[QUOTE=Raidyr;50018732]No his point is that it's impossible to argue with Star Citizen players in good faith because they are irrational purely for the fact that they gave Star Citizen an x amount of money.[/QUOTE]
Its one in the same.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;50018724]If you spent as much as a used sailboat on a bunch of dragon dildos that's cool but don't think people won't think you're strange. I don't think I'm the one with a problem here- answer me truthfully, if SC was in beta right now and was about to go Gold in the middle of the summer, would you be okay with getting a full refund except a $45 dollar package? Because to an outsider, this ship-mania looks like Beanie Babies.[/QUOTE]
For someone who lives in a landlocked state with no real time or access to a body of water and doesn't feel like maintaining the boat and paying for the dock fees and licensing required as well as transportation, spending that money on something else could actually be more rational. I really don't feel like I have to explain this.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;50018744]Yeah, that's the definition of sunk-cost fallacy. I spent an exorbitant sum on something so I will turn a blind eye to things that are troublesome and double-down.[/QUOTE]
How much is exorbitant? If someone who spent $40 on the game likes where it is and where it's going, and someone who spent a lot more than that likes the game and where it is going, is the second person inherently irrational while the first one is rational?
I mean just as an example I can agree with some of your criticisms and disagree with others. Am I still rational because I'm split with you on Star Citizen, or because I haven't spent that much money?
Also if someone bought $5,000 of tf2 keys would you guys really not bat an eye
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;50018760]No, it's if the game were about to release with all promised content and it was clear there were no funding issues, would you be okay with getting a refund except the bare minimum needed to play the game? Because if the money spent truly is a "donation" to help fund the game, and you have the option to recoup that money and the game still comes out, would you take it?
My argument is that most people wouldn't, because they bought these ships because they wanted them to use in the game, not because they wanted to "support development". People don't buy packages in War Thunder so that Gaijin can make a better game/keep adding more features. The packages aren't even donations, by the way, no matter how people twist it they're digital goods. You don't pay tax on donations.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't because there's a gigantic warning telling you you're giving that money to them to fund development. The ship is your kickstarter style reward for being generous in X amount and it's on a person's head if they thought they were buying into power only to realize everyone gets in at ground level.
This is where development money comes from, period. There's no publisher funding it waiting to earn a profit down the line, it's a live flow of money going into paying salaries.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;50018711]Performance drops for different reasons though. The strain on the server when you have a lot of NPCs is far less when you have a lot of players. It doesn't prove anything except they really really really fucking need to sort out their LODs and not tell everyone everywhere what is happening at any given time.[/QUOTE]
That is correct. But again, the main point of that was that the servers didn't die from the stress.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;50018677]...but on a more personal level, why the fuck would you spend as much as a used sailboat on a fucking video game jesus christ that's textbook delusion[/QUOTE]
For the same reason people will spend hundreds of dollars on anime figurines, or model cars / trains / planes / whatever.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50018777]For someone who lives in a landlocked state with no real time or access to a body of water and doesn't feel like maintaining the boat and paying for the dock fees and licensing required as well as transportation, spending that money on something else could actually be more rational. I really don't feel like I have to explain this.
How much is exorbitant? If someone who spent $40 on the game likes where it is and where it's going, and someone who spent a lot more than that likes the game and where it is going, is the second person inherently irrational while the first one is rational?
I mean just as an example I can agree with some of your criticisms and disagree with others. Am I still rational because I'm split with you on Star Citizen, or because I haven't spent that much money?[/QUOTE]
Personally, I think CIG's marketing is extremely predatory. My beef isn't with dudes like you or me (before I got a refund) who paid the sticker price on this game, it's with the people who spend several hundreds-thousands of dollars on this and can't take any criticism whatsoever.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;50018760]No, it's if the game were about to release with all promised content and it was clear there were no funding issues, would you be okay with getting a refund except the bare minimum needed to play the game? Because if the money spent truly is a "donation" to help fund the game, and you have the option to recoup that money and the game still comes out, would you take it?
My argument is that most people wouldn't, because they bought these ships because they wanted them to use in the game, not because they wanted to "support development". People don't buy packages in War Thunder so that Gaijin can make a better game/keep adding more features.[/QUOTE]
So your question is, "If the game was about to release, would you be fine with reversing all of your pledges except for a basic package?"
You're asking if I'm paying to win? lmao. In such a bizarre, contrived, nonsensical hypothetical in which game developers can just work for free and don't need food or shelter and the game development budget's just sitting there barely being picked at against all logic and reality, sure, I'd take my money back and start at the bottom. I plan on starting in my basic ship anyfuckingway. What the hell do you know about me?
Anyone who legitimately tries to P2W with their pledge is the one who's going to feel like a sucker when the economy goes no-more-wipes-no-more-pledge-store live, because Chris Roberts is on the record repeatedly over time as saying that he hates grinds, especially F2P-style slog grinds, and doesn't plan on scaling Star Citizen's economy to it. Primarily because ships are not the end-all-be-all of progression; having a bigger ship isn't automatically better, because your running costs, responsibilities, and opportunities for things fucking up scale up to match. $250 buys you a Constellation Andromeda, but if you just wait until the game launches and play casually, you'll have one in a month; a week or sooner if you poopsock it like some hardcore players definitely will.
And I'll be laughing at the burst bubbles as Joe Fuck discovers that the ship he spent his whole paycheck on is no fucking big deal when two weeks after release there are hundreds them flying around by people who earned them entirely in-game, and he didn't skip any massive, tedious grind like he thought he would after all.
And the responsibilities will be significant for larger multicrew ships, which is where the biggest risk of imbalance shows up. Sure you can spend $2,500 on a ship if you really fucking want to, but if you try and take it out into space without 25 of your closest friends you're going to be famous for a little while as the dumbfuck who got his $2,500 ship jacked from his ass on day 1 of Star Citizen going live.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;50018769]Its one in the same.[/QUOTE]
Not really. I can criticize things I enjoy while also defending the purchase from people telling me I'm dumb for spending money on it, despite getting enjoyment from it.
People call me dumb when I buy Call of Duty, and despite the game having various issues (namely spawns, matchmaking, and balance in it's latest iteration Black Ops 3) I still have 160 hours played after spending $40 on it.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;50018779]Also if someone bought $5,000 of tf2 keys would you guys really not bat an eye[/QUOTE]
Why would I bat an eye at something that has presumably happened many times over? Why should I care how someone spends their disposable income?
[QUOTE=dai;50018798]I wouldn't because there's a gigantic warning telling you you're giving that money to them to fund development. The ship is your kickstarter style reward for being generous in X amount and it's on a person's head if they thought they were buying into power only to realize everyone gets in at ground level.
This is where development money comes from, period. There's no publisher funding it waiting to earn a profit down the line, it's a live flow of money going into paying salaries.[/QUOTE]
Dude, come on, you know that's a bunch of malarky. If that were the case and they decided that the only ships that were going to be in SC are the ones currently flyable, and everyone else will be awarded an equivalent amount of UEC on launch, there would be a shitshow the likes of which the internet has never seen before and CIG would lose all the goodwill they have left.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;50018827]Dude, come on, you know that's a bunch of malarky. If that were the case and they decided that the only ships that were going to be in SC are the ones currently flyable, and everyone else will be awarded an equivalent amount of UEC on launch, there would be a shitshow the likes of which the internet has never seen before and CIG would lose all the goodwill they have left.[/QUOTE]
Boy, it's a good thing the stretch goals were budgeted such that they'll be able to deliver on all of them even if the money were to stop tomorrow.
And if you're going to say that Chris Roberts is lying you'd better have a fucking reason beyond because your ass talked to you in your sleep. I want to hear more than just vague fuckshittery about how he's had problems delivering in the past. I want concrete evidence that Star Citizen cannot deliver on its promises beyond "I have a bad feeling". If you don't want to pledge, fucking fine, but spreading toxic misinformation is shitty and if you've got no proof guess what you're doing.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;50018744]Yeah, that's the definition of sunk-cost fallacy.[/QUOTE]
no it's not. try rationalisation or sour grapes?
[QUOTE]
Re: equivocating spending a small fortune on a single video game vs something tangible that could be a lifelong hobby that will improve you as a person, well I dunno what else to say to that besides enjoy your video game, commando.[/QUOTE]
this is just gold now. I would love to know what you spend your disposable income on, since apparently it's never anything that doesn't 'improve you as a person'. remember that counts for eating out, drinks, movies/shows/entertainment, any kind of car beyond a-to-b transport, any kind of hobby that doesn't translate directly to a useful skill etc
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50018822]Not really. I can criticize things I enjoy while also defending the purchase from people telling me I'm dumb for spending money on it, despite getting enjoyment from it.
People call me dumb when I buy Call of Duty, and despite the game having various issues (namely spawns, matchmaking, and balance in it's latest iteration Black Ops 3) I still have 160 hours played after spending $40 on it.
Why would I bat an eye at something that has presumably happened many times over? Why should I care how someone spends their disposable income?[/QUOTE]
Right but someone who has dumped money and/or time into something is less likely to admit to said thing have flaws, at all. Pretty basic human psychology. That's why sunk cost is a thing. That's all he's saying.
