Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy

A new Letter from the Chairman on the Roberts Space Industries website talks more about the future of Star Citizen now that they've stopped laying out additional stretch goals and talks to backers about their support of the project (for the record, the space combat game has now surpassed the $73 million mark). Chris Roberts also addresses a recent controversy within the game's community over "Rental Equipment Credits," a complicated system of equipment rentals for the game. There's an article criticizing this concept on Ten Ton Hammer that helps an outsider understand what's up with this system, and why this may raise concerns, saying: "you cannot earn REC and then purchase any items or equipment in Arena Commander right now or in this upcoming update permanently. You can, instead, earn REC to rent equipment and ships to try before you buy or, if you are committed enough, to keep playing with as long as you can continue to earn enough REC to pay the rental fee every 7 non-consecutive days of playing." In his post, Roberts acknowledges the controversy, though it's not certain how it will be dealt with:
Finally, I know that everyone is expecting me to talk more about Rental Equipment Credits. I took part in the heated discussion over the weekend and one of our priorities this week was clarifying some of the confusion about the system. I don’t have much to add right now, but I do want to stress: we asked for your feedback because we genuinely wanted it. A sincere thank you to everyone who provided that feedback. I’ll stress: we’re going to create a system that’s fun, not one that hurts players. Like everything else in Star Citizen, we will balance and expand our system to that goal once it launches until it meets our vision, and we will not settle for less.
View : : :
21.
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
Feb 21, 2015, 13:54
Cutter
 
21.
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy Feb 21, 2015, 13:54
Feb 21, 2015, 13:54
 Cutter
 
Julian Delphiki wrote on Feb 21, 2015, 13:29:
Why am I not surprised to see so many of the users of this site, who have always commented on the most speculative statements about anything related to SC, blow something completely out of proportion. Yes, I follow SC and have pledged a little to support it but its obvious to anyone with a smidgen of awareness that you guys are just vindictive sociopaths without an iota of common sense, or, even worse, individuals with a made up rage that makes you blind to the actual facts. If any of you had even bothered to read the post in its entirety and the response from CIG you wouldn't act as though this is a final component for a game that's already released when in fact it is a simple pre-alpha mechanic to allow people to try things they haven't pledged for and earn it with a little bit of test time in the games competitive modes which are still under significant development. There's no point to making any other arguments since you're clearly fixed on trolling anything SC related, so go ahead and keep making your comments with the sophistication of an angry 10 year-old and I'll smirk at every one of them. You have your troll support group, I'm sure you'll make it through this difficult time. Just rage and cry on each other's shoulders and all will be well.

Why are we trolls for not wanting to support P2W models that are inherently classist? So if you happen to have a pile of disposable income you get all the toys and if you don't than fuck you? Well, in spite of your fanboy ranting most people prefer their games more egalitarian because real life is unfair enough.
"You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life."
Avatar 25394
Date
Subject
Author
 21.
Feb 21, 2015Feb 21 2015
 Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
71.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
98.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
77.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
104.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
106.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
108.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
85.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
86.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
87.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
88.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
90.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
91.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
92.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
89.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
102.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
111.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
103.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
107.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
112.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015