Is Star Citizen Pay to Win?

[@LoudGuns]

Well I set out to start a debate and I certainly did that! Just to clear a few things up; 1. I love SC 2. I do actually play SC 3. I don't hate whales - I too have one of the silly top hats and self-hatred isn't my bag. 4. A lot of what I'm thinking about is a 1.0 deal where wipes are behind us. With the game as it is now the impact of cash purchases is lesser - one person has a headstart but the finish line is something we can all see. So someone else has to run a bit further but they do catch up. Assuming SC gets an end-game that is deeper than "buy all the ships" that finish line is likely to be removed. As I said in the beginning of the vid, there's often a knee jerk reaction to a game you love getting called P2W - I knew when I wrote this script that it'd be contentious (different opinions are what make for good debate - life would be boring af if we all just agreed with each other). But HOW we disagree matters - I will do my best to reply to everyone that I can, but I will only reply if people come at it with civility (a bit of banter is fine and welcomed). UPDATE: I’ve spent the last few days having a bunch of good discussions on this subject in the comments. I’ve had plenty of people agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, and everything in between. Unfortunately I may have to limit my replies a bit going forward (I’ve probably written a dissertations worth and it’s leading to a lot of late nights 😂). But I’d like to summarise a few of my responses to the key arguments that come up regularly in the absence of a tailored reply to each comment; “Skill / numbers is more important” - a lot of factors are going to influence the outcome of any competitive situation in SC. To name but a few - skill, numbers, time, environment, hardware etc. My background is in economics and when you analyse a complex system with multiple variables you have to come at it with an “all else being equal” approach and just move the dial on one factor. Assume you have two people who have the same skill, time, number of mates etc. then put one in a Mustang and the other in an F7A Mk2 and tell me who wins more than 60% of the time. A little P2W is still P2W. “I think SC is P2W but that’s not why I bought ships” - that’s awesome, many many folks just bought ships so they’d have their favourite one every time there was a wipe or to show their mates when a free fly came up. This is cool, but most of what I’m advocating for is for the power you’ve got in your hands to be limited to protect / limit the damage to the games integrity. “SC isn’t P2W because things aren’t exclusive / locked entirely behind paywalls” - I (nicely) think you are confusing “isn’t P2W” with “isn’t the worst kind of P2W”. P2W as defined by the Cambridge dictionary is what I set out in this video - any situation where a player pays hard currency for “an advantage” in game. Starting with a superior ship is an advantage even if that ship can be bought in game. “SC isn’t as bad as [insert name of really bad P2W game]” - no probably not. Murder is a worse crime than theft, but they’re both crimes. “There is no endgame so there is no winning” - that’s right now, if I honestly didn’t think SC would have some form of endgame (territory control for instance) to support org gameplay I would quit right now. My question to you is - do you believe the only endgame to exist in a 1.0 release will be “buy all the ships”? “You should be grateful to the people who funded the project.” - I am (I am also one of them). But when you paid your money into this project you knew you were paying for a game for everyone, nowhere did it state that it should be your game at the cost of other people’s enjoyment just because they didn’t pay as much as you. “People will catch-up” - given that I don’t think the endgame is “buy all the ships” (see above) I don’t think this is necessarily true. Pricier ships earn money at rates beyond that of cheaper ones. If you take 2 cargo haulers and start one in a Hull A and the other in a C2 the one in the C2 will always stay ahead. The Hull A guy can buy a C2 sure, but by that time the C2 guy has a Hull C or BMM. The curve is exponential. I will add more if I see particular examples, and as ever I’m over on discord if you just want to chat while we play this amazing (if somewhat P2W) game! 😆

[@timwillis4063]

Appreciate the clarification comment. Makes it alot easier to watch without the instinctive knee jerk reaction. (Also got consierge a few months earlier than planned myself😅)

[@Marth667]

​@@timwillis4063 It's crazy to think that people like yourself need to have something prefaced that they're on your side so you don't freak out and can have a discussion about said subject before acting like a child. It's like people saying 'I'm not a ist' when talking about racial issues. Crazy.

[@ronnieo9571]

This morning I had a great breakfast overlooking the beach near Pattaya, then I walked along the beach a bit, and drove back to Bangkok. Then I played a bit of another game and a bit of this game......cool life I think. 99 problems but this isn't one. Think it's time for some music.

[@timwillis4063]

@marth667 is was that few leave a detailed list explaining exactly how they are judging if its pay2win. Especially as I play alot of games where if people lose once they scream p2w. I was expressing that it was appreciated. Your judgment and need to compare others as a child seems to say alot about you though.

[@LoudGuns]

@@timwillis4063 @Marth667 - let's not let the comment about being nice to each other turn into not being nice to each other :D I do feel there is sufficient clarification in the video but I was getting hit by quite a few comments that had evidently been left at about 12 seconds in :D

[@slootha]

As someone who has spent way too much on this game, I'll just say this. I bought ships to use and share with people, to make memories, to have fun. Not to have an advantage, or to get ahead. I want to be able to share this stuff with my org and friends, to engage in multiplayer gameplay, and live out the sci-fi dream. Anyways, I agree with everything you've said here personally. Great video Loud!

[@LoudGuns]

Cheers Slootha - I think there are a lot of folks out there amongst the big spenders who just wanted a cool ship or just wanted to see a project they love succeed. And I mean absolutely zero disrespect to that. I think the multiplayer point is really good, because actually that leads to less division - people with ships need people without them and vice versa (rather than a Diablo Immortals situation where the people who have spent $$$ are just seal clubbing the ones who are playing free). I also think there are plenty of big spenders (shit maybe even I'm one of them) who want a successful game much more than they want a significant advantage that discourages people from trying it out.

[@blackmamba___]

Sounds like this is more about solo players. It's a different ball game when adding friends into the equation.

[@LoudGuns]

@@blackmamba___ Adding friends to the equation just makes the equation more complex. Whenever you're trying to analyse something like this though you have to take the variables one at a time and take it as "all things being equal" to determine the impact of a single factor. 1v1 or 100v100 or 1000v1000 it still matters.

[@blackmamba___]

@@LoudGuns I'm looking at from the person who really wants to win at all cost. Throwing more money at SC is not the answer. The PU is not the solo game every player wants it to be. Where you can take your meta fighter and win those 5v1. Especially not after master mode. And even more changes are coming that favor strength in numbers than how much your entire fleet cost.

[@LoudGuns]

@@blackmamba___ Only thing I'd disagree is that "all players want it to be (solo)" - clearly untrue since we're both here wanting it to be multiplayer focussed (along with thousands of others who've found their org). The entire point of this vid was to suggest ways to (to a degree at least) ensure P2W remains moderate in SC, and my final one was centred on the same point you're making here - "Don't shy away from multiplayer". I do feel there is a risk that when CIG introduce NPC crew / AI Blades this could tip the scales back the other way if they're not careful. The more you can optimally crew your ship with large quantities of AI the more the balance shifts away from those multiplayer / strength in numbers arguments (and - heaven forbid - what if NPC crew are for sale on the pledge store?)..

[@guynamedmaggi5520]

When people have free disposable LTI fleets in ORG wars if we even make it that far, that will be pay to win. Having fleets that you can throw away is gonna be stupid OP

[@LoudGuns]

Hard agree!

[@tim-jim760]

Yeah the anakin skywalker tactics are gonna be insane...

[@QuotidianStupidity]

Every ship can have insurance though, so everyone will be able to “throw away” their fleet

[@house382]

And the spawn timers will go through the roof once this is able to occur. Think 30 minutes is a lot to get your Carrack back? I'm guessing it'll be measured in days if not weeks once this sort of game feature and stability is added. CIG has stated over and over they want recovery and repair to be the easier and cheaper route over reclaim. Skyrocketing reclaim timers easily makes that achievable.

[@guynamedmaggi5520]

@@QuotidianStupidity Doesn't matter, CIG said they would have advantages for people that got that LTI but they didn't go into it just said there would be of some sort who knows what that means from CIG though. When ships cost resources these ships still are free resources.

[@fmartingorb]

The common thing I hear is "you can only fly one ship" You talk about purchase, but not about rentals, which lower the barrier to gameplay. In the current patch 3.23.1a, you can grind you way to renting a Cat within an hour. So there is not much difference there. The real difference comes the higher the ship ladder you go. But the counter balance is the crew needs. We are not playing SC. The economy can also be a counter balance. Maintenance and having the cashflow to move an Idris or an 890 will not depend on you real world cash. Winning in this case is to build a crew, a team, that can generate the cashflow to take put an Idris, fully stocked, maintain it, rearm it and refuel it and crew it. And this will never be a one person, even if a whale, kinda deal. But, at the same time, you can go off-grid with an Aurora, and live happily of looting and hunting. In Second Life a while back there was this issue too. There is no clear goal, you make them as you go. In SC being competitive is a player choice, not a game mechanic or a dev intent. It is the players who choose this personal path to be the GOAT in racing, or dog-fighting, or mining, hauling, pirating... or off-gridding. Getting a rental for any of these is easy peasy

[@LoudGuns]

Rentals are pretty clearly lesser in power than purchased ships though right? You can't change any of the components on a rented ship. I get that rentals are useful in accessing a certain type of gameplay but when the purchased version has a meaningful advantage the argument that they in some way lessen the P2W nature falls down imo.

[@fmartingorb]

@@LoudGuns I said it was a counter balance. Not the solution. But lowering the access to ships, even if you can't personalise them, in the current version of the game are not a meaningful disadvantage. There are plenty 0 to hero videos out there that show the time spent to achieve the ship you want, is more or less the time it takes you to work in the real world to purchase the ship. And in the current state of the game with wipes, purchases with rl money might seem to have an advantage, but without wipes there will not be any difference. The real power of the game is teaming up. Alone, it does not matter how much money you have in rl, you will be at a disadvantage. What is also missing is org management tools. Then whales will share ships with other players. And that will empower those who did not back the game.

[@JL-rj9fl]

On the multiplayer aspect, I think it would be fine to have someone pay NPCs for any role they like. Realistically, you can't expect to operate larger ships without some kind of support to be most effective anyway (warships can be countered by different weapon types, industrial ships need protection, etc.). If a player wants to take the risk and go out in a big ship alone then let them. There's no harm or need to block off ship access to anyone. I play with people semi-regularly and we multi-crew, but I think even the average joe that gets home from work (for example) should be able to enjoy something like an Idris solo if they want to. If they paid for that and can make that work/cover the operating costs somehow: power to them, let them have fun.

[@LoudGuns]

The problem I’ve always had with allowing that is how orgs will then use it. In isolation, a solo player being able to go out and use an Idris / have fun in a big cap ship sounds good. But in practice that solo player gets blown up by an org deploying 50 Idris’

[@JL-rj9fl]

@@LoudGuns Definitely a reasonable take for sure. I don't know what the answer is - maybe really high operating costs, perhaps make NPC crew expensive enough so that also stings the wallet in a significant way. Even still, I can see big orgs having deep enough pockets that this may not really matter in the grand scheme of things. Hopefully we'll get some clarity on CIG's plans in the future no matter which direction they go. Just knowing that would make me happy as a backer either way.

[@LoudGuns]

@@JL-rj9fl Yeah basically anything a solo player can do an org can do X times of. So if the thing is cost, there's no way it would be affordable to a solo player and unaffordable to an org. One game I played (Atlas) tried to cap NPC crew by assigning a higher cost the more your guild / org had (in an attempt to balance smaller guilds against bigger ones). The big orgs simply split into multiple smaller ones and allied - circumventing the whole system.

[@JL-rj9fl]

@@LoudGuns Yeah, it's tough. I've never played Star Atlas but I see your point. As players we certain are good at gaming the system. It would definitely make things brutal in those contested areas of lower security space when the Idris squad arrives to throw a wrench in a deep space mining op or something more sinister like controlling a jump gate.

[@LoudGuns]

@@JL-rj9fl Oh no not Star Atlas - there are some things I don't touch in life, and NFT's are one of them.

[@igorpniak8308]

Great video, very good points. I will definitely borrow some when discussing this topic. The P2W aspects of SC is something that was bugging me for 2 years now, but whenever I tried discussing that, I was instantly shut down by "more experienced" backers, presumably with fleets of their own. Very glad to see this topic getting more attention recently. Edit: are to is

[@luistigerfox]

I'd go "yes" and "no" on SC pay to win. It's a bit weird. The currency advantage in SC is definitely along the 'convenience' and 'skip' type of P2W. Your dollars aren't 100% direct power either, as even in PVP using fighters, many of them fill different roles at their price points that don't relate to their "ability". Given that a Buccaneer at $110 or the M50 at $100 are some of the top rated dogfighters (at this moment), where some more expensive fighters like scorpius antares ($240) aren't necessarily the most well fit for dogfights, but will have other parts of PVE or PVP game loops attached. (the F7A2 issue is definitely something to be worked on. Though as a space superiority fighter as its role, it may be hard to deal with.) RN I'd say the 'starter ships' are some of the most direct p2w category of ships, as the Avenger titan is clearly advantaged over the mustang in basically every game relevant aspect. It's also arguably outclassed in most every starter ship aspect by the Nomad. There's no doubt in my mind that yes, SC is p2w, but you're right, it's complicated, and not really the way some think. Also in the future component and gear crafting is planned to be a thing, as is resource quality to affect the end product of these crafting loops. I would love to see this put in, because that was a fantastic part of the star wars: galaxies loop. it should definitely be a thing in game later. CIG has said that large ships, such as the idris, kraken, and javelin will have very significant costs of deployment. Under most circumstances it's planned for the deployment of a javelin to outright be a net cost in most cases, without really being viable to turn a direct profit. In a game the size of Star Citizen, Land claiming is only a worry if they actually make areas home to higher quality resources. There need to be good locations worth claiming, or else there's nothing worth the land grabs, claim tokens, take-overs, and fighting. I hope economically this game takes big inspiration from EVE online. Making very lucrative opportunities in low/nullsec, as well as some hi-sec areas being pretty premium territory that's limited.

[@LoudGuns]

One of the best things I've read today said "SC is Pay to win but with a small w". There are so many factors that determine a competitive outcome and many of them have nothing to do with money, but a big one (ship power) does!

[@luistigerfox]

@@LoudGuns Truth. You can argue about the relative power of ships, and such, but when looking within their roles. Being able to dump money into a ship that is made for a role and does it well, is an advantage over someone in a rounded starter that may be able to only do that job/those jobs on a basic level. the person with more money got the better tools for the job right away, rather than having to work ingame toward them.

[@Christian_ThePumpkinDestroyer]

"What are we winning?" - Stupid rich guy. 'Winning' is subjective, it's the goal the player sets for themselfs. what they are currently aiming for or what they are grinding for. Getting that cool new sword thats much stronger then the your old sword or beating a boss. Like there is no win to life but you still save up for a new house or a car when you then get that house/car thats winning.

[@gravity00x]

ure winning other peoples time and efforts, by being able to take it away from them easier than they can do the same to you if that makes sense. you can buy extra firepower, extra speed, extra capacity and extra systems to allow you to progress in the game much faster than others and thus gain an advantage of any sort, just by paying.

[@Jaxxie_B]

​@gravity00x he's agreeing with you. I'm not sure if you dont understand that. A lot of gotcha Andy's are trying to use the "What is winning" argument by saying their is no "winning", so it can't be P2W.

[@LoudGuns]

Yeah I truly get the "there is no winning" argument on the one hand, because I've played some MMO's in small groups where we knew we had no chance of being competitive, and we just enjoyed the game for the gameplay. But it ignores that huuuuuuuge elements of SC are competitive, and that losing a fight / race / good quant rock etc (or on a bigger scale something like territory in an Org v Org) would really suck if the only reason you can assign to your loss is the other people spent more $$$ than you did. I know there are lots of factors such as player skill that also play into it - but ship power is a big factor and it's up for sale. P.S. though - most rich guys / girls aren't that stupid :D

[@liethelieyerhonsta2789]

I think the lines of winning in SC are there but just obscure. You win by doing literally anything a little better than your direct competitor by paying money. Cargo: Larger vessel = larger profit (Cutlass vs. C1) Combat: More Firepower (Aurora vs. Titan) ... CIG is keen on upselling you into buying their CCUs and whatever else they will draw in the future. Their strategy just works this way. The money has to come in from somewhere, sadly

[@gravity00x]

@@LoudGuns someone wrestling you into submission simply by paying more money in a competitive environment, so you have no choice but to NOT be competitive, is not an excuse though. Of course you can enjoy the game in many other ways, but that's besides the point of the argument.

[@jordanembree110]

Most of the Star Citizen community don't know what pay to win is (or pretend they don't) and they will do mental gymnastics to make excuses for this game. The F7A might be the best example of pay to win ever, with the exception of the voyager direct meta.

[@korb3n_Dallas_plays]

There is no way this is pay to win, so I buy a hammer head it’s pointless unless I can find 6 maybe eventually 7 other people. This game is at most pay for convenience. Also just because you own a f7a does not mean your good player skill > player purchase power

[@LoudGuns]

But - taking an "all things being equal" approach to isolate the factor that money effects. 2 players, equal skill, equal time. One's in a Mustang the others in an F7A Mk2 - who wins?

[@atmclick]

This is the way it is now, without any idea how blades or AI crew will be implemented. Piloting capital ships as a solo player could very well be the easiest thing to achieve. After all, we did just have a reset on the flight model to remove a lot of barriers to entry and CIG has been adamant that a solo player should be able to fly their ship as a solo player.

[@Doc_Paradox]

You're forgetting that ai crew will be a thing plus having access to a ship thats multiple millions of uec right off the bat isnt pay to win you're insane. Sure skill makes a difference but if both players are new and one is in a mustang and one is in a hornet or f8c they are clearly going to wipe the floor with them.

[@festersmith8352]

@@LoudGuns Its a valid point. But as long as the Mustang player has access to that MKII without "paying" for it. Then you remove the word pay out of pay to win. Which they currently don't. But I'm not hearing a lot gripe about the F8 either. So why are we not calling that out as well? Why are we so focused on one specific, when the topic is so broad? Is it because the F8 is earnable in the future? If so, than if the MKII becomes available too, we are jumping to conclusions, and burnt CIG's feet prematurely.

[@mhmm4840]

​@@festersmith8352 old comment, but I think the issue comes from being able to have not just one ship, but double digits, some triple, before the game even has released. While yet players who havnt paid for more than a starter need to spend months if not years getting what those other guys got in a matter of seconds. Plus in PvE there definitely are ships better at some jobs than others. A reclaimer can be ran by 2 people (1 as of right now but engineering might make it too micromanagy) and it chunks through hulls at a speed the Vulture wishes it could match. Sure everyone will end up having access to all the ships but after a wipe (at the release of the game especially) the immediate access to end game content, like capital ships and more we don't have/know about. While yes you may need 10+ people to fly these larger ships, have you ever played an MMO? People gather in the hundreds for dumb stuff in some cases and I'm willing to bet when SC releases players who have these larger ships will have them crewed instantly with some friends or org mates, who will then proceed to make more money faster than the "ftp" players and in org V org stuff. Those with more money win. You might not have as many bodies but you can get the better equipment for your ships and fps guys. Plus you can have more ships in reserve depending on the location of a fight. Tldr it's pay to win but at this point they cant really go back on it

[@Mango_Mike]

What are we winning? There is no winning or losing. It’s pay to play easier or faster. So is life. So like, who cares? Forgive me while I cope in my monocle.

[@LoudGuns]

Haha don't worry - I also have one of those silly monocle / top hat sets. But I just don't buy the "there is no winning" argument in the long-term for SC - a very large portion of the player base absolutely will come at this game competitively.

[@MavicAir1]

Exactly. It's just great to hop in my Mole or Vulture and go do some mining or salvaging, exploration after a wipe. Don't have the time (real life) to reset every month.

[@gravity00x]

lol. what a load of bogus. ehen u can buy a hornet while lil bro only gets the base game with an aurora, ure gonna have every single bit of advantage over every lil bro with an aurorq. if u then use said advantage, you will skyrocket your way to success. its absolutely not only pay for convenience. its blatant and pure pay to win.

[@Traumglanz]

Hehe, that sounds so beautiful, I will remember that one the next time I gank someone. I am sure it will be very comforting for him to be notified about his cargo nor ship being truly lost. He should have paid for an escort worth their salt. ;-)

[@Traumglanz]

@@gravity00x Skyrocket? A competent Aurora pilot will be flying a Conni or crew a Reclaimer, etc on his first day in the verse. It's still blatant and pure pay to win. There is just one plot twist, the whales are getting scammed out of their money with promised of power, while everyone else can unlock the very same ships and gear pretty quickly themselves. The advantage is there without any doubt, but so far nothing indicates that the advantage will say for long as the progression in ships and gear seems to be a rather short one. Maybe we still get o ton of different and powerful gear later in the game, but it does not look like that will happen anytime soon.

[@huliguli2428]

I hope they will (are willing) to find a sweet spot between paying for ships with reallife money and working ingame to buy Ships with ingame currency. Not everyone has the financial situation to spend a thousand dollars in a videogame

[@scrap_er]

When the game will come ourmt, it will not be anymore possible to buy with real money

[@huliguli2428]

@@scrap_erwhere does this stand?

[@scrap_er]

@@huliguli2428 they said it in many scl and never talks of another possibility

[@LoudGuns]

I would only caution that they said it many years ago, and haven’t reaffirmed that statement in quite some time.

[@Challenge72]

Nice piece. I would hope that CIG views this and adds it to their considerations on the topics. I accidentally found myself with a top hat, didn't even know why until I read it in a post somewhere. I spent the in-game funds I got updating components, weapons, and anything else I could improve before the wipe. What many call grinding, I call game play, and it was entertaining. Those should definitely remain in-game only.

[@LoudGuns]

I got my top hat when buying nerf guns as prizes for an event, midway through getting 3 or 4 of them there was this “congratulations” email in my inbox 😂

[@Wolfrick683]

Unless i missed a major change in CIG's plan, they intend to stop selling ships for real money before/at release, then they will sell UEC & cosmetics only to fund the servers. At least that is what they were originally intending 10+yrs ago, before people threw huge amounts of money at them buying ships... Most of the arguments you make still stand, its all about how you define p2w, you can definitely pay for convenience/skip grinds.

[@LoudGuns]

That’s definitely something they said in the past but I’m very curious to see if they actually follow through - it’s one of those statements they made ages ago and have (almost suspiciously) not repeated for years - even when key opportunities like the chairman’s letter about 1.0 came out.

[@michaelphillips3148]

This game hasn't created a finish line... we don't know what winning is for this game. So no it's not! In a normal MMO it's acquiring the best gear or making it to the top of the leaderboards... none of that here.

[@LoudGuns]

I would say if you look at something like Eve and then factor in the base building mechanics then SC’s endgame at least largely involves territorial control.

[@Zodaxa_zdx]

last oasis mentioned RAHHH, that early game grind is real and defining what and where is winning is really important especially for the long term future for SC, as "wipes" and "early game" may not be concepts in the actual persistent universe in some long year from now

[@micknolan-g5y]

Thanks again for another salient and concise offering. An important discussion to be sure. All high tech and graphically intense games are pay to win.....based solely on the current cost of graphics and CPU and other kit that are necessary/capable of running modern MMORPG and even some FPS games. That does not reduce my enjoyment of playing these awesome games. It does, however, make me decide if a $1600 GPU is really the best use of my ready cash

[@LoudGuns]

Thanks mate! P2W in hardware is too true! CiG can’t do much about that one though 😂

[@Crazy-Chicken-Media]

win what? whats the end game? own everything? I have a vulture with enough time I win everything I'll have all the ships and all the guns. wait till maintaining your 80 man ship actually cost credits.

[@LoudGuns]

Well, personally I would hope the end game of SC is eventually more deep than buying ships.

[@RoballTV]

@@LoudGuns But that's all pay does. In a sandbox game, there is no difference to a newbie. They log in, and everyone has better stuff and better skills and experience. Even if all the players had to start in an Aurora, the sandbox would be that way in a week anyway.

[@LoudGuns]

@@RoballTV I kinda feel that what we have now is indeed a sandbox, but not because that is the vision for SC laid out by the devs. They’re talking about end game stuff like territorial control, faction warfare, rep, high end PvE content etc which to me sounds more like a theme park than a sandbox?

[@liethelieyerhonsta2789]

@@RoballTV For many people, the notion of P2W creates a bad taste. It is just connected to scummy practice and force-feeding you their microtransactions at every corner wherever possible as well as interfering in your gameplay in order to make sales. I don't mind being off worse than anyone if reaching their status is possible without spending a lifetime of grind. Many P2W games don't allow that in favor of pleasing their whales

[@atmclick]

​@@RoballTV The sandbox argument is short-sighted at best. This is not the vision the original backers were sold on. And we can go on for ages about how those backers do or don't matter anymore, but the fact remains they're the reason we have a sandbox to play in to begin with.

[@qutatron]

I spended more on paints than on ships. More interesting liveries and cosmetic modifications like in 300 i, and maybe fancy furbiture for bases is way to go imo.

[@LoudGuns]

Well tbf that absolutely IS pay to win. Everyone knows that ships with paints on them are vastly superior to stock :D

[@qutatron]

@@LoudGuns Yes it is. Red ships are always faster, like eed cars.

[@Ben_D.]

The grind for faction standings to get good kit worked well in both EVE and Elite Dangerous. Would like to see it here as well.

[@thetattoodmini]

it honestly comes down to the mindset of the player and what their definition of "winning" is. for some, having a full fleet of LTI combat ships that they use to only focus on making others gameplay as miserable as possible... for other players like myself, it may be having one or two LTI ships that we use regularly enough in our chosen gameplay, that we've invested in keeping those ships available at all times, like a Vulture, a dedicated cargo hauler, or something that we can use solo. myself, i have a LTI C1 and MOLE, but my Vulture and ROC don't have it and won't, as I want motivation to keep going out mining, to keep going out salvaging, and I hope to have a Crucible once they come in game so I can offer repairs to people who need it. I see SC as a game to choose a lifepath to play and the ships are your chosen tools for that lifestyle. while some only want to be pirates and have PvP, many others just want the joy of flying and playing the game freely with their chosen ships.

[@JmaK17]

Personally I find it hard to label it completely pay to win, in the conventional sense of pay to win I think of exclusive weapons/armour that are just better than items available in game. Having a cool red skin on your FS9 isn’t going to kill me faster than I can kill you with the stock FS9 I pulled out of a crate in a bunker mission. Your white painted, pledged redeemer isn’t going to be better than the one I paid aUEC for. What matters is how we have decided to fit them out and what components we opted for and if we went energy based or kinetic based. Definitely pay for convenience and pay to skip. You will definitely have an advantage day 1 after a wipe, but if you are flying a HullC and I’m flying an avenger titan we’re not really competing, we are playing in different games at that stage, we have different goals, different risk profiles, different win conditions it’s quite apples and oranges but I do believe this needs to be more looked at and your point on base building and land claims is making me think for sure.

[@LoudGuns]

So I used the Cambridge dictionary definition that P2W is wherever a player can get an advantage over others through cash purchases in a game. So if that’s the definition I think you’d agree based on what you said? Personally I think a lot of the sub terms like Pay to Skip are about saying “my P2W is not as bad as this P2W” and I’m in no way saying SC is the worst example. Just to your Hull C / Titan example - in a broad game direct comparison is hard because people have different objectives. But to simplify it and isolate the factor you’d compare 2 people with the same goal - so you’re in a Hull C and I’ve bought a Hull A for example.

[@coviper0019]

SO as a backer of the game.. I have to say I agree with the concepts you talk about in your video... I DONT expect to have a massive advantage on anyone else that pledges a simple ship. However I DO expect that CIG recognizes the fact that the backers that have consistently kept this project going should get something in return for their efforts over those that joing later ai minimal buy in. SO to a certain extent since Star Citizen is in fact a crowd funded game, those that have been here for a long time to see it through should see a reward... This by no means says we should be able to RULE the game however...

[@LoudGuns]

My honest opinion is that the ship has already sailed, and what we have is a P2W situation whether people like it or not. People deciding to join later will ultimately have to decide if they’re comfortable or not with entering a game where others have some form of advantage. SC will certainly lose some potential players on this basis, but I think the steps CIG take to either reduce or enhance the power some players have already bought will determine how many potential players they lose.

[@ParagonFangXen]

Best coverage of this topic in relation to Star Citizen I have seen thus far. Great job, well reasoned, and i agree on just about everything you said. Thank you for biting the bullet up front, and then thank you for having the nuanced discussion!

[@LoudGuns]

Thanks mate much appreciated 🙏

[@BlakedaBull]

Having gameplay saved for the game and not all the shop , hard agree

[@LoudGuns]

Yeah if everything goes on sale is there a game? 😂

[@Ecator594]

Star Citizen isn't out yet. Is it pay to win? Honestly that will depend entirely on what they do in the future. What exactly is the pledge store? It started as a way to fund the building of the game. You didn't buy ships so to speak you pledged money toward the making of the game. Thus the "pledge store". If whenever this game is "finished" they turn the lights out on the pledge store. Then the game Star Citizen is not pay to win. The problem so to speak is that the pledge store basically became an incredibly successful virtual ship store. The store, and really the project as a whole exploded into something way beyond what anyone was expecting. So much so that we have what will probably be a extensive single player game, a very ambitious online multi player tech demo that will eventually become a game, and a new groundbreaking game engine that could be huge to gaming once it is completed. The question remains, will they turn off the money printing machine that is the pledge store? Maybe in the very least stop calling it a pledge store after the games are released. If they did close the pledge store they can and will make money from SQ42 part 2 and part 3 down the road. They will also be sitting on another money printing machine that is licensing the use of star engine to other game developers. I believe they also have a smaller money maker with the 3d mocap studio that they built as they can rent the use of that studio out. To this current point in time I don't believe the company has been greedy. They make money but also spend a lot of it in the game and on the employees that are creating the game. They have taken the pledge money and have established a foundation in offices and people that should be around for a good while as they work on two games and a game engine. They can go full greed mode and leave the pledge store open always and do things like sell ship paint when that was going to be a free feature where you can in game select your ships colors with hex codes. Buy expensive ships and in game items with continued fomo tactics. Charge a large amount for the purchase of the single player game and following part 2 and 3 versions of it, while also making bank on selling star engine. Thus getting paid by the gamer's, and the gaming industry. You will also see this in what the end result of star citizen becomes. Will it be a game that is released for both PC and console with hacky features that PC users have to deal with because the game will basically just be a PC port to a console game so they can capitalize on both console and PC game markets? The entire project from the start was a PC space sim, the best one ever made, specifically because the console and phone/tablet gaming industry had been taking over gaming from the PC. What I would like to see is them make two great games and a game changing engine that will push gaming in general for years to come. While doing that reach the point where the original campaign vision of SQ42 and Star Citizen are released and at that point close up shop with the pledge store and focus on things in game to the benefit of we the players who opened our wallets over the past decade to allow Chris Roberts the freedom to change the industry, make the game he always wanted to make but couldn't because of publishers. If you want to keep giving them money then just leave the subscription service open and toss out fun non game altering items and cosmetic perks. But there will have to be a focus shift from making money to fund the game into making the finished game the best that they can for the people who helped fund it. We have not yet reached that point so they can still choose that path and be cemented in gaming history as absolute legends. Or chose a different path and become generic greedy corporation like everyone else. Only time can tell.

[@jasonhannah7483]

i'm a Capitalist and have no problems paying for what i want.🤑

[@LoudGuns]

I’m a Capitalist too, but I don’t believe in capitalism with zero regulation.

[@madioxmadiox7623]

Passt the Game ist only for VIP Player 😂

[@SpaceDad42]

I think we all paid and lost.

[@RicoZaid_]

Why would CiG change a massive, PROVEN, money maker for a theory that might make less money? More profits means more R&D and more developers. I expect LTI Blades. LTI NPC Crewmen, etc. CiG will sell anything and everything.

[@LoudGuns]

So right now we have a kinda mini game right? Space Tarkov! Regular wipes and resets and a finite upper ceiling of progression mean that even if one guy has to run 400m and another has to run 5,000m we still all "finish" - i.e. we could all end up at a point of having the exact same ships and the headstarter would just cap out first with nothing to spend their credits on. But in the future when it's long-term persistence and there are no more wipes (and there are things beyond ships for us to spend money on) then your headstart translates into a permanent 4,600m lead (maybe more given exponential curves and your faster acceleration). If the game doesn't have end-game goals that are more than what we have now then we should just sell our accounts now, so I see this as a realistic issue. The other realistic issue is that if folks think the game is too P2W then they won't bother playing as the $45 backer and the population will drop. Low pop = no game eventually due to ongoing running / dev cost. I know it's not for everyone but if you enjoy ARPG's / mobile games then Diablo Immortals is not a bad game, it's actually technically quite good - but it's DOA because people don't like the P2W nature of it. I really don't want that for SC.

[@RicoZaid_]

@@LoudGuns appreciate the reply, I bet CIG makes all ships wear out over time. So a ship you get in-game eventually stops working completely. However a ship you buy in the store will be replaced when it stops working since you paid for it. CiG Will get creative to make money, they have to, they're simply a business. I don't think it's random that every ship they sell is overpowered at release and then nerfed after the sales. Every single time.

[@RicoZaid_]

@@LoudGuns that $45 backer can solo those $45 tier missions or become a crewman which will be heavily needed. If I played a game and put $45 into it and a knew somebody who put $10,000 into it I would expect that person to have a massive advantage.

[@LoudGuns]

@@RicoZaid_ No worries mate - I make these types of vid to have a good debate! It's not all about agreeing :D One of the things I keep coming back to is playerbase - LoL is one of the most profitable games in existence but it literally doesn't sell power at all, it sells cosmetics and a little bit of pay to skip at the low levels (XP boosts for getting to level 30 where ranked play kicks in). And because it is such a pure competitive landscape people love it - because people love it they buy a lot of cosmetics. I do personally think there's a way forward like this for CIG, where the majority of revenue comes from $60-$70 game packs (put the price up a bit for a basic starter at release) and cosmetic MTX. But to get there you've got to have a really great game that has mass appeal - getting a rep as a P2W game doesn't help that too much.

[@RicoZaid_]

@@LoudGuns 🙂

[@dragonchild_SC]

Maintenance cost and landing fees are actually planned for the final version. At least they were many years ago. While your examples (rich but unskilled vs poor but skilled) make sense, it is typically that the really good pilots will also have the best ship and preem equipment. Just like the PvP org you were part of. So we might have a skilled player in a MK2 vs unskilled in Aurora. In this case the Aurora pilot might shout "Pay-to-win", as it is hard to separate the skill from the equipment of his enemy. Using real money for cosmetics is fine for me. Many other MMOs to that. They do not even have to be available as loot - it is just cosmetic. Armor and weapons are currently one-time only. and rather cheap in-game, too. A bigger fleet will give you a good start, especially in making money (e.g. salvage, mining). But that is less an advantage, once there are no more wipes. (if ever) Personally I had some "money makers" and grinded for the ships I wanted. After some wipes, I decided to get my Phoenix in the pledge store. (Melted some ships to reduce the cost.) Quite some investment, but it was during covid lockdown, so I had money to spare. So is this pay to win? For me actually yes. I define "winning" as "having fun". Being able to explore the verse in my favorite ship right after a wipe, is just so nice. (Andromeda would also do, but I just love luxury) Most important is, that they do not lock superior ships behind a paywall, like the MK2, F8. Also I am not a big fan of the in-game requirements. Tha usually means only the best players get the best equip, widening the skill gap even further. The best way to eliminate the "pay-to-win" question, is to offer more content, that does not rely on PvP. E.g. There is not much "pay to win" for box deliveries. Playing in a group will always be more fun, but it should never be mandatory. Here CIG still has some way to go. (ESO is a good example how to do it, imho) Longest reply ever written by me - In case someone reads this, Thanks a lot.

[@LoudGuns]

So I would actually argue that once there are no wipes but assuming there is actually more of an endgame (territorial control etc) then starting with a ship or ships that others don’t have is a permanent advantage. If you assume all things are equal (time to play, skill, friends etc) then the player who starts in a Mustang or Aurora never catches up to the player who starts in a prospector.

[@jamess405]

Yeah I agree it a bit pay to win but thankfully no crap like premium currency. As long as they don’t get worse I’m ok with where they’re at

[@LoudGuns]

That's a really good point I should've made (I made it in a previous vid but forgot it in this one) - long may the clear hard currency pricing continue!

[@tim-jim760]

Awesome vid Loud Guns. Star Citizen has lot's of ways to succeed in this area, and I'm hopeful they'll get it right. I'm sure we'll have a few more f8 and f7 type shenanigans before they figure it out though...

[@LoudGuns]

Cheers Tim! Undoubtedly you’re right 😂

[@trendane]

Soooo, looking at your list on Patrons at the end, I find myself curious. Are "Jason VP" and "Jason VP" the same "Jason VP"?

[@LoudGuns]

Potentially I had a copy pasta error :D Thanks for the spot!

[@trendane]

@@LoudGuns Happy to help!

[@CB-io8oi]

Good healthy debate here. I believe the wipes definitely contribute to the pledge store popularity. After you've grinded many hours for a selection of ships and had it wiped a few times, it gets tired very quickly. I'm not saying its a motivator, but it definitely contributes to ship sales nevertheless

[@TheRealCarlBrutananadilewski]

"You having 4 hours of playtime and spending $10,000.00 on ships will NOT make you a better player than the guy who spent $40 and has played 400 hours."

[@LoudGuns]

See pinned comment :D

[@gatorpika]

One assumption you made is that players have similar goals in the game. Will having a BMM on day 1 help Ravnak do box missions? Or is a smaller, cheaper ship sufficient? There are lots of players out there that just like to mine and may be fine with a Mole or Prospector and a Freelancer in the early game. Later on they might not go beyond adding a C2 to ship their goods to market and maybe a smaller exploration ship. They aren't competing to dominate a space, just exist in some out of the way part of it and enjoy their loop. Domination of a system is unlikely to happen anyway given that was one of the initial goals to have AI keep the players under control. As far as the maintenance tax thing, I think it's already there. You have to buy and replace the components after they have degraded and might have a significant upkeep expense if you start the game with 600 ships and no money if there is passive wear and tear. I am anticipating some significant portion of my fleet not really being usable in the beginning as I amass amazing wealth with my Prospector. Agree to an extent on the land grab thing, but the scale is actually a differentiator in this game over a 10km x 10km map or whatever in other games. There will be prime plots but many many more. Everybody in the game right now could own a plot on Terra because there is that much land there. I don't really think there are going to be obvious differentiators either as people will over time find resource rich plots with well defensible land. That's going to take some effort to scan and survey. I highly doubt most of the universe is going to be in at 1.0 as well, so plenty more opportunities as new systems are added.

[@LoudGuns]

I did indeed make that assumption! And I guess the thing is that to isolate a factor you have to assume consistency in other parts - goals, skill, time etc. There are loads of things that are going to impact how encounters play out, and some people are simply going to have a different goal in mind like you say. But if two people do have the exact same goal, skill and time but one of them spent $500 and the other $50 who wins? The land is going to be another contentious topic - those pioneer owners really hate me whenever I say this. There is a difference in scale (KM2) but there is also a difference in scale of population (most survival servers are 100 players not potentially millions). Steadily releasing new systems and land will certainly lessen the blow, but my fear is that land will end up being one of the biggest economic drivers of the game - and those who get ahead early will stay ahead and have the most resources to put behind expansion into new territory. I very much come at this from a perspective of "what would I do with no restraints?" "How would I abuse the hell out of this system?" - and then I say it out loud because for the sake of a game with integrity I'd prefer that I wasn't allowed to.

[@TheOneAndOnlyRavnak]

I heard someone mention my name... Have a counterpoint for your troubles: The guy choosing to do small box missions isn't competing. So P2W elements aren't going to effect him. But what if he DID want to make profits? Would the person in a mustang be able to compete in trade vs. a BMM owner on day 1?

[@mattsully5332]

You're right, I don't want to ascribe the "pay to win" label to a game I enjoy. And you're also right that "pay for convenience" is a not very distant cousin to "pay to win." The fact that you can purchase everything in game, combined with the fact you can only fly one ship at a time goes a long way to evening things out. I may have spent $30k (hehe) on ships, but right at this moment, we're both flying the same ship, and none of the rest of what I own matter to this competition. (yes, I do understand that my ability to pivot to doing something else at a whim does give me an overall advantage, especially as the income meta morphs over time, but that still doesn't matter to THIS competition) I think it also helps that the way things are right now, many of the bigger ships aren't even competing for the same resources that the smaller ones are. Sure the mole can technically mine the same rocks the Prospector does, but it's actually more difficult for them. Sure, the Reclaimer can take the same salvage missions the Vulture can, but it's not really worth your time to grab a mission sized for the other ship. I think that right now, CIG is on an acceptable course, given a few stipulations that you mentioned, namely that: - components not ever be put on the $ market, ESPECIALLY if acquiring top tier components require that you have good rep with multiple entities - purchasing UEC for $ is limited in some way. I don't know what this looks like, or if there's even a reasonable way to do it, because someone could just start an account, buy the max, then start another account, buy the max, repeat ad nauseum. - player skill is always relevant (in a fight of two identical ships, the player with more skill should win more often) - NPC crew of any skill are never for sale at any price, unless SEVERELY limited, non-transferrable, and preferably so cheap that MOST players can afford to purchase the max. One thing I think you skipped over in your video: When it comes to things like land claims, there is no such thing as equal. Let's say they do exactly as you suggested, and don't activate land claims until 3 or 6 months after launch. They will still go live at a time which is at best inconvenient and likely impossible for some people who wanted to participate, and the people who were lucky enough to be available at the right time will have an advantage whether they purchased with UEC or $. Frankly, I'm not sure the situation really changes noticeably if it just goes live at launch, it's just enabling a different set of people to have the advantage. The only way to equalize things somewhat is to have a somehow limited number of land claims, but there'd be a way around that too via multiple accounts, or multiple orgs in an alliance. I started to type out more discussion about land claims, but realized that it would take literal pages of text to even start to dig into it, and that we just don't know enough about CIGs plan to get into it.

[@LoudGuns]

Interesting point on the land claims - I had that experience once where a survival game I loved reset and did the land grab on the weekend of my brothers wedding. I mean I tried to get him to move it but his wife said no….smh some people 😂 But while that sucks it’s still fairer to me than doing it based on money. Some life events are always going to be more important than a land grab in a game, but more people can book a day off work or spend all of the brownie points they’ve acquired with their spouse to clear a day in their diary than can magic up $850 for a pioneer! I think distinguishing between the right now and the future is important. Because right now the end game goal is a bit crap - it’s buy all the ships. In this instance you just have a big head start over others but they can catch up and you will just have to stop running at a point because you finished. But (I hope) SC will have more of an endgame than that in the future and at that point (assuming another player has equal time / skill etc because that’s the only way you can really isolate the factors and compare these things) you have a permanent advantage.

[@mattsully5332]

@@LoudGuns I do agree with you that not defaulting to giving the people with money the advantage every time is more fair, I just think it's worth pointing out that it comes down to Picking which group has the advantage, which will anger people no matter which choice is made.

[@TheGavric]

Not being able to reliably crew large ships (none of my real world friends want to play SC) is what keeps me from buying them. Some of them are cool, but...I'm realistic. I'm more likely to be crew on someone else's big ship. I've bought single operator entries to each of the gameplay loops. The Freelancer DUR is the largest ship I've paid real world money for. That said, I do dream of owning an Odyssey.

[@CyberneticArgumentCreator]

No because it isn't a game yet so what could you possibly win? And how could you ever know if having a ship wins anything in the future game systems we know nothing about? Also, everything about the game we as players know right now points to pay to progress more quickly, not pay to win. Right now it's a really nice looking roleplaying engine. There are no "real" gameplay loops, just one repeated 'fly here, kill the ships we say, get x silver' mission, one 'fly here, kill the people inside on foot, get y silver' mission, a really crappy proof of concept cargo shipping demo, insanely dumb package delivery, random rocks scattered in space and on planets you can point a laser at and do a quicktime event for minutes on end to mine, and ships to buy. That's literally it. That's the entire game outside of LARPing groups who interact in the engine. You don't have a home, you only have a random group of up to 100-110 people on your server spread across an entire solar system. Imagine if our solar system had 112 people in it, total, from Mercury to Pluto, spread across the entire spread of planets and moons and interstitial space. It's empty unless you're roleplaying and gather with intent in a single place. That's the current game. They have talked for a decade about things to come and larger plans, but as of right now THAT is the game. A huge lonely vast empty spaceship multiplayer demo. It's not an MMO, it has no real gameplay loops to feed off of each other and bring people together, it has no group finder, and on and on. And that doesn't even touch on how buggy it is. I love the vision, I enjoy popping in once a year to check on the progress, but you all HAVE to stop pretending this is a game and getting bent out of shape over concepts which only apply to actual games. There's no pay to win because you can't win because it isn't a game. You can't cheat because nothing matters and it's a game demo. You can't grief because you can instantly change servers and be unfindable. Relax.

[@LoudGuns]

So I think it’s important while the game is still being shaped to talk about it. Because if we leave it until a 1.0 launch it will be too late for any debate we have to affect the direction. Right now it doesn’t matter in the slightest - but I framed all of this in the context of a fleshed out game with proper objectives that will require you to compete and interact at times.

[@blackula911]

Damn, grandpa, take your meds...

[@LoudGuns]

@@blackula911 see the pinned comment about keeping things civil 👍

[@CitizenScott]

I spent 2 years destroying everything in my path with a stock C8X and an Xbox controller. I have objectively proven that SC is not p2w. In fact I had so much fun playing the game in my starter ship that I realized how much fun people who buy big expensive ships are missing out on, so if anything SC is pay to lose.

[@mhmm4840]

To the people saying that being able to buy ships isnt pay to win. Once there is some sort of economy and/or base building. Having a larger ship from the start is a huge advantage. Even if you start with little UEC you can quickly scale up to doing large cargo missions or high level bounties, while people with starter ships are stuck grinding it out. Larger and/or more expensive ships are 100% an advantage you are recieving by paying in this case. Which is pay to win as far as im aware. CIG has already let people buy the ships so at this point they cant just take them away, but not having to pay for insurance on them, especially some of the larger capital ships, will cause issues for pvp. One group has to spend a good chunk of money to get their fleet back if it was wiped while another just gets it for free. While this isnt a huge issue if insurance isnt super expensive, the bigger problem comes from the unfair advantage in PvE. People who have paid for ships are going to be able to get to the "good" content first and have a hold on it. Really good resource node for a base? Park your giant base contruction ship you paid $500 and make it asap, while the scrubs who only have starter ships have to work their eay towards that gameplay essentially "losing time" in the gold rush. It is what it is at this point but I refuse to believe its not pay to win and do not understand the hoops people jump through to try and say it isnt. I understand not everyone is following this game for the MMO part, where groups come together to achieve a goal. But yall need to see that this is a multiplayer game, where your action effect the world.

[@TenshiJuuSan]

I am going to add my voice to the chorus. What exactly are we winning in SC? You pretty much start playing at an endgame state, even with the cheapest smallest ship. Sure there are specializations that need ships with specific features but all of those are fairly easy to attain. It isn't like anything is level locked. If there is something you really want to do and don't have a ship for it there are always people doing things in big ships who need crew. As such, if you didn't have a ship of any kind you are still starting in an end game state. You can still do anything you want as Part of a ship's crew. Someone else said it is "pay for convenience". Not even that is true. It is more like no matter what ship you have at the beginning you have already started with bills to pay. The more sophisticated or larger the ship the larger the starting upkeep and maintenance bill is going to be. Most people who start with one or more ships and larger ships will not be able to actually afford them out of the gate. If you are talking about winning PvP, you and I should meet for a duel. You take whatever you want with whatever loadiut you think you need and I will take an Arura (the smallest weakest starter ship in the game) with its factory load out. I am pretty confident you will be over matched. Lastly, if you are insinuating you can get "the end game ship" what are you exactly saying the endgame is? The only ship I can think of as being an endgame ship is the Bangal super carrier. You can't buy that in game or with really money. You have to find one, rebuild it, and find 200 of your closest friends to crew it. That means endgame is not ship, career, gear, or even money oriented. That is community oriented. That being the case, the price of entry into the overarching global community, the cost of buying a basic ship and access to the game (45 USD at this time). Buy it, enter the game and announce your arrival in the server global chat. Instant winning! See my previous comments about starting the game already at endgame status. We will welcome you to the endgame with open arms! It is literally that easy!

[@LoudGuns]

I guess more of my points are made re the future of SC when (I really hope) there is more to the game than ships - e.g. territorial control. To your point on ship maintenance I make this exact point on costs acting as a brake to limit the gap between big spenders and lower spenders. But, we do not actually have any hard information on this - what costs, how much etc. it could be two ends of a spectrum. So the whole point of this vid is to try and get people to ask important questions of CIG when we get a chance rather than “BMM when?”. (Disclaimer - that last part was hyperbolic but you get me 😆) Re your point about fighting me in an Aurora. Very good, you win, I’m sure you are very good at dogfighting and I am very bad. But…find one of your friends whose skill level you feel is a fair match for your own and have the same fight - them in an F7A and you in an Aurora. Fight 10 rounds like that and come back and let me know how it goes? Or…how about I go in the Aurora and you go in the F7A? I respect that player skill will always be a factor that’s hard to account for, but it’s why you have to try as much as possible to do an “all things being equal” starting point.

[@TenshiJuuSan]

@@LoudGuns First, I am an okay PvPer. That point of mine was hypocritical. But, to further the concept, and taking into account your statement of starting on equal footing, there are people who will naturally be better than you or I, at everything and anything. There can never actually be equal footing. Second, CIG has stated many times they will stop selling ships and equipment, outside of basic starter packages. I am not foolish enough to believe that. What I think will actually happen is something akin to how new flyable ships become available for purchase in game after 2 months. That will continue. When a new ship is released people will be able to only get them by paying real money for them for 2 months after release. It works for games like MWO. It will work for SC. They have hinted that the subscription option is likely to end. I doubt that will be the case. We will probably still have the same system for that as we do now. There is no advantage to what we get for subs over other players other than the ship of the month and the flair. Neither of which is a game breaking feature. Finally, I do understand you are only trying to "start a conversation". That is abundantly clear. I am merely joining in. You have been lambasted for the opinions you have provided in this video. That is not what I am doing. Furthermore, I am one of your channel subscribers. I am not unsubscribing because I see a lot of value in your perspective, even if it doesn't match mine 😉

[@fulomtheavali]

​@@LoudGuns A good point for pvp, just because you have 500+ hours in the game doesn't mean gonzales99 does. Imagine having a decent ship and a good crew then getting wiped because some rich guy spent 40k so he and his friends can have the best ships in the game. Sure, a handful of players can handle themselves against higher tier enemies. But when the enemy can just buy ten ships that each one shot you. Suddenly it doesn't matter.

[@LoudGuns]

@@TenshiJuuSan Mate there is absolutely nothing wrong with anything you've said. When I write and record an opinion piece I know that if it's a divisive topic I'm going to catch some shade for it. But what I love is when people disagree with me in a calm well reasoned manner - that's good debate! We both threw a little hyperbole around, but that's also fine. :D

[@Traumglanz]

No, starting with an Aurora without even having all slots of gear filled is not starting in some form of endgame, show me your ERTs in an Aurora to proof me wrong. I still get your point that you reach pretty quickly the point (currently, most likely only currently) when your gear progression in your specific field is done. You outgrow that Aurora pretty quickly.

[@LunaMoon0]

They actually sell ship components and land claims. 10:52. The 300i for example

[@LoudGuns]

Ah I didn't realise that about the 300i - that is honestly not a good path imo!

[@Marth667]

Fans: Its not pay to win! Newbies: Why is everyone flying these super cool/better ships at the start of the game?? This is going to end up like Eve Online mark my words. Its a fun game but the massive corpos dominate freespace, leaving emerging corps to either be bought out or annihilated. Once established the guys and girls who put down a cool 10k USD will be the corps that establish themselves long term as opposed to the corps who realise they have to grind and earn everything in game. Not unlike those corps in eve online where they put down the ISK to buy titans to destroy bases and control sectors. I believe people don't like the term 'pay to win' because it has negative connotations with that product being bad. But if people are going to delve into semantics to attempt to disprove this games innately PTW system then you know you're onto to something.

[@strongback6550]

I would say, pay to win in the sense that you can skip the grind get the most optimal ship for any given situation by forking up cash. However, the reason why its not seen as pay to win is because the game isn't particularly competitive.

[@LoudGuns]

I generally agree, but I would just add the word "yet" to your last sentence :D

[@Guardian_Templar]

It's not a lot different then selling boosts in other game, it can get folks ahead but even if Asmon or others sold there accounts it wouldn't necessarily lead to someone getting better, WoW has a lot of folks that are often referred to as Boosties

[@LoudGuns]

Fair point - if CIG don't sell the ships other people will! Still P2W but I'd rather CIG got the money as opposed to gold / account sellers.

[@blackbeard9545]

Very nice video. Super well articulated and strong arguments.

[@LoudGuns]

Cheers Blackbeard!!

[@gravityhamster]

SC is absolutely pay to win but it's with a very small "w" there are a ton of different variables which affect it's potency. Aside from ships(because that affect will be nullified over time) the biggest variable I can see is LTI which is a constant. As far as player property goes I have almost zero concern about that because of the vast spaces involved, and not all systems will be implemented on realise (properly).

[@LoudGuns]

I was desperate to find this comment again because the “P2W with a small w” is absolute gold that I’ve now used when replying to others. I’m in no way saying SC is the worst most egregious example of P2W but knee jerking and saying it’s absolutely not at all P2W is also wrong to me. Thank you very much!

[@camraid9]

Everything you said makes perfect sense to me. You have considered all of this a lot obviously. I learned a fair bit listening. Cheers.

[@LoudGuns]

I had a very long train journey at the weekend 😂

[@arl8620]

At launch I would like a few starter packages offered at more reasonable prices. Maybe a career oriented package with a couple ships- so new players feel they have a path. Monthly subscription required model and no more real money ship sales beyond that. Some cosmetics, but within reason. To go beyond that to cater to new players who had no skin in the game and showed up to a finished product is ridiculous and could only lead to more gameplay regression to make the game more "accessible." There's already enough of that. Supporting development, while subsequently acquiring a collection of ships over the years of play testing is hardly 'pay to win.' Time, skill, and knowledge of the game vastly outweighs any advantage of a starter ship or ships. A veteran tester could start with an Aurora and accomplish in a week what a new player given access to 15 ships could not accomplish and learn in a year. Winning Star Citizen should be an immersive experience that you enjoy- like video games used to be.

[@danhtown1]

I mostly keep to myself so what other folks buy or do usually has no affect on me. I have a bigger problem with NPC ships than I do real players. I can definitely see the pay to win argument though for some folks

[@hugololz]

Why do i get a Palpatine vibe everytime i hear this man say "Power" ? Great vid, as always !

[@LoudGuns]

😢 I was always hoping for Vader vibes

[@IIITangentIII]

The problem with talking about the subject is that it's subjective regardless of everyone saying their opinion is correct or the intelligent opinion. I don't get bothered being told my game is paid to win if it truly is. Star citizen just isn't. Try playing magic The gathering without spending a ton of money. You can play but you can't compete. Try playing Galaxy of heroes without paying a ton of money. You cannot compete. I've done both. I hate pay to win. I have a big account so I don't need to grind if I don't want to, but I also have a starter account and easily get whatever I want. The closest SC is pay to win right now is the F7A and F8C argument. It's not about the winning argument because that's actually pretty silly. But at the same time just because it takes a little longer to "succeed" in a game just because you haven't paid as much, doesn't mean that you won't eventually get there. Therefore the only winning over you is by getting there before you. Right now it doesn't matter if anyone gets there before you. At all. Put a little time in and you can do whatever you need to do. I'm sorry but if you've ever truly played a pay to win game there is a huge difference between Star citizen and a game where you can't accomplish your goals because you are so far behind the curve you can never actually succeed.

[@LoudGuns]

"Right now it doesn't matter if anyone gets there before you. At all. " - Here I think you are absolutely correct. Because in a way we play "Space Tarkov" right - regular resets and a ceiling on "progression" mean that in the here and now it doesn't matter at all. But remove that ceiling and have some players start with an exponential advantage and remove resets....different story right?

[@IIITangentIII]

​@@LoudGuns perhaps. But the games where it really matters are the games where there is no ceiling. If the top thing you can do in The game is get the best PvP ship or best salvager and you play long enough to do that, then you're at the ceiling. The same ceiling as everyone else's. Is it then a race to the highest bankroll? Most people don't even care about that. The thing about a sandbox is we are all making our own enjoyment. Finding our own way and deciding on our own what our goals are and what makes us feel like we are winning. Once you work your way up to the top tier ships you are all printing money anyway. I just don't think it's an obvious pay to win. Just as you said people hate hearing their favorite game is paid to win, (Which I don't but I understand the point) People also hate seeing players spend more money than them for things they want and can't afford. Even though if they just put the time in game they will eventually get there. Anytime someone can pay for quick advancement they immediately label it pay to win. That's subjective and usually it's an emotional response. Nothing stops me from doing as well on my starter account as on my main account. It takes more time, but I still have the skills to get there. If people aren't willing to put in the time to get the skills that's more on them. I love the game and I would love it if I spent next to nothing. I have friends that spent $40 and love the game. Those same $40 investors do not see it as pay to win. Pay to save time? Sure. In my eyes we are all winning just by playing the game and supporting the community. The only people losing are the ones claiming it's paid to win and therefore staying away from it. And it would not be nearly the game that it is and that it is working towards becoming if they did not have the kind of monetary system that they currently do. Just my two cents keep up the great work bro!

[@gravity00x]

uhm what? being able to waste someones time by having bought power is not p2w? being able to dominate an area because of bought power is not p2w? bring able to stop someone from progressing thrpugh bought power is not p2w?

[@Tempestan]

@@gravity00x Let me guess, you do not play SC. How are you going to "dominate an area"? How are you going to stop someone's "progression"? Define progression. You are one teeny tiny little ship with limited ammo, who are you stopping? You may inconvenience one person for a few minutes, maybe set them back an hour's worth of playtime at best. Laughable to think you can lock down an entire planet or system with your miniscule ship.

[@gravity00x]

​@@Tempestan bruh.

[@JL-rj9fl]

I thought I'd throw up a second comment that I do agree it's P2W even though there isn't really something to win per say and it's all up to a player's personal goals. For me, I'm in the time poor crowd. I'm the guy that works hard and is lucky to play twice a week with friends. My motivation for pledging was to have the game built, rather than "winning" or skipping ahead to avoid the grind. It does feel strange to have a small fleet of ships, but I felt I had to get something of value for the dollars I pledged and did my best to maximize these. I guess the paying to win for me is being able to just go out and get myself a land claim on day one, then go out exploring. I hope they delay the land grab process - it does feel a bit greasy to know I'll be able to go out and get prime land before other players may have a chance to get a crack at some. We may not always agree, but I'm 100% with you on the land claims!

[@setheus907]

I dunno its too hard to tell. It depends how hard the ships are to earn in game when its released. If its like it is now then you can buy any ship with not much effort so doesn't really matter how much money people put in. Although I think its woo easy and there's some middle ground somewhere that they can find

[@LoudGuns]

So I’d say that a problem with looking at right now is that earning rates (particularly if you take advantage of whichever loop is imbalanced- like rn we have cargo from illegal missions) are out of whack and way higher than I’d expect for the ships we currently have. Then factor in that the price rises for ships that just went through were a direction of travel, not an endpoint and they’ll likely be higher (I wouldn’t be surprised if things like the javelin / Idris / kraken cost billions rather than millions).

[@MotherNature26]

2:40 no they aren't I don't think you've really thought this through well enough The only thing SC really provides to hard currency is pay to skip, except except except the F8 lightning, which a good pilot will shoot you down in if they bring the right hardware to the fight

[@LoudGuns]

I used the Cambridge dictionary definition of pay to win and it’s pretty broad - just any advantage you get by paying money vs someone who doesn’t. I don’t mean this harshly but I think a lot of the sub-terms are mostly about saying “my P2W isn’t as bad as that P2W”. I’m in no way saying SC is the worst most egregious example of P2W but money can be used to gain a clear advantage over others who don’t spend so I find it hard to argue that it’s not P2W.

[@MotherNature26]

@@LoudGuns yeah I get it, it’s a pretty broad and generalized definition and I generally agree with it as well. I just think that we then need to apply it within context, and it’s the context part for SC that is more challenging. We need to agree upon a set of metrics that we can then test a how a situation would play out if a player used real world hard currency or used aUEC to get it. Did the paying player get extra stats, hardpoints, etc on the same ship in game for example, a difference we can clearly see numerically, or an item simply not available to the non paying players. Other than the F8C I don’t think there is anything

[@LoudGuns]

@@MotherNature26 The F7A counts as well at least in the current game. But one common argument I see is that unless an item is exclusively cash bought it's a non-issue and I still don't agree with that. Right now it doesn't matter - I agree on that point - we have a finite finish line in the current alpha (buy all the ships right?) but I for one truly hope that SC develops more of an endgame than that (for me it will probably involve bases / territorial control) and that with full persistence / no wipes that finish line might not exist. So then starting with an advantage, particularly given the exponential curve of ship income rates as they scale up, means if you take 2 players who are equal in every other way - time, skill, gameplay loop / objective etc - then matey starting with a Hull A will never catch up to matey who starts with a Hull B. [Additional Edit] - the guy who starts with a Hull A can ofc buy a Hull B, but by the time he does thew other guy can probably have moved on / be well on the way to a Hull C.

[@MotherNature26]

@@LoudGuns Got it, so you are attempting to factor in time. Perhaps we can agree that this might be best described as "rate potential". I do agree that hard money can be used to augment a player's "rate potential" for specific game play loops by paying for larger ships with better functionality. I think however if this is the primary mechanism in which real money can influence a player's output in game, then I think we have to be careful about linking it to pay-to-win definition, or at least attach further context. Consider the situation of SC release day, and Player A buys an aurora starter package. Player A plays 16 hours a week. Player B comes along 1 year later and buys an aurora starter pack. Player A and Player B spent the same amount of hard currency for the same in game equipment, but Player A showed up first and now has a number of additional ships in game. Did Player A engage in "showed up first, to win"? This is why I find the time saved argument/"rate potential" hard to characterize as "pay to win".

[@TJ-314]

It sure, not really in the same sense as if CoD sold a gun exclusively that was OP. If you come up against another player in a Hornet and you are in Aurora yeah he probs stomp on you. But you don't have to interact with other players, yeah can spend hours and not see anyone. That mihjt change when serber pools get larger, but still I don't think would have as larger of an impact. It's more pay for convenience

[@LoudGuns]

My view is pretty much; Is SC P2W? Yes. Could SC be more P2W? Also yes. To me it’s a sliding scale but the only way to be fully “not P2W” is to only have cosmetic items on sale.

[@TJ-314]

@@LoudGuns 100% agree, anyone who claims it isn't p2w is lying to them selves haha But to me it doesn't have the same impact as other games just due to how many game loops there are and how expansive the universe is. Yeah you can spend 400 bucks and get a reclaimer and smash some salvage right out of the gate for sure. But then you sort of miss the gameplay of saving and upgrading ships to the one you finally want. I'd say they probably will keep it this way and it's probably helpful for some people out there who don't have as many hours and just want to buy 2-3 ships so they can jump on smash out skme gameplay and hop off. Sorta opens the doors to everyone in a sense

[@liethelieyerhonsta2789]

Is Star Citizen Pay to Win? Yes. Compare anyone wanting to outcompete someone in any gameloop with a starter package vs. a more expensive ship at time of a wipe. Those people will make more aUEC, have stronger weapons, more cargo space, and so on. The crew argument? (Needing people to use ships makes large ships less advantageous) True but I ask you to compare the crew of an Idris vs same amount of people in a Titan/Aurora/... No way to win this race once again. Ignoring big ships, even a Titan would outcompete an Aurora and guess what, you just have to pay more money. CIG spent a lot of time ensuring each category of ship has a similar but higher power variant for extra money Ships have become the heart and soul of Star Citizen and more money will always put you out on top. And don't forget that their plan for selling UEC instead of ships after launch would still mean people will buy ships. It will be even harder then to outcompete when people will buy everything instead of just ships. I like the game and have come to terms with P2W by just having fun. No need to be superior to anyone - because that is what the "Win" often is. What I find concerning is their effort to increase the time it takes to catch up to people by increasing costs, thereby favouring people who pay real money instead of ensuring the game is filled with gameplay instead of mindless money grind

[@liethelieyerhonsta2789]

For many people, the notion of P2W creates a bad taste. It is just connected to scummy practice and force-feeding you their microtransactions at every corner wherever possible as well as interfering in your gameplay in order to make sales (Pop-ups for transactions, spending a regenerating currency to be able to play, ...). I don't mind being off worse than anyone if reaching their status is possible without spending a lifetime of grind. Many P2W games don't allow that in favor of pleasing their whales. I hope that never happens to SC

[@jasonm2477]

It's more pay to win now, previously the most power was held by some of the cheapest ships, light fighters

[@LoudGuns]

Yeah the power balance always means there won’t be a straight line power translation between $ to power - with things like alien tax there are objectively worse ships that cost a tonne. But looking at the “not paying” version as $45 starters, even those light fighters were a bit P2W?

[@jasonm2477]

@@LoudGuns I was referring to in game costs since obtaining a light fighters previously the most powerful PVP option was barely more than a starter

[@Rippityrip]

CIG's marketing fomo tactics are something else is all i got to say down right ruthless

[@LoudGuns]

Honestly the one thing about the game / CIG that really gives me the heebie jeebies

[@festersmith8352]

Gottas admit, it works. Those of us who fall for it are the suckers, and deserve anything we get from it. But those suckers are funding the game so others are not forced to pay more to do it. So gratitude for those more fortunate than me, who can spend more. I am one of those suckers by the way. Can't really complain about something you're not forced to do.

[@LoudGuns]

@@festersmith8352 My biggest issue is the whole "last chance to buy x" when (when you know better having been around a while) you know to be categorically untrue.

[@jodofe4879]

Every single MMO ever made is "pay to win". It is just the nature of the genre. In order to get something in an MMO you either pay in money through a cash shop or in time through a grinding system (and as they say, time is money. It all boils down to the same thing). And there isn't really a way to make a MMO that isn't "pay to win", since if people don't pay, the game can't keep running. For a live service game like a MMO, that is obviously not a good thing. A MMO that isn't commercialized and that doesn't incentivize people to spend money can never be succesful. As you do mention (and I do think you make a good point there), this isn't neccesarily problematic. As long as CIG keep parity between what can be obtained by spending money vs what can be obtained by spending time, no one is being disadvantaged. Everyone can get everything they want by spending whatever resource they are most willing to spend. I think CIG's current business model is mostly fine, they just need to get rid of the exclusivity window imho. Also, land grabbing in Star Citizen isn't going to be comparable to survival games like ARK. ARK has a relatively small map with finite space. SC has virtually infinite space even on a single planet just by virtue of how absolutely massive they are. A planet like Hurston alone could already house all of the players that Star Citizen will ever have, so I don't think you will have to worry about not getting a spot on a strategic planet or something like that. Finally, I think that limiting big ships to people who only play multiplayer would be absolutely disastrous for the health of the game. In a typical MMO, the majority of the playerbase mostly plays solo. Locking the majority of your playerbase out of a large and significant portion of the game is effectively suicidal. It also doesn't accomplish anything. No one will suffer if little Timmy grinds enough to be able to pay 30 NPCs to run his Idris. He has to invest a ton of in-game resources to be able to do this, so let him have his fun. Meanwhile, little Tommy has a whole bunch of friends who also play SC and is able to run his Idris at only a fraction of the costs that Timmy has to make. So playing multiplayer already will always have inherent advantages over playing solo. It is more fun, cheaper and more effective since a player is usually going to be better at a given task than an NPC will be. Tommy already has an advantage over Timmy, and it makes very little sense to bully Timmy even more just because Timmy prefers playing on his own.

[@hallker]

In my mind there is no question that Star Citizen IS pay to win. However, at the moment it isn't as noticeable as I think it will be most visible with bigger orgs and in current architecture it doesn't show. In 1v1 it is about skill and smaller/cheaper ships rule. But, the moment they add org gameplay, some territory wars etc... it will be visible. Don't get me wrong, orgs will rule mostly through numbers and skill, but pretending having ships at disposal has no effect on balance is silly. Hopefully, CIG will manage to stop this addiction to buying ships eventually, god knows I need it.

[@LoudGuns]

Thank you for getting the point I was trying to make! A lot of folks are very laser focussed on the now where you (and they) are quite right - it isn't anywhere near as pronounced. But I want to talk about the future.

[@Ian-zb3rp]

Nicely put 👍 If you haven't seen Digthat32's recent content re player hired NPC you should, if you share the view a single player shouldn't be able to solo effectively any ship with a crew of hired NPC crew then prepare to be dissapointed as that appears to be one of CIGs goals.

[@Metro2Metro]

Play to win is how to WIN in Star citizen. Over the entire length of the project I have put in about $106 a month comes to a total over $14,000 USD. I have loved the project from day one My reasoning for buying the ship was I did not want to grind for it. The gameplay that I'm looking forward to is grinding for resources acquiring or building top end components so I can equip my ships and myself with the Meda load out & gear. To become very wealthy in game with currency and reputation. My entire fleet is LTI in hopes that it will reduce cost of maintenance. All of this will give me an advance start for sure. Thou is it pay to win? Maybe at first but I would argue. How about Play To Win? Playing the game now. Learning all the game mechanics figuring out how everything works. It's clearly an advantage over somebody who's just started the game? I play the game as much as I can. Your videos have taught me so much. When there's anything that I need to learn, I go straight to your video. That is truly the best advantage over everyone else. Edit: die today so you won't die tomorrow.

[@PvtDamion]

Tough subject! Although there's definitely a P2W aspect in the game, I usually don't treat SC as such, which is entirely unfair since that idea is based on the current state of SC, so that's without a working economy, obtainable territory, influence, money sinks and so much more that's supposedly coming. I have spent a fair chunk of disposable income, not only to support the development, but mostly for convenience. Currently I have limited time I can spend on playing the game, since I've been juggling an illness for over a year, having two small children and trying to get back to work without sacrificing my and my families wellbeing. And I know there are players with similar situations, I'm not pledging to get ahead, I mostly got ships intended for gameplay loops I'm interested in playing, having solo to small crew sizes needed so I'll have a bigger chance getting to crew them up, without giving them tedious work like the "man turret 4 of my Javelin and sit there for 5 hours" or something. So for me; I invested money to compensate for the lack of time I wish I could invest, not comparing myself to anyone around me, not to get an edge, but purely a $$ to hour ratio that seems reasonable to me and that once 1.0 hits I can tackle any loop I want, help my Org, play with friends and have fun from the get go. I still strongly advice people thinking about getting into SC: get a starter package and if you want to invest more, get a peripheral setup (sticks, throttle, button boxes, eye or head tracking), for they enhance your experience way more than any bigger or better ship and when you do it wisely, you can use your setup for a whole lot more than just SC! Thanks for the video and the food for thought! See you in the 'verse🫡

[@daethwing188]

I was literally having a debate about this with a friend a few hours ago. I disagree, with the exception of one or two small outlier examples, Star Citizen isn't pay-to-win, it's pay-for-convinience. I do agree that both the guests had some accurate points, but were both largely misinformed.

[@LoudGuns]

So my definition (which amazingly I got from the Cambridge dictionary - how times have changed 😂) is that P2W at its broadest is where you pay for any advantage over another player who doesn’t. Pay for convenience, pay to skip etc are all just types of P2W - but I think the main reason they are used is to disambiguate where a certain game falls on the P2W scale. I am in now way saying SC is the most egregious version of P2W out there but I find it hard when an element of in game power is a swipe away to argue that it isn’t at all P2W. The only games that can truly call themselves “not P2W” are ones where cash gives you no statistical advantage (I.e. one type purchase, sub to play, cosmetic only MTX) where everyone plays on a 100% level playing field.

