Poll: Star Citizen Payment Model
- Thread starter Liudeius
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You can ask an original or veteran backer to gift you an LTI ship and pay them for it, but not on the official forums, and if you're scammed you won't be reimbursed.jehk said:
(CIG is fine with selling ships through gifting, they just don't want it done on their forums because they don't want to be held responsible for any scamming.)
Thats just for the base ship, they'll still have modules and cargo that isn't covered.jehk said:
Besides they are the ones financing this show.
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.ZippyDSMlee said:
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.
The only similarity between EVE and Star Citizen are the fact it has stars in them.Doom972 said:
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.Me55enger said:
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.
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.Liudeius said:
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.
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.
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.
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.Doom972 said:
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.
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.Prime_Hunter_H01 said:
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.Me55enger said:
'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.
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.
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.Me55enger said:
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.
It's both single player and an MMO.Prime_Hunter_H01 said:
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).
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.Joccaren said:
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.
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.
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.