13 réponses à ce sujet

[BaggyGreen]

Do we have any Star Citizen backers here? Stick your hand up! 

[Allan Schumacher]

Of course!  If I could be said to have grown up with any video games in particular, Wing Commander would have to be the games.  Privateer being my favorite.

 

Privateer was a fantastic game.  I enjoyed Privateer 2 but I ended up hitting a consistent memory addressing error which blocked my playthrough

 

 

EDIT: Heh.... I played WC1/2 with the mouse and Privateer with they keyboard.

[Allan Schumacher]

I haven't contributed anything mostly because at this point, I think he's at a point where any additional funding would just delay the release of the game.

[Allan Schumacher]

It's an understandable comment, but as someone following it pretty deeply, a lot of the stuff that's been getting added and added and added to the game for the past, gosh, three months or more (longer in some cases?) is stuff they're not even projecting for launch. So giving them more money now, IMHO, won't slow the game because they've already nailed down what they want to launch with, and all the stuff that extra money brings to them, will appear at a later time. I'd certainly recommend people buy in now before the alpha slots are all gone. $40 gets you the ship, the single player game, the MMO (with no monthly fee) and alpha and beta access. It's pretty compelling.

 

Given my job, alpha and beta status are perhaps less appealing for myself

[Allan Schumacher]

Well, don't be too sure of that. You might enjoy dogfighting a lot, but one in awhile might want to go and mine. You'd need a completely different ship for that.

 

I will do what I did in Privateer and Freelancer.  Run missions to make some fat coin to buy one

 

 

EDIT: And $40 million is a huge chunk of change.

 

 

I am most fascinated with Star Citizen for the amateur sociological analysis I can do with the people.  I see the type of tiered payment stuff that a AAA studio gets raked over the coals for, while this is championed.  It really seems like some combination of "contributing to the game before it's done" coupled with some "starved for a game like this" and a general idea of being "small time" can make something like this a lot more encouraged.

 

The biggest one, IMO, is the "contribute before release."  I think a feeling of "without me, this game wouldn't be as awesome" makes a huge impact, compared to a game from a standard AAA studio which is typically entirely funded before hand (so one is able to conclude its existence is guaranteed, without any personal investment from fans) and I think it's seen a lot differently.  Although the ability for AAA to acquire funds makes a difference too I think.  If Chris worked for a large studio and did something like this and it existed in exactly the way that it is now, I'm not sure if it'd be as successful.  It'd lose some of the underdog appeal.

 

And of course, keeping your game open to crowd funding is also a HUUUGE impact too.

[Allan Schumacher]

Well, I would suggest if a AAA game is fully funded beforehand, it's by businesses/angel investors looking for a return on that investment. And there's nothing wrong with that; it's the way investment works, after all. So I don't think that's "wrong" in itself. But when a AAA game attempts tiered funding, the perception from the community is, quite rightly, that it's seeking to make a profit to (at least in part) pay off the investors who invested in the first place.

 

"Investors" in most AAA games is just the capital of the studio/publisher though.  At best they may leverage loans to help finance it.  I'm not really familiar with outside investment coming in for a AAA studio.  (And just to make sure there's no confusion from people that are reading, unless a public company issues stock they receive zero capital from stockholders, and unless they issue dividends stockholders won't see a penny from a game's revenues).  If Chris had $40 million dollars and made Star Citizen, it'd be pretty much identical to standard AAA game development.

 

 

 

In the case of a crowd funded game, those businesses/angel investors have been avoided. Chris Roberts initially thought he'd get a few million from crowd funding and maybe $10 million from businesses/angel investors, but in the end he didn't have to. So although Star Citizen has used tiered funding, the perception from the community is, quite rightly, that it's going to the game; not to something that's already been paid for and is trying to profit on top of that.

 

At the end of the day, that's the big thing. All the Star Citizen devs, etc, will get a wage. But I don't see "mega profit" being made anywhere. Meanwhile, a AAA game under the old method of publishing and distributing, has to pay all those devs, etc, AND make a profit on top (preferably a mega one!) and that is really the big difference between the two. To be honest I think it's the reason why I think we will see more and more titles take a crowd funding route in the future.

 

The biggest difference is that Chris can sell zero copies of the game and be mostly unaffected (which is an interesting model - and as long as he keeps contributors happy and satisfied the model remains available to him).  Every copy of the game sold after release is straight profit rather than recuperating any initial investment.  We agree that it's a perception issue, but I disagree that Chris isn't looking to be profitable.  If he wasn't, I'd actually be concerned, and if he isn't interested in making a profit that means he'd be okay giving the game away after release.  I don't think he'd do that (admittedly I don't follow the game that closely since I've already decided I'm getting it).  I'm curious if the backers would be okay with that, however.

 

Once the game is released, do you think perceptions on his current monetization would change (or that he'll even keep the current monetization?  I could see it, because as you point out there's less of a perception that the money is going back to the game.  I think it'll be interesting at release to see what Chris does and how people react.  I do think the game will be very profitable, though.

 

 

It may sound like I am being harsh on Chris and crowdfunding.  I'm not.  I doubt the game would exist without it, and it's just a different model and I find it interesting to philosophize.  Though if a game cost, say $40 million from a AAA publisher, I do think that there's a slight error with this statement: "it's going to the game; not to something that's already been paid for and is trying to profit on top of that."  Yes they're trying to profit, but they're also trying to recuperate initial costs.  The advantage of crowdfunding is that the initial costs are directly paid by the customer, although those contributors won't be included in post-release sales either.

[Allan Schumacher]

If I remember right, they've said they're going to stop selling ships for money once the game is actually released. They're still going to sell in-game money for real money however.

 

I'm interested to see if there's any reaction/response to a decision like this.

 

 

You'll also be able to get insurance so that it's a little bit harder to completely lose your ship.

 

What happens if you only have one ship, or no insurance?

[Allan Schumacher]

According to their website, if you don't have insurance then you lose your ship when it gets destroyed. In this event, you'll need to buy a new ship with your own credits or else you can fly missions with either NPCs or other players until you have enough. One of the stretch goals also mentions a public transit system, but I'm not sure how easy one will be able make credits off of it.

 

They do also mention that it takes time to get a replacement ship, and that if you lose your ship a lot within a short time then the delay starts increasing. They don't mention just how long it takes beyond saying it's "time consuming". I imagine this is in response to the concern that people with insurance will just throw away their ships because they know they can get a replacement.

 

So if you only have the one ship, it sounds like you'll end up being shipless for a time if it gets destroyed regardless of if you had insurance or not.

 

I'm more concerned about the aspect of "Can I not currently play the game in any meaningful capacity because my ship is destroyed and I am waiting for a replacement?"  It's a tricky tightrope to walk with respect to your actions having consequences (i.e. don't be reckless) while still allowing players to play the game (especially if ways of griefing players becomes apparently).

 

 

They actually changed it so you only get 6 months for your ship if you're a backer.

 

Those who originally backed the game before the change still do get lifetime insurance, though.

 

I can understand the need to keep it (since it was promised and may have impacted contributions).  Though this sounds to me like a non-trivial difference in game experiences for particular players.  And that's not to say those that have insurance are necessarily the winners (since they'll always have the insurance, they're denied the aspect of the game of not having the insurance and/or maintaining the insurance).

 

I'm assuming these topics have already come up in some capacity, however.

[Allan Schumacher]

There will be plenty of stuff to do for people who lose a ship and don't have insurance, in order for them to earn a base model ship again in fairly quick order. So I dare say there will be those things, and likely more, for someone who loses a ship and is waiting for the insurance money. If anything, it will show anyone who says, "I only need one ship..." that there's a perfectly good reason for keeping at least two ships - even if the other one is a direct copy of their first ship!

 

Sure, I'm just somewhat concerned about the worst case of bad circumstances happening.

 

What's the griefing potential of the game (since that's a force multiplier for concern for this).

[Allan Schumacher]

Well, you're putting people into ships, with big guns and the ability to go and blow up who they want. There will be absolute maniacs out there.

 

However, going out and blowing stuff up will have legal consequences; police, bounty hunters, other players, loss of citizenship, etc... so it will be interesting to see what happens.

 

Consequence is nice, but does a player care what the other player's consequences are if they are stuck without a ship and without money (and presumably not able to "play the game" so to speak)?*  I just bring this up because you talk about "this is why you have two ships" and stuff like that.  Though if one ship gets blown up and the other gets blown up shortly afterwards, seems to mitigate the idea of "there's a perfectly good reason for keeping at least two ships - even if the other one is a direct copy of their first ship!"

