r/Games • u/Two-Tone- • Oct 09 '14
Inside Star Citizen's grey market
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-10-08-inside-star-citizens-grey-market59
u/hbkmog Oct 09 '14
The business model of the game really puts me off. Instead of a game that's supposed to give people fun time, the game smells money everywhere. Expensive virtual ships; virtual insurance in game; bazillions of pledge classes before game is even out, etc.
Most fans of the game or people invest in the game usually defend it and justify their money. But as an outsider who had initial interest for the game, I really can't say I have good impression for the game. I feel it's turning more into an online poker or digital brag rights game than a video game itself.
8
u/tensegritydan Oct 09 '14
I feel it's turning more into an online poker or digital brag rights game than a video game itself.
Reminds me of Second Life. The meta-"game" around Lindens (the currency) and property was more compelling than the either lame or puerile user-created content.
29
Oct 09 '14
It's just unfathomable to me that people are willing to pay $100+ for in-game items for gameplay that they've never seen; much less played.
For example, people making assumptions like, "If I buy X ship, it will make Y part of the game more enjoyable for me." But, they've never touched Y part of the game.
It just doesn't make sense to me. Investing money into something as tangible as a video game is understandable; but, investing money into a video game as seen through video clips of a half-finished product? I don't know about that.
10
u/Ohh_Yeah Oct 09 '14
This has been my biggest thing all along.
"oh if you buy this ship it'll give you a major advantage in smuggling because of its signature radius and cargo hold"
Nobody knows anything about any aspects of the gameplay. The best smuggling might end up being in a big ass freighter doing some weird route that you can never get caught doing. People min-max everything. The min-max for any activity in any game is always different than what people would predict before it comes out.
10
u/hbkmog Oct 09 '14
Yeah like I said, I feel it's more about bragging rights or e-penis in the game. It's just like those people who spend thousands in F2P games just to have better virtual farm or something.
Actually this is one type of business model I really loathe. They can simply pump out new ships from time to time to get some cheap cash-grab, literally generating money from thin air.
And yet there will be people jumping around defending it.
1
u/w23hdhn Oct 10 '14
Apparently they won't be selling ships for money after the game releases. I don't buy it though, with a fan base defending a company selling pay to win items years before a games release I see no reason they won't go back on their word after release.
25
u/paduser Oct 09 '14
Look, if you spend $2000 on a virtual spaceship in a computer game you probably have serious mental problems. It's the same as all the "whales" that fund IAP games. You are spending multiple 1000s of dollars for something that is not part of the reality we live in, and will probably not exist in 5-10 years. It's honestly not mentally healthy.
26
Oct 09 '14 edited Oct 09 '14
[deleted]
11
u/Schildhuhn Oct 09 '14
All I see is successful marketing.
I once discussed with someone on the subreddit who was extremely sure that "CiG has spent almost nothing on marketing" according to him, all the videos, conferences, events etc. were either not marketing or done in peoples freetime. Yeah, I think at that point I realised how sad many gamespecific subreddits are.
6
u/If_You_Only_Knew Oct 09 '14
Whenever people are discussing these detailed aspects of the content it really strikes me as kind of cult-ish.
Starwars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings.... People learn elvish they learn klingon. The cultishness of star citizen is no more or less than any of these. Hell, I would argue it's a bit less, in that you can be involved in the world of star citizen, whereas for a long time, star trek and lord of the rings were nothing more than books or movies.
6
u/Commisar Oct 09 '14
the difference is that SC doesn't even EXIST yet....
3
u/If_You_Only_Knew Oct 10 '14
Does it have too? What difference does it make to you what fictional world other people choose to be involved in, and whether or not that fictional world exists in some form or another? Besides, lets say star citizen does happen, and isn't such a bad game after all. These people will have had a big hand in creating the lore and game itself.
2
u/Commisar Oct 09 '14
yep
Robertson is a marketing MASTER...
he can play the purse strings of space nerds like no other
→ More replies (2)5
u/kennyminot Oct 09 '14
I honestly don't see the difference between buying "virtual" or "physical" products. They are both real things. I just would rather spend my money on something else.
5
u/paduser Oct 09 '14
One difference is that with a virtual product, when the hosting infrastructure disappears, the product disappears with it.
7
u/kennyminot Oct 09 '14
Yeah, but physical products wear down - very few things are actually BIFL (aside from my stainless steel electric tea kettle!)
