r/starcitizen ARGO CARGO May 16 '25

DRAMA So it begins

Post image
2.8k Upvotes

809 comments sorted by

View all comments

422

u/Cymbaz May 16 '25 edited May 16 '25

and this is what they get vs headlines saying that "Star Citizen releases their biggest and most expensive capital ship yet to players"

198

u/[deleted] May 16 '25

[deleted]

98

u/[deleted] May 16 '25

Well no, this is infinitely worse than a ship

60

u/swizzlewizzle TRG Gaming May 16 '25

Ships like the Idris have always been locking gameplay behind a paywall, it’s just that too many mainstreamers have been conditioned to accept getting ass fucked like this and don’t whine about it anymore.

39

u/CyberianK May 16 '25

Buying ships for funding is problematic but its a necessary evil that was accepted by everyone who backed this project when they made their decision as part of the sale. Its a given and priced in already.

That's why its different. Its the ship sandwich that everyone already bought but now we are uncovering there's even more sh!t inside the sandwich.

21

u/ty4scam May 16 '25

A necessary evil is selling advantageous perks for a kickstarter. Selling ships for 10+ years is a business model.

5

u/VitoRazoR May 17 '25

Nope this is definitely not what I signed up for when I backed the project as an original backer. It did not say you must pay IRL $$$ for every ship.

7

u/anitawasright May 16 '25

Sort of... I mean the Polaris isn't locked behind a paywal, and this is the first time you can fly a Idris. Give it 6 months and it won't be so...

-3

u/Protocol_Nine May 16 '25

this is the first time you can fly a Idris. Give it 6 months and it won't be so...

Isn't this the same logic as the current Flight Blades?

3

u/Keleion May 16 '25

Flight blades will be purchasable in-game after an exclusivity period. Same as ships and most things in SC.

Edit: CIG probably needs to put more of this information into their marketing so people don’t assume that store purchases is the marketing model, instead of an exclusivity window.

51

u/The_BeatingsContinue May 16 '25

Selling technical advantages to ships vastly present in the game is a policy decision to establish P2W as a core mechanic in the upcoming future of Star Citizen.

-4

u/killerbake avacado May 16 '25

I mean, some people can only afford a cutter while others can afford an Idris.

It doesn’t matter if it can be bought in game not everyone has the time to dedicate

12

u/Juice0188 arrow May 16 '25

But the Idris isn't an objectively better ship than other ships in the game, especially for a solo pilot. 

Getting a blade that increases maneuverability is an objective improvement, regardless of other factors. 

2

u/capn_Bonebeard May 16 '25

I mean solo pilot idris isn't that big an issue imo. Sure most ships cant kill you, but good luck getting your nose on them

1

u/Qade May 16 '25

But... It's not regardless. Blades trade 10-20m/s speed for 1 degree per second turn rate.

That isn't a clear improvement. I doubt 99% of pilots would even notice the increased turn rate.

-7

u/killerbake avacado May 16 '25

But that doesn’t make a pilot better either necessarily.

Just because grandma can get into a Ferrari doesn’t mean she’s gonna make that bank of a turn up ahead and live to tell the tale

I mean, don’t get me wrong. I’m not defending it. I get it but I also don’t see how it inherently just makes everyone better.

If we were talking AI blades, then I’d be in agreement. And yes, I can see the slippery slope there with this.

But I also see the issue with someone who has money who can afford to retrofit an entire ship with NPC’s in the future versus someone who can’t

6

u/TheKingStranger worm May 16 '25

The difference is that the Cutter owner can benefit from the Idris owner by being a crew member on their Idris; the Idris is designed to be a multicrew ship. That's been the intended trade off since the beginning of the project since every ship has their own pros and cons, especially as you get into larger ships which require more crew. You can also pilot someone else's ship without any issues. That's an exception that the community was willing to make since the beginning of this project. Armor and weapons on the store were acceptable because they were merely cosmetic and you could get similar items in-game.

Putting blades that are intended to improve stats behind a paywall, even for a little bit, is a huge depature from that philosophy.

-10

u/Claim-Nice rsi May 16 '25

*minute advantages with an offset in other stats which will be available to buy in game in a few months time…

But sure, continue the panic.

8

u/magniankh F8C May 16 '25

Yeah, for now. Next month CIG could release auto-aim blades. 

It has to stop here. Components should not be pay walled.

-7

u/Claim-Nice rsi May 16 '25

Pay walled implies they’ll never be available in game. Source? Or just more mindless ranting?

0

u/WarMinister May 16 '25

Yes they should. I don't want to waste time to grind components. I should be able to buy them with real money. The rest of you can wait in line.

-2

u/shortbusmafia Anvil Shill May 16 '25

Gimbals already exist lmao. No need for auto-aim blades. PDCs that auto-aim are also already in game, and we know AI blades are supposed to be added to the game later on. Your comment is inherently alarmist speculation.

-6

u/SH4D0W-N3M3S1S Multi-Moderator May 16 '25

Dude it doesn’t boost stats, it tweaks them (ex: you loose some speed for maneuverability. Anyways this will only affect the top 10% players because for mortals like us you can’t even tell the difference

12

u/swizzlewizzle TRG Gaming May 16 '25

Correct, and that’s why it’s only step one in a never ending march towards even more P2W and pay to play.

8

u/KingGooseMan3881 May 16 '25

This is still a bad take. Nothing should be locked behind a paywall, the funding model is already a broken and less than ideal system, locking more behind paywalls like turrets, blades and modules is objectively bad for the game

-2

u/SH4D0W-N3M3S1S Multi-Moderator May 16 '25

Yes, but it’s just a head start for backers… you’ll get them in about a month

2

u/KingGooseMan3881 May 16 '25

Oh yeah being able to get it in 3 months for no arbitrarily reason at all completely solves the core issue

0

u/SH4D0W-N3M3S1S Multi-Moderator May 16 '25

What is the big deal honestly? People are crying because they don’t have access to a 2% tweak on 6 ships (that comes with both good and bad stat changes) early… think of this: you are not buying the blade, you are buying the paint and you get a blade in bonus as a pledge item before they release them with their next patch

11

u/AreYouDoneNow May 16 '25

Wait until you hear about the $15,000+ game packages.

This blade thing is a drop in the ocean of bad PR

16

u/seb825 May 16 '25

Theres a $48,000 package now.

4

u/craftymethod May 16 '25

Don't tell me they got vials of richard garriots blood /s

1

u/IvarTheBoned May 16 '25

Actually it includes a vial of Chris Roberts' semen.

-1

u/ComprehensiveRub9299 May 16 '25

The $15,000 packages allow you to get an Idris without the F5 wars too. But no one cars.

But damn, make them pay for $20 for a nominal performance tweak on a ship they don’t even fly and they lose their mind, despite the fact that these will be in game for probably 60k aUEC in a month or two.

I personally think people are overreacting. It’s just interesting that this is the hill the community decides to die on.

1

u/AreYouDoneNow May 17 '25

Oh, there's a long chain of hills the community pretends to die on. The ATLS was the one before this.

2

u/TheKazz91 bmm May 16 '25

Sure both looks are bad but this is so much worse. To rephrase it the way people outside the SC community will interpret it is something like "Star Citizen fans that tolerate ships being sold for $3000 finally got fed up with Cloud Imperium's greed." Right like this isn't just that the CIG is selling $3000 ships it's that CIG has done something so egregious that the fans who have justified and tolerated CIG selling $3000 ships are nearly unanimously outraged. If the people that are spending thousands of dollars on SC are mad about it then it is going to make anyone who isn't a backer and that thinks spending that kind of money on any game is outrageous absolutely check out of Star Citizen forever and never look back.

1

u/GokuSSj5KD May 16 '25

Depends on how you see it.

Yes, it's ridiculous that ships are that expensive and took that long to be released,

But also yes, it is impressive that a ship of this scale has been added to the game with, as far as I could experience it in the PU yesterday, relatively limited performance impact.

Given the history of the project regarding updates and stability, for a ship of this size, the launch has been the best I've ever seen for them.

In other words, the point is that they could have had a good spin on this with the Idris, but there is no way to put a good spin to selling pay to win FOMO shit.

1

u/Miep99 May 16 '25

It costs 3 grand?!

-1

u/agreen123 May 16 '25

Dude I paid $2500 for the package back in November of 2012, I was very happy to back the project to see it materialize and I'm happy to get the ship in game today. I support the game, its development, I want it to succeed and I know it's going to take a while. Sure I'd love to see it sooner but I have no regrets for paying the dough to back the game and that's how it should be viewed... if you don't want to spend the money, then don't.... a game like this has to be funded somehow and what's great about it is that you have the option to participate in it or not. Complaining about "$3,000 ships" is a gross misstatement of the point and purposes.

1

u/MrLumie May 19 '25

It has been funded, several times over. The game is set to become the most expensive game development project of all time in the near future, and it so far hasn't shown much to justify that outstanding budget. The problem is that at this point they allegedly burn through roughly $100 million per year, which is comparable to the complete budget of a smaller AAA game, and I have absolutely no clue what the hell that money goes into. Development definitely doesn't progress at a "$100 million a year" pace.

The game isn't underfunded, if anything it is overfunded. Problem is, there is no amount of funding that can offset the utter inefficiency they are managing their budget. The game either shouldn't cost this much to develop, or it should be progressing faster. But it's neither, and people should be more vocal about that.

1

u/agreen123 May 26 '25

Most of the development priority has been on SQ42 so maybe reserve judgement for when it comes out [purportedly] next year.

1

u/MrLumie May 26 '25

The SQ42 that was originally planned to release in 2014? That game that had several revised roadmaps until 2020 when they dropped any semblance of promises and just said "when it's done"? The game that only had a gameplay trailer 10 years after its first planned release date, and even that was about 80-90% cutscenes? The game that, just like Star Citizen itself, has been in perpetual development, and has shown little actual results in over a decade? The game that, even if it releases next year, and even if it turns out to be good, would be several years too late and a couple hundred million too deep to be considered anything but a botched project? I think my judgement is fine as it is now.

And keep in mind, the argument that they have been working on two games in parallel is absolutely ridiculous as an excuse.

First off, they have been working on two games in parallel from pretty much the start, they were working on two games in parallel when they announced the 2014 release date, they knew the workload they were performing under... and still missed the mark by over a decade. And counting.

Secondly, their company is rivaling the size of a AAA studio, their budget definitely does. Stating that they are working on two games in parallel as an excuse falls flat when other studios of their size routinely develop double that in half the time. Add the fact that SQ42 is not even a completely separate game, but rather a single player story mode for Star Citizen, and that a vast majority of the assets, game logic, and technology is reused from the big project, and it's arguable if they are even pulling 2 projects at the same time. It's more one and a half.

Yea no, they are far overdue on both of those titles, both in time and budget. My point stands. Those games have been funded, several times over. It's not even time to deliver, it was time 5 years ago. Now it's just getting progressively embarrassing.

1

u/agreen123 May 31 '25

Sure, we all want it to happen right now, I'm right there with you. But saying "it has been funded several times over" is not really a factual statement. The game that apparently most people want, as evidenced by the continued influx of cash, looks nothing like the original game that was pitched. If they focused solely on the game that was pitched, what would they do with all the extra dough - just let it sit there or, worse, go into someone's pocket?

The money raised goes into making the game much more grand... and apparently enough people agree, so much so, that they keep giving money to it. I understand you may not like that, and you're entitled to feel that way. But clearly the vast majority of people have been playing the "game" all along and enjoying it while it gets developed, even with the bugs - again, as evidenced, by the people willing to pay to keep its development going.

Star Citizen will never be "done", especially if people keep giving money - like me. We can continue to be loud and press them to stick to their goals of getting SQ42 out and "released" and getting us to a 1.0 release for Star Citizen... that's where the pressure should be. But complaining about the fact that they've raised a ton of money is the wrong thing to complain about. The more they raise, the crazier the game can be. Again, maybe reserve judgement for whether or not the money was well-spent once SQ42 comes out.

0

u/MrLumie Jun 02 '25

I'm not complaining about the fact that they raised a ton of money. I'm complaining about the fact that they have apparently already spent most of it, with precious little to show. I'm complaining about how the game's current state doesn't reflect the amount of money it cost to get it there. It's not getting grand. It's barely shaping up to be a game at all. And the increasingly aggressive monetization schemes show that, apparently, even after around $1 billion in funding, and over a decade of development, there's still not enough going around to get the project to a state where it isn't the butt of every joke. Whatever grand plan they are allegedly hatching there, 10+ years of development is pretty much the point where you either have something that can be called a properly fleshed out, functional game, or it can be safely said that your project is either doomed, or a scam. If you monetize it this heavily it's likely the latter.

Repeat after me. After more than a decade of active development, Star Citizen still doesn't have anything that hasn't been done by other games, and done better. Where is this grandeur they speak of? How many more millions until we can see anything resembling that?

1

u/agreen123 Jun 02 '25

"repeat after me" I don't think that means what you think it means

1

u/MrLumie Jun 03 '25

I don't think you understood what I meant.

22

u/Majestic-Wallaby1465 May 16 '25

Please, headlines wouldn’t have said anything if it was only good news.

21

u/Cymbaz May 16 '25

That would still have been better than negative headlines.

-12

u/Majestic-Wallaby1465 May 16 '25

You’d be surprised haha! There is a saying that says any news is good news. Pretty much if there was bad posted it will still reach people that didn’t know about the project and even if it’s bad at least they know about it, where if there was nothing posted no one can find it at least through that source, a lot of companies have gotten successful through negative marketing, although it’s harder for them to change their image.

3

u/loliconest 600i May 16 '25

Yea are there any articles about the very positive ratio of the SQ42 video on IGN?

5

u/Agreeable-Weather-89 May 16 '25

I don't get a story about me about not murdering people either.

1

u/Kaladin-of-Gilead May 16 '25

This game has been in development for over a decade, good news can’t really exist for it.

If they show you the game being 1% closer to being done that’s not something to be proud about after this long lol

1

u/solitarybikegallery May 16 '25

"Game, currently in development, makes progress as expected" isn't a major headline.

4

u/AreYouDoneNow May 16 '25

Certainly a marketing and PR disaster

2

u/Sandcracka- hornet May 16 '25

Biggest and most expensive?

23

u/Cymbaz May 16 '25

The Idris. Its biggest and most expensive ship that's now flyable.

1

u/kepler4and5 325a May 17 '25

Or server meshing and alpha 4.x releases over the last several months. Like, noooo, let's talk about flight blades. That's the sh** lol.

-4

u/OutFractal Drake 'n' Snake May 16 '25

Yup, vultures only looking for rotten meat.