If you can do that then you're a rational person. If you can't then you're an idiot who's fallen for sunk cost.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;50018827]Dude, come on, you know that's a bunch of malarky. If that were the case and they decided that the only ships that were going to be in SC are the ones currently flyable, and everyone else will be awarded an equivalent amount of UEC on launch, there would be a shitshow the likes of which the internet has never seen before and CIG would lose all the goodwill they have left.[/QUOTE]
wait now the refund is in UEC (to buy the ships back ingame?)
like yeah anybody would jump for joy if they were just flat out offered their money back or given fancy discounts no questions asked (oculus kickstarters got free consumer units, that was cool!), but that's a pipedream of a situation you're drawing up
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;50018814]Personally, I think CIG's marketing is extremely predatory. My beef isn't with dudes like you or me (before I got a refund) who paid the sticker price on this game, it's with the people who spend several hundreds-thousands of dollars on this and can't take any criticism whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
I used to think the same way, and honestly thought that marketing new ships for cash injections was taking precedence over development, but when the community was polled the thing they wanted more of, overwhelmingly, was ships. People who had already spent money on the game want to spend more money on the game. It's the opposite of predatory and I can't blame them for listening to their funding base.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;50018820]So your question is, "If the game was about to release, would you be fine with reversing all of your pledges except for a basic package?"
You're asking if I'm paying to win? lmao. In such a bizarre, contrived, nonsensical hypothetical in which game developers can just work for free and don't need food or shelter and the game development budget's just sitting there barely being picked at against all logic and reality, sure, I'd take my money back and start at the bottom. I plan on starting in my basic ship anyfuckingway. What the hell do you know about me?
Anyone who legitimately tries to P2W with their pledge is the one who's going to feel like a sucker when the economy goes no-more-wipes-no-more-pledge-store live, because Chris Roberts is on the record repeatedly over time as saying that he hates grinds, especially F2P-style slog grinds, and doesn't plan on scaling Star Citizen's economy to it. Primarily because ships are not the end-all-be-all of progression; having a bigger ship isn't automatically better, because your running costs, responsibilities, and opportunities for things fucking up scale up to match. $250 buys you a Constellation Andromeda, but if you just wait until the game launches and play casually, you'll have one in a month; a week or sooner if you poopsock it like some hardcore players definitely will.
And I'll be laughing at the burst bubbles as Joe Fuck discovers that the ship he spent his whole paycheck on is no fucking big deal when two weeks after release there are hundreds them flying around by people who earned them entirely in-game, and he didn't skip any massive, tedious grind like he thought he would after all.
And the responsibilities will be significant for larger multicrew ships, which is where the biggest risk of imbalance shows up. Sure you can spend $2,500 on a ship if you really fucking want to, but if you try and take it out into space without 25 of your closest friends you're going to be famous for a little while as the dumbfuck who got his $2,500 ship jacked from his ass on day 1 of Star Citizen going live.[/QUOTE]
Did you spend all that money purely because you want to see Star Citizen succeed, or because you wanted those ships and want to fly them in the game? The devs aren't working for free, and if the game is good, then they should make a bunch of money off selling millions of copies at $60, so this isn't a question of putting food on Lesnick's table. Do you buy fifty copies of your favorite game because you want them to make a sequel?
[editline]28th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50018854]I used to think the same way, and honestly thought that marketing new ships for cash injections was taking precedence over development, but when the community was polled the thing they wanted more of, overwhelmingly, was ships. People who had already spent money on the game want to spend more money on the game. It's the opposite of predatory and I can't blame them for listening to their funding base.[/QUOTE]
I can't blame them either, but there are some people in the community that are really being taken advantage of. You can find quotes about people who have to debate food/rent money on the SC forums. And there's the whole concept of a "limited stock" digital good- it's artificial scarcity purely to drive sales. I'm curious to see how much money in CIG's coffers come from the welfare office.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;50018848]Right but someone who has dumped money and/or time into something is less likely to admit to said thing have flaws, at all. Pretty basic human psychology. That's why sunk cost is a thing. That's all he's saying.
If you can do that then you're a rational person. If you can't then you're an idiot who's fallen for sunk cost.[/QUOTE]
Okay sure but the problem comes when you want to paint a large segment of the Star Citizen playerbase, or everyone who spends over an arbitrary amount as an irrational idiot, like Big Bang tried to do to eli when he ran out of convincing arguments.
Surely if I'm capable of responding rationally than anyone else is and should be given that due respect, right? So why even bring up the point of people spending whatever on Star Citizen? It's completely irrelevant.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50018854]I used to think the same way, and honestly thought that marketing new ships for cash injections was taking precedence over development, but when the community was polled the thing they wanted more of, overwhelmingly, was ships. People who had already spent money on the game want to spend more money on the game. It's the opposite of predatory and I can't blame them for listening to their funding base.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50018877]Okay sure but the problem comes when you want to paint a large segment of the Star Citizen playerbase, or everyone who spends over an arbitrary amount as an irrational idiot, like Big Bang tried to do to eli when he ran out of convincing arguments.[/QUOTE]
Asking people with gambling addictions if they want a new casino is a good idea.
"Whales" make up a large portion of the profit for f2p games, guessing a similar case here. One can question the morality of enabling this behavior.
[QUOTE=dai;50018852]wait now the refund is in UEC (to buy the ships back ingame?)
like yeah anybody would jump for joy if they were just flat out offered their money back or given fancy discounts no questions asked (oculus kickstarters got free consumer units, that was cool!), but that's a pipedream of a situation you're drawing up[/QUOTE]
You're being deliberately obtuse now, don't confuse what I said. I'm saying if the ships people bought with dollars were scrapped- they no longer are going to be in SC because they cut scope down or whatever- and backers were given UEC to match their dollar contribution (imagine someone with an Idris and an Aurora get $1000 worth of UEC but no option to buy anything other than whatever ships there are left), the community would explode. My point being these ships aren't rewards, they're digital goods, you pay fucking taxes on them, and people (even if they don't want to admit it) are buying them because they want them to play with first and funding the game isn't even on their radar.
My other point is that if you really do consider them to be donations purely to help fund the game, and the game WAS funded 100% and about to release, you wouldn't mind getting a refund except for the basic package because hey, it's not about the ships, it's about getting the game funded.
Note: "you" isn't you personally.
[editline]28th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;50018888]Asking people with gambling addictions if they want a new casino is a good idea.
"Whales" make up a large portion of the profit for f2p games, guessing a similar case here. One can question the morality of enabling this behavior.[/QUOTE]
Exactly my point. There has been at least one ruined marriage from Star Citizen.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Take a break." - Pascall))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;50018890]You're being deliberately obtuse now, don't confuse what I said. I'm saying if the ships people bought with dollars were scrapped- they no longer are going to be in SC because they cut scope down or whatever- and backers were given UEC to match their dollar contribution (imagine someone with an Idris and an Aurora get $1000 worth of UEC but no option to buy anything other than whatever ships there are left), the community would explode. My point being these ships aren't rewards, they're digital goods, you pay fucking taxes on them, and people (even if they don't want to admit it) are buying them because they want them to play with first and funding the game isn't even on their radar.
My other point is that if you really do consider them to be donations purely to help fund the game, and the game WAS funded 100% and about to release, you wouldn't mind getting a refund except for the basic package because hey, it's not about the ships, it's about getting the game funded.
Note: "you" isn't you personally.[/QUOTE]
Of course they'd explode. That's a [B]ludicrous[/B] fucking proposition. Wow, amazing, if shit was somehow actually far far far worse and everyone was offered a terrible deal, they'd get mad. What amazing powers of prediction you have.
Feeling more confident about that Toxx every time you post.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Take a break." - Pascall))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;50018901]
Feeling more confident about that Toxx every time you post.[/QUOTE]
The comments of a poster on facepunch give you feelings about how well the development of a crowd funded video game is going?
Hold on, let me check where the constellations are in the sky to figure out how my day will go tomorrow.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;50018901]Of course they'd explode. That's a [B]ludicrous[/B] fucking proposition. Wow, amazing, if shit was somehow actually far far far worse and everyone was offered a terrible deal, they'd get mad. What amazing powers of prediction you have.
Feeling more confident about that Toxx every time you post.[/QUOTE]
So the money they put into the game wasn't a donation to help fund it, they were purchasing those ships to use in the game, that's what you're saying?
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;50018890]You're being deliberately obtuse now, don't confuse what I said. I'm saying if the ships people bought with dollars were scrapped- they no longer are going to be in SC because they cut scope down or whatever- and backers were given UEC to match their dollar contribution (imagine someone with an Idris and an Aurora get $1000 worth of UEC but no option to buy anything other than whatever ships there are left), the community would explode. My point being these ships aren't rewards, they're digital goods, you pay fucking taxes on them, and people (even if they don't want to admit it) are buying them because they want them to play with first and funding the game isn't even on their radar.
