The Star Citizen Thread V10

Technically speaking we can call it a game - albeit an unreleased buggy alpha of a game with limited gameplay elements.

And since people PLAY the game i guess that too would qualify it as a game.

Not sure about Curling though, but Chess is apparently called a "sport" nowadays and not a board game and the summer olympics of 2020 will include Golf which i see as a nice stroll for an hour while whacking a ball with a stick and not a sport. I prefer the classical olympic games myself like running, throwing spears and such.

EDIT: Apparently EA releases "games" that are actually loot box delivery systems designed to deliver surprise mechanics with minimal content.
Wilson rose up with EA sports games and their affinity to already well-known features like collectibles. Now everyone and their mother's dog tries to transfer that cash cow to other games and wonders why it isnt going as smoothly. All the while gameplay is taking a backstep cos they cant handle all the graphic fidelity, mtx systems and designing good gameplay with all of that anymore. AAA is hitting a brick wall.
 
The interim patches certainly expand the game but they are not what is typically viewed as an "expansion" for MMO type games. The designation has been around since early to mid 2000's
WOW - Burning Crusade, Wrath, Cataclysm etc
FFXIV - Heavensward, Stormblood, Shadowbringers
GW2 - Heart of Thorns, Path of Fire
EVE Online - too many to list...
And so on.

All of these games receive large patches for their current expansion but no one ever calls them individual expansions, it's never been that way.

Anyhow, we are getting way off topic here :)
Are we? Or SC is simply the best collection of bad practices in the gaming industry. :)
 
Honestly, I doubt that was a genuine option years ago. When you look at what they've done the last few years and the pile of work they still have to do, I think it was more a case of 'find a way to get near-perpetual funding or close up shop'.
They didn’t make that very clear in the kickstarter and I guess the AAA level wages for the last seven years and counting is just a fortuitous offshoot!
There’s a huge conflict of interest in this project,if they ship,the money stops.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Meanwhile, elsewhere on this forum, people are complaining about the new system for ED that will allow you to get things for free.
Yaffle offtopic hammer notwithstanding it is interesting to see the “heated discussions” something relatively minor, and not p2w, such as the ARX are causing in the rest of the forum, especially given that it will allow getting skins for free. Meanwhile SC fundamentally p2w based commercial structure gets an olympic size pass and around 300 mil. Can you imagine the outroar over here?
 
Last edited:
Just sell Cutter for $100, what's the worst that could happen :unsure:
There would be a EA level of backlash. Something Chris Roberts is only postponing. If by some miracle SC gets a release and it isn’t dreadful he will still have to answer for all the dodgy business practices.
The uk is investigating the gaming industry as we speak,if they outlaw in game purchases where does that leave CIG?
 
Yaffle offtopic hammer notwithstanding it is interesting to see the “heated discussions” something relatively minor, and not p2w, such as the ARX are causing in the rest of the forum, especially given that it will allow getting skins for free. Meanwhile SC fundamentally p2w based commercial structure gets an olympic size pass and around 300 mil. Can you imagine the outroar over here?
Sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. The ARX thingy has raised a total number of zero eyebrows in gamer communities in general, whereas SC has been the laughing stock for ages. Just because some people here are upset and some people don't mind what CIG is doing in their community doesn't mean there is some imbalance. If ED would go the SC route it would also become a running joke in gaming circles, and some will defend it here nevertheless. What you see is that those who do not like what is happening, which is the overwhelming majority of gamers, simply don't want to be part of it anymore, and as such you are left with whatever small group doesn't mind such massive p2w structures.

The uk is investigating the gaming industry as we speak,if they outlaw in game purchases where does that leave CIG?
That is not going to happen. Lootboxes can be said to be a form of gambling, but in-game purchases are just economic transactions like any other. And as with any transaction you might personally believe the product not to be worth it, and you have the right not to purchase it. Individual cases can be different (if, for example, a game in development is ruled to be a scam than any purchases for that 'game' would likely not be allowed) but in general terms there is zero reason to outlaw in-game purchases industry-wide. It really is an absurd notion.