 

 

I do think that there are risks on making the game more like Eve Online rather than like Wing Commander/Privateer.  And in the latter the situation of "I own this game but am not able to currently play it right now because of circumstance" doesn't come up.  (Doubly so if there's a disparity on the abilities of the players based on if and when they backed the game).  Which is why I was asking.

 

 

 

*I do notice that you mention that missions and whatnot can be done in the meantime.  Though I admit that I am surprised that the game seems to have a rather distinctly hardcore approach since it seems like the ability for players to dig themselves very deep holes is not what I was expecting.

[Allan Schumacher]

1) Yes, the game does have more of a hardcore edge. For example, there's also character permadeath if they get damaged enough times, or end up in some catastrophic disaster. Chris Roberts is in a video from last year sometime saying how he can't stand most modern games where you just play the level over and over and over and over again, smashing yourself against the opposition, until you win. He doesn't find that satisfying or realistic. He'd like people to think more about what they're doing. I've got to say, in many ways, I totally agree with him on that. Put some fear back into the gamer that they might actually lose something.

 

I was under the impression that permadeath would result in a legacy character taking over, with faction alignment adjustments, rather than any overtly punitive permadeath situations.  I heard this from a secondary source that follows the game more closely than me, however, not from anything official.

 

 

2) Re: the ship thing, if it's just a starter ship like the Aurora or Mustang, it likely appears quite quickly. Maybe within the same play session. We don't know yet, but there'll obviously be a sliding scale of getting a starter ship back a lot more quickly than, say, an Idris. So people will likely have multiple ships anyway; their starter ship plus whatever else they buy or acquire in the game. And they'd have to be deeply unlucky, or stupid, to be shot down multiple times in the same play session, unless they were absolutely going out of their way to get into fights with other people. Again, it comes back to the player's actions - not the game.

 

This only happens if the ship is properly insured though, right?  I'm more thinking about situations where a player is so broke that they can't afford insurance.  I suppose they could start a new character if they are in that much dire straits.  Though the idea of being part of a crew is very interesting (whether it be a player ship or a non-player ship).  As long as there are ways for the player to get back into the saddle, though, it's not a huge concern.

 

As for the bolded, the human element is a huge, huge, huge X-Factor IMO.  If there's a human element and it's open PvP, I wouldn't be surprised if the same person getting killed multiple times was a reasonably common occurrence.

[Allan Schumacher]

Re: Eve fight

 

Yeah that's pretty recent.  I expect events like that to happen in Star Citizen too.

[Allan Schumacher]

Yes, in the case of permadeath, you get a new character who can be spun as a descendant or heir of the original character. I wasn't really commenting on the full mechanics, simply that there's permadeath. When that character's done... it's done! Unlike most other games on the market today where you just go back a save. That's the sort of stuff that drives Chris nuts.

 

And re: ships, yes, they have to be insured to reappear again in your hangar after a period of time. Your concern about having enough money for ships, insurance, etc, isn't uncommon, but the CIG guys are at pains to say that, even if you're at rock bottom, with nothing at all, it will only take a few missions with NPCs to make enough money to buy a ship; which likely has at least three months insurance on it.

 

Yeah, I ended up reading his player death one.

 

It'll be interesting how he balances consequences vs. still allowing the player to have fun.  I wonder how effective the death mechanic will be at delivering his goal of ensuring players have a sense of anxiety and caution.

[Allan Schumacher]

Wouldn't such players suffer severe in-game consequences for that?  Being branded a pirate and criminal, being banned from civilized systems, and hunted by the police, military, and bounty hunters?

 

It's something we won't really know until release.

 

Though the issue is less a single person being an ass, and more with multiple people colluding.  One person can dig themselves a pretty deep hole by constantly being belligerent.  But if you spread that across 5/10/20 people, the effects may get mitigated.  This is assuming that players can't get themselves to a point where they simply don't care about anything the AI can throw at them (civilized systems, police, military, AI bounty hunters).  One guy can dig up a hefty bounty to draw the attention of other players, but if the bounty gets split among several different pilots, do they still draw the eye of player bounty hunters?

 

 

It all depends on what the costs end up being and how those penalties are imposed.

 

The counterpoint is mostly that they do find an appropriate cost that keeps this type of activity minimal.  But I do think it's a valid concern.  I'd be surprised if they nail it out of the park on the first go.