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 : : :
118 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Older
118.
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
Feb 24, 2015, 17:37
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy Feb 24, 2015, 17:37
Feb 24, 2015, 17:37
 
Tumbler wrote on Feb 23, 2015, 11:21:
It gets more baffling by the day that people still have negative things to say about this game.

Atm it's $45 to get a jack of all trades starter ship (Aurora) or a Dogfighter starter ship (Mustang). With that purchase you get a playable game that is being updated at least monthly, new content being shown/discussed weekly, the most recent update brings the game way more into balance with ships like the mustang and Avenger dominating in pvp. (Avenger is $60, Mustang starts at $30 but I think the one owning my ass in pvp is the $90 Delta Version)

It's been a while since I purchased an in game ship but I am tempted by that mining vessel that just got introduced. The multi crew part is what makes me hesitate. I like my ships to be good for solo as well.

As far as the microtransactions / P2W / REC stuff I think it's just par for the course. We were always expecting players to be able to purchase credits in game. (limited per day I believe) The game still needs to be built so I don't think it's unreasonable to give someone a decent ship in the game if they kick in $300.

Considering everything can get blown up and it's gone for good I'm not sure what there is to complain about. A person pledging for $200+ might have a great starter ship for dogfighting but it still goes down pretty quick when it gets shot at. Even if someone has LTI (life time insurance) I don't expect that to mean they can just respawn instantly in the same area and come out in a fully armed ship while someone else can only die once then needs to work up to getting everything back.

Insurance is going to be fairly cheap so whatever the downside is for dying the only difference for a new player and an original backer with LTI is going to be a small amount of credits.

The REC stuff is meant to protect the value of pledging. They could let everyone fly any ship and use any weapon but that is a huge reason people pledge in the first place. When ships come out in Arena Commander it's an opportunity to use them now versus waiting until the full game comes out. REC keeps that in line. No one is going to be buying in at $45 and then earning rec to get all the ships that othered paid hundreds of dollars for.

It's pay to develop at this point, there is no "win" right now. Would the game be better if no one owned any ships other than the aurora / Mustang at the start of the game? Mabye, but then the game wouldn't exist or if it did some publisher would be pushing it out the door complete or not this holiday season and getting ready to build the rest of the game and call it Star Citizen 2.

This game is more fun to be a part of in development than most games are after they are complete and on store shelves. And we've seen games that offer premium high powered vehicles for sale to compete with people who earned them play the game. (world of tanks) Those premium tanks do not dominate everyone. Matchmaking puts them against similar powered enemies and at the high end the paid tanks end up a notch below what a player earning credits and xp from playing the game can get.

CIG is going to continue building newer and betters ships for the game and people will have to earn those in game. In a rather short time I'd expect that everything that was pledged for will be a notch below what you can earn in game.

This game is more fun to be a part of in development


you are not part of anything , you think you are but thats what they want you to belive...peps are soo easy to fool
117.
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
Feb 23, 2015, 12:35
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy Feb 23, 2015, 12:35
Feb 23, 2015, 12:35
 
Sepharo wrote on Feb 23, 2015, 01:54:
Easy you just put a little tag in front the ship name [Heirloom] and everybody's good.

Giggle
Avatar 15604
116.
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
Feb 23, 2015, 11:21
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy Feb 23, 2015, 11:21
Feb 23, 2015, 11:21
 
It gets more baffling by the day that people still have negative things to say about this game.

Atm it's $45 to get a jack of all trades starter ship (Aurora) or a Dogfighter starter ship (Mustang). With that purchase you get a playable game that is being updated at least monthly, new content being shown/discussed weekly, the most recent update brings the game way more into balance with ships like the mustang and Avenger dominating in pvp. (Avenger is $60, Mustang starts at $30 but I think the one owning my ass in pvp is the $90 Delta Version)

It's been a while since I purchased an in game ship but I am tempted by that mining vessel that just got introduced. The multi crew part is what makes me hesitate. I like my ships to be good for solo as well.

As far as the microtransactions / P2W / REC stuff I think it's just par for the course. We were always expecting players to be able to purchase credits in game. (limited per day I believe) The game still needs to be built so I don't think it's unreasonable to give someone a decent ship in the game if they kick in $300.

Considering everything can get blown up and it's gone for good I'm not sure what there is to complain about. A person pledging for $200+ might have a great starter ship for dogfighting but it still goes down pretty quick when it gets shot at. Even if someone has LTI (life time insurance) I don't expect that to mean they can just respawn instantly in the same area and come out in a fully armed ship while someone else can only die once then needs to work up to getting everything back.

Insurance is going to be fairly cheap so whatever the downside is for dying the only difference for a new player and an original backer with LTI is going to be a small amount of credits.

The REC stuff is meant to protect the value of pledging. They could let everyone fly any ship and use any weapon but that is a huge reason people pledge in the first place. When ships come out in Arena Commander it's an opportunity to use them now versus waiting until the full game comes out. REC keeps that in line. No one is going to be buying in at $45 and then earning rec to get all the ships that othered paid hundreds of dollars for.

It's pay to develop at this point, there is no "win" right now. Would the game be better if no one owned any ships other than the aurora / Mustang at the start of the game? Mabye, but then the game wouldn't exist or if it did some publisher would be pushing it out the door complete or not this holiday season and getting ready to build the rest of the game and call it Star Citizen 2.

This game is more fun to be a part of in development than most games are after they are complete and on store shelves. And we've seen games that offer premium high powered vehicles for sale to compete with people who earned them play the game. (world of tanks) Those premium tanks do not dominate everyone. Matchmaking puts them against similar powered enemies and at the high end the paid tanks end up a notch below what a player earning credits and xp from playing the game can get.

CIG is going to continue building newer and betters ships for the game and people will have to earn those in game. In a rather short time I'd expect that everything that was pledged for will be a notch below what you can earn in game.

This comment was edited on Feb 23, 2015, 11:30.
115.
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
Feb 23, 2015, 01:54
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy Feb 23, 2015, 01:54
Feb 23, 2015, 01:54
 
jdreyer wrote on Feb 23, 2015, 01:37:
Creston wrote on Feb 22, 2015, 22:20:

Yeah, that's definitely going to be a massive problem for them. They say that everything can be earned in game, but if you can earn a $2500 ship in a few weeks of play, those that paid cash for it are undoubtedly going to bitch. That balancing act is going to be nigh-impossible, I think. (after which they'll just make them impossible to get, I'd guess, or maybe they'll allow a used vehicle market, essentially turning those high price ship into the equivalent of limited edition supercars. Who's got my Huayra?!)

Well, if the people who paid the cash complain, would there be anything they could do about it? RSI will already have spent the money.

Easy you just put a little tag in front the ship name [Heirloom] and everybody's good.
Avatar 17249
114.
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
Feb 23, 2015, 01:37
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy Feb 23, 2015, 01:37
Feb 23, 2015, 01:37
 
Creston wrote on Feb 22, 2015, 22:20:

Yeah, that's definitely going to be a massive problem for them. They say that everything can be earned in game, but if you can earn a $2500 ship in a few weeks of play, those that paid cash for it are undoubtedly going to bitch. That balancing act is going to be nigh-impossible, I think. (after which they'll just make them impossible to get, I'd guess, or maybe they'll allow a used vehicle market, essentially turning those high price ship into the equivalent of limited edition supercars. Who's got my Huayra?!)

Well, if the people who paid the cash complain, would there be anything they could do about it? RSI will already have spent the money.
“We’ve reached the point of this polarized pandemic where our current plan for salvation is convincing certain recalcitrant men that wearing masks is the testosteroney thing to do.“
Avatar 22024
113.
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
Feb 22, 2015, 22:20
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy Feb 22, 2015, 22:20
Feb 22, 2015, 22:20
 
CJ_Parker wrote on Feb 22, 2015, 05:55:
jdreyer wrote on Feb 21, 2015, 20:51:
Creston wrote on Feb 21, 2015, 19:29:
I actually like the idea of being able to rent something in game, but why does it need a separate currency? Why not just an xx price in regular credits? Making it a separate currency seems needlessly complicated for what seems to be zero benefit.

Maybe so that you can either buy REC outright, or grind for it? That's a pretty common mechanism in most free to play games. Which is probably the reason a lot of people are complaining. It's a F2P mechanism in what is ostensibly a for-pay game. Maybe I'm misunderstanding though. Can you buy REC?

The actual currency of SC is called UEC. The REC are just an intermediate, temporary solution to (kind of) fulfill the promise that everything can be earned from playing the game and that you do not have to buy anything with real cash but the base game.
In the long term REC will go away and be replaced by purchasable UEC.
REC is quite clever from a business point of view. It allows CIG to monitor REC creation/generation and the "cash flow" so they can gain and collect some very important metrics for later on when they finally launch their here-to-stay UEC credit shop.

Ah, that makes more sense. I couldn't see why they'd introduce another currency just for rentals, but this explains it.

For them it's certainly a great balancing testbed to make sure that eventually people won't get rich too fast in the live game. They are going to want to make it a pain in the ass to grind for high end ships plus equipment so their cash shop remains a tempting shortcut alternative at all times for the non-masochists.

Yeah, that's definitely going to be a massive problem for them. They say that everything can be earned in game, but if you can earn a $2500 ship in a few weeks of play, those that paid cash for it are undoubtedly going to bitch. That balancing act is going to be nigh-impossible, I think. (after which they'll just make them impossible to get, I'd guess, or maybe they'll allow a used vehicle market, essentially turning those high price ship into the equivalent of limited edition supercars. Who's got my Huayra?!)
Avatar 15604
112.
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
Feb 22, 2015, 21:33
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy Feb 22, 2015, 21:33
Feb 22, 2015, 21:33
 
loomy wrote on Feb 22, 2015, 19:10:
HorrorScope wrote on Feb 22, 2015, 12:26:
So each time we hear of another feature like "renting", many feel he's already gone overboard a long time ago and the feature is just more weight to the anchor. So that is why you see these comments slant negative.

I think this is a big part of why some people are star citizen haters. they've never seen such transparent development (maybe none of us have) and now they've become power-mad back-seat-drivers. the new-found power of knowing everything as it happens is too much for them to bear, and now they've cracked. they've gone quite mad.

here, relax and watch people enjoy the game https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP2cNsYQ2pc

I don't think that is it, this openness has been going on now for a while in the Indy scene. The issue is just all the features that kept creeping in and they weren't just fluff, from reading the FPS features, it has FPS features no other game has and those games that is all they are. It's all big promises, but just not a few, but a whole metric shit load. So when the initial pitch was aggressive enough, they just kept tacking on. That's it, I believe.

As one person said and I do agree, with all the teams across the globe they better have tip top management.
Avatar 17232
111.
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
Feb 22, 2015, 21:09
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy Feb 22, 2015, 21:09
Feb 22, 2015, 21:09
 
InBlack wrote on Feb 22, 2015, 12:58:
Goddamn it. Really wanted that 101st post!

101st Fighting Keyboard division?
“We’ve reached the point of this polarized pandemic where our current plan for salvation is convincing certain recalcitrant men that wearing masks is the testosteroney thing to do.“
Avatar 22024
110.
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
Feb 22, 2015, 21:07
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy Feb 22, 2015, 21:07
Feb 22, 2015, 21:07
 
Luke wrote on Feb 22, 2015, 12:18:
{PH}88fingers wrote on Feb 22, 2015, 08:14:
I still don't understand how it's a bad thing that rich people help fund the game for the rest of us...

because other developers are watching and will copy this " Fund shit " and say hello to even more pay for this pay for that ( if you wanna have succes in the game ) , Again people WHO spend Money toward those fundraisings can only see the tip of there own nose , try for once to look further and see what will happen....jezz..egos

Just a few points to show this is a once in a lifetime kind of thing.

1. Chris Roberts is a name with rock star level status in the game community. That's going to limit the number of people that can replicate what he is doing.

2. Roberts learned some of these marketing tricks from the movie industry, where he produced films such as The Punisher, Lord of War, and Lucky Number Slevin. Not many other developers have that experience (if any).

3. Chris launched this during the heyday of the crowdfunding scene, which has since turned a bit sour with the number of unshipped products. This gave him the boost to show what he could do, and enough people like what they see and still think he's got the chops, so the money keeps rolling in.

4. Chris is producing a game in a genre that has experienced a huge dry spell. If Carmack tried to raise 10s of millions for an FPS, I dare say he'd fail since we get plenty of shooters on an annual basis. The only regular AAA space games we get are the X-series, and we know how the last one of those turned out.
“We’ve reached the point of this polarized pandemic where our current plan for salvation is convincing certain recalcitrant men that wearing masks is the testosteroney thing to do.“
Avatar 22024
109.
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
Feb 22, 2015, 20:47
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy Feb 22, 2015, 20:47
Feb 22, 2015, 20:47
 
KilrathiAce wrote on Feb 22, 2015, 06:59:
This whole thing feels like its gonna turn into a cult like what Scientology is...

Yeah, I don't think Roberts is going to have people beaten, imprisoned, and tortured.

