|
I love cats posted:Asking money for a boxed game and then asking some more via microtransactions is EA degree of scummy cow milking. Weird, no one seems to think Guild Wars 2 is doing anything wrong, and its monetization model is exactly that. I thought it was pretty well accepted that a game that offers an ongoing service like a traditional MMO or what the PU is promised to be has the right to build in ongoing cash flows.
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
It's almost like having half a dozen different flight models at the same time and ineptly trying to model individual thrusters while using a "UI" designed by a guy who's never had to make something actual functional instead of hollywood movie fluff are bad ideas. It doesn't even matter if Joysticks, Gamepads or Mice are better, because every single control option still controls like poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
As long as they stay away from offering actual combat advantages for cash or WoW-esque "required" expansion packs I'm fine with it. As for the controls, I'm really hoping the goal is to make it very simple to control your ship and shoot at things. If average people trying to play the game for fun are instead left fighting with the controls just to make their spaceship do what they want it to do the game will never succeed and it'll just be another sperglord game with a 200 pop at peak hours. As previously mentioned, War Thunder is a great example of a flight sim with very simple controls, one of the big factors allowing it to be successful. It's notable that in WT the simplest control scheme mode (arcade) tops the charts for population, with the simple-controls-but-realistic-flight-models-and-damage mode (realistic) coming in a (sometimes close) second, and the sperglord full sim mode coming in WAY behind in last. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:46
|
|
Doink9731 posted:UGH! Pedantic peripherals and control schemes are relics of a bygone era. This game is being made because the sales pitch essentially is that they wanted to make a space game like the space games that are not made anymore.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
BitBasher posted:This game is being made because the sales pitch essentially is that they wanted to make a space game like the space games that are not made anymore. This is the crux of the matter. Whatever you want to say about ArCom, the flight model they give you "out of the box" (ie no COMSTAB or GSAFE and with the terrible control scheme) is nothing like the space sims people played. It's a bit better with those options turned off, but missing things like strafing out of decoupled mode is pretty terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
Can we at least agree then that the controls are rear end?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
If they wanted to make a space game the way they used to be made I would be expecting a Freespace 2 flight control method which is easy to get into to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
macnbc posted:The whole point of Star Citizen once finally released is that it will receive regular updates over time. Roberts said they're aiming for weekly but I think monthly is more achievable. You misunderstand. My understanding was that SC will charge for the boxed game to then force you suffer through a microtransaction wall, the latter which I absolutely dread. I am fine with paying extra for DLCs as they become available, but gently caress the nickel&dime poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
I love cats posted:You misunderstand. There certainly are some games that use microtransactions that way, but it's certainly not a rule. Some do it very tastefully and continued investment ensures continued updates and additional free content. It can be bad, but it's not always bad and the industry has learnt a lot about how to not piss all over their userbase with this sort of thing in recent years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Doink9731 posted:Can we at least agree then that the controls are rear end? They are absolutely terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
The flight model has its problems now, but there is a lot of time for the rough parts to be smoothed out. They are doing some unique things never been tried before, and it is going to take some experimentation. Right now each thruster realistically adjusts your craft based on the thrust output and the position of the thruster on the craft. In the long run this is going to give each craft very different maneuvering characteristics, and create a lot of depth to combat. e.g. The Cutlass can pitch quickly, but is slow on the yaw, so you're better off getting into the habit of rolling before making a hard left/right turn. Its a level of depth not yet seen in space game. I'm having a lot of fun with it, and I can see the potential here. I'm sure the devs can smooth out the controls a bit so long as they are willing fudge some numbers behind the scenes, and not get bogged down trying to balance every single ship so it handles well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