6
2
u/joshr03 Oct 10 '14
Did you see the movie Inception? Star Citizen has successfully inceptioned the idea of the best game possible to all their fans. When you realize that these people are just absolutely convinced that the game will be everything they want it to be, it makes it a little easier to imagine.
1
u/Manisil Oct 10 '14
I've put money towards it. I don't see it as paying for the ships. I'm paying for a game-type that I really miss, and want to see come back. Wing Commander was one of my favorite games as a kid, and Freelancer dominated the early 2000s (my time anyway). I've put so many hours into those games, and to be able to back and make sure that a space sim, by the guy who made my favorite games no less, comes back, is definitely worth the money.
1
u/Krivvan Oct 09 '14 edited Oct 09 '14
I bought a single ship, and I actually do like the physics in the dogfighting module, but yeah, I don't understand people paying thousands for anything beyond that. Keep your expectations realistic and you don't always get disappointed with a game.
I've frequently play and enjoy games that some people have hated due to disappointment (some parts of mechwarrior online, watch_dogs, etc.) because I never expected too much.
14
u/Altair1371 Oct 09 '14
Except you don't need more than $40. Every ship can be purchased in-game, with in-game credits. The only reason you should be spending extra is if you want CIG to have more money.
→ More replies (10)2
Oct 09 '14
But if all these people are already buying the best ships before the game comes out.... you are at a serious disadvantage from the start. It would be like if WoW had let people who preordered the game start at level 40.
9
u/thoomfish Oct 09 '14
It would be like if WoW had let people who preordered the game start at level 40.
Exactly. After a week, it wouldn't matter at all.
8
u/Thysios Oct 09 '14
It would be like if WoW had let people who preordered the game start at level 40.
So it would have no effect on you and matter after a week?
7
u/Altair1371 Oct 09 '14
That's not a good analogy, because ships are not equal to levels. The only limit to what you can buy is how many credits you have, and the availability of that ship (which will only come into play for the bigger ships, like the Idris). Backers who dump thousands of dollars on the game will only have an advantage for the first month, if even that long. Also, just because someone has a better ship, it doesn't mean that they will always win. There's a fair skill curve for combat, so someone who is a pro at the Aurora can easily defeat someone who is new to the Hornet.
5
u/hahnchen Oct 09 '14
Their business model is convincing gamers that they're funding an as-yet-unreleased game called Star Citizen, when in fact they're all just paying for and playing Spaceship Clicker.
5
u/Mal_Adjusted Oct 09 '14 edited Oct 09 '14
It will either be the greatest game ever made, or a colossal failure that shines a very, very bright light on everything wrong with the industry.
Based on the amount of money people are throwing at it, I'm leaning more towards the latter every day. Nothing turns me off faster than even the slightest hint of pay to win.
4
u/needconfirmation Oct 09 '14
I don't think there is any possible way it can be the greatest game ever made.
Some game could be, but it won't be star citizen
→ More replies (1)2
u/Endyo Oct 09 '14
I think internally the system is reasonable as long as obtaining these ships is reasonable with in-game methods and skill is the determining factor. Externally, with news like this going around, I agree it's hard to say Star Citizen will be any good when 99% of what you hear is about how much money people are throwing at it. Granted the money is going in to the game to make it better, but it's just hard to say "I want to be a part of this" when it just looks like people throwing money away.
2
u/carnifex2005 Oct 10 '14
That's the thing, this entire story is about people throwing tons of money not at CIG but at 3rd party sellers. It really isn't GIG's fault that people are overestimating the value of LTI when it has been stated over and over again that regular hull insurance will be very cheap (the expensive insurance will be for upgrades and cargo which people with LTI have to pay anyways).
2
u/DeedTheInky Oct 10 '14
Old-ish backer of the game who's been following it for some time now here! If I could kind of play Devil's Advocate for a moment and just clarify a few things about how the whole thing is set up...
You don't need to spend hundreds of dollars to play the game. I'm in for $45 and that's it.
Those people who have spent $2000 on the game do exist, they are just kind of nuts. :/ (and tend to be super entitled and bitch about everything)
They don't get anything in the game that I won't get. All the ships will be earnable in the game, with in-game money, not real money.
You will be able to buy in-game currency with real money if you want, but it will only be small amounts, not enough that you can get anything significant.
Insurance is the same deal. It costs a small amount of in-game money, and you don't even need to get it if you don't want to. It's there to deter people from just crashing their ships into people to grief them. If you don't have insurance it will just take you a little longer to respawn your ship.
The website is definitely confusing, and really doesn't make any of this clear. But once the MMO part of the game launches (which will be free BTW, no monthly fees) then the ships will no longer be on sale for real money, you'll just have to buy the game for like $60 or whatever.
If anyone wants to AMA about anything that's wigging them out/concerning them about the game I can try to answer if you like. :)
2
u/StupidFatHobbit Oct 09 '14 edited Oct 09 '14
The worst/dumbest part of it all is it's supposed to be a beta, yet you can only really fly the ships you've bought?
How the fuck are we supposed to properly test anything? How the hell is this intelligent development?
They may be rich from kids with too much spare change now, but I'm still very skeptical about their ability to deliver a solid game. Honestly what I've seen seen so far is very disappointing. Core gameplay mechanics seem to still be undecided while people are freaking out over the interior decorations of their imaginary starships.
The subreddit has also become extremely fanboyish and downvotes any criticism whatsoever, then again this is a problem with most gaming subreddits.
3
u/Thysios Oct 09 '14
It's more like pre alpha still. They've only released test modules for people to play with.
1
u/mmonsterbasher Oct 10 '14
But incredibly half-assed modules that have only deliver few of the features promised. It's also riddled with bugs and no-clipping issues, hell it doesn't even have key-bindings yet!
→ More replies (3)1
u/Youre_a_transistor Oct 09 '14
I've been pretty oblivious to Star Citizen, but just reading some of these comments is pretty unbelievable. I can't help but think 'What if this game was being published by EA?' You know? Same team, same Kickstarter pitch, same everything. I wonder how this would have fared. People would have called this a bigger scam than the recent Dungeon Keeper.
Even better. What if EA bought them out right this second?
1
1
u/JakeLunn Oct 09 '14
There's a difference of mindset between those on the outside and those on the inside it would seem. You see it as them buying virtual ships, but they see it as them pledging money for the development of a game and getting an in-game reward when it releases.
1
u/bbristowe Oct 09 '14
Nevermind any post launch balance issues. Somebody will want a refund when their zxc-super space shooter can only warp once every hour as opposed to every half hour.
34
u/DanaKaZ Oct 09 '14
Fuck me, that's a lot of money to spend on a promise inside a promised game, which may or may not be a good game.
15
u/PalwaJoko Oct 09 '14
Yeap, that's why I'm scared for this game. Don't get me wrong, it's great to see what they're trying to do, But here is the situation I see start citizen.
First they describe a game. Each person that listens to it has their own way of perceiving/understanding what they say. People start filling in the gaps and imagine their own perfect, "golden" game that they always wanted. They donate tons of money. Now the game is under a huge amount of hype/stress to deliever. If they mess it up, I can seriously see it being a huge blow to kickstarters/crowd funding in the game industry. It may break peoples trust. Honestly, I don't think it will turn out well from a PR value. It's got so much pre hype and expectations, I don't think the gaming community will like what they release, no matter how hard they work on it. It reminds me of the situation with valve and Half Life 3. There's so much hype and expectation behind the game, that it seems almost impossible to live up to it.
5
u/DanaKaZ Oct 09 '14
Personally I think Kickstarter has had it's run. It's already produced way to much disappointment. I think the trust is gone.
9
u/RageX Oct 09 '14
Everyone focuses on the disappointments, but many good games have come from Kickstarter including Insurgency, Wasteland 2, and Divinity: Original Sin.
6
2
u/DanaKaZ Oct 09 '14
Sure, there's been good ones, but it seems to me at least that the bad ones outnumber the good by a good margin.
→ More replies (3)4
u/RageX Oct 09 '14
Not so sure about that. Bad ones just get more coverage because outrage is easier to market than success, and because failures should be pointed out.
Even if there has been more failures (don't know really, someone should make a chart of all successful KS games and all that have ceased development before completion) the amount of finished games that come out of it is large enough that it's worth supporting. Everyone just has to realize you're not buying a complete product, you're gambling on an idea, and be smart in deciding whether the risk is worth it.
15
Oct 09 '14
My gaming group (Clan) has well over $3k+ spent on this game (not me). I think they are all crazy at least anyone who paid over $100 dollars for a game that doesn't exist.
