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 : : :
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.
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
        Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
107.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
112.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015