macnbc posted:The whole point of Star Citizen once finally released is that it will receive regular updates over time. Roberts said they're aiming for weekly but I think monthly is more achievable. Lets be realistic here, this is Chris Roberts we are talking about. When the game relases in 2019, there will be quarterly expansion packs, and each of them will be delayed anything between 3 and 6 months.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Eldragon posted:So you have not tried mouse control, but you're willing to pontificate on the subject anyway? I plan to try it when I get a chance, but my point was that a stick/gamepad is not required, even if it is better. If mouse control is improved to the level of War Thunder, sticks are obsolete. Maybe there's a good middle ground, maybe not (and I'm all for improving mouse control to that level if it's not there now - I'd prefer they were as equal as possible), but it sounds an awful like the argument is that mouse should be treated as the primary (superior) control method because everyone has one. I disagree, and say it need only be adequate/equal. To bring up a different example, driving games are playable with an analog stick on a gamepad, but wheels are superior. And another, that FPS games can be played with a gamepad, but M+K is superior. Flight/space sims should feel more natural with a stick by the same token. And as I said, I didn't realize that mouse control was so idiotically simple in War Thunder when I started playing it. 10 matches later, I sorted that out, and realized nobody was using a stick but me. Stopped playing it, never looked back. All controls can be rebound. It takes creating/editing an .xml file. Wish it was easier, but it's worth the effort if you ask me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Eldragon posted:The flight model has its problems now, but there is a lot of time for the rough parts to be smoothed out. They are doing some unique things never been tried before, and it is going to take some experimentation. All of those 'details' can be modeled in minutes with a simple physics model. It's making things overly complicated for the sake of being overly complicated and the results are bad. Really bad. If you can't get something as simple as this right in how ever many months or years it has been so far, you're probably not going to do so well on other things. Also yeah, I hope they don't spend the time to make sure all the ships are playable too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
You have to wonder why a company would need to have paywalls for thing for a game they've already raised forty something million for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:23
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:This is the crux of the matter. Whatever you want to say about ArCom, the flight model they give you "out of the box" (ie no COMSTAB or GSAFE and with the terrible control scheme) is nothing like the space sims people played. It's a bit better with those options turned off, but missing things like strafing out of decoupled mode is pretty terrible. While I agree that missing strafing mode feels odd, and I believe they should add it, To my knowledge none of the original Wing Commander games or Privateer allowed it so it was something that I was somewhat expecting to be missing. I totally agree that the flight model needs work though. Cojawfee posted:You have to wonder why a company would need to have paywalls for thing for a game they've already raised forty something million for. No, I don't wonder that at all, and neither should you. There are two funding models for a server based multiplayer game. Those are a subscription model which is out of vogue right now, or a micro transaction model which is not. This game will have an actual server cluster running everyhting and not be using a peer to peer model, so there are ongoing costs. We are paying for the box which gives us Squadron 42 and the online portion, Star Citizen. Think of it just like GTA V and GTA Online. GTA Online is included and has no monthly fee but is supported by micro transactions. BitBasher fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Av027 posted:And as I said, I didn't realize that mouse control was so idiotically simple in War Thunder when I started playing it. 10 matches later, I sorted that out, and realized nobody was using a stick but me. Stopped playing it, never looked back. Most people in War Thunder Sim battles use a stick, it's just that the sim population is less than 10% of all users. Though WT recently peaked above 100k concurrent users. Besides the realistic newton space flight models will end up making dogfights quite boring. Because reorienting your autism chariot will happen at the same °/s no matter how fast you go. Though this might lend additional power to small multi crew ships. As long as they can fire rearwards. Doing expanding/closing barrel rolls will lead to easier shot solutions for the turret gunner while presenting a somewhat difficult target.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Av027 posted:And as I said, I didn't realize that mouse control was so idiotically simple in War Thunder when I started playing it. 10 matches later, I sorted that out, and realized nobody was using a stick but me. Stopped playing it, never looked back. <War thunder thread mode> lol why were you playing arcade mode don't be dumb </War thunder thread mode> I actually agree with wanting good stick or controller setups in this game, but trotting out that line about war thunder just makes all your other points look silly. Ideally myself I'd want something like a stick + a G13 ish style gamepad with an analog thumbstick I think. Or a throttle with an analog thumbstick, if such a thing exists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Stealth Like posted:All of those 'details' can be modeled in minutes with a simple physics model. It's making things overly complicated for the sake of being overly complicated and the results are bad. Really bad. If you can't get something as simple as this right in how ever many months or years it has been so far, you're probably not going to do so well on other things. Its hyper-realistics but functional. It's obviously got some rough edges but there is a long time between now and release. Remember this is the advantage of releasing an early alpha. It gives the devs time to balance and adjust the game against a live customer environment early in the dev process; before its too late to go back and make big changes. I'd much rather play the game they have planned where each ship handles differently; rather than every other space game out there where each ship handles exactly the same way and they just have different turn rates and top speed. Stealth Like posted:Also yeah, I hope they don't spend the time to make sure all the ships are playable too. Obviously I want ships balanced. What I meant to say is that I'm concerned CIG will spend hundreds of hours remodeling the physical thruster placement on ships so its a perfect simulation; rather than just tweak a config file so the actual thrust comes from a different position than where it is drawn on the model.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Eldragon posted:The flight model has its problems now, but there is a lot of time for the rough parts to be smoothed out. They are doing some unique things never been tried before, and it is going to take some experimentation. And this is actually what I really like the potential of too. It's already seen in particular in the alpha with how the damage modelling works - you get some very crazy results if you take enough damage and some of your thrusters get broken, and it could lead to some pretty cool challenges that you don't get in other space combat games. I agree the flight model's broken the way it is now, but I'm open to the system they're trying to implement so long as they can get it working well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Gwaihir posted:<War thunder thread mode> The whole reason to bring up War Thunder is that people ITT and the brown sea are praising how well implemented mouse control is there. I personally don't want sticks made obsolete through superior mouse control. Again, my stance is "as equal as possible". Av027 fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Man, you would think with a week of "polishing" someone in CIG would have gone "hey guys let's make a quick way for people to map controls, since it's all XML based". Guess not. I vaguely recall someone somewhere (might have been WMH) saying that they hadn't established a keymapping system because they needed a build that was solid enough to handle the variables required for keymaps. Considering they're showing how to DIY a keymap (which seems like it would be even less reliable for code stability than an in game keymapper) it seems possible this is a load of hooey.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
So any hint at all on when multiplayer combat is actually going in?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
A friend is pushing me to check out SC, and when I heard Anders was running this Goonrathi joint, I was sold on at least giving it a shot. The Goonrathi enlistment page keeps rejecting my RSI handle though, and I don't know why. Maybe it's because it has a underscore? What did I do wrong? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Av027 posted:Does anyone actually read what I'm writing? I did not realize that mouse control was so simple when I first tried it (using a stick). Did you read what the replies were? You were being mocked for only having played a short time in Arcade with a joystick and coming to a deduction of M+KB domination. You admitted you didn't realize why, and then implied it would lead to the same domination should it be implemented in Star Citizen. M+KB is only superior in Arcade mode. Realism (the flight simulation mode) is essentially joystick mandatory. Historical could be argued for either. The praise for WT control implementation is warranted. *That* game has different game modes. They managed to work game physics and control schemes to match perfectly to the common mass of who played each mode. Go do a simple video search of the middle-ground mode, Historical (or back when it was called Historical, I believe it is now called Realistic Battle) as played with joysticks. You can not tell the difference between a M+KB player and a gaming peripheral one. Your wish of "gaming control equality" was already reached in the game that you dread should its mechanics be used here. This is why so many people refer to War Thunder. They did it properly and leagues above many other similar games.