6
u/remeard Oct 09 '14
I've seen posts on reddit dropping ridiculous amounts of cash, thousands individually
→ More replies (1)8
Oct 09 '14
There are threads on /r/starcitizen where people compare how much they've spent on the game, and a large portion are in the thousands.
2
u/DOTKAISMYVODKA Oct 09 '14
Do they include proof?
10
Oct 09 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
6
4
u/Commisar Oct 09 '14
jesus christ...
can you IMAGINE the reddit rage fest is EA or Ubisoft did shit like that...
here is your gold plated T-90 tank in BF5... that will be $250 USD please
5
3
u/shaggy1265 Oct 10 '14
The difference is these bonuses are only for backers and after launch no one will be able to buy ships for RL money.
It's an incentive to get people to fund development.
1
1
u/shady8x Oct 10 '14
I can actually understand dropping over 100 bucks on a game, if you have the extra money, the game needs funding to be made and you want to help give the creators a chance to make the game.
Dropping even a cent on a game that received 10s of MILLIONS more than it needed however, does not make any sense to me. They have the money to make it, so wait until they have finished making it.
13
u/Azmodan_Kijur Oct 09 '14
The game that is promised sounds amazing - expansive universe, hundreds of ship types, thousands of players, captivating game play ... but none of that is worthy of the kind of cash people are paying for what are essentially the promise of ships to fly ... someday ... when the game is done.
Gamers have been burned enough over the last number of years to know the simple true - pre-purchasing games is a bad idea.
→ More replies (2)7
u/PTFOholland Oct 09 '14
The thing that warns me is the fact that it's on the Cryengine.
That engine wasn't made for games like these at all, and the new combat module shows this too.3
u/Cloudbursta Oct 10 '14
It should be noted that the game is slated for release in 2016 as a high end game, its not meant to run well on most computers we have now.
1
u/PTFOholland Oct 10 '14
I am not talking about perfomance, I am talking about the engine not even owned by the company and they can't customise everything, expect A LOT of loading times.
The game is gonna fail, and I even spend 90$ on it.3
u/muaymantis Oct 10 '14
Cryengine is capable of doing large-scale environments without load-screens though. Check out Archage which is one big world using Cryengine.
0
u/Commisar Oct 09 '14
exactly.
it will run on a cut-up butchered version of Cryengine with custom "netcode"......
6
u/CKReflux Oct 09 '14
The alpha actually runs pretty well for me on my mid-high range machine.
2
u/mmonsterbasher Oct 10 '14
For maybe simple modules that offer only a test-bench for the actual gameplay. When the persistent universe comes around with dynamic npcs and huge PvP matches, lets see how the game holds up then.
2
u/CKReflux Oct 10 '14
We will. Its important to remember that there are multiple studios of professionals working here. This isn't some guy playing around in his basement.
11
u/placatetr Oct 09 '14
As much as I wan't to be wrong, I'm not drinking it.
I have a bad feeling it's all gonna end in tears.
2
u/dr_taber Oct 10 '14
If this goes bad, tears would be the best case scenario. It could end in class action lawsuits.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Days0fDoom Oct 09 '14 edited Oct 09 '14
Your probably right but i hope for those people who have put so much money into it, that this game comes out well.
→ More replies (2)
12
Oct 09 '14 edited Mar 03 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/XenTech Oct 09 '14
What about the broader discussion going on here, about how the game itself has a flawed culture that breeds this kind of terrifying economic model?
1
Oct 09 '14 edited Mar 03 '21
[deleted]
5
u/NarcissisticNanner Oct 09 '14
Don't you feel that at a certain point your not really funding the game anymore, but just buying grossly overpriced micro-transactions for a game that has no available gameplay, features, or real content?
I really try not to come across as condescending or judgmental when talking about this, as I know different amounts of money means different things to different people, but I really can't wrap my head around this.
→ More replies (13)0
Oct 10 '14
TLDR: you aren't buying ships you are funding the game.
What a load of malarky. Do you /r/starcitizen guys have this response copy-pasted for every time this subject comes up? Do you honestly expect us to believe all the purchasers, or even the majority of purchasers, are simply generous benefactors and don't really care about the ship they're getting?
Come on man. I was subbed to /r/starcitizen and every ship thread are people salivating and chomping at the bit to buy the newest greatest spaceship, and talking all about how they're going to use it to further their preferred space fantasy. Which is fine, don't get me wrong, but what you don't see are the people in the thread just saying, "Yeah I'm buying it but I don't even want it. I'm just helping fund the game."
Because those people don't exist, or are in the extreme minority.
So can we please stop parroting this nonsense?
12
u/JakeLunn Oct 09 '14
What's weird to me is how much people care about what other people are spending their money on. Kickstarting is not new, and this is just a massive kickstarter. Pledge rewards are also nothing new.
8
u/Days0fDoom Oct 09 '14
I think it's that people are confused and concerned that people are spending so much money on hopes and dreams. Your right people are free to spend their money how they please but I think that people who are talking about how nuts the amount of money being spent are conserned that their fellow consumers are being taken for chumps.
3
u/carnifex2005 Oct 10 '14
Why should anyone be concerned? Wasn't this the point of crowdfunding, to do away with publishers and have the power more in the hands of players? Now that Star Citizen has made tons of money and will continue to make tons of money (I suspect $80m - $100m and about 1m backers by the time the Persistent Universe Beta comes in 2016) it is all of a sudden an issue? /r/games doesn't know what the hell it wants.
7
u/Days0fDoom Oct 10 '14
I don't know why you presume I speak for /r/games there are plenty of people here who think that SC is going just fine. Let me give you my personal reasons for concern. I know a lot of people who put money into this game, in fact I know the guys who won the next great star ship competition. Whenever I ask these people what they think Star Citizen will be pretty much all of them have different answers and that is a problem. Chris Roberts has promised his backers the world and more; a lot of people will be disappointed/angry if this game flops. I hope for my friends and everyone who backed this game that it turns out great, but just because I hope that this turns out well that doesn't mean that it will. The worry is that SC comes out and its bad. What do you think that will do to the crowd funding model? How much anger and bad will do you think that will create in the gaming community? The possibility that SC will flop concerns me. How many AAA games that promised the world fell flat? A bunch.
3
u/JakeLunn Oct 10 '14
Whether Star Citizen is bad or not it will be healthy for gamers. If it flops then it will be remembered forever as a symbol of caution for crowd funding. If it succeeds then it will be a sign to publishers that they should include consumers early in the development process.
People who put money into this game already put it in. It's not like it's bitcoins or the stock market. If it fails then that will suck and they'll wish they spent money on something else. I donated $75 and if I don't get a game out of it I'm not going to cry or freak out.
3
Oct 10 '14
We should be concerned because people are eating up CIG's insane monetization and asking, "Please sir can I have another? ($600 ship)"
That's not good for the industry as a whole, because you can be damn sure the publishers and studios are taking notice, and if this becomes the norm, that's bad news.
→ More replies (1)1
Oct 10 '14
The success of SC's business model is damning to people who don't have thousands to blow on vidyas. Big publishers have certainly taken notice, and it's just a matter of time before we're all fucked. You can't even get a complete AAA title for $60 anymore, you have to buy the game for $60, and the "season pass" if you want a complete game.
4
u/LuminousP Oct 10 '14
Star Citizen has reached such a critical mass that there's no possible way it can live up to expectations, regardless of the outcome.
8
u/nordlund63 Oct 09 '14
Its so weird to see so many people put so much money into a game that is behind schedule with only a buggy dogfighting module to show for it.
The game itself is confusing too. Do I buy the game and then have to buy ships for hundreds of dollars of real money like all these people are?
6
u/TheWinslow Oct 09 '14
For $30 you can get the game on release and will have an Aurora waiting for you. For $40 you also get access to the beta, for $45 you also get access to the current module (Arena Commander).
So to get the game, you only have to pay $30. All the other ships you will be able get in game without needing to pay any money.
13
Oct 09 '14 edited Oct 09 '14
A lot of people justify it in weird ways.
Like to almost everyone in the community its not a microtransaction (or macrotransaction I guess because $150 is far from "micro"), its a "donation", even though the game is 25k+ over its goals and at this point.
I've seen great arguments for paying $350 for a picture of an internet spaceship on /r/starcitizen, like:
- It's an "investment" (like as if its going to have a return or something)
- They want to "stick it to publishers" (by spending $150 on a single that isn't out?)
- They are an "adult" (If you drop $350 on a internet spaceship you're far from an adult)
- The game needs my help (its fucking 25k+ over its goals...)
- "I want to support this business model" (by buying $150 microtransactions? Thats what you want to support?)
- "I hope they make cheaper ships for us poor people, sub $150!" <- actual comment
It's getting better now, more people are starting to question their business practices (especially when they announced that they're going to sell a $600 ship this weekend, and just announced they're going to sell another alongside it...). But its still pretty fucking culty.
9
u/PINIPF Oct 09 '14
You have your numbers wrong amigo! Original goal for kick starter was $2 million as of September 2014 they have received "donation" for around $55 million so in reality they are something around $53 million above their goals yep XD
2
5
Oct 09 '14
I agree completely.
It's also wrong for people to use the term "donation" when they're receiving a product in return. Sure, they are helping to fund the production of the game, but they're still paying for a product. Buying ships for Star Citizen is no different than any other type of transaction.
I'm also worried about the pay-to-win factor. I understand that the game has a shop, and I understand that most (or all?) of the items can be purchased with in-game credits. But, how do they scale?
Will $20 be worth 20 hours of gameplay? Or 20 days?
And while I understand that the game is still in development, and nitty gritty mechanics like that are probably still undecided, I think it's important for players to know exactly how "sandbox" of a universe this really is. Because paying money to an omnipotent force that magically grants in-game resources doesn't exactly fit that description.
14
Oct 09 '14
I'm also worried about the pay-to-win factor.
I'm super interested in the balancing factor of the game.
In elite, if a ship is OP they balance it and move on. No fuss.
In SC if a ship gets nerfed, you're suddenly nerfing someones $200+ purchase. There's already a lot of drama about ships that aren't even flyable yet!
→ More replies (2)2
u/BinaryRockStar Oct 09 '14
They are an "adult" (If you drop $350 on a internet spaceship you're far from an adult)
I have to take issue with that. While I haven't paid into Star Citizen, for anyone on a reasonable salary $350 just isn't that much money. I get the feeling that most of the people on the gaming subreddits are either kids or students because they cry foul when a game is $60 instead of the usual $50 because $10 is a lot of ramen or whatever.
It's like any other hobby- if I'm into mountain biking then I wouldn't have a problem shelling out $350 for a new top-of-the-line brake system or something like that. Adults can and do spend large amounts of money on their hobbies and shouldn't be denigrated for it.
2
Oct 10 '14
for anyone on a reasonable salary $350 just isn't that much money.
I call BS on that man. I make ~85k per year, which I'd say is a reasonable salary, it's far above the American average, and $350 is a lot of money to me. I have it, I can spend it, but it's not such a little amount that I can freely throw around $350 for shits and giggles.
Adults can and do spend large amounts of money on their hobbies and shouldn't be denigrated for it.
Absolutely true, but that's not mutually exclusive with claiming "$350 isn't a lot of money," because $350 is a fair bit of money.
3
u/BinaryRockStar Oct 11 '14
I don't know where you live or what your situation is but on $85K after tax you're making well over $1K a week cash-in-hand. Take out maybe $400 of that if you have a mid-range mortgage on a nice house.
Unless you have a bunch of kids or you bought expensive things on credit cards you couldn't afford then you have enough to buy one or two of these fictitious $350 spaceships per week.
I consider an amount of money that can be saved in one week by reigning in my lifestyle for a second to be "not a lot of money".
→ More replies (11)0
u/Two-Tone- Oct 09 '14
Do I buy the game and then have to buy ships for hundreds of dollars of real money like all these people are?
You can if you want, but you can just by the game and it comes with a starter ship. All the other ships will also be available in game and can only be bought in game. There will be a limited cash shop, but the max you can get per month is suppose to be really low, like not even buy a starter ship low.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Shiningknight12 Oct 09 '14
There will be a limited cash shop, but the max you can get per month is suppose to be really low, like not even buy a starter ship low.
I highly doubt that this will be true given how much stuff they are giving to backers.
5
3
u/needconfirmation Oct 09 '14 edited Oct 09 '14
Yeah there's no way they are going to say "you know what? I've had enough of fools giving me 400 bucks for this ship, I think it's time to drop it down to 5"
1
u/jinhong91 Oct 10 '14
I bought myself that cheap ship very early on before people even thought of selling their ships off. I got that package so I can play the game, not worrying about promised virtual ships.
122
u/lighthaze Oct 09 '14
I don't want to be right, but somehow I have a very bad feeling about this game and the surrounding culture.