Also, as a fan of his previous games, what are your thoughts here? You sound a bit negative.
“We’ve reached the point of this polarized pandemic where our current plan for salvation is convincing certain recalcitrant men that wearing masks is the testosteroney thing to do.“
Avatar 22024
108.
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
Feb 22, 2015, 20:44
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy Feb 22, 2015, 20:44
Feb 22, 2015, 20:44
 
Sugarman wrote on Feb 22, 2015, 06:36:
A mug and his money are easily parted.

It's not like I've splurged and used all I have and now I'll be eating from the dollar menu for the next year. It's called disposable income, it may seem like a lot to some, as it would have to me years ago, maybe some of you should learn to save and work a little harder instead of trolling others full time. I've also gifted 2 ships with alpha access to complete strangers because they seemed to be good people who had fallen on hard times, or in one instance they were merely a poor college student.

Also, what control have I stated I think I have over anything? I like the game, I like it's ideas, I think it's going to be something revolutionary and groundbreaking when it gets to a polished state. If not, no big deal, I've gambled before and I know the risks.

Well, thanks for going in so big. I went in at 1% of what you did, so it's people like you that fund it for the rest of us, even if indirectly. I agree with most of what you say, and am looking forward to playing once it's finished.
“We’ve reached the point of this polarized pandemic where our current plan for salvation is convincing certain recalcitrant men that wearing masks is the testosteroney thing to do.“
Avatar 22024
107.
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
Feb 22, 2015, 19:10
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy Feb 22, 2015, 19:10
Feb 22, 2015, 19:10
 
HorrorScope wrote on Feb 22, 2015, 12:26:
So each time we hear of another feature like "renting", many feel he's already gone overboard a long time ago and the feature is just more weight to the anchor. So that is why you see these comments slant negative.

I think this is a big part of why some people are star citizen haters. they've never seen such transparent development (maybe none of us have) and now they've become power-mad back-seat-drivers. the new-found power of knowing everything as it happens is too much for them to bear, and now they've cracked. they've gone quite mad.

here, relax and watch people enjoy the game https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP2cNsYQ2pc
106.
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
Feb 22, 2015, 18:08
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy Feb 22, 2015, 18:08
Feb 22, 2015, 18:08
 
So, Sugarman brought over 3000 dollars of Christ Robert's Kool-aid?

I don't think anyone should accept any liquids from him.
105.
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
Feb 22, 2015, 18:03
yonder
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy Feb 22, 2015, 18:03
Feb 22, 2015, 18:03
 yonder
 
jdreyer wrote on Feb 21, 2015, 17:06:
This is going to be yet another 100 comment SC thread, isn't it.

Popcorn

YUP!!!!!!!
104.
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
Feb 22, 2015, 17:07
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy Feb 22, 2015, 17:07
Feb 22, 2015, 17:07
 
Sugarman wrote on Feb 22, 2015, 06:42:
What is it you really need to get out Julio, were you abused as a child, did your wife leave you?

I hope you're not making a living as a psychiatrist or as a mind reader. Let's just say that I could easily afford to drop a ton of cash on Star Citizen, but I think that would be foolish in the extreme.

I'm against pay-to-win in gaming - it really doesn't matter whether I can afford it or not. I don't like to see people priced out of this hobby based on their income.
103.
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
Feb 22, 2015, 13:09
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy Feb 22, 2015, 13:09
Feb 22, 2015, 13:09
 
Given of how little has actually been shown/playable already I dont see consistent progress towards these goals. It must be a clusterfuck of management to run all these studios towards the menagerie of bizarre fan boy dreams they have promised. I have worked on pie in the sky projects like this before and it aint pretty..they better have kick ass management or its gonna fail hard.



HorrorScope wrote on Feb 22, 2015, 12:26:
Sugarman wrote on Feb 22, 2015, 10:00:
I don't really see it from a perspective that many of you do. If it ends up being the game I've always wanted to play and it is as fun as I hope it will be, then it's not really about the money, it's about my enjoyment. This is something that you can't always easily place monetary value on.

I'm willing to take a chance on it, it's as simple as that. There are some individuals who have pledged 40k so far for the same reason. If it turns out as good as we all hope then many of you will benefit from those of us who've funded SC beyond what most believed was possible.

Nothing like this has been done before, of course there will be many who doubt the possibilities. If it ends up a success then I won't rub it in anyone's face or say "I told you so", but if you're willing to give it a try then I'd invite you to man a station or a turret on my 890 Jump and have some fun, after all, this is what it's all about.

