not just crowdfunding. The providers of many services and even some goods have started getting their money up-front, and I think that's a real indicator of a shift in market power towards suppliers and away from consumers.

If crowdfunding games at this scale is successful we're going to see two things: some really great games, and a lot of scammy companies following on.



grayman
03-24-15, 09:44 PM
You're a fantastic fence sitter AE.

I used the term "investor" loosely to make a point. Of course I'm not expecting a financial return on the money I spent to fund this project.

The point is, putting down money for a product that isn't finished is foolish if its approached with the expectation of receiving a completed polished product.

Spending money on this project should be done because of belief in the projects goals and likelihood of the project reaching completion.

I refuse to drop $20 on H1Z1 because SOE doesn't have the same scope or attention to detail in their vision for what that game should be. It's built on monetization first, creating a ground breaking experience second (if at all).

I'm not so jaded to think the SC isn't monetized, because they got my $60 already. But I honestly think this game was conceived as an experience first and monetized second.

Essentially the money was taken to create the game, the game wasn't created to take money.

I realize that's just semantics to some but it's to me it's a deal breaker or motivation depending on which side of the coin the project falls on.

Guyver
03-24-15, 09:50 PM
EVERY game is built on monetization first ....unless you've been livin' under a rock. BF4, Evolve, the list goes on and on and on...

grayman
03-24-15, 10:10 PM
I think you're missing the point I'm making.

EA didn't come up with an idea about a game where you ride in a giant robot then figure out how to make money on it.

They identified a popular cultural theme (transformers/pacific rim) that they projected would make money, rebranded it as Titanfall and built the game to squeeze the maximum amount of money from the end user.

SC is something new, something that has never been attempted before so it's not a rebranded attempt to capitalize on a trend. EA and friends have that market cornered. This is an idea first then monetize it to a bearable level (so they say) second. Of course they're going to make money on it once it's live, they would fools to not capitalize on that market and they aren't going to spend money they don't have just to make the game better (at least us backers hope they don't). They're a business, that's how a business survives.

This projects scope is too big, too risky and too creative for a company like EA to attempt. That's why I gave Cloud Imperium my money.

Like I said it may be semantics to some but it's a huge difference to me.

Guyver
03-24-15, 11:06 PM
My point is, every company makes games that are built on monetization first..not just SoE. Star Citizen may not have it now, but you can bet it will. DLC is the very definition of monetization.

Kanati
03-25-15, 12:50 AM
SC is something new, something that has never been attempted before so it's not a rebranded attempt to capitalize on a trend.

It's basically a new iteration of a very old theme. Wing Commander... Elite... Freelancer... It's an evolution, not a revolution.

And it's "scope" has indeed been tried before. And failed before. Look into the fiasco that was Battlecruiser 3000ad.

ab1tar
03-25-15, 07:37 AM
Love the debate between two different schools of thought in economics (who holds the true power the supply or the demand?). This game, while not my cup of tea, looks awesome. If someone wants to spend their money to try and support the funding of a game and just maybe get a chance to buy it, go ahead. This model can be great in some situations (but it is incredibly easy to get suckers to buy into impossible things as people generally seem kinda dumb). There are many people who have been and will be able to make something they never would have had a chance to without the crowd funding. The problem is that people don't seem to understand what they are getting into. This is giving money to someone to do with as they see fit to follow an idea, which can totally be, "man I gave it a shot but just couldn't make it work, so what if I made 200k and spent an afternoon on it, I tried!", or something could be created that is amazing. People need to know that we will see far more fails, and scams than actual success stories as that is how it always goes, always has gone and always will in life (for ever Rockefeller there were hundreds of Smith's who failed and didn't make it)...


With all of that, looks like a neat game, I'm just interested to see if it can even be done or if everything will just fail (ambition doesn't get the job done). I'm just going to watch and just see what happens.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

AetheLove
03-25-15, 12:38 PM
You're a fantastic fence sitter AE.


Who doesn't love waffles?


I used the term "investor" loosely to make a point. Of course I'm not expecting a financial return on the money I spent to fund this project.

The point is, putting down money for a product that isn't finished is foolish if its approached with the expectation of receiving a completed polished product.

Spending money on this project should be done because of belief in the projects goals and likelihood of the project reaching completion.

I refuse to drop $20 on H1Z1 because SOE doesn't have the same scope or attention to detail in their vision for what that game should be. It's built on monetization first, creating a ground breaking experience second (if at all).


Totally agree. I don't have a problem with anyone thinking about it as an investment either. You've made a judgement about whether this game is the sort of thing you want, and if this company is likely to produce not only the game you want but also a business model you're comfortable with.

That anyone should even have to think about the second part is what's changed over the last decade(ish).


Essentially the money was taken to create the game, the game wasn't created to take money.

I realize that's just semantics to some but it's to me it's a deal breaker or motivation depending on which side of the coin the project falls on.


My post was mostly about getting past semantics issues over the word 'investment'. Not that it doesn't matter what we call it, but that what it is matters more.

I think some of this goes back to the financial catastrophe of 2008 and the subsequent closing of the investment sphincter. Traditional financing wasn't available, but people who wanted to make something new found a way to appeal directly to the potential buyers. It's a new way for producers to get their project off the ground, but it's also a new thing that buyers have to be aware of - and so being a wise consumer just got more complicated.



grayman
03-25-15, 01:50 PM
It's basically a new iteration of a very old theme. Wing Commander... Elite... Freelancer... It's an evolution, not a revolution.

And it's "scope" has indeed been tried before. And failed before. Look into the fiasco that was Battlecruiser 3000ad.

That's true, it's an updated version Freelancer for sure.

As for scope I don't think the hardware and software capabilities were up to par with the vision of 3000ad. 3000ad's vision was huge but its scope was limited by its available tech. You can't build a rocket to the moon if you're working with 1800's technology.

grayman
03-25-15, 01:51 PM
Who doesn't love waffles?




Totally agree. I don't have a problem with anyone thinking about it as an investment either. You've made a judgement about whether this game is the sort of thing you want, and if this company is likely to produce not only the game you want but also a business model you're comfortable with.

That anyone should even have to think about the second part is what's changed over the last decade(ish).




My post was mostly about getting past semantics issues over the word 'investment'. Not that it doesn't matter what we call it, but that what it is matters more.

I think some of this goes back to the financial catastrophe of 2008 and the subsequent closing of the investment sphincter. Traditional financing wasn't available, but people who wanted to make something new found a way to appeal directly to the potential buyers. It's a new way for producers to get their project off the ground, but it's also a new thing that buyers have to be aware of - and so being a wise consumer just got more complicated.




Always a good time having a little mental sparing match with you AE.

SmokenScion
03-25-15, 02:14 PM
I like how you said that you were forced to buy bf4, and because of it you lost your consumer bargaining power.
smh.

grayman
03-25-15, 03:23 PM
I like how you said that you were forced to buy bf4, and because of it you lost your consumer bargaining power.
smh.

You clearly didn't understand what I said or you're intentionally taking what I said out of context.

I wasn't forced to buy BF. I was "forced" to chose from limited market diversity in the tiny "blockbuster" FPS market because EA and Activision have that market cornered (10-15 years ago this was not the case). Naturally, I use "forced" in this instance in the context of "without other options" and not in the context of "I was made to do it beyond my will".

Of course I could've chosen to spend my money somewhere else on the broader entertainment market like Dex suggested but I like FPS games that are visually compelling. Hell I played all the way through Thief because it was so pretty and that game was total shit (I loved the original games).

Limited market diversity, no matter how big or small the market, will ALWAYS reduce the consumer's ability to influence that market. The cable TV industry is a great example of what happens with limited market diversity. The consumers of that market have been getting shit products, shit customer service and insanely high prices for years while having no way of fighting back, IF they want to participate in that market. Sure we can turn off our cable service (TV or Internet) when ever we want but most people won't. But now that streaming services are diversifying that market (minus the Internet service) cable TV companies are being forced to react because consumers now have choices due to the diversification of the market and the consumers are strongly flexing their influence within the sphere of media consumption. I read a report recently that speculated that we will see better products, service and prices from the cable companies soon due to this market diversification.


These are clearly first world problems. But that doesn't negate the validity of my argument that market diversity in the FPS arena is lacking and because of that we have limited influence on the kind of games that make it to market for us to consume. Nor does it negate my argument that some of the crowd funding projects can break up the stagnation of some markets that are dominated by a few key players. I personally believe SC has the right people and elements in the right place at the right time to bring competition to the market. And because of that I'm hoping it will offer a big enough challenge to EA and friends to actually challenge themselves to bring better products to market or at least bring their price points to a more reasonable place for the product.

SmokenScion
03-25-15, 06:01 PM
I kinda tuned out after: "blockbuster" FPS market.

grayman
03-25-15, 06:13 PM
I kinda tuned out after: "blockbuster" FPS market.

You must like Twitter. :)

Ace22
03-25-15, 08:38 PM
To me this whole thing seems like a misplaced argument..

we got 1 person saying don't buy a half built game.. (I agree.. stop buying stuff like Dayz Standalone - and other half finished garbage where a developer puts their alpha build up for sale, people drop their cash on it and the developer walks away cash in hand and does little more to make the game complete.)

