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 : : :
57.
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
Feb 21, 2015, 23:10
57.
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy Feb 21, 2015, 23:10
Feb 21, 2015, 23:10
 
Flatline wrote on Feb 21, 2015, 22:42:
HorrorScope wrote on Feb 21, 2015, 21:17:
Julio wrote on Feb 21, 2015, 20:38:
{PH}88fingers wrote on Feb 21, 2015, 20:07:
yet everyone here is saying it is pay to win... ???

Although we've beaten the pay-to-win discussion to death, I'm interested in how buying a $1200 ship isn't paying to win. That ship will give an advantage to some players over others. Let's hear how it doesn't.


The game needs to come through with it's one promise. Player run servers. If it does P2W will mean nothing on them.

I don't see how player run servers are even feasible at this point.

Maybe if you have a server cluster it's doable, as in you rent some MS Azure or AWS servers and spin them up, but I have trouble imagining one consumer-grade computer running a full universe simulation, unknown planetary-side simulations, AND run FPS simulations- simultaneously.

I can see a minimum of one server for each along with maybe a master server that coordinates everything, with additional server spinning up for every X number of players. Not to mention the bandwidth required for that kind of server hosting- it'd be kind of a nightmare.

An expensive nightmare too... I am still only along for the ride for the SP portion.. the other persistent nonsense doesn't interest me.

And like you I see feature creep and it makes me wonder how this is even going to work. Squadron 42 is an entirely different game it seems, using systems that were developed for persistent world but offline in SP. And how is persistence even going to work with user hosted servers? I mean i can see how you could simulate FPS and ship battles in 1 "sector" at the same time, no problem. But what if there are 50 such battles across 50 sectors?

I think the more this game takes shape, the more people will realize that what they backed might not actually be what the this game ends up with. Let's hope SP is not that ;/

Fact is if player run servers are not possible to do there will be a giant shit storm coming. And there already seems to be confusion whether "player run servers" applies to the PU stuff, or just the simulator stuff (ie single missions or dogfights).

And to be honest, I don't see how this game is not going to be a giant clusterfuck on release anyway with these huge modules. And persistent universe crap already ruined 1 perfectly good game previously pure SP game (Elite Dangerous)
Avatar 54727
Date
Subject
Author
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
 57.
Feb 21, 2015Feb 21 2015
    Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy