I don't classify a game as pay 2 win if I can put the time into playing it to earn something. If you don't have the time to sit down and sink into a video game that has you interested, it clearly doesn't have you interested enough or you're not a true gamer™
Honestly? X: Rebirth is looking more promising right now. Star Citizen is basically a vapourware pipe-dream and I'm not sure they can pull it off. Roberts's idea of what makes a game fun might still be stuck in the 90s for all I know.
What if it takes you 100,000 hours to earn the same items? Still going to stick to that definition?Originally Posted by Cortexian
Can you say it's pay to win when you can only pay for items as rewards for supporting their development funds ? I believe the only items they said you can buy in-game (when the game gets released) are ship design plans which are ships designed by community members and the money goes to them. You then have to play the game and gather in-game resources to actually build the ship.
Are you suggesting things become less fun as time progresses? The Halo series kept getting progressively less fun (ODST excluded as that brought something completely new to the table) as time progressed, but that didn't make the original Halo any less fun. It has less eye candy than its sequels, but eye candy is far from what makes a game fun.
If you think something has to be new and fresh in order to be fun, most sports and the Olympics would like to have a word with you.
That all depends on how those design plans (I'll call them blueprints) are implemented.Can you say it's pay to win when you can only pay for items as rewards for supporting their development funds ? I believe the only items they said you can buy in-game (when the game gets released) are ship design plans which are ships designed by community members and the money goes to them. You then have to play the game and gather in-game resources to actually build the ship.
If they're able to build an infinite amount of ships off those blueprints that are only able to be obtained through crowdfunding then it might as well be pay to win if that ship is unique and superior in stats to others in the game. This would give those crowdfunded owners the opportunity to dictate prices of a truly unique item by restricting supply. A similar mechanism existed in EVE with t2 blueprint originals (unlimited production). As the sole provider of a type of ship, they were able to dictate prices and were truly the richest people in the game. They were so rich they were able to convince owners of other t2 blueprint originals to sell them for multiple years of revenue just to further constrict the market and ensure their income.
It caused an outrage amongst the players and the devs implemented a way to invent blueprint copies (limited run of production) for t2 items. It took nearly five years for things to balance themselves and for the market to be corrected. I'd argue it only took that short amount of time because the people doing invention valued their time at zero and used that as their profit margin. Most of the invention runs created a negative value on the ships being invented so anyone building off those invention stats lost money (probably without realizing it).
If they're only able to build one then it is not pay to win as long as that ship is destructible and able to be lost forever.
If the ship is identical in stats to other ships but merely aesthetically different,then it's not pay to win.
Those blueprints are available to everyone though, that's a system they plan to implement. The rewards are just a single ship and if they are destroyed they are lost forever. The exception are those that gave donations during the first 30 days of funding, they have a lifetime insurance policy on the ship though they clearly stated it can't be abused in such the way you just kamikaze the ship and spawn a new one. Every time you use the insurance the cooldown until you can get your ship again increases. As far as I know all the ships that are being given to people donating are not unique in any way and anyone can get them in-game.
What I mean is that while replaying the Wing Commander series is fun, it's fun because I grew up with it and reliving the memories is something I like to do. The play mechanics do not, however, hold up very well today. The combat is monotonous and extremely repetitive with no real challenge offered beyond having to mash "E" constantly to decoy enemy missiles on higher difficulties. What I don't want from Star Citizen is Wing Commander: 2014 Edition, because that would not be fun. What I fear is that Roberts will be delivering exactly that, but with some added insubstantial fluff...such as eye candy. Or walking around inside the capital ships.
Remember, Roberts has not actually made a game since Starlancer (2000). Freelancer doesn't count because he left his position early on and was merely an advisor on the project.
I don't know what's happening to me. Despite having no interest in Star Citizen up to this point, an hour ago I started having a panic attack about being too late to get in on the pledge packages. I've since found out that there's plenty of time left for that, though. What I need help with is choosing the right package for my budget. $50 is what I'm willing to spend and the closest packages are the Scout and Mercenary for $30 and $40 respectively.
From what I can see, Merc and Scout are identical packages except the Scout doesn't get alpha/beta access and it has one month less insurance. I'm leaning towards the merc package, but I want to know how long the Alpha + Beta periods are likely to be. How long will I be waiting to access the full game if I go for scout instead? I also want the Origin 300i instead of the Aurora, but I'm not willing to spend $65USD to get it
Last edited by Amit; September 30th, 2013 at 04:04 PM.
For what it's worth, if it doesn't end up being pay to win, you won't have a problem acquiring those ships through play.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks