Poll: Star Citizen Payment Model

[ZippyDSMlee]

As long as you can get anything in a timely manor (a month per 10-20$ or so) without having to pass the pay wall then its fine if not no thanks.

 

[Liudeius]

As long as you can get anything in a timely manor (a month per 10-20$ or so) without having to pass the pay wall then its fine if not no thanks.

Well we still don't know what time>money conversion rate CIG is going to have, but it has been stated that ships will actually cost MORE time equivalent credits than they do now.

So if, in the final game, you could buy 1,000 credits for $1, the $250 ship would be more like 300,000 credits.
Though once again, we still don't know how much CIG will value the time of non-microtransaction players.

I wouldn't call 150 months for the Idris (the $1250 ship) a timely manner though. It's not even the biggest ship. Above it there are frigates, destroyers, cruisers, escort carriers, battlecruisers, and carriers.

 

[Me55enger]

I was looking forward to this game, but now I really don't. Now it just sounds like a better looking EVE-online.
Buying in-game ships with real-life money just seems like pay-to-cheat for me.

The only similarity between EVE and Star Citizen are the fact it has stars in them.

I am also failing to understand how you equated being able to purchase a ship with real money with paying to cheat. Because Chris Roberts has expressly stated multiple times that it ain't the ship you're in, it's how skilled you are flying it.

Any ship purchasable now will be, in some way, purchasable in game. As will all items, equipment (minus special backer editions) and like most other things. Why? Because Chris Roberts has expressly stated multiple times that Star Citizen will in no way be Pay to Win.

Plus its One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty dollars. Over a grand. For a ship that needs 10 players to make it worthwhile. If you are willing to front that much for a virtual ship where you are going to have to breed a crew, you deserve some reward.

 

[Doom972]

I was looking forward to this game, but now I really don't. Now it just sounds like a better looking EVE-online.
Buying in-game ships with real-life money just seems like pay-to-cheat for me.

The only similarity between EVE and Star Citizen are the fact it has stars in them.

I am also failing to understand how you equated being able to purchase a ship with real money with paying to cheat. Because Chris Roberts has expressly stated multiple times that it ain't the ship you're in, it's how skilled you are flying it.

Any ship purchasable now will be, in some way, purchasable in game. As will all items, equipment (minus special backer editions) and like most other things. Why? Because Chris Roberts has expressly stated multiple times that Star Citizen will in no way be Pay to Win.

Plus its One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty dollars. Over a grand. For a ship that needs 10 players to make it worthwhile. If you are willing to front that much for a virtual ship where you are going to have to breed a crew, you deserve some reward.

It might be just me being stuck in a certain way of thinking that doesn't fit with current trends in gaming, but the ability to get powerful in-game items using real-life money seems to me like paying the developers to use a summon cheat and not get banned.

As for the same ships being purchasable in the game, that depends on how quickly you can get the necessary funds to buy the ship. If I have to grind for dozens of hours for an expensive ship, then there's the pay-to-win mechanism of dangling an expensive shortcut in front of you while you are grinding endlessly for that in-game money. I don't like having to deal with it, which is why I mostly avoid this sort of games.

 

[Joccaren]

No... Idris can have ten crew and two single-pilot fighters.
It's the biggest ship you could buy directly, but it's far from "guild headquarters." In fact, most big guilds have many Idris.
The guild headquarters will be the Carrier class ships, which CIG has no intention of selling, or even allowing players to permanently own.

Yes, Bengals cannot be acquired [Outside of 3 {I think it was 3 as the estimated number, wouldn't be more than 5 though} preset in game that must be found, repaired and then constantly protected], and thus can't really qualify as the guild headquarters of the game, unless you think there's only going to be 3 guilds.
The Idris, as you said, is your next largest ship. For the guilds not lucky enough to find a Bengal, it will be the guild headquarters type ship. The actual guild headquarters is more likely to be an asteroid base, or a facility on a planet, but for mobile operations the Idris will be your guild flagship. At least right not, the Escort Carrier or Battlecruiser could be larger than the Idris, and then they'd likely take this place instead.

 

[Prime_Hunter_H01]

To be honest, I thought it was a single-player game, like a new space combat sim.

Well it stil is a space combat sim from what i see here but it is actually some DayZ/MMO persistance thing.

Hmm kills my interest, I have enough MMO/Persistent multiplayer games as it is.

But on the main point, from what has been said I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, but that much in real money for a ship or item in any game sits bad with me.

 

[Me55enger]

...

...

It might be just me being stuck in a certain way of thinking that doesn't fit with current trends in gaming, but the ability to get powerful in-game items using real-life money seems to me like paying the developers to use a summon cheat and not get banned.

As for the same ships being purchasable in the game, that depends on how quickly you can get the necessary funds to buy the ship. If I have to grind for dozens of hours for an expensive ship, then there's the pay-to-win mechanism of dangling an expensive shortcut in front of you while you are grinding endlessly for that in-game money. I don't like having to deal with it, which is why I mostly avoid this sort of games.

Oh no I agree that Pay to Win and all its variances are indeed a current trend of gaming, but I really don't think Star Citizen is. Although I must disclaim that combat balancing- whilst it is assumed will take the most logical route- has not publically begun, the ability to purchase a ship for real money as opposed to grinding[sic] for it ingame is in no way Pay to Win. Chielfy because the purchase covers you only for the hull; weapons, shields, engines, modifiers, crew and cargo will all need to be purchased ingame with ingame finance. These are what will dictate the danger of the ship.

A friend of mine suggested a better term for it would be Pay to Accelerate, which is something I would agree with. Combat is getting the most limelight, but the fully fuctioning economy is perhaps far more interesting. There are people on the forums that have bought ships for the sole intention of, as you call it, grinding. Because of the target market for this game (those who grew up on CR's original work) I think there is a capacity of patience within the community that will reflect positively on practises ingame.

You also have to take into account time. You lose a $1250 ship and it's uninsured, it's lost forever. And if you have insurance, it'll take time to build a replacement. Even longer if Player-driven pirate clans are disrupting supply lines.

I will end for a question for you, then: Would you rather, on a game of this uniqueness and scale, prefer a more direct and blatant Pay to Win system or this Pay to Accelerate programme Chris Roberts is undertaking? Realistically, of course.

 

[Me55enger]

To be honest, I thought it was a single-player game, like a new space combat sim.

Well it stil is a space combat sim from what i see here but it is actually some DayZ/MMO persistance thing.

Hmm kills my interest, I have enough MMO/Persistent multiplayer games as it is.

There are actually two games in production: Star Citizen, which is effectively the MMO-esque globally persistent player-driven universe, and Squadron 42: a single (and multi-) player combat based storyline following the Squadron of the same name. You can play one, or the other, or both. Your call.

 

[Joccaren]

To be honest, I thought it was a single-player game, like a new space combat sim.

Well it stil is a space combat sim from what i see here but it is actually some DayZ/MMO persistance thing.

Hmm kills my interest, I have enough MMO/Persistent multiplayer games as it is.

There are actually two games in production: Star Citizen, which is effectively the MMO-esque globally persistent player-driven universe, and Squadron 42: a single (and multi-) player combat based storyline following the Squadron of the same name. You can play one, or the other, or both. Your call.

Additionally you can play Star Citizen single player on your own private server persistent universe, or play on the grand persistent universe against only AI using a PvP slider - so long as you stay in certain regions of space anyway. I think they were planning on having some more dangerous sections ignore the PvP slider.

 

[Britpoint]

'Pay to Win' is a very loose term on its own. There can be no question in my mind that Star Citizen has Pay to Win elements, but I don't think it is going to be a Pay to Win game. Let's look at this a bit differently:

The bigger, more powerful ships are better. They will win more often against smaller ships. Now that seems perfectly logical and reasonable to me, if you want a believable game. Playing Battlefield 3 - if it's a tank versus a guy not in a Tank, facing off without consideration for skill, the tank will win. So this mechanic in itself is not a bad thing in my view.

Now, the fact that you can buy these better ships for more money certainly seems like Pay to Win, but that's not always the case. Imagine if you will Player A and Player B. Player A hasn't got much money. He plays pretty much nothing else for a month and gradually saves up his in-game currency to pay for an awesome ship. Player B on the other hand doesn't have much time to spare because he works long hours, but he has some money in the bank so he buys the same awesome ship for real money.

When those two players meet each other in battle: the one who spent no money is probably going to win. This is because he has spent longer with the game and has become a more skillful player as a result. So it's a question of which do you want to invest to gain power: time or money? Of course some people can invest both, and they'll have advantages sure. It's hardly likely to be a perfect system, but I do think it is one that will still place a heavy emphasis on player skill, while allowing those with less time to invest to buy the power to compete. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Personally, I'm unlikely to buy in-game currency. I prefer to invest the time, but such can't be true for everyone.

 

[Doom972]

...

...

It might be just me being stuck in a certain way of thinking that doesn't fit with current trends in gaming, but the ability to get powerful in-game items using real-life money seems to me like paying the developers to use a summon cheat and not get banned.

As for the same ships being purchasable in the game, that depends on how quickly you can get the necessary funds to buy the ship. If I have to grind for dozens of hours for an expensive ship, then there's the pay-to-win mechanism of dangling an expensive shortcut in front of you while you are grinding endlessly for that in-game money. I don't like having to deal with it, which is why I mostly avoid this sort of games.

Oh no I agree that Pay to Win and all its variances are indeed a current trend of gaming, but I really don't think Star Citizen is. Although I must disclaim that combat balancing- whilst it is assumed will take the most logical route- has not publically begun, the ability to purchase a ship for real money as opposed to grinding[sic] for it ingame is in no way Pay to Win. Chielfy because the purchase covers you only for the hull; weapons, shields, engines, modifiers, crew and cargo will all need to be purchased ingame with ingame finance. These are what will dictate the danger of the ship.

A friend of mine suggested a better term for it would be Pay to Accelerate, which is something I would agree with. Combat is getting the most limelight, but the fully fuctioning economy is perhaps far more interesting. There are people on the forums that have bought ships for the sole intention of, as you call it, grinding. Because of the target market for this game (those who grew up on CR's original work) I think there is a capacity of patience within the community that will reflect positively on practises ingame.

You also have to take into account time. You lose a $1250 ship and it's uninsured, it's lost forever. And if you have insurance, it'll take time to build a replacement. Even longer if Player-driven pirate clans are disrupting supply lines.

I will end for a question for you, then: Would you rather, on a game of this uniqueness and scale, prefer a more direct and blatant Pay to Win system or this Pay to Accelerate programme Chris Roberts is undertaking? Realistically, of course.

I admit that it's not as bad as other pay-to-win, but it still is pay-to-win, because you can buy in-game powerful items with real money. That's the definition of it. Whenever you have to make a choice between grinding or paying real-life money, you are playing a pay-to-win game. If you want to argue the definition of pay-to-win, that's fine, but this is what many people (maybe even most people) and I define as pay-to-win.

As for you question, I would prefer not involving real-life money into gameplay at all. Is your argument "it could be worse"? You are right of course, but it could also be better.

 

[Liudeius]

To be honest, I thought it was a single-player game, like a new space combat sim.

Well it stil is a space combat sim from what i see here but it is actually some DayZ/MMO persistance thing.

Hmm kills my interest, I have enough MMO/Persistent multiplayer games as it is.

It's both single player and an MMO.

The Squadron 42 military campaign is single player (though it can be played with Dark Souls like Co-op).

The main 100+ system universe is multi-player (though you can make your own server and systems function without player interaction, so it SHOULD be possible to play it in single player).

Yes, Bengals cannot be acquired [Outside of 3 {I think it was 3 as the estimated number, wouldn't be more than 5 though} preset in game that must be found, repaired and then constantly protected], and thus can't really qualify as the guild headquarters of the game, unless you think there's only going to be 3 guilds.

Each race will have three carriers TO START, all of them can be captured. It might actually be a bad idea to capture a Bengal Carrier rather than a Vanduul. With a Bengal Carrier, you would be attacked by the UEE in safe space, with a Vanduul, I presume you would only be attacked in Vanduul space, which happens anyway.
But more are "being built". (Due to the way the economy functions, ships have build timers. So there, on release, will already be now carriers partially under construction.)

Also, there are asteroid bases and orbital bases which can be captured and used by guilds, so those will be guild bases too.

So that means there are more like 15 carriers at the start of the game, and more on their way, along with many star bases. Of course, carriers are only ships the biggest guilds could have, but my main point was that no, an Idris is not a guild HQ.

 

[Ickorus]

Once upon a time I would have said no, it isn't pay to win at all but in recent days I'm not so sure, it seems like a lot of devs who use this model have taken to making the in-game way of earning items require a large amount of boring grind or pure luck in order to entice people into purchasing the item with real money.

I won't judge the game either way right now since I think I'd need to see the system in action to get a proper idea of how it works but I'm much more cautious of this than I used to be.

 

[Liudeius]

Updated OP.

There is now a in-game credit store, however credits can only be obtained through cash purchases. The maximum number of credits purchasable per day is $25.

Items sold are decorations ($5-$10), weapons ($4-$16), and a buggy to drive around the hangar ($20).

Additionally, hangar upgrades can be purchased for a mid level ($20) and high level ($40) hangar (free with, respectively, the $110 and $250 ships).

 

[Joccaren]

Each race will have three carriers TO START, all of them can be captured. It might actually be a bad idea to capture a Bengal Carrier rather than a Vanduul. With a Bengal Carrier, you would be attacked by the UEE in safe space, with a Vanduul, I presume you would only be attacked in Vanduul space, which happens anyway.
But more are "being built". (Due to the way the economy functions, ships have build timers. So there, on release, will already be now carriers partially under construction.)

If I remember correctly there were 5 Bengals guarding Earth at any given time, one in the Drydocks.
Bengals could be found as derelicts in space and repaired, though the exact mechanics of how the UEE will interact with these is still being decided [They will not pursue someone who has rebuilt one, but it is unknown as to whether it will be safe to enter UEE space, or whether they'll want you to surrender the Bengal to them.]
Bengals will also likely take an ungodly amount of time to build.
The Vanduul have a nasty habit of self-destructing their ships to stop boarders from getting intel on them. This was revealed in the old site's engineering page for the scythe if memory serves, if not them somewhere.
Stealing a Xi'An carrier would also likely be a bad move, as it would spark a UEE - Xi'An war most likely.
Stealing a Bengal is out of the question, as the UEE will pursue you even into enemy space to get it back, let alone the bounty that'd likely be on your head.
Banu... Maybe. Though their carriers are supposed to be nothing compared to the Bengal, and we know nothing of the race on the other side of the Xi'An as of yet, and even getting to them is ATM impossible due to the Xi'An being very secretive about that side of things and not letting humans into their inner systems.

Getting a carrier will be an act of immense luck, and holding onto it will be nigh on impossible in the long run, unless you are one of the largest guilds and your members are perfectly loyal. Or if CR allows Bengals and such to be flown into UEE space and protected there so care-bear players can just grab one and dock it at Terra or something to ensure no-one steals it.
They're not going to be widely used. The Idris is. Yeah, its not going to be the headquarters headquarters, but neither would the Bengal due to the risk that would present. Dependant on the popularity, size and effectiveness of the Escort Carrier, Battlecruiser and Frigate it may or may not end up being the relative "Flagship" of a given guild though.
They also could work as headquarters for smaller guilds, as not all are going to be 100+ player monstrosities.
Main point of the comparison was that its a capital class ship, and big business. Not a single fighter or something. Its big, and is something that only a large group of people - I.E: a guild - could use.

 

[Liudeius]

-snip-

There's too much speculation in there.

But I'm still going to disagree on the Idris being a "Guild HQ" a guild with only 10 people is pretty small.

The question isn't whether it is possible, the fact is the poster was misrepresenting the Idris. The Idris is NOT sold as a guild HQ, it's just the smallest ship which CAN'T be operated solo.

Limited edition capital ships really. Only a couple of hundred were released, and they are the legitimate headquarters type ship - the ship you can have you and your whole guild or whatever on, and their ships. You'll be able to get more once the game comes out, but that'll be with in game money instead.

This is the quote I was replying to. "the ship you can have you and your whole guild or whatever on." That's just not the case. It's a 10 crew, 2 fighter ship. A large group of friends could run it, or a small contingency of any reasonably sized guild.

 

[Altorin]

Star Citizen isn't really a game, it's an ARG in a video game's clothes. It's meant to be like, an alternate reality, you live part time in a crazy sci-fi world, with real investments, etc, kind of like Eve Online.

It's basically the Dreamatorium for Space Simulations. Buy your ships with real world cash adopted from your successes in the real world, or find resources to sell within the game and get your ships that way, it's basically the same dealo, time for money or money analog.

 

[major_chaos]

Honestly I'm losing interest in SC. It's just too MMO-esqu for my taste, especially with the excellent looking X: Rebirth on the horizon.

 

[BarbaricGoose]

As mentioned before, everything available to buy with real money is purchasable in-game with zero monetary investment required. Other than you know, the game itself.

Additionally, the game is instanced; meaning that no matter what ship you bought you're never gonna go up against someone in anything much stronger or weaker. I.E., you're not gonna be facing down an Idris in anything other than Idris. Or, I don't know, maybe you'd fight an Idris if you were in a party of several Hornets, or something.

So buying an Idris isn't going to give you any advantage against other players in dogfights. That being said, there are some things that an owner of an Idris could probably do that other players could not. They've said before that there are a lot of things in the world for players to discover; such as new jump points, solar systems, etc. If you own an Idris, or something, you might be able to carry more fuel, which would allow you to explore further than some other ships, which would in turn give you a much better chance of uncovering some of this shit and getting your name plastered on some fancy statue somewhere.

So if that's your idea of winning, then I guess the game could be considered pay-to-win. Though we still don't know exactly how easy it'll be to discover this stuff. Hell, the ship stats haven't even been finalized yet. Maybe the most expensive ships will be slow and terrible at exploration. I could see that making sense. The games not gonna be released for another year, so it's way too early to say whether it'll be pay-to-win, although Chris Roberts has been pretty adamant about not wanting it to turn out that way. But we'll see.

Edit: didn't mean to quote anybody.

 

[major_chaos]

Honestly I'm losing interest in SC. It's just too MMO-esqu for my taste, especially with the excellent looking X: Rebirth on the horizon.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but X: Rebirth is being released in November(cannot wait!) and Star Citizen is being released in 2015. Why not have your cake and eat it too?

Well you aren't wrong at this point, but Rebirth has been delayed before. And honestly at this point I'm not sure I would be excited for SC even if Rebirth wasn't coming, although I'm certainly going to wait till much closer to launch before I pass judgement.