CIG Needs to come clean with their ship pricing model

  • walltar

    Posts: 11442

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    .

    [hide]


    $600 worth of content, in my opinion should at the very least by me 4-6 months worth of grinding. If this turns out not to be the case, then I will be exercising the sale of said ships right away, and I would guess a great deal of others will too. To add to that, I will NEVER again sink a single cent into this game.....

    You should start selling ... because that will never happen. That would be massive advantage that can be bought from money and no sane company would ever allow that.

    It would destroy the game, because most of the people did not bought ships for hundreds of dollars.
    To be fair, going the opposite way is just as destructive at this point. Assuming Chris Roberts did "not" sell us a load of bullshit, then you simply can not give expensive ships away quickly.

    Unless Chris Roberts lied, than a Constellation Andromeda will have to cost "more than" $225 dollars worth of purchased credits. $300 would probably be a safe bet, at least for the purpose of discussion. So, at $300 going by the original 60 hours to earn, that's $5/hour earned in game. That's already damn near a gold farmers dream, undercutting CIG by heavy margin's and still making good money for most regions where gold farming is prevalent.

    Get much LESS than 60 hours to earn, and CIG has just slit their own throat. Even getting down to 40 hours would be $7.50/hour. No one is going to BUY credits from CIG when you earn those rates in game, and those who will buy will almost certainly be willing to take the risk of buying from gold farmers for easily less than a 3rd of CIG's rate.

    The only way "fast" ship earning on the pricy ships will work is if Chris Roberts fed us a load of crap and our current pledges are not cheaper than they would be in game (as he stated on multiple instances), OR they move to a different means of funding the game that isn't the sale of credits...or ships (who the hell would buy them for hundreds of dollars when you can earn them in hours/days).
    Both ends are destructive ... on one side you have lots of disappointed people that will label the game pay to win. And on the other getting credits will be so easy that no one buys them.

    Both instances are really bad for the game ... And finding balance will be really hard, I would say nearly impossible.

    Now question is ... what is more important to Chris? Good name of the game or relatively small number of high level backers that will be pissed (compared to overall backer population).

    I think, you can safely say that you won't have to grind for constellation 2 months ... but I also think that 1 week time won't stay. (but 600$ which is basically 2 constellations definitely won't be 4-6 months of grind ... I can see it being 1-2 months)
    oubk8o.jpg
  • Zhit

    Posts: 1411

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Some folks are having a very hard time grasping what their ships are worth now and what they will be worth after release.

    If you are having this problem, perform this exercise. Write down three numbers:

    1) Write down how much you have paid for all your ships.
    2) Next pretend you have just lost everything and have zero assets--you need to liquidate all you can to eat.
    Write down how much money can you get tomorrow in real cash for all your ships.
    3) Finally, write down how much all of your ships will be worth the day after CIG announces they are seeking bankruptcy protection, are dissolving the company, and ceasing all development operations.

    Maybe we should worry about having a game before we worry about the value of various ships/widgets/baseball cards/whatever...

  • Kerrija

    Posts: 97

    Posted:
    Posted:
    The problem I see is with sustaining the game for ten years and more like Chris obviously wants to.
    Part of the funding for the maintenance of the PU is supposed to be coming from players that buy UEC in the store to lessen the effects of having little time to play (due to work etc.) and thus have UEC to buy insurance, other fees and cargo.
    But who will pay real money for this convenience if everyone is able to earn money insanely fast in-game?

    If I can earn 450.000UEC in "one week" (the cheapest Connie), how much are the money sinks going to cost that anyone would want to buy UEC?

    Either they are going to change the exchange ratio for $-UEC, which would fuck over the early backers or they will have to manage without the money from UEC purchase.

    I do however think that it will take more than the numbers associated for this week of gaming to earn a Constellation because it is not a "Starter Ship", not even for multicrew operations. What is the progression onwards from an Andromeda (aside of the Idris and possible new corvette)?

    Furthermore I think that this fast progression "through the ranks" really limits the time most people would spent in the intermediate ships like the 300 series and Freelancers (the true multicrew-starter ships).
  • bakayoyo

    Posts: 723

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    The 'one week' thing is meaningless. Here is a list of why:

    Which is exactly why it was a dumb thing to say. Why create confusion on the value of pledging? The most important thing that will make people decide to pledge is having confidence that "it's worth it".
    k6FGSha.gif
  • R1Pilot

    Posts: 517

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    CIG

    It is time to stop being wishy washy about the "value" of ships in game vs now. With the recent release from Ben that a connie should be earned in about a week, I have serious concerns and feel a bit duped. It has been stated since the kickstarter days that ships in game would cost significantly more comparatively than they do now. IE if you were to purchase enough credits in the store at the current price, the ships would cost multiple times what they cost now (a reward for buying now and supporting the game).

    Assuming all of that still holds true, then either the cost of credits is absurdly high. Meaning, if credits can be earned in mass amounts (enough to buy a connie in a week), then the cost of those credits is WAY WAY WAY too high. The result of that will be farmers simply undercutting CIG to a reasonable exchange rate that is comensorate with the amount of work it takes.

    So essentially what I am saying is, if these ships that are costing several hundred $$ in many cases can simply be earned in short order then something is seriously wrong. I cant help but think that CIG wouldnt have raised even a fraction of what they have thus far if this "truth" was known.