There is so much information to take in right now that it's nigh impossible unless you sat down for two weeks straight and watched every video and read all the information CIG has presented to us, because of this is why I believe there to be such a flock of naysayers. But if you really understood the scope of people behind this project then you'll see there is no way it can fail, far too many with far deeper pockets than me won't let that happen. This is the game they've always wanted to play, and there are plenty who are 40-65 years old who've been waiting on something like this for 20 years.

First I thought this insight of yours was good, I feel lucky where a $5 indy game can give me some enjoyment. I do agree, if it is pulled off, it can give us a new level of detail and immersion we haven't had and maybe it is the beginning of a new era in game design for AAA's at least to achieve, aka the bar has been risen.

That said you give me just so many lessons in history to pull from:

"then you'll see there is no way it can fail"

The Titanic is unsinkable.

I will say, even if you don't want to say it, but if this game is near what it promises, I myself will be ok with "I told you so's" from the supporters. We all win as been said many times.

But there is some history here for people to be concerned about that I think the fan side of this should understand and why it is being used. When he added that feature or two way back that triggered some to thinking "wow he's really promising a lot, getting nervous", just think how many more dozens of big-things they have added since then.

So each time we hear of another feature like "renting", many feel he's already gone overboard a long time ago and the feature is just more weight to the anchor. So that is why you see these comments slant negative.
102.
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
Feb 22, 2015, 12:58
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy Feb 22, 2015, 12:58
Feb 22, 2015, 12:58
 
Goddamn it. Really wanted that 101st post!
I have a nifty blue line!
Avatar 46994
101.
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
Feb 22, 2015, 12:26
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy Feb 22, 2015, 12:26
Feb 22, 2015, 12:26
 
Sugarman wrote on Feb 22, 2015, 10:00:
I don't really see it from a perspective that many of you do. If it ends up being the game I've always wanted to play and it is as fun as I hope it will be, then it's not really about the money, it's about my enjoyment. This is something that you can't always easily place monetary value on.

I'm willing to take a chance on it, it's as simple as that. There are some individuals who have pledged 40k so far for the same reason. If it turns out as good as we all hope then many of you will benefit from those of us who've funded SC beyond what most believed was possible.

Nothing like this has been done before, of course there will be many who doubt the possibilities. If it ends up a success then I won't rub it in anyone's face or say "I told you so", but if you're willing to give it a try then I'd invite you to man a station or a turret on my 890 Jump and have some fun, after all, this is what it's all about.

There is so much information to take in right now that it's nigh impossible unless you sat down for two weeks straight and watched every video and read all the information CIG has presented to us, because of this is why I believe there to be such a flock of naysayers. But if you really understood the scope of people behind this project then you'll see there is no way it can fail, far too many with far deeper pockets than me won't let that happen. This is the game they've always wanted to play, and there are plenty who are 40-65 years old who've been waiting on something like this for 20 years.

First I thought this insight of yours was good, I feel lucky where a $5 indy game can give me some enjoyment. I do agree, if it is pulled off, it can give us a new level of detail and immersion we haven't had and maybe it is the beginning of a new era in game design for AAA's at least to achieve, aka the bar has been risen.

That said you give me just so many lessons in history to pull from:

"then you'll see there is no way it can fail"

The Titanic is unsinkable.

I will say, even if you don't want to say it, but if this game is near what it promises, I myself will be ok with "I told you so's" from the supporters. We all win as been said many times.

But there is some history here for people to be concerned about that I think the fan side of this should understand and why it is being used. When he added that feature or two way back that triggered some to thinking "wow he's really promising a lot, getting nervous", just think how many more dozens of big-things they have added since then.

So each time we hear of another feature like "renting", many feel he's already gone overboard a long time ago and the feature is just more weight to the anchor. So that is why you see these comments slant negative.
Avatar 17232
100.
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
Feb 22, 2015, 12:18
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy Feb 22, 2015, 12:18
Feb 22, 2015, 12:18
 
{PH}88fingers wrote on Feb 22, 2015, 08:14:
I still don't understand how it's a bad thing that rich people help fund the game for the rest of us...

because other developers are watching and will copy this " Fund shit " and say hello to even more pay for this pay for that ( if you wanna have succes in the game ) , Again people WHO spend Money toward those fundraisings can only see the tip of there own nose , try for once to look further and see what will happen....jezz..egos
99.
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
Feb 22, 2015, 12:15
99.
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy Feb 22, 2015, 12:15
Feb 22, 2015, 12:15
 
KilrathiAce wrote on Feb 22, 2015, 06:59:
This whole thing feels like its gonna turn into a cult like what Scientology is...

And this point that is how it feels to me.
Avatar 17232
118 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Older