Star Citizen is COMPLETELY different. This started from a kickstarter campaign. Where a guy with a vision said "this is the game I want to build - who wants to make this happen?" TONS of people believed in the credibility of Chris Roberts, his vision and his plan.

Weekly DETAILED reports come back, there is video content, magazine content... the list goes on.

The size and scope of this game has never been done. It is enormous.

This group has gone out of it's way to provide transparency, access to information, etc. This is what people see, this is what makes people want to be a part of the project.

There is no EA or BI in the background filling their pockets and abandoning the project. Just a direct flow of contributor cash going to pay for the creation of this game. What's even better is the complete lack of a marketing budget which eats sometimes HALF of the entire project budget on most Triple A titles ( I believe I read BF4 cost $200mil to make and half was marketing expenses)

Ace22
03-25-15, 08:40 PM
Oh.. Cost to buy the game.

$45

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge

This gets you the game and Either an Aurora or Mustang. Past that everything else is purchaseable in-game with in game generated money.

Guyver
03-25-15, 09:19 PM
It's not any different just because it started from a Kickstarter campaign. More than a few games have still tanked that way. Look at The Stomping Land. (Yes, a Kickstarter game.)

Ace22
03-25-15, 09:30 PM
It's not any different just because it started from a Kickstarter campaign. More than a few games have still tanked that way. Look at The Stomping Land. (Yes, a Kickstarter game.)

............ follow the money. This is what makes it different.

When you've got a millionaire programmer that's already made his way wanting to tackle and break new ground in the gaming world... Without the big studio profit motivations from the likes of EA and many others. This is something I want to support.

This gives me the most for my gaming dollar and slaps money focussed companies that keep feeding us absolute shit for ridiculous prices in check.

Keep buying your $2.99 steam games and upping that steam game collection count with absolute shit you don't even get 2.99 value for.

I'll enjoy the forefront of innovation and technology and feel confident knowing exactly what and where my money is going.

Guyver
03-25-15, 10:00 PM
Money doesn't change anything ....lol. He's an indie dev with money and indie dev have pulled some of swarmiest stuff you've ever seen. Stuff that even EA would not do. I can name over a dozen game devs that promised Steam keys to the people that bought their game ...only to say "I'm sorry, but we cannot give out keys."

Saying the game will be good or not fail just because that's the way you want it, or because it was in Kickstarter it's just ridiculous.....and my library or it's size has nothing to do with this.

maximusboomus
03-25-15, 10:03 PM
Money doesn't change anything ....lol. He's an indie dev with money and indie dev have pulled some of swarmiest stuff you've ever seen. Stuff that even EA would not do. I can name over a dozen game devs that promised Steam keys to the people that bought their game ...only to say "I'm sorry, but we cannot give out keys."

Saying the game will be good or not fail just because that's the way you want it, or because it was in Kickstarter it's just ridiculous.....and my library or it's size has nothing to do with this.
I think you're missing Aces point in that he's citing, know your developers. The star citizen crew are experienced and want to push the boundaries. He's a pretty well known programmer and has the Potential to make this happen. He has continued his updates with surprising content (eyeballs saddayz) and makes sure you know what's going on.

Kick-start program runs with risk, you need to know what you're getting into or accept this could be the worst cash grab.

Everyone's going to spend their money where they feel it's earned. Hell I bought Hard-line a game that I swore I wouldn't. But the difference is no pre-order this time...

Guyver
03-25-15, 10:06 PM
I think you're missing Aces point in that he's citing, know your developers. The star citizen crew are experienced and want to push the boundaries. He's a pretty well known programmer and has the Potential to make this happen. He has continued his updates with surprising content (eyeballs saddayz) and makes sure you know what's going on.
Expericed devs can still fuck things up.

maximusboomus
03-25-15, 10:08 PM
Expericed devs can still fuck things up.
Agreed. Just because I paid $75 doesn't mean I'll even get 1 min of enjoyment from the game. I'm happy to risk it. Just like I risked on Arma 3. At least that one paid off... Maybe day z will? Who knows.

AetheLove
03-26-15, 10:04 AM
Always a good time having a little mental sparing match with you AE.


Thoughtful exposition and honest exchange - I'm a big fan of the process.

There aren't many people in my real world that have an interest in the intersections of games, networks, economics, and society. As frustrating as these forums can often be, they are occasionally a breath of fresh air.


"Only connect ... "

-- E. M. Forster


Thanks.

Cheers,


AetheLove