    IMO, it is time for CIG to come forward with how much they truly expect an avg player to earn per week, and how much these ships will ROUGHLY cost in game. Then we as players can make an educated decision on if the price of a ship is worth it to us or not.

    With statements recently made by Ben about the 1 week = connie, I would say that spending $350 for a Phoenix is a complete rip off. No way in hell would I spend $350 to simply bypass 1-2 weeks of playtime. I don think it is any secret that the accepted truth is that ships will cost 3-4x as much in game, so CIG is either taking advantage of that by keeping silent (misleading us by allowing us to beleive false information). The other item that needs to be addressed is the intended rarity of ships in game, which also effects the worth.

    Coming clean with this information also has the potential to sell more ships (assuming they confirm high value), because people will buy knowing they are getting a deal. However, if the opposite is true, i think it stands to reason that CIG is creating a future large group of seriously pissed off customers who feel that they were duped.

    As supporter from the early stages of Kickstarter,and someone who has spent over $600 on this game already, I demand that this ambiguity be cleared up now, once and for all. I certainly will not be spending another dime until it is.

    PS - for anyone saying im not buying anything, i am donating and just getting a bonus (though no idea of the value of that bonus), dont bother. Thats complete BS and im not even going to waste my time addressing it.

    wpPcAlS.png
    fVwE4sw.png





  • walltar

    Posts: 11442

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    What is the progression onwards from an Andromeda (aside of the Idris and possible new corvette)?

    More specialized ships ... Carrack, Hull C, Surveyor, Orion.

    Constellation really is starter ship amongst multicrew ships ... if we think ships that have more than 2 crew. Because it follows basic principle of a jack of all trades. You and your group will use it to find what you want to do in the verse and then you will procure specialized ship for that role ... or several ships if you want to do more roles.

    Also they were aiming for 50 ships at launch (that number should be bigger now) so there are several ships we yet do not know.
    oubk8o.jpg
  • Albuquerque

    Posts: 6611

    On Probation
    Posted:
    Edited: by Albuquerque
    On Probation
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    Some folks are having a very hard time grasping what their ships are worth now and what they will be worth after release.

    If you are having this problem, perform this exercise. Write down three numbers:

    1) Write down how much you have paid for all your ships.
    2) Next pretend you have just lost everything and have zero assets--you need to liquidate all you can to eat.
    Write down how much money can you get tomorrow in real cash for all your ships.
    3) Finally, write down how much all of your ships will be worth the day after CIG announces they are seeking bankruptcy protection, are dissolving the company, and ceasing all development operations.

    Maybe we should worry about having a game before we worry about the value of various ships/widgets/baseball cards/whatever...

    The perceived value of ships (market value) is perfectly manageable if they take into consideration some of the elements I referred to in my last post. Devs have in their hands all the instruments to ad or subtract value from peoples pledges without affecting the game economy concerning "regular" non pledged for ships...they just need do something similar to Mechwarriro Online.

    Make pledge for ships slightly different from regular ships.

    Create unique skins attached to the hull.
    Give ships a distinct variation name.
    Create pledge date plates for these ships.

    Regular ships will be equivalent equally capable in combat versions but not collectibles.

    Pledge for ships will be rare and far far more valuable.

    Its a win win situation, no one gets angry.

    ...they re adjust ship prices as the game comes along and OB VB backers get their investment secured.
  • RedMustang

    Posts: 2323

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Posted this in another thread but it might be useful here too:

    Had another thought I haven't seen brought up. Somebody earlier said something along the lines of "60 hours is a lot for a single game" And they are right, most games are, lets say 20 hours (some a lot less some more, but some of the best that made you feel like your $60 was worth it give you a good 20 hour campaign).

    Now lets say the "60 hours to earn a connie" is the base we use, from a stock Aurora package and it's for a base connie (ship only, not package) so $150 plus the Aurora package of $30 = $180.

    OK, 3 awesome separate games would cost you $180 and provide you with 60 hours of enjoyment. Here you get a single game and if your only goal is to get that base connie you spend $30 for 60 hours of enjoyment.... Or spend $180 to bypass those 60 hours and continue on further along in your adventures.

    Now this flys against my wishes a little, but you gotta admit with this, 60 hours does seem reasonable in light of comparing $ per hour of awesomeness...

    OH, and this still doesn't touch on the estimated 40-50 hour included campaign...
  • T-Minus

    Posts: 934

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    Ships now = DONATION. If you don't want to donate, wait 2 years, then earn your ship for a week in-game.

    [hide]


    PS - for anyone saying im not buying anything, i am donating and just getting a bonus (though no idea of the value of that bonus), dont bother. Thats complete BS and im not even going to waste my time addressing it.

    How unfortunate you are so misinformed then...

    From the TOS:

    IV. Charges & Billing
    D. Virtual Goods

    Your payment is a deposit to be used for a) the production and delivery cost for the pledge items (“Pledge Item Cost”), and (b) the development and production cost of the Game, including the Website cost, , and RSI’s corporate expenses associated with the foregoing (the “Game Cost”).


