Wasn’t the Highlander quote “There can be only one”?
I can’t believe Mr Roberts can keep a straight face during these videos. He’s certainly got some front.
What exactly is your problem with that quote? He goes on to say (in the recent video at least) that the game is going to be PVE for the vast majority, with maybe 10% opting into PvP.
So some people will have spent more and have more ships. But this is not Eve Online. What exactly is the issue with that?
There will be big corps and there will be small single entities (assuming a game gets delivered, of course). Over time, you can expand your fleet in game.
He also makes the point that allowing people to turn more assets into UEC is because they essentially already have those assets in the form of the fleet they have accumulated. Why do they need to be prevented from melting their ships of they so desire?
I fully understand the reservations against the project and Roberts’ micro management.
But I’m not sure what the economics fail or the objection to the recent UEC cap lift are about.
For me, the problem with that quote is mostly in the “no end game” and “no win state.” Um, well. You better have the most sophisticated, boundary-less, and intelligently reactive world model in the history of mankind. Because if you don’t, what you don’t have is a game.
That’s fair. Though I’m not sure exactly that I need a persistent online space faring game to have a set win state. How does it end?
I guess there is a state where you can take on all the PvE content and all that’s left is roleplaying and PvP. And then you might robbing yourself out of the meat of the game by amassing a big fleet.
But, apart from raiding or PvP, I don’t know that online games really have an end state. And they really aren’t one winner takes all, hence it doesn’t really matter to me what your fleet is.
They said, yes. I can see why you want to know exactly what the game is. That makes sense.
That’s pretty standard for this sort of game, surely. Elite doesn’t have a win-state (insert joke here). No Man’s Sky doesn’t really have one, from what I understand, though maybe more so than Elite.
Obviously MMOs don’t, though the extent to which SC is an MMO is obviously debatable. Plenty of other sandboxy games don’t. City-builders don’t, outside of specific scenarios. Management sims don’t. Railroad games don’t. I have to say it hadn’t occurred to me until now that Star Citizen would.
Games like Diablo 3 or The Division may have a story end but it’s not a win state in any meaningful sense, as hardcore players would say the “real game” begins at the end of the story.
If there is no more unique content for you to play and the result of repeat engagement is a foregone conclusion (i.e. no challenge) then it’s a win state. Whether the game recognizes it is irrelevant.
Oh, yeah, certainly there are games that work that don’t have hard and fast win states, but they have end games–things you do the keep you going. If you don’t have a win state, you have to have an end game IMO. In MMOs, you have raiding, dailies, alternate progression, PvP, whatever. In management games you have the perpetuation of whatever empire (rail, sales, fiefdom, what have you) you’ve built. Those work because the scope is limited; in a railroad game, you only have to model the stuff directly impacting running a rail road.
Star Citizen is promising, in effect, that the end game is a fully realized universe in which you can go about doing your thing in a meaningful and productive (in gamer terms as well as personally I suppose) fashion. To do that, because they are not limiting the scope at all, seems…over ambitious.
Briefly, it’s not the quote itself that’s an issue as much as the context:
Here, he is responding to concerns about inflation by stating (to paraphrase) ‘there will always be haves and have-nots’.
This completely sidesteps (or ignores) some basic economic principles such as scarcity and value. If anyone, anywhere, can pump in some $$ and instantly print currency, the value of that currency goes down all else being equal. I don’t need to deal with other players because I can print my own currency whenever I feel like it.
I don’t play any of them, but my understanding is that generally MMORPGs that provide some kind of official route to pay into a game do it indirectly through monthly game passes that can then be sold in the game for in-game currency to other players. So the external dollars don’t actually inflate the game economy directly because they don’t generate new currency (not that it is 100% that simple).
Yes, some MMORPGs do that, and it is pay-to-win (in my book).
Here, though, what is the secondary currency? Roberts is selling UEC directly. Regardless of whether or not it’s p2w, that can’t be good for the economy.
Oh sure, I agree it is P2W in both situations, I just mean that Star Citizen would have the bonus side effect of inflating the economy directly if there was an actual economy that existed in a game that existed.
How has the economy of EVE Online evolved after the introduction of PLEX? PLEX basically being an officially endorsed way of converting real world $$$ into in game $$$. I have a vague notion that a roaring gambling business formed around the game, which then went onto financing in game major wars… until the whole business was killed by CCP.
SC can take inspiration from other stuff than spaceships.
The thing is, Plex doesn’t generate the ISK out of thin air. You can sell your Plex, but a player is going to have to buy it from in-game currency earned through in-game means. So selling Plex doesn’t directly inflate the economy.
It sounds like what Star Citizen is doing is “give us real money and we’ll generate in-game money for you”, which is different.
Good point Kevin. If you want to turn your PLEX money into stuff you have to go through the markets which were increasingly player driven. Which doesn’t - shouldn’t - allow a 1 on 1 exchange rate, is that right?
Yet I would expect some sort of inflationary pressure on prices, especially on luxury stuff like rare ships and modules.
Not only that but CCP has a pretty fine tuned economic systems in place so that ISK is also taken out of the economy on a regular basis.
Why not buy your own graveyard marker on your personal land-claimed spot!
Now available for only 29.95$ (+ land claim 150$).
Yeah, judge is busy beating up Trump’s policies, so we’re still waiting for her ruling on the MtD, which will signal the start of discovery (what CIG fears the most).
The trial dates for 2019 were already set btw. The reason we’re not seeing any action for now is because when CryTek started working on discovery, CIG freaked out and filed a protective order asking the judge to put a stay on discovery until the MtD ruling. The judge agreed, but that it was a moot point since they weren’t compelled to respond to discovery ahead of the ruling anyway.
It was through that filing that we discovered CIG had approached CryTek about a settlement, and CryTek said not until discovery completed. And sources tell me they’re still trying to get it settled, but CryTek isn’t having any of it.
Because I’m one anal sob, I am tracking the entire lawsuit in a dedicated section of my website.
So does this mean there might be a big “settlement” sale in the near future? Maybe some ship that carries a heavy loadout of lawyers? Or a Judge Dredd type of vessel?
I’m not current on their ship types but I think there is a good opening for these!
"As many of you know, we are under full-scale attack by lawyers. This is distracting us from our mission of creating the game.
As a solution, we are offering a “Litigation Partner” subscription. Join our team and help us fight against this evil scourge. The higher amount package you subscribe to will increase your litigation rank.
$5 per month: Administrative Personnel.
$10 per month: Investigator
$25 per month: Legal secretary.
$50 per month: Legal Assistant
$75 per month: Paralegal
$100 per month: Contract Lawyer
$250 per month: Associate
$1,000 per month: Partner
Partners will be allowed to send us legal suggestions, and we will read them."