Scruffpuff posted:

That depends on what the soul of your game is. A guy who bought Super Mario Bros in the 80s, then paid an extra $5 to skip to the end of world 8-4 would have demolished the point of the game, which is to experience it. A guy spending $10 to skip to the endboss in Wolfenstein does the same. Dropping money to skip through games like Thief, Deus-Ex, etc. defeats the entire purpose of the carefully-constructed game world and experience. It's like paying extra money at the theater to basically not sit through the 2-hour film, but get handed a spoiler sheet that tells you what happened in a few sentences.

In those cases, I agree - being able to pay for anything wrecks the game experience.

However, and this is the reason I generally oppose P2W schemes: if you know you're going to be a P2W or cash-shop heavy game, the artful construction of a good gaming experience is never worked into the game to begin with. The storylines are shallow (if they exist at all), and the sense of achievement and progression is not organically meshed into the experience, because they know their primary source of income might, as you put it, short-circuit that work. So P2W games tend to be shallow, visionless games that represent nothing more than virtual number-increasing e-peen contests.

They actually start out soulless, and stay that way, and it's something I think is slowly strangling the gaming experience. The cash-model is controversial, but I think the controversy is about the wrong things. Most argue about how you pay money to "get ahead". I argue that the cash model takes the art out of the work right from the start.

Zzr posted:

Sarsapariller posted:

So I was really racking my brain to think of what SC is going to sell

D_Smart posted:

http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2017/11/29/star-citizen-will-now-sell-you-virtual-land-that-you-cant-have

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-11-29-star-citizen-is-selling-virtual-plots-of-land-for-up-to-96

quote:

Star Citizen is selling virtual plots of land for up to £96 a pop
As part of a mechanic that is not yet available in a game that's not yet out.

quote:

Star Citizen is now selling plots of virtual land
Plots will also be available with currency earned in-game

Toops posted:

The goon in me can't wait for the griefing opportunities. I was an absolute psychopath in Rust, blowing up bases, camping and chainkilling, erasing tens of hours of gameplay with no regard for humanity.

Start Citizens better hope this game never comes out.

ManofManyAliases posted:

By your own example, would it not be "against the soul of the game" to force everyone starting of in the SC PU on a rail to say: do it this way and perform these functions before you can go out and buy basic starter ships and work missions and upgrade those to get where you want eventually? Let's take away the fact that SC is not yet a true game in the parlance as we know a finished game. Let's also set aside any preconceived notions about what a free-form open-sandbox type of universe SC claims to become.

That said, let's say we want to play a game that is a quasi-simulation in space, but one that has elements of "cool factors" to make sure there is a balance of ultra realism and fun. Let's say that this universe is modeled after real-world mechanics in that the game creators want to give people the ability to do some functions in-game as you could do in your life (such as law enforcement, or farm, trade, etc.). Why would the ability to purchase a ship to explore the sandboxed universe be viewed as P2W anymore than someone who buys a yacht to travel to Morocco? Couldn't the same argument be made that one should just buy a ticket on a liner heading to Africa (or that someone should just acquire a 325a to explore - no need to pledge for the 600i)? In life, there are those much more wealthy than anyone in this thread who can buy all the things that they want.

They have acquired or were given their wealth and are using it, but some modicum of time or effort was involved in acquiring that wealth, whether it was done by the individual or by someone else and gifted to that individual. The same is the case for someone buying a ship. Sure - they'll have a ship bigger and better than others to stat with upon game release, but that person expended time/effort in his/her job (or someone did on that individual's behalf) and that translates into a ship purchased with funds from that effort. The time was spent outside of game, no different than if someone spent time in-game to acquire the same.

If the end-goal of a game is to win at a level, beat a boss or kill 19 people left on a team of 20, then I can see how "paying to win" to acquire a weapon better than the rest is an issue. But when the goal of a game is that you can make and shape a universe that's essentially persistent and interactive, then what is all the fuss?

big nipples big life posted:

Has Joe Blobber posted a july blog defending the land sale yet?

IcarusUpHigh posted:

“Aethaer is filtered organically by nature as it flows between the leaves of woodland trees, absorbs pristine water as it passes over babbling brooks and forest streams, and is lovingly caressed as it rolls over and between mineral rich rock formations, after which it is blown up over vistas of untouched beauty to where the Aethaer is collected and bottled.”

ManofManyAliases posted:

By your own example, would it not be "against the soul of the game" to force everyone starting of in the SC PU on a rail to say: do it this way and perform these functions before you can go out and buy basic starter ships and work missions and upgrade those to get where you want eventually? Let's take away the fact that SC is not yet a true game in the parlance as we know a finished game. Let's also set aside any preconceived notions about what a free-form open-sandbox type of universe SC claims to become.

That said, let's say we want to play a game that is a quasi-simulation in space, but one that has elements of "cool factors" to make sure there is a balance of ultra realism and fun. Let's say that this universe is modeled after real-world mechanics in that the game creators want to give people the ability to do some functions in-game as you could do in your life (such as law enforcement, or farm, trade, etc.). Why would the ability to purchase a ship to explore the sandboxed universe be viewed as P2W anymore than someone who buys a yacht to travel to Morocco? Couldn't the same argument be made that one should just buy a ticket on a liner heading to Africa (or that someone should just acquire a 325a to explore - no need to pledge for the 600i)? In life, there are those much more wealthy than anyone in this thread who can buy all the things that they want.

They have acquired or were given their wealth and are using it, but some modicum of time or effort was involved in acquiring that wealth, whether it was done by the individual or by someone else and gifted to that individual. The same is the case for someone buying a ship. Sure - they'll have a ship bigger and better than others to stat with upon game release, but that person expended time/effort in his/her job (or someone did on that individual's behalf) and that translates into a ship purchased with funds from that effort. The time was spent outside of game, no different than if someone spent time in-game to acquire the same.

If the end-goal of a game is to win at a level, beat a boss or kill 19 people left on a team of 20, then I can see how "paying to win" to acquire a weapon better than the rest is an issue. But when the goal of a game is that you can make and shape a universe that's essentially persistent and interactive, then what is all the fuss?

quote:

At the end of the day, as someone who has spent years deeply invested in the idea, I have become deeply disillusioned by the whole thing over the past ~12 months. The idea I (and i'd like to believe others) bought into seems to have vanished and seems unlikely to come back anytime soon.

I was ok with development taking a long time, I was ok with the process, and I was ok with crowdfunding the project. What i'm not ok with, is the gradual transition from crowdfunding to micro-transaction funding - it's a disgrace to the community who supported the idea, and a butchering of what this game was supposed to be all about.

From what essentially amounted to pre-purchasing the game to fund development, has turned into a complete firesale of each and every concept/ship/item in the game, no matter how many years into the future the actual release of said concept gets pushed.

PC gaming was never dead, and Star Citizen was never going to save anything. But Star Citizen was a throwback to something great, and i'm afraid that what made Star Citizen great is now gone.

Mirificus posted:

May 26, 2016 - Obsessive Star Citizen Critics, or: The Tall Poppy Syndrome [Top Hats and The Game]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUddm0S3LRI

Nov 29, 2017
https://twitter.com/thachampagne/status/935810985364897792
https://twitter.com/thachampagne/status/935811793158520832

ManofManyAliases posted:

By your own example, would it not be "against the soul of the game" to force everyone starting of in the SC PU on a rail to say: do it this way and perform these functions before you can go out and buy basic starter ships and work missions and upgrade those to get where you want eventually? Let's take away the fact that SC is not yet a true game in the parlance as we know a finished game. Let's also set aside any preconceived notions about what a free-form open-sandbox type of universe SC claims to become.

That said, let's say we want to play a game that is a quasi-simulation in space, but one that has elements of "cool factors" to make sure there is a balance of ultra realism and fun. Let's say that this universe is modeled after real-world mechanics in that the game creators want to give people the ability to do some functions in-game as you could do in your life (such as law enforcement, or farm, trade, etc.). Why would the ability to purchase a ship to explore the sandboxed universe be viewed as P2W anymore than someone who buys a yacht to travel to Morocco? Couldn't the same argument be made that one should just buy a ticket on a liner heading to Africa (or that someone should just acquire a 325a to explore - no need to pledge for the 600i)? In life, there are those much more wealthy than anyone in this thread who can buy all the things that they want.

They have acquired or were given their wealth and are using it, but some modicum of time or effort was involved in acquiring that wealth, whether it was done by the individual or by someone else and gifted to that individual. The same is the case for someone buying a ship. Sure - they'll have a ship bigger and better than others to stat with upon game release, but that person expended time/effort in his/her job (or someone did on that individual's behalf) and that translates into a ship purchased with funds from that effort. The time was spent outside of game, no different than if someone spent time in-game to acquire the same.

If the end-goal of a game is to win at a level, beat a boss or kill 19 people left on a team of 20, then I can see how "paying to win" to acquire a weapon better than the rest is an issue. But when the goal of a game is that you can make and shape a universe that's essentially persistent and interactive, then what is all the fuss?

Scruffpuff posted:

That depends on what the soul of your game is. A guy who bought Super Mario Bros in the 80s, then paid an extra $5 to skip to the end of world 8-4 would have demolished the point of the game, which is to experience it. A guy spending $10 to skip to the endboss in Wolfenstein does the same. Dropping money to skip through games like Thief, Deus-Ex, etc. defeats the entire purpose of the carefully-constructed game world and experience. It's like paying extra money at the theater to basically not sit through the 2-hour film, but get handed a spoiler sheet that tells you what happened in a few sentences.

In those cases, I agree - being able to pay for anything wrecks the game experience.