    "You cant buy something that you cannot own." claim

    yes you can.
    - entrence to a teem park, (you don't own the park nor the rides, you bought privilege to use there toys)
    - hundreds of online services among netflix or spotyfy
    - entrance to a move theater, you dont own the movie or the theater, you still had to buy your entrance.
    - engineering research project (which I know, I work with it), the costumer buys limited (contract specific the more rights the more costly) use of blueprints, usually they buy our research and development, and in the end we sit with all the rights on the materials, but they get the results.

    and in SC specific:
    we buy privilege to use there products, but they reserve the right to take it back... and not once does the word "bonus" or "thank you" come up, support only come in reference to the support CIG offers the clients.

    on the other hand the TOS explicit tells "Your payment is a deposit to be used for:a) the production and delivery cost for the pledge items..."
    it does not say "your payment is a gift/donation..."

    look at the top, does it say donate or gift? or does it in fact say store? virtual items sold side by side of physical goods


    Zs2qITA.jpg

    and in the end tell me, what difference does the terminology make for the increase it exchange rate in virtual items for $$$,-? whether you call it, a gift for a gift, a purchase or a deal?

    we get something known (privilege to play with there toys on there discretion), for something known (large sums of money), thats the very definition on a deal. they present the deal, and that deal is only concluded on your initiative, which very much makes it a purchase, not a mutual gifting thingy.

    you are free to argue that you took the deal(s) as you wish to support the game. but that does not change the nature of what it is. and once more YOU have the burden of prof, the default position is what the TOS says:
    "Your payment is a deposit to be used for..."
    The "IV.Charges & Billing, D.Virtual Goods" only tells you what the virtual good is, who has the rights. but still this is what you buy. if you believe that this is gifting for gifting or what ever, you have to prove your claim, I or others don't have to disprove you...

    there is a misunderstanding among 90% of this community. let me explain.

    pledging means:
    A solemn binding promise to do, give, or refrain from doing something

    so when you go to the store and you buy something, what are you pledging to do? your money is transfered immediately, so you have uphold your end of the deal. then what is the pledge. well it is the pledge item, and its not you who have pledge a item, thats a notion that doesn't make scene. only option left is that the pledge item, is the item CIG pledge to make for you to use (on there terms of-course).

    not to be confused with pledging in a kick-starter, where you pledge to give money IF others pledge to meat the required amount of money.

    now one can argue that the word pledge is not the right word to use, and only something thats been with us from the time we did pledge. but until there is evidence on this that will only be speculation. and I don't speculate, I follow the evidence.

    you are not entitled to a refund, even if its a pre-order, there is conditions to conclude a deal with CIG when buying something in there store, it is covered buy the TOS, the TOS clearly says you don't own the stuff you buy, nor any rights to refund.

    the TOS and shop is painfully simple if you take the time to understand it. basically, when you make a purchase, you are making a deal according to the TOS. the purchase is a pre-order as you have up fronted the cash, and CIG pledge to give you access to the virtual items, whit in the condition of TOS.
    The most sensible explanation to date Of this issue I've seen in these forums. This is the way I've always understood it.
  • DustyLens

    Posts: 4695

    Posted:
    Posted:
    All jokes aside it's extremely unlikely that ships purchased on the website will carry a trivial dollar to time changeover. CIG is making monumental sums of cash selling ships and the rotation of 'limited' hulls to supplement the stock box pledges will continue throughout the games lifetime.

    If a busy afternoon can secure you $250 worth of ship the likelyhood of CIG's principle form of income, let alone secondary forms of income through the VD store and its delightful ability to mitigate travel and financial costs for equipment you're looking for will be largely negated.

    Then you have an income problem.
    uWw4Sua.gif
    \V/
  • Squizzy

    Posts: 157

    Posted:
    Edited: by Squizzy
    Posted:
    Edited:
    Ben while he did say Connie = 1 week he was referencing CR who has many many many times stated Connie = 1 week, I'd rather not see Ben get the shit for all this when its always been CR who came up with this rough estimate.
    MSLAYNE.png
  • 1stVerseProblems

    Posts: 201

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Assuming most of the ships to date are starter ships in their own rights: what if they want to make it somewhat easy for you to get into the starter ship you want? I'm not talking about handing it to you, but there needs to be a balance. But if I were designing a game like this, the real fun is obtaining that special ship (or ships) you want and then "playing the game". For me, I have a list of ships I want to earn. However the list of what I want to do far exceeds what I want to own. Therefore get the ships early that I want to start with, and go adventure.

    The South Park "Make Love Not Warcraft" comes to mind. "So what do we do now?" "Now? We play the game!"

    9Lpj1vZ.jpg
  • Booyaah82

    Posts: 2487

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I always knew the ships weren't worth anywhere near their price. But I'm concerned if CR will go back on his word to stop selling ships when the game goes live. I'm also miffed about the nickel and dime strategy that is the Voyager Direct store. You would think after sending them so much to support the game, they wouldn't have to worry about trying to monetize every little shelf, tool, and knick-knack in your hangar.
  • captainzor

    Posts: 186

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    Ships now = DONATION. If you don't want to donate, wait 2 years, then earn your ship for a week in-game.

    [hide]


    PS - for anyone saying im not buying anything, i am donating and just getting a bonus (though no idea of the value of that bonus), dont bother. Thats complete BS and im not even going to waste my time addressing it.

    How unfortunate you are so misinformed then...
    I do so love these "I'm going to ignore anyone who gives me the correct answer" posts.
    lol, this. +1
    "War's long done... we're all just folk now."
  • Prince-Thrakkath

    Posts: 763

    Posted:
    Edited: by Prince-Thrakkath
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]


    Both ends are destructive ... on one side you have lots of disappointed people that will label the game pay to win. And on the other getting credits will be so easy that no one buys them.

    Both instances are really bad for the game ... And finding balance will be really hard, I would say nearly impossible.

    Now question is ... what is more important to Chris? Good name of the game or relatively small number of high level backers that will be pissed (compared to overall backer population).

    I think, you can safely say that you won't have to grind for constellation 2 months ... but I also think that 1 week time won't stay. (but 600$ which is basically 2 constellations definitely won't be 4-6 months of grind ... I can see it being 1-2 months)

    I agree with all of this. I would love to see the crowd-funding drive move away from selling ships to physical items etc or even digital add-ons for ships, as it takes the focus away from the game itself. I understand its a great way of making cash for development, but it is going to make balancing the value to backers and accessibility to newcomers incredibly difficult.

    IMO a lot depends on what type of MMO it ends up being, will it be primarily PVE or PVP? (I'm guessing and hoping mainly PVE with PVP elements from what has being revealed thus far). If its primarily PVP or becomes more PVP focused value(in game advantage) of expensive ships will obviously be a bigger issue.

    I hope the economic model for the game in future is more than just selling ships, I would love to see optional subs like you get for Planetside 2 which gives you a certain amount of UEC per month. Personally I would have no problem paying a subscription.

    REIDYyy.jpg
  • Lady_Grace

    Posts: 1388

    Posted:
    Posted:
    The poll while split already shows that clearly a significant proportion of the community wants to feel that the rather large sums we have paid for many of these ships is worth it.

    And I'm 100% ok with that. The simple solution is that if you can earn a connie with one week's game play, then the Andromeda (etc) WITH FIT should be the equivalent of a high-end fitted ship, with things like the Phoenix and idris undocking with near-top quality fittings. The Gladiators should have their bombs, the cultasses should have tasty treats ... i.e. these things should actually have practical advantage over people who didn't shell out to support the development of the game.

    Why?

    Because the people who have these ships right now have funded the development of the game. There is absolutely NO requirement to offer players who don't put any money down the total right to equality of arms in the 'verse. If you can get an Aurora on day 1, with the same gear as the one you buy in the shop, then same thing - it will simply scream "you wasted your money you idiot" at players right when they should be basking in the glow of the new game.

    So yes, there should be backer only perks. Whether that is in the form of much (MUCH) better gear than you can get to fit your ship in a week, backer only items such as special skins, or backer only ships, there needs to be a reason to put something down beyond "shut up and take my money". Why? Because we actually want to make it to $54 M, those AI sound cool. If I could pledge to have a pet dog or a ship's cat that was mine, all mine, and no-one who wasn't a backer could have one, I would. It wouldn't matter if the backer's one was a white tabby and non-backers could get a brown one, I'd still have my "gee I am so happy I put money down!" feeling.

    Ultima Online actually was the first game to get this part totally right. They gave away goodies based on account age, and if you had supported the game for three years you got really nice things. Anyone could get the items, but you had to buy them off people who had them or wait until you hit three years too.

    So yes, when you first pledged can and should matter, and your commitment to the game should matter too. If golden ticket backers were offered first call on buying military connie variants, and then in order people who bought the original connies, and in game you simply could NOT buy one at all (steal only) ... would I be ok with that? Yes, even though it would likely mean I would never get a mil con. Why? Because those people who put in early built the basis for the game we have now, and I for one do not begrudge them some perks for that in the slightest.

    Does that make the game pay to win? No, it does not - if player A can kill player B, it isn't pay to win if player A has a ship they earned in game and player B has a one of a kind special hull they got for something like being one of the Four Horsemen, or a rare ship they got for backing early like the Retaliator Bomber (not Retaliator ex-bomber hauler). Being afraid to make things genuinely hard to get will be a disservice to both backers and future community: if you can get everything you want by the end of month one, it's hard to know what to do by month three. And that does not mean getting a connie by the end of week 1 should be impossible ... just that it should be a Taurus, with dodgy old engines, barely working shield, that is held together by rust and duct tape. It should certainly not be an Andromeda with fittings even remotely close to the pledge ship standard. And yes, fluffy dice, ships cat, backer skins, ... there should be things you just can't get in the 'verse other than from people who were there.

    Like Operation Pitchfork, there should be a black and white invasion stripes skin for that - which should ONLY be available to backers in Beta. Why? If you want the universe to live and breathe, you need to start by not knocking the wind out of backer's hopes, dreams, and faith in the company. Even Auroras should have something extra to acknowledge them, even if it is a "Veterans Stripe" on the hull that gives them a 2% discount on all UEE taxes and bribes or a couple of free backer only skins.
    9DG3BFz.jpg?1
  • QuorumOf4

    Posts: 3204

    Posted:
    Edited: by QuorumOf4
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    Confused-Monkeh:
    [hide]

    Relative values of things in the PU, still to be determined, so most of this thread is pointless waffle. This post here though:

    [hide]

    I will say that the first time I seriously considered asking CIG to refund my money was related to statement on how easy it will be to earn ships that had $200+ price point. I was under the impression that earning a ship was a serious time investment and the cost they were offering them at right now is a deal compared to what they will cost in the game. I find myself wondering if CIG has taken a corporate culture of where they are taking advantage of the generosity of affluent backers while actively laughing at the foolishness of spending money rather than earning everything.

    Normally I would let it slide under the argument "things are subject to change", but changing the intention is a very different beast than changing based on testing data feedback, and technical limitations. If CIG has misrepresented the difficulty in earning these ships, or changed their intention I would feel cheated. Most likey, CIG hasn't thought really hard on how difficult things should be to earn yet, The PU seems a long way away compared to their immediate schedule. With that said, that is the exact reason why this kind of backlash is good. See what the community thinks now BEFORE you spend a year building an economy.

    Week to earn something would be a joke to everybody I play with. We would earn everything we want in a month and find ourselves with nothing to work towards. I finding hard to take this kind of game as something I would play for years when I can earn multi-crew ships in days. Doesn't matter how fun it is, it wouldn't be able to hold my intention. The pledges I made to date where an investment in a game I'd play for years, but it's beginning to look mighty foolish for a game I'd play for months.

    I know many people want to be able to earn their ships quickly, but honestly they should want to be able to earn equipment quickly and ships slowly. In the situation where equipment is earned quickly you can create different equipment sets for multiple play styles, but earning a new ship is an accomplishment. The other two options are earn ships and equipment quickly where everything is meaningless, or earn ships quickly and equipment slowly where you can screw your self by buying the wrong stuff.

    ...is well worth reading. Very good points and one's I had not considered. I am now of the opinion ships should cost a bloody fortune in the PU. When my 'lancer finally manages to haul me a brand new Phoenix and that beautiful, (insert own opinion here!), ship turns up in my hangar, I want it to feel like an awesome moment, full of the excitement of upgrades and tuning...not just another ship to chuck on the pile.

    Cheers @QuorumOf4, opened my eyes a little there.

    For reference I have a 'lancer and 325a and plan on having nothing else by start of the PU. 'Lancer for making monies, 325a for funtimez, pew-pew.
    Are you kidding? That post that you quote completely contradicts itself. He wants Star Citizen to be a game that he will play for years, but at the same time he wants to pledge into a ship that should take a long time to earn in game. What? How is THAT going to hold his interest?
    @Telcontar
    1) There are many ships in Star Citizen, having a few doesn't ruin my interest in acquiring the others. That is like saying that once you have your starter pokemon, there is no reason to try to catch the rest.

    2) Paying to get immediate access to the playstyle I enjoy most allows me maximize the enjoyment I get out of play. It's much easier for a game to hold my attention with combat than trade runs. It holds my attention because I don't have to waste time doing things I don't want to do. If for example, the quickest way to purchase a hornet, was to do trade runs in an aurora. The game has the potential to lose my attention before I get to what I think is fun.
    [hide]

    He says it doesn't matter how fun the game is, because it won't hold his attention?

    We can use guild wars 2 as an example.

    I like GW2, I think it's fun. I played through a couple of characters (1,222 hours over 2 years) and got them to 80 and geared, but at some point I experienced everything there was to do. Despite liking the game, I don't play it. Every 2 weeks or so GW2 does a small content drop, and every month or so I log in and I play for an hour and experience all the new content. Then I go back to not playing it.

    Is my enjoyment of GW2 play a contradiction with it not holding my attention? Not to me. There are things I could do in GW2, I could spend months grinding hoping for a precursor drop to make a legendary weapon. I could log in everyday to earn daily achievements, or I can try to unlock tons cosmetic stuff. Yet the reason I don't log into to play, is I don't feel like I have anything I want to earn or achieve. The remaining things that I could do, are so far removed from what I'd consider a "reasonable" use of time that I can't consider them a goal to work towards.
    [hide]

    Maybe it won't hold his attention because he is pledging for ships left and right that he should instead earn in-game.

    I have 4 ships out of what will likely be a hundred ships, but lets be fair and say 20 of those I want to own (the rest being redundant). If each ship takes me a week to earn. I lost 4 weeks of gameplay out of 20. Those Gameplay Numbers aren't the kind that I'd play for years anyway.
    [hide]

    Doesn't matter how fun the game is? That is ALL that matters... its a ... dun-dun-dun... game.

    If online game are going to hold peoples attention then they need goals for people to work toward. You want things you can earn in a session of play [30 min] (run a mission), you want things you can earn over a few play sessions [4-12 hours] (Shiny New guns), you want things you can earn in over many play sessions [Weeks] (New ship) and you want things that will take a lifetime of play [Months] (Capital Ships).

    In GW2 I've done every short, medium, and long term goal. The only goals remaining will take me a lifetime. Unfortunately I don't have any mid or longterm goals to carry me to those lifetime goals. Without any mid or long term goals between the lifetime goals, It's hard to justify playing because the only thing left to do seem unobtainable.

    Now how does this relate to Star Citizen? I believed that Multi-Crew ships were long term goals. The kind of thing that would take a few weeks to earn. If it will only take me a week to earn multi-crew ships, then I can reasonable assume that I can earn a capital ship in a month. With a group of friends playing, we will have played through all the content in a month or two at the most. Then Star Citizen would become like GW2, we might log in for a few hours every month or two before we forget about it.

    Gameplay alone is not enough. If it was, there are a lot of games we'd still be playing.
    Idris-P | Constellation | Retaliator | Hornet x 2 | Super Hornet | Reclaimer | Redeemer
  • The_Comet

    Posts: 152

    Posted:
    Posted:
    With this topic now going 12 pages long I just hope someone takes the time to read my post.

    The OP "issue" just shows how much some people simply don't think about the implications of what they are asking for.

    Going straight to the point. Ship progression should feel natural and fun. A player should never feel like he is taking an eternity to progress.
    The game should never be balanced in such a way that favors those who pay real money for progression.
    The OP can relax. He is getting "value".
    Although you may be able to get a Connie in one or two weeks, if you instead prefer to use real money to get the ship faster, in the final game, the amount of real money required to get enough in game credits for the Connie will exceed the amount people have pledged. This makes sense as the high price of ships means few people will try to use real money to win. (pay 2 win) while also giving backers some value for what they have pledged.

    Proof is in the following letter for the Chairman:
    https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/13249-Letter-From-The-Chairman-18-Million

    And i quote

    We intended backers to get a benefit for backing early rather than waiting for a finished game and one way was by obtaining ships that ultimately will be more expensive once the game is “live”. A $25 Aurora may cost 75,000 UEC in the finished universe!

    Buying a Connie with real money when the game is released will always be more expensive than the pledge.

    If someone is still not happy with this, then what he/she wants is mobile phone game that requires people to pay for progression.
    What he/she wants is a game that takes months to do even the most basic of upgrades.
    He doesn't want a game. He wants a time waster.
    Imperium Recruitment
  • realsyntech

    Posts: 1039

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I don't understand what's all the fuss about a Constellation? It's not the end of the line of ships, so why all the bitching about it? If I start with an Aurora and don't have at least the next ship in the line within, lets say, 6 hours, I'm pretty much pissed. It's not the end of the game if you have a (BASE!) Constellation, and it's also not the end of the game if you own all other ships after a year. It's like saying that WoT is finished after you've reached tier 10. That's just ridiculous.
    "At some point you have to let it go and admit its just a game... not your chance to go to space."
    isfa-banner
  • HydraShock

    Posts: 1885

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Ben while he did say Connie = 1 week he was referencing CR who has many many many times stated Connie = 1 week, I'd rather not see Ben get the shit for all this when its always been CR who came up with this rough estimate.

    It matters not who said it. The simple truth is that they are giving conflicting information.

    Either A, they are saying you will need to shell out $170 for a new Taurus (assuming a 1:1 UEC to $$ cost under today's pricing on the store, and also assuming Ben was referring to the cheapest Connie), to save a single weeks worth of grinding. This will mean that almost noone is going to bother buying credits at this hugely inflated price, when they can be earned in such a short period of time.

    or B. The cost of the ships are actually going to cost LESS in game than they do now (UEC equivalent), as opposed to the commonly held understanding of 2-3x higher in the PU. This means first we were misled, and second, that everyone who currently owns a ship has been tricked into paying a hugely inflated price for the ship, as opposed to a discount, and would be much better off to melt their ship for credits so they can just buy more ships in game when it releases.

    Regardless, both are bad, so either they need to drastically revise their statement in regards to how long it takes to earn a ship in game, OR they need to drastically reduce the cost of credits. If they do reduce the cost of credits, they are going to REALLY piss a whole slew of people off who have bought them and traded with them....

    Honestly, I see no option but to revise the "one week" statement drastically longer, otherwise this model they have setup is going to blow up in their face.

  • Daworox

    Posts: 2496

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I don't really care about the pledge prices. I buy what I can, when I can afford it.
    Also, I don't buy some ship just to save some game time later on. I buy to pledge some additional funds to CIG for game development.
    So, in short - if you're not interested to provide CIG with the additional $$$ for development and associated costs, just buy the starter package and wait for the game to get everything else.
  • RedMustang

    Posts: 2323

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    Ben while he did say Connie = 1 week he was referencing CR who has many many many times stated Connie = 1 week, I'd rather not see Ben get the shit for all this when its always been CR who came up with this rough estimate.

    It matters not who said it. The simple truth is that they are giving conflicting information.

    Either A, they are saying you will need to shell out $170 for a new Taurus (assuming a 1:1 UEC to $$ cost under today's pricing on the store, and also assuming Ben was referring to the cheapest Connie), to save a single weeks worth of grinding. This will mean that almost noone is going to bother buying credits at this hugely inflated price, when they can be earned in such a short period of time.

    or B. The cost of the ships are actually going to cost LESS in game than they do now (UEC equivalent), as opposed to the commonly held understanding of 2-3x higher in the PU. This means first we were misled, and second, that everyone who currently owns a ship has been tricked into paying a hugely inflated price for the ship, as opposed to a discount, and would be much better off to melt their ship for credits so they can just buy more ships in game when it releases.

    Regardless, both are bad, so either they need to drastically revise their statement in regards to how long it takes to earn a ship in game, OR they need to drastically reduce the cost of credits. If they do reduce the cost of credits, they are going to REALLY piss a whole slew of people off who have bought them and traded with them....

    Honestly, I see no option but to revise the "one week" statement drastically longer, otherwise this model they have setup is going to blow up in their face.

    I'd just like to point this out again. Since we're all speculating and I more or less am of a closer mindset to you, this might help:

    Had another thought I haven't seen brought up. Somebody earlier said something along the lines of "60 hours is a lot for a single game" And they are right, most games are, lets say 20 hours (some a lot less some more, but some of the best that made you feel like your $60 was worth it give you a good 20 hour campaign).

    Now lets say the "60 hours to earn a connie" is the base we use, from a stock Aurora package and it's for a base connie (ship only, not package) so $150 plus the Aurora package of $30 = $180.

    OK, 3 awesome separate games would cost you $180 and provide you with 60 hours of enjoyment. Here you get a single game and if your only goal is to get that base connie you spend $30 for 60 hours of enjoyment.... Or spend $180 to bypass those 60 hours and continue on further along in your adventures.

    Now this flys against my wishes a little, but you gotta admit with this, 60 hours does seem reasonable in light of comparing $ per hour of awesomeness...

    OH, and this still doesn't touch on the estimated 40-50 hour included campaign...

  • Albuquerque

    Posts: 6611

    On Probation
    Posted:
    On Probation
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    Ben while he did say Connie = 1 week he was referencing CR who has many many many times stated Connie = 1 week, I'd rather not see Ben get the shit for all this when its always been CR who came up with this rough estimate.

    It matters not who said it. The simple truth is that they are giving conflicting information.

    Either A, they are saying you will need to shell out $170 for a new Taurus (assuming a 1:1 UEC to $$ cost under today's pricing on the store, and also assuming Ben was referring to the cheapest Connie), to save a single weeks worth of grinding. This will mean that almost noone is going to bother buying credits at this hugely inflated price, when they can be earned in such a short period of time.

    or B. The cost of the ships are actually going to cost LESS in game than they do now (UEC equivalent), as opposed to the commonly held understanding of 2-3x higher in the PU. This means first we were misled, and second, that everyone who currently owns a ship has been tricked into paying a hugely inflated price for the ship, as opposed to a discount, and would be much better off to melt their ship for credits so they can just buy more ships in game when it releases.

    Regardless, both are bad, so either they need to drastically revise their statement in regards to how long it takes to earn a ship in game, OR they need to drastically reduce the cost of credits. If they do reduce the cost of credits, they are going to REALLY piss a whole slew of people off who have bought them and traded with them....

    Honestly, I see no option but to revise the "one week" statement drastically longer, otherwise this model they have setup is going to blow up in their face.

    It IS blowing in their faces now...lets just see who will buy next coming ship packs even with LTI I don't see it after this...
  • T-Minus

    Posts: 934

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Merlion:
    [hide]

    Donation are for charity. In no way and form do I consider CIG a charity. Charity is a well defined legal entity and CIG can never fit within a charity operation schedule and therefore can not operate like a charity. CIG is a business enterprise. a business enterprise is also a well defined legal entity and CIG fit a business operation schedule perfectly.

    Using the term donation is misleading. As a business CIG in relation with Chriss Roberts, I do have a lot of respect and trust in from past gaming experience. However I do not accept the term 'donation' under normal business practice. I do accept 'pre order' and the term 'backer' as in a general business transaction in the sense of a game and items there in received in the future.

    Is NPR a charity? PBS? No.
    Wrong analogy, they are non-profit, which CIG certainly isn't.

  • Causa22

    Posts: 716

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I pledged because dollars now are worth more than dollars later, once features are more locked in, and things get bumped off to expansions or updates.

    So it seems like there are two conflicting statements from CIG:

    1) That pledge ships are for funding the game, and the price of the ships are not related to in-game value. (this is the "you pledged for the game, you did not buy a ship" argument.)

    2) That purchasing ships now save you a significant amount of credits (1.5 to 2x the price in the PU).

    These two statements seem to contradict one another, to me. The 2nd statement says the prices are directly related to the PU prices. The 1st says this is not true.

    On top of that, with credits being at a 1000 = 1USD ratio, I feel like these three concepts cannot all coexist.
    photo Causasig1_zpsd7020857.jpg
  • Kerrija

    Posts: 97

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    I don't understand what's all the fuss about a Constellation? It's not the end of the line of ships, so why all the bitching about it? If I start with an Aurora and don't have at least the next ship in the line within, lets say, 6 hours, I'm pretty much pissed. It's not the end of the game if you have a (BASE!) Constellation, and it's also not the end of the game if you own all other ships after a year. It's like saying that WoT is finished after you've reached tier 10. That's just ridiculous.

    How long do you have to play to get to Tier 10 in ALL the trees tho? I think the grind there is (at least sometimes) horrible - therefore not the best model for SC.

    I think it will be hard to strike a balance between getting access to new ships and having a feeling of accomplishment when achieving this.
    I have a Banu in my hangar and hope it won't be a return trip on a moderately succesfull trade route that nets me a new ship the size of a Connie.

    The problem lies with the vague timeframe that was given. If it is, lets say 60-80 hours for a Taurus it might be fine. Maybe already too much.

    But I have to grudgingly agree that we will have to wait and see till the PU beta arrives.
  • Squigles

    Posts: 939

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    I pledged because dollars now are worth more than dollars later, once features are more locked in, and things get bumped off to expansions or updates.

    So it seems like there are two conflicting statements from CIG:

    1) That pledge ships are for funding the game, and the price of the ships are not related to in-game value. (this is the "you pledged for the game, you did not buy a ship" argument.)

    2) That purchasing ships now save you a significant amount of credits (1.5 to 2x the price in the PU).

    These two statements seem to contradict one another, to me. The 2nd statement says the prices are directly related to the PU prices. The 1st says this is not true.

    On top of that, with credits being at a 1000 = 1USD ratio, I feel like these three concepts cannot all coexist.

    To be fair, I've never seen statement 1 made by any employee of CIG...at least the not related to in-game value bit. The only thing I've ever seen is that what you paid as a pledge is less than what it would cost in game.

    I see a lot of PLAYERS make the case from statement 1, but not CIG. I'd love to be linked to something saying that though so I can swear off adding any more money to this project.
  • Albuquerque

    Posts: 6611

    On Probation
    Posted:
    On Probation
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    I don't understand what's all the fuss about a Constellation? It's not the end of the line of ships, so why all the bitching about it? If I start with an Aurora and don't have at least the next ship in the line within, lets say, 6 hours, I'm pretty much pissed. It's not the end of the game if you have a (BASE!) Constellation, and it's also not the end of the game if you own all other ships after a year. It's like saying that WoT is finished after you've reached tier 10. That's just ridiculous.

    How long do you have to play to get to Tier 10 in ALL the trees tho? I think the grind there is (at least sometimes) horrible - therefore not the best model for SC.

    I think it will be hard to strike a balance between getting access to new ships and having a feeling of accomplishment when achieving this.
    I have a Banu in my hangar and hope it won't be a return trip on a moderately succesfull trade route that nets me a new ship the size of a Connie.

    The problem lies with the vague timeframe that was given. If it is, lets say 60-80 hours for a Taurus it might be fine. Maybe already too much.

    But I have to grudgingly agree that we will have to wait and see till the PU beta arrives.
    My guess is that they are already planning to mess up with BIG CARGO TRADING with the GO AROUND idea concerning jump points so to make the difference between an Aurora cargo run not that much different from a Banu MM cargo run go around the all galaxy to get the profit. The Aurora will do 10x more runs with shortcuts n get the same money a banu gets plus maintenance expenses...wait n see people will go off the roof.
  • wcloaf

    Developer

    Posted:
    Posted:
    First, I should stress that the "week to earn a Constellation" is Chris' thought on what will make the game fun to play. It may (and likely will) change significantly as our theoretical economy becomes a reality... but it's a baseline of what we're aiming for. It's the goal, not something we've put into practice yet. And of course there are all kinds of caveats associated with even that simple marker. Are we talking about the base hull of a Constellation Taurus without any components or are we talking about a fully loaded limited edition Constellation Phoenix? And that is a vast difference; for everyone hanging on the claim that it might take a week to earn a Constellation, Chris has noted just as frequently that the fully equipped ships you're pledging for before launch should come it at a discount compared to the total value of their parts in the finished economy.

    That said, the intent is that ship progression should be achievable because the end goal is to have a game that's fun. So many games these days use the fact that you technically can earn things in the game to claim that they aren't abusing microtransactions. So, yes, if I leave my phone sitting for three days I technically *can* play the next photo shoot in the Kim Kardashian game... but the entire game is designed around monetization and getting the player to pay up NOW if they want to continue to enjoy themselves. Our game isn't this: we're building the progression in a way that's supposed to be fun to people who actually enjoy space sims, without triggers to force you to buy whatever's needed for the next stage.
  • Twain

    Posts: 509

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    First, I should stress that the "week to earn a Constellation" is Chris' thought on what will make the game fun to play. It may (and likely will) change significantly as our theoretical economy becomes a reality... but it's a baseline of what we're aiming for. It's the goal, not something we've put into practice yet. And of course there are all kinds of caveats associated with even that simple marker. Are we talking about the base hull of a Constellation Taurus without any components or are we talking about a fully loaded limited edition Constellation Phoenix? And that is a vast difference; for everyone hanging on the claim that it might take a week to earn a Constellation, Chris has noted just as frequently that the fully equipped ships you're pledging for before launch should come it at a discount compared to the total value of their parts in the finished economy.

    That said, the intent is that ship progression should be achievable because the end goal is to have a game that's fun. So many games these days use the fact that you technically can earn things in the game to claim that they aren't abusing microtransactions. So, yes, if I leave my phone sitting for three days I technically *can* play the next photo shoot in the Kim Kardashian game... but the entire game is designed around monetization and getting the player to pay up NOW if they want to continue to enjoy themselves. Our game isn't this: we're building the progression in a way that's supposed to be fun to people who actually enjoy space sims, without triggers to force you to buy whatever's needed for the next stage.

    I was avoiding this thread like the plague, but did you seriously just use the Kim Kardashian game as an example for something, thus admitting that you play it? How are you not single?
Sign In or Register to comment.