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Eldragon posted:Its hyper-realistics but functional. It's obviously got some rough edges but there is a long time between now and release. Remember this is the advantage of releasing an early alpha. It gives the devs time to balance and adjust the game against a live customer environment early in the dev process; before its too late to go back and make big changes. What I'm trying to say is what they're doing isn't difficult. It really isn't . The physics they are implementing are extremely simple and well understood. I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's obvious what their priorities are: form over function. Also, I wouldn't call ships handling like a bathtub in space functional.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Renaissance Spam posted:I vaguely recall someone somewhere (might have been WMH) saying that they hadn't established a keymapping system because they needed a build that was solid enough to handle the variables required for keymaps. Considering they're showing how to DIY a keymap (which seems like it would be even less reliable for code stability than an in game keymapper) it seems possible this is a load of hooey. More than likely they have had everyone on the 'make it stop crashing' beat for months, with quality of life stuff like key mapping and tweaking thruster smoothness taking a decided back seat. And they still need to make MP work, which will continue to take most of their manhours. Once things work, we can expect them to get to making them work well and smooth. But that's stuff you can't really get done if the game won't work in the first place, judging from PAX it was only recently it actually did work in the first place. Of course with the thing released, and seemingly reasonably stable by alpha standards, one can hope they have detailed a few coders to full time quality of life improvements. Like keybindings and a functional power/shield/gun management interface. Unfucking the ifcs system I'm confident is doable, because I don't get any of the stuff people are bitching about with my joystick steered 300i, but can be expected to take more time. Also, I kinda like the idea of some ships being unresponsive clunkers. And then you can upgrade to better, more precise components that make your ship not steer like a bathtub (but cost more/break easier, etc). I also really like that the ships feel a lot different to fly thanks to thruster placement, and how damaging a thruster can gently caress up your controls. It was a great feeling to take down the last 3 vanduul in wave 11, with my turret jammed into an offcenter position but still firing and the ship being completely unable to roll left. gently caress whoever didn't like all this 'accurate' sim modeling stuff, this is infinity times better than doing the same in other games with 3% hull health bar left or whatever. Also, in what other game can you get shot to poo poo and watch impotently as your ruined main engine floats past your still operational front end? http://fat.gfycat.com/ShallowUnripeDesertpupfish.webm
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
I have made a Saitek X52 Pro profile, currently in v4 which will
*1: You will need to maintain the fire groups of small weapons in fire group 1 and large weapons in fire group 2 before you engage enemies, which can currrently only be done in-simulation. *2: This - near as I can tell - is because when you're using what's called interactive mouse-mode (mouse-follow mode) you effectively have a radius of dead-zone around the center where the gimballed weapons will try and auto-aim at the target. By switching to relative mode (the more common mouse-mode known from first-person shooters and the FreeSpace series), you lock all weapons to the center of the screen, effectively removing the dead-zone. If you have any suggestions for features or improvements, I'm in #starcitizen on SynIRC or in FLJKs jabber.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:They are absolutely terrible. Having tried all 3 controls methods now, when it comes to actually flying the ship - they're not terrible at all (Mouse is worst). Especially the 360 Gamepad controls (which are clearly what they made the game for, since that's what they did their internal testing on - you can see that on all the videos and even at the PAX presentation) are incredibly good as far as default controls go. The amount of stuff they managed to pack into the Pad is fantastic, and it's still logcially grouped, which is no small feat. Now the UI controls are insanely bad but so's the rest of their UI. What is absolutely terrible, and what makes the controls seem worse, is that their thruster behavior is plain hosed when not in decoupled mode. They fire unevenly trying to get the ships vector to align with your center of aim and the result is a wobbling bathtub feeling. If you decouple and rotate the center of the ship around there's no wobbling at all - which is how it should behave in all modes. That right there shows where the problem lies (intentional or not) - thruster behavior when coupled is hosed. Question is are they going to fix it or claim it's intentional. As an aside, I really disagree with the calls for strafing while coupled and vector change capability why uncoupled. Once they get rid of the coupled thruster issues and the model works as it should, the strafing limitations make a lot of sense and give it very unique Wing Commander 2.0 flight model style. It stops it from playing like newer space sims and keeps it very turn and boost based while still giving you some of the Freelancer/BSG newtonian gimmicks without become full blown generic semi-newtonian space sim. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Having tried all 3 controls methods now, when it comes to actually flying the ship - they're not terrible at all (Mouse is worst). Especially the 360 Gamepad controls (which are clearly what they made the game for, since that's what they did their internal testing on - you can see that on all the videos and even at the PAX presentation) are incredibly good as far as default controls go. The amount of stuff they managed to pack into the Pad is fantastic, and it's still logcially grouped, which is no small feat. Now the UI controls are insanely bad but so's the rest of their UI. Does anyone have all 3 ships? Do they only wobble in the Aurora? Because decoupling, turning, then recoupling is loving stupid. I need to be able to actually burn the loving main engines in decoupled. Courthouse posted:
I'll take unresponsive. I won't take drunk. ShineDog fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
ShineDog posted:Does anyone have all 3 ships? Do they only wobble in the Aurora? Because decoupling, turning, then recoupling is loving stupid. I need to be able to actually burn the loving main engines in decoupled. You really don't and they're two different things. Decouple - Turn - Recouple doesn't get rid of the wobble - it just delays it during the turn and then it wobbles when you recouple. You still drop back into couple mode and the thrusters still try to align you new flight vector - and wobble is back. Admittedly it does make the turning part of the turn smooth though and after the turn you get hit with all your "stored" wobble. Vector change while decoupled would help with the wobble but it'd be a bandaid that sacrifices a unique flight model to fix a buggy behavior. Fix the coupled wobble and you don't need vector change in decoupled. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
They seem to want to be super hardcore with having the thrusters all firing independently and the forces from that adding up to the resulting direction and facing of the ship. I think it's a fool's errand though. You could fake all of that far more easily and get the desired results by just adjusting the speeds each ship moves across the different axis. The thrusters could remain on the ship models and just fire off for show. gently caress, you could keep the current way it tries to figure out how to fire the thrusters to make it look really fancy but go with the "faked" method for actually determining the handling of the ship. I'm not discounting that they could improve their super-sim thrusters so that it gets smoother, I just think it's wasted effort. ALSO, I think the thruster calculations are local and vary from computer to computer because I do not get the stutter movement of thrusters loving around on my computer but my friend clearly does. Our computers are very different (different hardware, different mouse, different mouse settings, etc) so trying to figure out what might be causing the difference is basically impossible. I thought the "stuttering bathtub of water" comments were just people being hyperbolic but it does feel kinda like that on his computer. Though it's still very playable on his rig once you get used to the thruster stutter. Anyway, my most requested feature right now that isn't bug or performance related is firing engines and thrusters to permanently alter your trajectory in decoupled mode.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
treizebee posted:M+KB is only superior in Arcade mode. Realism (the flight simulation mode) is essentially joystick mandatory. Historical could be argued for either. There aren't different game modes in the PU. I've been arguing for equality, and against the superiority M+K maintains in the arcade mode. If you're saying that the realism mode is now "equal" per control scheme that's news to me, as I don't play it, but no different than what I've been saying. If M+K becomes superior because "everybody has one", it will be bad for the game. If they are approximately equal, it's good for the game. If sticks are superior for dogfighting I wouldn't be horribly surprised (see my point above about driving wheels and FPS controls), as it is a more natural control method for the gameplay in question. E: Ok I've just flown around on mouse controls in the 300i for a few minutes with comstab and gsafe off. It gets a little wobbly in tighter yaw turns, and the deadzone hurts the responsiveness over a stick a little, but the manual control of the gimballed guns is a pretty good tradeoff for the responsiveness I think. The best solution I can think of at first glance is having a gimbal override button (think right click to change character orientation in an MMO, like WoW). So if you hold right click down, you drop the gimbal control, and mouse motions apply directly to ship orientation. E2: I don't seem to get the wobble on hard pitch changes, so the yaw wobble may just be a bug. Av027 fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Kilty Monroe posted:A friend is pushing me to check out SC, and when I heard Anders was running this Goonrathi joint, I was sold on at least giving it a shot. The Goonrathi enlistment page keeps rejecting my RSI handle though, and I don't know why. Maybe it's because it has a underscore? What did I do wrong? Make sure you are putting in your handle as RSI gives you no less than 3 usernames. This link should take you to the page where you can see all 3.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Av027 posted:There aren't different game modes in the PU. I've been arguing for equality, and against the superiority M+K maintains in the arcade mode. If you're saying that the realism mode is now "equal" per control scheme that's news to me, as I don't play it, but no different than what I've been saying. I think control-F does that. It's the same as MWO's arm lock type deal, so all the gimballed stuff is locked dead center, and any movements then control pitch and yaw exclusively.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Gwaihir posted:I think control-F does that. It's the same as MWO's arm lock type deal, so all the gimballed stuff is locked dead center, and any movements then control pitch and yaw exclusively. Yeah, it appears to. Though it is quite sluggish without bumping the DPI of my mouse up a bit. Probably needs to be remapped from that key combo to be more readily available when needed, and likely needs to be un-sluggified, but that's exactly what I mean. That plus a little improvement in the smoothness, and correcting the yaw wobble, and I wouldn't complain much using it. Manual gimbal control is nice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
I love cats posted:My understanding was that SC will charge for the boxed game to then force you suffer through a microtransaction wall, the latter which I absolutely dread. I am fine with paying extra for DLCs as they become available, but gently caress the nickel&dime poo poo. As it stands, there are currently no plans for WoW-esque paid realm expansions or paywall-gated content for the PU. Splitting the playerbase would be an absolutely terrible idea for the concept of a shared (if slightly instanced) persistent world. However, if you are running your own server/universe, there might be paid expansion packs that will get you up to speed with the PU chunks at a time. There's going to be a need for an incentive for players to play the PU aside from their pledge ships. As for the micro-transactions, I talked to Ortwin about it a bit at the Pre-PAX reveal. The plan is to avoid the $20 for 199 points when everything costs 251 points bullshit. Most things like ships, weapons, major components will be available to buy with both SpaceBux and RealBux, but some things will cost beyond the monthly RealBux limit, so you'd have to pay with both SpaceBux and RealBux if you chose to use RealBux. Bootcha fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Surely if they make micro transactions for in game creds, like plex in eve, available to sell and purchase for both in game and normal currency - that would work. Of course they must prepare economically for that but they got years to perfect it right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
I love cats posted:My understanding was that SC will charge for the boxed game to then force you suffer through a microtransaction wall, the latter which I absolutely dread. I am fine with paying extra for DLCs as they become available, but gently caress the nickel&dime poo poo. Pretty sure the only thing that might be "expansion pack" style is SQ:42 mission packs. All other microtransaction revenue (sounds like convenience stuff from what little we know, but it's early) supports free content delivery (additional ships/star systems/game mechanics/etc) post-release. They're not going to split the playerbase or anything, and they plan to continue building free content after release.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
brakanjan posted:Surely if they make micro transactions for in game creds, like plex in eve, available to sell and purchase for both in game and normal currency - that would work. Of course they must prepare economically for that but they got years to perfect it right? Selling spacebux for cash also has the benefit of reducing the appeal to shady gold farming/account theft services. Simply by providing the people who will buy currency with a legit option to do so, and one that doesn't involve stealing account information to loot accounts for $$$ or a bunch of Chinese prisoners in a warehouse forced to grind some exploit all day on accounts subbed with stolen credit cards. It also puts a pretty hard cap on their profit margins by setting a price ceiling. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 18:13
|
|