However, and this is the reason I generally oppose P2W schemes: if you know you're going to be a P2W or cash-shop heavy game, the artful construction of a good gaming experience is never worked into the game to begin with. The storylines are shallow (if they exist at all), and the sense of achievement and progression is not organically meshed into the experience, because they know their primary source of income might, as you put it, short-circuit that work. So P2W games tend to be shallow, visionless games that represent nothing more than virtual number-increasing e-peen contests.

They actually start out soulless, and stay that way, and it's something I think is slowly strangling the gaming experience. The cash-model is controversial, but I think the controversy is about the wrong things. Most argue about how you pay money to "get ahead". I argue that the cash model takes the art out of the work right from the start.

D_Smart posted:

http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2017/11/29/star-citizen-will-now-sell-you-virtual-land-that-you-cant-have

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-11-29-star-citizen-is-selling-virtual-plots-of-land-for-up-to-96

A Neurotic Corncob posted:

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/7g7ler/well_shit_i_guess_you_guys_were_right/

quote:

what made Star Citizen great is now gone

ManofManyAliases posted:

If the end-goal of a game is to win at a level, beat a boss or kill 19 people left on a team of 20, then I can see how "paying to win" to acquire a weapon better than the rest is an issue. But when the goal of a game is that you can make and shape a universe that's essentially persistent and interactive, then what is all the fuss?

TheAgent posted:

listen, thread outsiders, please don't buy crobberts land

go ahead and buy a sex worker something nice from tiffanys, its a far better investment

ManofManyAliases posted:

By your own example, would it not be "against the soul of the game" to force everyone starting of in the SC PU on a rail to say: do it this way and perform these functions before you can go out and buy basic starter ships and work missions and upgrade those to get where you want eventually? Let's take away the fact that SC is not yet a true game in the parlance as we know a finished game. Let's also set aside any preconceived notions about what a free-form open-sandbox type of universe SC claims to become.

That said, let's say we want to play a game that is a quasi-simulation in space, but one that has elements of "cool factors" to make sure there is a balance of ultra realism and fun. Let's say that this universe is modeled after real-world mechanics in that the game creators want to give people the ability to do some functions in-game as you could do in your life (such as law enforcement, or farm, trade, etc.). Why would the ability to purchase a ship to explore the sandboxed universe be viewed as P2W anymore than someone who buys a yacht to travel to Morocco? Couldn't the same argument be made that one should just buy a ticket on a liner heading to Africa (or that someone should just acquire a 325a to explore - no need to pledge for the 600i)? In life, there are those much more wealthy than anyone in this thread who can buy all the things that they want.

They have acquired or were given their wealth and are using it, but some modicum of time or effort was involved in acquiring that wealth, whether it was done by the individual or by someone else and gifted to that individual. The same is the case for someone buying a ship. Sure - they'll have a ship bigger and better than others to stat with upon game release, but that person expended time/effort in his/her job (or someone did on that individual's behalf) and that translates into a ship purchased with funds from that effort. The time was spent outside of game, no different than if someone spent time in-game to acquire the same.

If the end-goal of a game is to win at a level, beat a boss or kill 19 people left on a team of 20, then I can see how "paying to win" to acquire a weapon better than the rest is an issue. But when the goal of a game is that you can make and shape a universe that's essentially persistent and interactive, then what is all the fuss?

quote:

Sure - they'll have a ship bigger and better than others to stat with upon game release, but that person expended time/effort in his/her job (or someone did on that individual's behalf) and that translates into a ship purchased with funds from that effort. The time was spent outside of game, no different than if someone spent time in-game to acquire the same.

AbstractNapper posted:

Exceptionally tone deaf singing, that sounds like a Decepticon powering down.

FailureToReport posted:

I was actually playing Elite and streaming when the leak hit, and one of the regulars on my channel who is a whale started in defending CIG, saying there was no way it was real and that CIG would not sell land. I went ahead and doubled down on faith that the goon intelligence arm knew what it was talking and kind of egged him on a bit.

Then the sale hit and he was like "oh they aren't selling land", and I pulled the RSI store page up on stream and showed the Buy Land! page and he got quiet for a bit, then came back with "Oh you can only buy land if you have a Pioneer."

So then I pulled the page back up and went through the checkout of buying a piece of space internet dirt up to the payment page and he lost his loving poo poo over it. Went all the way to the RSI forums and posted a rage post about selling land which the mods removed which sent him further into a fit of rage.


I'm pretty sure CIG just converted a 15k+ backer in real time.

G0RF posted:

While Polygon’s carries the water

Taintrunner posted:

Finally all caught up. I think the thing that makes me the most crazy is how loving sketch Discolando looks with his lovely beard, Star Citizen ball cap, blazer, and Star Citizen tee as they’re announcing that they’re going to start selling land. In their yet to be released space game with no release date. That just had a miserable trash fire of an alpha patch.

Toops posted: