Star Citizen - media blowout, Chris Robert's new game

Damnit, I spent a good 2 hours last night looking into the whole confirmed thing. All for nothing it seems :( I still stand behind my not confirmed stance though lol


So those prices seem very cheap $200 for a 225m cargo ship? I wonder if they resized them. And yes I with get me a HULL E-peen :)
 
Im glad they are releasing a $60 hauler, since there is a gap between the aurora and the freelancer. Also, I stand corrected on the Hull E. Cant wait to pirate the shit out of that sucker :p
 
I think the freelancer would still be preferred hauler. might as well get a freelancer that can do more than hull a to b.
 
Best Game so far Ive played a lot of this ALPHA, cant wait for the game to come out. also kids wont be on this game reason being is the Price.. :) super happy I hate squirrels....
 
chibe said:
Im glad they are releasing a $60 hauler, since there is a gap between the aurora and the freelancer. Also, I stand corrected on the Hull E. Cant wait to pirate the shit out of that sucker :p
Click to expand...

Wait, what? I haven't been following this game too closely. There are upwards of $60 in-game micro-transactions? Footage looks great but damn... :confused:

 
eth3ton said:
You know, if EA pulled that there would be mobs and pitchforks storming their headquarters... :p
Click to expand...

ya but the thing is EA has a track record of totally screwing over games, gamers, and destroying game developers for any size monetary gain, where as CR has a decent track record and is making a game people have wanted for damn near a decade but no aaa publishing companys would risk funding.
 
eth3ton said:
You know, if EA pulled that there would be mobs and pitchforks storming their headquarters... :p
Click to expand...

That's because they have no credibility and they have burned to many people. That's not saying Chris Roberts and CIG are immune to the same end in oh say 5-10 years, but it's amazing how much a good faith in people can go, apparently around $80 million so far. If it wasn't for EA and their kind I don't believe Star Citizen would have even happened. It's a market correction and those with a good reputation and vision and can rake in some serious money.
 
Tup3x said:
Hmm... Old manual vs. new manual.
mz4NOh4.gif
Click to expand...

Which is which?

I haven't been in game for a few about six weeks (out of town for a month), but when I logged in yesterday, I thought he 325A looked much more bulky than it had in the past. So I'm guessing the fat one is the new one?

If so, they're trying to get people to get rid of them.
 
The fat one is new. I don't think that it looks like that in game at the moment though.
 
Smoeki said:
So those prices seem very cheap $200 for a 225m cargo ship? I wonder if they resized them. And yes I with get me a HULL E-peen :)
Click to expand...

I had to laugh at that statement. This game has gotten out of hand with the purchases. When the big game companies charge people $15 for a few extra DLC missions, people freak out and complain about corporate greed and whatnot. With SC, people are tossing around hundreds or even thousands of dollars for ships, but it's OK because Chris Roberts is making the game. Seriously, when has $200 been cheap for a video game?

I've been a backer since right after the kick starter ended, and I'm still looking forward to the game. I've just grown very wary of all this "backing" people have been doing. I mean sure, it's your money, so do with it as you see fit. If this were any other game though, everyone would be scoffing at the idea of in game items costing so much.
 
bpizzle1 said:
I had to laugh at that statement. This game has gotten out of hand with the purchases. When the big game companies charge people $15 for a few extra DLC missions, people freak out and complain about corporate greed and whatnot. With SC, people are tossing around hundreds or even thousands of dollars for ships, but it's OK because Chris Roberts is making the game. Seriously, when has $200 been cheap for a video game?
Click to expand...

I have to laugh at that statement. you're not buying a ship you're donating money to a project. The moment you forget that you're pretty much a lost cause and I don't have sympathy if you can't keep your hype in check.

They have had a $15,000 donation option from pretty much the beginning of the project, and now suddenly they have a $60 - $500 line up of ships and now it's getting out of hand??? Seriously??? All I am seeing is they are now offering more and more options so you can decide which reward best suits you for the amount you've donated. Yes more options are tempting, but most people just apply the credit they have spent for the new ones if they even bother to buy them. The price per account ratio is sitting around $90 and has been dropping for quite a while.

Yes it's cheap when you compare a $1250 Idris and $200 HULL C when looking at the sizes of ships. No one was comparing the cost of game A with game B.
 
Smoeki said:
I have to laugh at that statement. you're not buying a ship you're donating money to a project. The moment you forget that you're pretty much a lost cause and I don't have sympathy if you can't keep your hype in check.

They have had a $15,000 donation option from pretty much the beginning of the project, and now suddenly they have a $60 - $500 line up of ships and now it's getting out of hand??? Seriously??? All I am seeing is they are now offering more and more options so you can decide which reward best suits you for the amount you've donated. Yes more options are tempting, but most people just apply the credit they have spent for the new ones if they even bother to buy them. The price per account ratio is sitting around $90 and has been dropping for quite a while.

Yes it's cheap when you compare a $1250 Idris and $200 HULL C when looking at the sizes of ships. No one was comparing the cost of game A with game B.
Click to expand...


Additionally people complaining about $15 DLC of something that should have been available in the game from the start. This is something that cannot be accessed without paying for that $15 DLC.

In contrast, everything in SC is available to anyone for just the base price of entry to the game. Anything more is above and beyond and is not needed. If you want the $550 Hull-E you don't have to buy it for $550, you can simply earn it in game. You typically cannot earn paid DLC missions in game.
 
Also as far as I know you can't buy ships once the crowd funding period ends.
 
I'll be interested to see how the Taurus compares to the various Hull models. It carries a hell of a lot of cargo for the price point.
 
Ritorix said:
I'll be interested to see how the Taurus compares to the various Hull models. It carries a hell of a lot of cargo for the price point.
Click to expand...

I see the hull series carrying a lot more cargo but they will be either slower, weaker or both. I see the hull line as boxes with thrusters attached and I wouldn't be surprised to see them with next to no weapons. There big offset being they can make so much money in 1 run they can afford to higher escorts.
 
Smoeki said:
I have to laugh at that statement. you're not buying a ship you're donating money to a project.
Click to expand...

Semantics. You are quite literally buying ships regardless of how that money is being used.


Also, yes, compared to a $1250 Idris, $200 is cheap. My point was that it is crazy how we have gotten to this point with this game (where $200 looks cheap in comparison to some other options). There is nothing else out there that would get away with the way CI is handling this game.

Tup3x said:
Also as far as I know you can't buy ships once the crowd funding period ends.
Click to expand...

Selling ships has been so successful prior to the game actually launching, I'd be shocked if they suddenly made that option unavailable when the game is finally done (regardless of what they've said up to this point).
 
Last edited:
What is the going rate for a new comer to get started in SC? Someone mentioned that you don't have to make any of these purchases, as they are all available in game - albeit, much time will be invested.

How much time would it take to obtain a $1250 Idris?
 
New comer to SC: $45, you can choose between an Aurora or a Mustang for that price as well. Packs come with Beta & Arena Commander, 3 month insurance.

Time to obtain Idris, haha, hahahahaha, hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... Actually thats very much unknown really, but if I had to guess, could take quite a bit of time.
 
what i'm afraid of is them keeping the staff size small, pocket most of the money for themselves, keep delaying the game 10+ years then by the time it actually is done no one will care about it
 
Smoeki said:
I have to laugh at that statement. you're not buying a ship you're donating money to a project. The moment you forget that you're pretty much a lost cause and I don't have sympathy if you can't keep your hype in check.
Click to expand...

no your buying ships
NO ONE thinks of as "donating" would you "donate" the same amount if you didnt get a ship? 99% of people wouldnt
people say LTI isnt a big deal but there are 100's of post saying they wont by with out/ wont give it up

saying your "donating" purely trying to justify pay to win
 
FrEaKy said:
New comer to SC: $45, you can choose between an Aurora or a Mustang for that price as well. Packs come with Beta & Arena Commander, 3 month insurance.

Time to obtain Idris, haha, hahahahaha, hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... Actually thats very much unknown really, but if I had to guess, could take quite a bit of time.
Click to expand...

And have access to the entire game? Am I going to get prison raped in those ships? Insurance?
 
lee0539 said:
what i'm afraid of is them keeping the staff size small, pocket most of the money for themselves, keep delaying the game 10+ years then by the time it actually is done no one will care about it
Click to expand...

80 million. Yep, I would.
 
lee0539 said:
what i'm afraid of is them keeping the staff size small, pocket most of the money for themselves, keep delaying the game 10+ years then by the time it actually is done no one will care about it
Click to expand...

wont happen, they are committed to putting all pledge funds into the project.

and the staff size is not small either it is rather large and ever growing.
 
eth3ton said:
And have access to the entire game? Am I going to get prison raped in those ships? Insurance?
Click to expand...

You get the whole game.

You shouldn't get prison raped in the starter ship, you might want to learn to fly in some of the PvE modes first if you do. You can already earn currency to rent all the other ships, weapons, and shields that are in the game at this point. You can even earn this in co-op PvE mode if you want.

You get 3 months free insurance on your starter ship. They've said it's going to be a very minor expense anyhow, the only reason it's a big deal for people is the limited availability of the lifetime version.
 
lee0539 said:
what i'm afraid of is them keeping the staff size small, pocket most of the money for themselves, keep delaying the game 10+ years then by the time it actually is done no one will care about it
Click to expand...

They have like 8 studios with well over 100 employees between them. Ya what sith said
 
They started the crowd funding campaign with an idea for a game, a trailer, and under 20 employees. Now have three main studios in two countries with a forth starting in another. They have contracted with several other companies to work on various game mechanics and the website not to mention a number of freelancers. I think at this point they are closing in on 300 combined employees working on this one game. Star Citizen may set a new standard for awesome or it might suck donkey nuts but it doesn't seem like CIG is using the funds for Lambos and Lattes.
 
bpizzle1 said:
Semantics. You are quite literally buying ships regardless of how that money is being used.
Click to expand...

No it's not semantics, you're backing a game not buying ships. It's not CIG's fault if someone can't understand that, Chris literally points this out in every new ship letter that comes out.

I'm going to have to also disagree with other companies "getting away" with with what CIG has. Look at nearly every kickstarter/crowd funded game, most have tiers with better benefits and they rank up into the thousands. Again I don't know why this is suddenly getting out of hand when from the start they had these high dollar packages available, you quite literally just have more options to choose from now.
 
Last edited:
Elios said:
no your buying ships
NO ONE thinks of as "donating" would you "donate" the same amount if you didnt get a ship? 99% of people wouldnt
people say LTI isnt a big deal but there are 100's of post saying they wont by with out/ wont give it up

saying your "donating" purely trying to justify pay to win
Click to expand...

It is donating with perks, yes ships are incentive to pledge, but they are not needed nor required to purchase or pledge for.

No one can or should complain about more ships or more pledge options because they are 100% optional at no point do you need to get one ever.

Outside of buying the base game for $45ish there is no reason to pledge more unless you CHOOSE too. because everything will be earnable in game.

You can pay for convenience and get the ship you ultimately would like to play with from the begginning without having to work for it in game.

An example would be if you want to start out with a Han Solo type experience you might want to pledge for a constellation so you can have that experience from the beginning.

Or if you just want to be a lowly aurora pilot and work your way up in the galaxy you can do that instead or if you want to be a rich playboy on your luxury yacht you can spend $600 and get an 890 Jump and start out like that.

But any start you choose beyond the default is a personal choice and is not forced on any one.

There are no DLC pay walls on the Persistent Universe you buy the game once and you get access to everything the PU will ever offer, and all future content patches are free for the PU.
 
Smoeki said:
No it's not semantics, you're backing a game not buying ships. It's not CIG's fault if someone can't understand that, Chris literally points this out in every new ship letter that comes out.

I'm going to have to also disagree with other companies "getting away" with with what CIG has. Look at nearly every kickstarter/crowd funded game, most have tiers with better benefits and they rank up into the thousands. Again I don't know why this is suddenly getting out of hand when from the start they had these high dollar packages available, you quite literally just have more options to choose from now.
Click to expand...

You are paying money and receiving a ship. By definition you are buying a ship. Regardless of how the money is being used, you are still buying a ship. Hell, they even call that section of their website the Store now (originally, they were careful about that and had the link say "Pledge" or something). If I go get a hammer from a family owned hardware store, am I donating to help keep them in business, or am I just buying a new hammer? Chris Roberts can spin it whatever way he wants, but the bottom line is you are giving him money to run his business and you are getting a digital spaceship in return.

I'm not saying the game is going to be bad or anything, I just find it amazing that a lot of the people that scoff at DLC and pay-to-win are the same people that have no problem throwing hundreds of dollars at CIG because Chris Roberts says you're ”donating" rather than "buying."
I guess if you really wanted to stretch it, you could claim you are investing in CIG for ships instead of part of the business or something.
 
bpizzle1 said:
You are paying money and receiving a ship. By definition you are buying a ship. Regardless of how the money is being used, you are still buying a ship. Hell, they even call that section of their website the Store now (originally, they were careful about that and had the link say "Pledge" or something). If I go get a hammer from a family owned hardware store, am I donating to help keep them in business, or am I just buying a new hammer? Chris Roberts can spin it whatever way he wants, but the bottom line is you are giving him money to run his business and you are getting a digital spaceship in return.

I'm not saying the game is going to be bad or anything, I just find it amazing that a lot of the people that scoff at DLC and pay-to-win are the same people that have no problem throwing hundreds of dollars at CIG because Chris Roberts says you're ”donating" rather than "buying."
I guess if you really wanted to stretch it, you could claim you are investing in CIG for ships instead of part of the business or something.
Click to expand...

actaully your hammer analogy works in CiGs favor because some people will pay more for things at a family owned shop than they would at lowes or home depot for the sole reason of supporting that store owner as well as they get the item they are looking for.
 
bpizzle1 said:
You are paying money and receiving a ship. By definition you are buying a ship. Regardless of how the money is being used, you are still buying a ship. Hell, they even call that section of their website the Store now (originally, they were careful about that and had the link say "Pledge" or something). If I go get a hammer from a family owned hardware store, am I donating to help keep them in business, or am I just buying a new hammer? Chris Roberts can spin it whatever way he wants, but the bottom line is you are giving him money to run his business and you are getting a digital spaceship in return.

I'm not saying the game is going to be bad or anything, I just find it amazing that a lot of the people that scoff at DLC and pay-to-win are the same people that have no problem throwing hundreds of dollars at CIG because Chris Roberts says you're ”donating" rather than "buying."
I guess if you really wanted to stretch it, you could claim you are investing in CIG for ships instead of part of the business or something.
Click to expand...

You're pledging to a game not buying a ship, the store still says Pledge.

If your family owned store is not yet a store and just a concept and may never be a store and you give them $10 for the possibility that in the future you can get a hammer for free, then you are donating money to the store. ie you're part of the crowd source, you may never get a hammer and even if you do, maybe it's made out of dried play-doh.

If your family owned store is already established and you go in to buy a hammer, you get to see that the hammer is real and is up to your specs, then you can say you're buying a hammer, and you damn well better get a hammer or that place would go out of business pretty quick.
 
Last edited:
I think the definition of semantics is being lost on you. Either that or you're intentionally being daft.
 
Climber said:
I think the definition of semantics is being lost on you. Either that or you're intentionally being daft.
Click to expand...

you totally got me there... :rolleyes:

By all means explain to me why $500 of my money I donated didn't end up "buying me a ship" if that's what it's all about. I'm sure it's just semantics though, right???? Simply because it may be your motivation or your perceived motivation of others doesn't make it reality. CIG's official stance on the matter is that you are donating to develop Star Citizen and Squadron 42. Don't blame them if someone is donating money because their only motivation is ships or in the case of some major backers, simply as a status that they are filthy fucking rich. I really don't care what a persons motivations are, in the end you are still only donating to CIG.

Now lets just throw that all out and I'll actually play daft for a second and say that people are only "buying ships". Look at the big picture and not a small subset of the backers if you think "ship buying" is getting out of hand. The price per account is falling which means more backers are coming in well under the pledge levels of these new ships. Now take this last sale for example, around 2 million came in, lets just say for the sake of argument that full 2 million is only in Vanguard sales. 2,000,0000 / 250 = 8000 sold. That is less than 1% of the current number of accounts. Trying to base the idea that ship sales are out of control because 1% of the people are possibly going nuts seems rather nuts in it's own way doesn't it? For shits and giggles Lets just go all out and call it a good 25% of the player base are fully backing this game, that still puts the ratio at around $360 per person. While that number is high it's not exactly out of the norm for people to spend that much on a subscription based game over 2 years. Now consider that many people have also been following the game for nearly 2 years, it's not inconceivable that people have been slowly donating more money because they like what they are seeing and have been enjoying the ride of seeing the open development on the game.

In the meanwhile don't forget that you're on the internet where everyone is has a black belt, part of special forces with 140 IQ and now owns 20 ships in Star Citizen...

The only thing I honestly care about is that people be truthful when telling others about Star Citizen. Something that the confirmed backers and people that actually follow the development on this forum are especially good at, and that is if you're interested in Star Citizen pledge for the cheapest package available, everything is obtainable in game, and no you don't need to spend money for ships. However if you would like to you're more than welcome to donate more money to support the game further.

Why on earth people need to go all doom and gloom about Star Citizen is beyond me. The game does have issues and I'd be glad to hammer CIG over them but they don't seem to be on the radar of our pack of naysayers (for obvious reasons)

That's pretty much all I have to say on this subject. and yes I was drunk while writing this ;)
 
Smoeki said:
No it's not semantics
Click to expand...

It's semantics. The vast majority of people wouldn't have "pledged" more than 50-200 bucks or so if they weren't getting ships for it.

bpizzle1 said:
I had to laugh at that statement. This game has gotten out of hand with the purchases. When the big game companies charge people $15 for a few extra DLC missions, people freak out and complain about corporate greed and whatnot. With SC, people are tossing around hundreds or even thousands of dollars for ships, but it's OK because Chris Roberts is making the game. Seriously, when has $200 been cheap for a video game?

I've been a backer since right after the kick starter ended, and I'm still looking forward to the game. I've just grown very wary of all this "backing" people have been doing. I mean sure, it's your money, so do with it as you see fit. If this were any other game though, everyone would be scoffing at the idea of in game items costing so much.
Click to expand...

Just think of it as a modern day tulip mania. It's winter now and everyone is buying and selling tulips and jerking each other off about what they're going to do with their tulips once summer is here and which tulip they're going to plant where and how amazing everyone's tulips are going to be, etc.

The pro is that all the money spent should make for a better game for everyone.

The con is that once the game goes live you're going to have to listen to massive amounts of hysteric caterwauling on every available chat channel from either:

1. People that spent significant sums of money and are pissed that it didn't confer them as significant an advantage as they expected.
2. People that didn't spend a significant sum of money and are pissed that the people in #1 have a massive advantage.

Or, more likely, both.
 
I am a big proponent of Star Citizen, but I have to agree. I am buying ships. I wouldn't have donated another $350 to them if I wasn't getting LTI on my Orion and saving time to not have to wait to get it when the game starts. I am buying the ship with the knowledge that it helps to fund the creation of the game.


Also props on using and spelling caterwauling properly.
 
Frankie said:
The con is that once the game goes live you're going to have to listen to massive amounts of hysteric caterwauling on every available chat channel from either:

1. People that spent significant sums of money and are pissed that it didn't confer them as significant an advantage as they expected.
2. People that didn't spend a significant sum of money and are pissed that the people in #1 have a massive advantage.

Or, more likely, both.
Click to expand...

and:

3. People who spent significant sums of money and are pissed that the game isn't what they had conjured up in their minds following years of delusional speculation.

Although, given the absurd sums some people have pledged, I doubt they would ever openly admit to being dissatisfied with the end result.

I'd be curious, although it's impossible to know, if SC had emerged fully-formed, exactly as it will eventually appear, and been sold as a regularly published game, whether people would have opted to spend so much on it. Of course it wouldn't have emerged at all, and that's really the only argument for pledging in the first place.

It will be interesting to see how well it sells on release, because presumably after such a long run-up the vast majority of people who are interested in it will already have essentially pre-ordered a copy. In which case they can hardly start calling it "profitable" without pissing off people who think the "profit" ought to have been spent on development (like when the Occulus lads made a sweet bundle by selling to Facebook on the back of their own crowd funding).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top