[/quote]
it would be totally within reason if somebody paid up for a concept ship that got scrapped to be offered real money refunds for it instead of UEC
[quote]My other point is that if you really do consider them to be donations purely to help fund the game, and the game WAS funded 100% and about to release, [B]you wouldn't mind getting a refund except for the basic package because hey, it's not about the ships, it's about getting the game funded.[/B]
Note: "you" isn't you personally.[/QUOTE]
what part of this is so impossible for you to get
If you pay money for development above the base package, you give money toward concept ships. That's all they have to offer. You get a shiny toy as a thank you and they get money for development, there is no dividend left to give back because they finished developing.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;50018888]Asking people with gambling addictions if they want a new casino is a good idea.
"Whales" make up a large portion of the profit for f2p games, guessing a similar case here. One can question the morality of enabling this behavior.[/QUOTE]
You're making your position incredibly transparent when you compare a poll asking people what features they want next to asking gambling addicts if a new casino is a good idea. Those aren't comparable whatsoever unless of course you are occupying the position that all Star Citizen players are inherently irrational and incapable of controlling their "habit". You've also established a no win scenario where they either ignore their fans and catch flak or listen to their fans and still catch flak.
And no I see no reason to question the morality of saying "We want to sell you this service or product, would you be interested?" and then receiving positive feedback and then providing said service or product. Product of course being crack cocaine because as we all know Star Citizen players are basically junkies with Chris Roberts being the Columbian drug kingpin.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;50018890]
Exactly my point. There has been at least one ruined marriage from Star Citizen.[/QUOTE]
And you don't see this as a personal problem but as a problem with Star Citizen because?
[QUOTE=dai;50018924]it would be totally within reason if somebody paid up for a concept ship that got scrapped to be offered real money refunds for it instead of UEC
what part of this is so impossible for you to get
If you pay money for development above the base package, you give money toward concept ships. That's all they have to offer. You get a shiny toy as a thank you and they get money for development, there is no dividend left to give back because they finished developing.[/QUOTE]
Sure, it would be, and that would be acceptable. HOWEVER, it is my belief that CIG would not do that, because THEIR MESSAGE (not that it is perfectly acceptable legally) is that these are all just donations, and that since they delivered a completed game, you got what was promised and there will be no refunds. That's grounds for chargebacks for non-delivery of goods. These shiny toys are not thank-you gifts dude, they are being sold as digital goods no matter what their PR team says. You pay tax on them, they are marketed in "ship sales", everything outside of their legalese scream product.
CIG was doing refunds for a while, but lately they have pretty much stopped. You bet your ass if they cut ANY ship and don't offer a full dollar refund they'll be on the hook. They may have gotten away with it before they started charging tax on all ship sales but such it is.
is this game still p2w?
I think the whales are junkies, yes that is the implication.
[QUOTE=AuschwitzDood;50018947]is this game still p2w?[/QUOTE]
No, you can buy the most powerful ship in the game and enough in-game currency in their cash shop to fuel, equip, insure, and crew it, but you'll be on equal footing with an Aurora owner because
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;50018957]No, you can buy the most powerful ship in the game and enough in-game currency in their cash shop to fuel, equip, insure, and crew it, but you'll be on equal footing with an Aurora owner because[/QUOTE]
well i told myself i'd only ever back another game if there were birds in it, specifically procedurally generated ones. are the birds in the game yet?
[QUOTE=AuschwitzDood;50018963]well i told myself i'd only ever back another game if there were birds in it, specifically procedurally generated ones. are the birds in the game yet?[/QUOTE]
Chris Roberts said that procedurally-generated flora and fauna will be in the game that you can explore/look at in your rover that comes with the Aquila and Carrack, so yes, eventually. Who knows whether that will come before or after mining and trading and 99 (Stanton is mostly done) landing zones, though.
Chris Roberts never lies either, it's well within the scope of what CIG can do and it'll all be done within a year or so. He's never had any games with runaway scope bloat before.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;50018977]Chris Roberts said that procedurally-generated flora and fauna will be in the game that you can explore/look at in your rover that comes with the Aquila and Carrack, so yes, eventually. Who knows whether that will come before or after mining and trading and 99 (Stanton is mostly done) landing zones, though.
Chris Roberts never lies either, it's well within the scope of what CIG can do and it'll all be done within a year or so. He's never had any games with runaway scope bloat before.[/QUOTE]
well a guy was so sure that this game would come out that he used him and his wife's retirement money to buy spaceships (not actual in game ones, just pictures of them mind you). she left him and took the kids but he still thinks it was worth it. that's pretty convincing to me that this game will come out. Chris Roberts is pretty good at game design, did you play the last game he made 13 years ago? it was pretty good.
[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Alt/Gimmick" - Pascall))[/highlight]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.