If by some miracle SC gets a release and it isn’t dreadful he will still have to answer for all the dodgy business practices.
No, he won't have to do any such thing. He will chill in his fancy cars, yacht and villa and live a comfortable and enjoyable life. People may write angry blogs or post memes, and that will be about it.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. The ARX thingy has raised a total number of zero eyebrows in gamer communities in general, whereas SC has been the laughing stock for ages. Just because some people here are upset and some people don't mind what CIG is doing in their community doesn't mean there is some imbalance. If ED would go the SC route it would also become a running joke in gaming circles, and some will defend it here nevertheless. What you see is that those who do not like what is happening, which is the overwhelming majority of gamers, simply don't want to be part of it anymore, and as such you are left with whatever small group doesn't mind such massive p2w structures.



That is not going to happen. Lootboxes can be said to be a form of gambling, but in-game purchases are just economic transactions like any other. And as with any transaction you might personally believe the product not to be worth it, and you have the right not to purchase it. Individual cases can be different (if, for example, a game in development is ruled to be a scam than any purchases for that 'game' would likely not be allowed) but in general terms there is zero reason to outlaw in-game purchases industry-wide. It really is an absurd notion.



No, he won't have to do any such thing. He will chill in his fancy cars, yacht and villa and live a comfortable and enjoyable life. People may write angry blogs or post memes, and that will be about it.
Looks like you must have missed all the interesting ARX related threads and all the related cash grab concerns and FDEV bashing in them.
 
Looks like you must have missed all the interesting ARX related threads and all the related cash grab concerns and FDEV bashing in them.
You mean here, on the FD forums? Because I have just explained why that is the wrong perspective. I have not seen the piles and piles of jokes outside here, compared with what CIG gets outside of their circles. When CIG releases a new video/presentation, the chat is usually filled by 99% of people spamming 'SCAM'. That is totally not the case with FD. Here are some external news links:

https://www.polygon.com/2019/7/7/20685200/elite-dangerous-fleet-carriers-arx-in-ship-updates-release-dates-pc-ps4-xbox-one
https://www.thesixthaxis.com/2019/07/06/elite-dangerous-update-patch-arx-fleet-carrier/
https://www.pcgamer.com/elite-dangerous-teases-fleet-carriers-and-rebrands-its-premium-currency/#comment-jump

By far people either ignore the ARX thing completely, or are split 50/50. In contrast this is pcgamers latest article about SC
https://www.pcgamer.com/star-citizen-is-free-to-fly-for-a-week/#comment-jump

See the difference?
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
You mean here, on the FD forums? Because I have just explained why that is the wrong perspective. I have not seen the piles and piles of jokes outside here, compared with what CIG gets outside of their circles. When CIG releases a new video/presentation, the chat is usually filled by 99% of people spamming 'SCAM'. That is totally not the case with FD. Here are some external news links:

https://www.polygon.com/2019/7/7/20685200/elite-dangerous-fleet-carriers-arx-in-ship-updates-release-dates-pc-ps4-xbox-one
https://www.thesixthaxis.com/2019/07/06/elite-dangerous-update-patch-arx-fleet-carrier/
https://www.pcgamer.com/elite-dangerous-teases-fleet-carriers-and-rebrands-its-premium-currency/#comment-jump

By far people either ignore the ARX thing completely, or are split 50/50. In contrast this is pcgamers latest article about SC
https://www.pcgamer.com/star-citizen-is-free-to-fly-for-a-week/#comment-jump

See the difference?
My OP was obviously referring to the Elite community indeed. Fully disagree with you in minimising the SC “imbalance” to just “some” members of its community supporting the current p2w commercial status quo. 300 mil also seem to disagree with you.
 
Last edited:
I really don't get where you're coming from Ian Skippy.

If a fan uses some insane level of mental gymnastics and I post it here, not to ridicule but just to say, look at how far people are bending backwards in defence of something. Why is that a problem?
 
Sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. The ARX thingy has raised a total number of zero eyebrows in gamer communities in general, whereas SC has been the laughing stock for ages. Just because some people here are upset and some people don't mind what CIG is doing in their community doesn't mean there is some imbalance. If ED would go the SC route it would also become a running joke in gaming circles, and some will defend it here nevertheless. What you see is that those who do not like what is happening, which is the overwhelming majority of gamers, simply don't want to be part of it anymore, and as such you are left with whatever small group doesn't mind such massive p2w structures.



That is not going to happen. Lootboxes can be said to be a form of gambling, but in-game purchases are just economic transactions like any other. And as with any transaction you might personally believe the product not to be worth it, and you have the right not to purchase it. Individual cases can be different (if, for example, a game in development is ruled to be a scam than any purchases for that 'game' would likely not be allowed) but in general terms there is zero reason to outlaw in-game purchases industry-wide. It really is an absurd notion.



No, he won't have to do any such thing. He will chill in his fancy cars, yacht and villa and live a comfortable and enjoyable life. People may write angry blogs or post memes, and that will be about it.
Morally wrong and predatory business practices are certainly things that change law.
“Get it now before it’s gone” techniques prey on the weak willed and impulsive players. Now ramp the amount of money to CIG levels and you’ve extracted a lot of money from people who can’t afford it.
 
My OP was obviously referring to the Elite community indeed. Fully disagree with you in minimising the SC “imbalance” to just “some” members of its community supporting the current p2w commercial status quo. 300 mil also seem to disagree with you.
Ha, no. You claimed CIG got a 'free pass'. That is absolutely evidently factually not so. The reputation of CIG in the general gaming community is abysmal. The amount of garbage people throw at CIG (deservedly as it may be, that isn't the point) is far beyond what FD receives. Yes, people in the ED community are more critical about ED than people in the SC community are about SC. That doesnt mean CIG gets a free pass, it means their approach to community management has resulted in the consistent purging of critical people to the point only non-critical people remain.

I really don't get where you're coming from Ian Skippy.

If a fan uses some insane level of mental gymnastics and I post it here, not to ridicule but just to say, look at how far people are bending backwards in defence of something. Why is that a problem?
Mostly for two reasons. Firstly it doesn't mean anything. I am active in modular synthesis circles, and I see similar things. People spending huge amounts of money on stuff they cannot afford while bending over any which way to justify it. If there is something you can both be passionate about and spend money on (whether it is SC, fishing, music, whatever) you'll have people with problematic behavior. That in itself means nothing. If you want to make the case that there is something particularly predatory or wrong about CIG, point at what CIG does. That may be a good argument against CIG. Pointing at problematic behavior from individual consumers only 'proofs' that that particular individual has issues.

Secondly, not only does pointing at 'unstable' people showing unhealthy behavior or attitudes reveal nothing about CIG itself (so it is a weak argument at best), you're also putting the spotlight on people who very well might simply be mental patients. Some people in any community are simply not well. The SC community is clearly no exception. And while I have no issue with criticizing corporations in general, or CIG in particular, we really should be above what is essentially publicly shaming psychiatric patients. Yes, they can be annoying at times. But just let it slide, rise above the temptation of the easy target and focus on what CIG does.

There is plenty of ammunition there.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Ha, no. You claimed CIG got a 'free pass'. That is absolutely evidently factually not so. The reputation of CIG in the general gaming community is abysmal. The amount of garbage people throw at CIG (deservedly as it may be, that isn't the point) is far beyond what FD receives. Yes, people in the ED community are more critical about ED than people in the SC community are about SC. That doesnt mean CIG gets a free pass, it means their approach to community management has resulted in the consistent purging of critical people to the point only non-critical people remain.



Mostly for two reasons. Firstly it doesn't mean anything. I am active in modular synthesis circles, and I see similar things. People spending huge amounts of money on stuff they cannot afford while bending over any which way to justify it. If there is something you can both be passionate about and spend money on (whether it is SC, fishing, music, whatever) you'll have people with problematic behavior. That in itself means nothing. If you want to make the case that there is something particularly predatory or wrong about CIG, point at what CIG does. That may be a good argument against CIG. Pointing at problematic behavior from individual consumers only 'proofs' that that particular individual has issues.

Secondly, not only does pointing at 'unstable' people showing unhealthy behavior or attitudes reveal nothing about CIG itself (so it is a weak argument at best), you're also putting the spotlight on people who very well might simply be mental patients. Some people in any community are simply not well. The SC community is clearly no exception. And while I have no issue with criticizing corporations in general, or CIG in particular, we really should be above what is essentially publicly shaming psychiatric patients. Yes, they can be annoying at times. But just let it slide, rise above the temptation of the easy target and focus on what CIG does.

There is plenty of ammunition there.
I think 300 mil are as close to a factual free pass a community can give to a developer as it can get. And (if you believe CIGs tracker) this years funding so far is also top tier. The overall SC community behaviour and comments simply reflect that. The “imbalance” in support (or at least a free pass) of the SC commercial model by its community has few similar precedents in the industry.
 
Last edited:
Digital Extremes on how they achieved Empyrean tech:

Whereas games like Star Citizen strive to simulate spaceflight more directly, that comes at an enormous burden to both the game engine, the computer playing the game, and the developers who have to stitch it altogether. "I'm going to fake it because I can make it faster," Sinclair laughed.

Thanks to lots of nuanced lighting and spatial effects, the trick works. From the demo, it's impossible to tell that you're not actually flying in 3D space.
What if all SC needed was less never done before fyscallized phideliciousity but more good old simple cleverness?
 
Mostly for two reasons. Firstly it doesn't mean anything. I am active in modular synthesis circles, and I see similar things. People spending huge amounts of money on stuff they cannot afford while bending over any which way to justify it. If there is something you can both be passionate about and spend money on (whether it is SC, fishing, music, whatever) you'll have people with problematic behavior. That in itself means nothing. If you want to make the case that there is something particularly predatory or wrong about CIG, point at what CIG does. That may be a good argument against CIG. Pointing at problematic behavior from individual consumers only 'proofs' that that particular individual has issues.
But we can still look at the reasoning being used and try to understand why people think it is valid or why people convince themselves it is valid.
It might not mean anything in your example but one size does not fit all, yes people should point fingers at CIG's monetization methods but they should also point fingers at those that support it, those that enable it, because of the potential wider effects of their actions.

I see the same in the audiophile world where companies are taken to task for unprovable claims but "audiophools" are also taken to task because of the pseudo voodoo beliefs and how they are supporting and enabling these unscrupulous claims.

Secondly, not only does pointing at 'unstable' people showing unhealthy behavior or attitudes reveal nothing about CIG itself (so it is a weak argument at best), you're also putting the spotlight on people who very well might simply be mental patients. Some people in any community are simply not well. The SC community is clearly no exception. And while I have no issue with criticizing corporations in general, or CIG in particular, we really should be above what is essentially publicly shaming psychiatric patients. Yes, they can be annoying at times. But just let it slide, rise above the temptation of the easy target and focus on what CIG does.

There is plenty of ammunition there.
That feels like an assumption. I can only speak for myself but more often than not I look at the types of arguments people use to justify something because I find that side of it quite interesting, ie how people can be vehemently against certain industry practices but then praise up a company like CIG, from my position it seems very duplictious. In the massivelyop example, I don't care about the guy, I don't care about his opinions of Elite, what I find odd is the irrationality of his defense.
 
Top Bottom