[@Doc_Paradox]

Honestly why I stick to the pve end of the game. The p2w factor definitely hampers the pvp sector. Shame really but I feel it'll be one of those situations where if the game ever comes out fully the first couple of months will definitely be harder for people who didn't outright buy ships, but after that everyone will pretty much be on the same level. That is, of course if they cancel the ability to buy ships after the game releases. Baring maybe concept ships just to help keep development funded.

[@USArmy31]

It’s Pay for Convenience

[@LoudGuns]

That's one version of P2W.

[@Christian_ThePumpkinDestroyer]

that does not make it better

[@LeftJoystick]

@@LoudGunsDisagree tbh. A skilled player will pwn any “Mom’s Credit Card” player with a simple Anvil Arrow.

[@trainedmanmonkey4310]

I work 7 days a week, 8 hours a day, and I do buy ships so I can play the game when I get a chance, instead of grinding the 2 hours a week I get to play.

[@coldsnap4467]

Think of P2W as an umbrella term. Pay for convenience falls under it. They are literally one in the same.

[@isawarenshi]

What would happen to your ships if you could not pay did tax or took time off from game and ran out of cash while not playing? Would you lose them?

[@LoudGuns]

Just to be clear this isn’t a thing it was my suggestion (I’m sure you get that but for anyone else) so this is also just me theory crafting. But maybe a delay before you get it back or some form of fine that’s enough for you to have to put a bit of work in, but not too much that it’s insurmountable. I would very much see any such situation as scaling, and not being truly oppressive until we’re discussing capital ships.

[@John_Krone]

Great video. I think I fall in the category of those that work too much with no time to grind (or regrind due to wipes) so I prefer to purchase my ships. Currently a Space Marshal and I guess I'll stop there. CIG's fomo model is making me feel a bit ripped and I have slowed down considerably my spending. Like I didn't bother getting the F7CMKII or Ironclad, meh

[@LoudGuns]

Yeah I think there is a natural point a lot of folks get to where you realise you have enough ships, and with the option to just melt and buy with credit not $ if something really shiny takes your eye you can just do it that way.

[@romanwiller2180]

2:23 that’s an extremely broad definition of pay to win. So broad that any game with any form of microtransactions falls under that definition, in fact. You may need a better definition if your definition of a sub-set of gaming includes nearly all of gaming. Edit - Finished watching the video: The exclusivity of locking things behind a paywall is what makes Pay to Win a thing. If there is no exclusivity you have removed the “pay” aspect of it and the “win” aspect since it can be earned without buying. If you can achieve statistical parity without paying money then there is not an actual pay to win system. I say this not because I like Star Citizen and do t want to think anything bad of it, just like you, but because I did play games where pay to win was an actual thing (and the phrase meant something), and being able to buy a bigger ship right off the bat is just not it. If I were to see that kind of thing actually popping up in SC then I’ll be the first person in line raising hell about it. I will say one of your points did give me pause and is making me think a bit: that land claims is a P2W system. You have a solid argument and I definitely agree with what you have stated for the most part. I would say my current thinking on that subject is that we don’t know what a 1.0 release is going to look like and what it might include, so I can’t say for sure if this will be a bad thing or not. I think it will come down to if CIG is willing to have a few more sales where they offer the land claim beacons or something of a similar effect. I don’t see why they wouldn’t once they are seriously focusing on base building, so I don’t foresee it as an issue; however, if they were to move towards a release without options for current testers to get a land beacon then I would agree that the system on release was a P2W in that regard. Mostly we just have to wait and see. In any case, love your videos and keep doing your thing! Everything said above comes from a place of genuine earnestness and respect.

[@LoudGuns]

A healthy debate is what I was really after here! So I think it's a scale right? At the one end you have "100% not P2W" - games where your money gives you absolutely no power over anyone who hasn't spent it. Titles with a fixed price or subscription (slight counterpoint to your MTX statement - there are actually a lot of games that have MTX but only for purely cosmetic items that give zero advantage so some F2P titles feature here too). Then at the other end you have the most horrendous examples of P2W - think like Clash of Clans or any number of those phone games where every problem you have can be solved with a swipe, and the only people remotely competitive in PvP are whales. Then you have everything in between (and to me SC is one of those) - it is P2W in that you can pay for advantages over others, but those advantages aren't the be all and end all of the game.

[@romanwiller2180]

@@LoudGuns yup it’s definitely a scale for sure. I think the difference is when people started gaming and what games they played, and whatever that may be is kind of what informs their idea of what P2W is. For me my idea is when I played Ragnarok Online. I played on a private server and all of those ran on donations. If you donated enough you would get a special item that was obscenely overpowered and there was no item of similar parity achievable in the game. If someone with the item fought someone without it, the person with the item won. Always. So whenever I hear “Pay to Win” that is what I compare it to. In that aspect SC definitely has a game model that highly rewards people who spend money on the game for sure, but it’s really just a matter of getting to a point in gameplay faster. I also know people have different ideas on the subject and the P2W phrase has lost a lot of meaning over the years, so I try to just stay in my lane so to speak but that doesn’t always work out haha.

[@serrethindustries9468]

So here's the thing: the question shouldn't be "Is it pay to win?" but "Is pay to win always problematic?" I'd argue the answer is no. Here's why: So, why is PTW a problem? You might say because it's not fair, but that's wrong. The REAL problem with PTW is that PTW players can ruin FTP players' experience. That IS a problem in SC, but only for a few months after 1.0. once the real economy is in place, all that needs to happen is that players need to BELIEVE the other players COULD HAVE earned the ships that are pledged. Then the problem might as well not exist. What difference does it make if the Idris you run into was pledged or earned?

[@Volf1916]

Pay to win. Who has the best ship for any given loop? The one who pays more money. Can you get the ship in game? Mostly, but massive amounts of time has to put in. Or pay to bypass it. Pay to win. Including combat ships. F8 and F7a mk 2, OP. It is what it is. You win the combate or aUEC race. As well as AC ranking. Cope as you need to, it is exactly what it is. Buy for better to do better.

[@stefanfischer9747]

Great video as always ❤ but I honestly don’t agree with you on the fullest. My definition of p2w (coming from WoT and WT) is that you can buy a specific vehicle for example which is not obtainable by playing the game without investing money. And in SC there is no difference between an ingame bought ship and its counterpart bought on the website. Or let’s go another route you can’t buy better weapons or ammo which you can not earn/find ingame. That’s my definition of p2w. You can buy something better/meta which is not possible to get ingame without paying rl money

[@LoudGuns]

Cheers Stefan! So I used the Cambridge dictionary definition where it’s anything where cash equals an advantage in a game. Games like WoT or Diablo immortals are next level P2W and I’m in no way saying SC is that bad….but it’s still cash for advantage in my book.

[@bartgoossens2101]

LG reminds me of that one teacher that really loves his own subject and wants you to think about all the possibilities. No matter good or bad. He genuinely relaxes me the way he thinks and talks.

[@LoudGuns]

Today I feel like a supply teacher getting dragged over the coal stones so thank you for your kind words :D

[@alexns]

I would argue that getting so many ships kinda fucks up your experience of the game, reason why I have an alt with an aurora.

[@festersmith8352]

I can relate to that. I own every ship I like, and once I have my main goto's upgraded, I lose the heart to play. What a weird spiritual thing to think about. Now I kinda understand why I hear how so many wealthy, are the most miserable and unhappy of humanity. As a gear head who likes the classic muscle, I would much rather build one than buy it. But if I were given the opportunity to buy, would I do it, and how satisfied would I be about it. Heard form an old timer gear head once. There are two types in the car world... "Those who can do, and those who can write checks. You can spot the difference fairly easy". I noticed those who can write, seem to have the biggest self esteem, but no knowledge. And can't hold a reasonable creative conversation. The guy who's project that still has primer on it, is the most enthusiastic, creative, open minded, and fun to talk to.

[@house382]

Let's spin this, you can buy a package containing a configured piece of equipment with a skin on it in CoD. It has no additional benefits, and depending on the skins frilliness, might make you easier to find and kill. Is that pay to win? It's pay for access sure, but with the same stats as someone who ground the same attachments, you have no advantage. And with less time with the equipment, I'd argue you are at a skill disadvantage to the player who ground it out. Purchasing ships and equipment in SC is no different. For ships it is the same model as CoD, for equipment it's worse. So what do you get for this access? You get to go straight to your preferred gameplay loop and get started on the skills you need to be the best you can be at that role. You don't start out with any additional currency, no special AI that keeps you from killing yourself on your first landing, no 30 second oopsie rewind, no magic of any kind. You get the same cold, hard, deadly space everyone else gets, you just get to do it from your choice of cockpit and activity. It is literally no different to having a friend in game gifting you the credits to buy the ship in game. Until a wipe happens, which until 4.0 and 1.0, is unlikely to scrub your ship from the database. By your argument then, having friends is pay to win.

[@LoudGuns]

If you have “friends” because you pay them then yes, that is P2W 😂 Seriously though - your point about the COD gun. I don’t play COD so you might need to clarify a few things here; 1. Afaik COD is not a persistent game right? So someone starting with / buying an advantage doesn’t matter quite so much if it happens because the other players probably do the grinding in a normals mode before attempting ranked play where the advantage would matter more? 2. Or are all guns available from the start and this is purely cosmetic? At which point I’d say a Mustang vs an F7A Mk2 is not cosmetic.

[@Mario53415]

I feel the P2W conversation isn’t ready to be fully explored yet, there’s just too much that isn’t in the game yet that could curtail the advantage of IRL money. I 100% agree that buying better ships does give you an advantage, even if it’s not directly against players- or even noticed by other players in your profession. Still, I do feel that the majority of that advantage does come from time saved, except pvp ofc. I don’t think there’s any way to explain that aspect of SC away, it’s just something you have to be OK with. I think an important aspect of P2W is perception. Will you immediately jump to the conclusion that the low selling prices for a commodity, or lack of a commodity is directly related to P2W whales in reclaimers or Hull D’s scooping up all the stock before you could? Or would you think there’s just a lot of players in this particular system today. If Cig can minimize the impact on others gameplay of paid ships to mostly “time saved” then I think the P2W issue will be largely unfelt by players, how they’d do that is a big ask tho. Your ideas of upkeep, deployment costs, player crafted upgrades and unique components tied to reputation are excellent ideas that would shift the P2W aspect closer to that “time saved” category i described above!

[@LoudGuns]

Absolutely - it's definitely not ready to be fully explored. But I still think having a bit of debate around it and maybe asking CIG some direct questions on the subject to try and put more pieces of the puzzle together is merited if that makes sense? Your commodity example is really good - large ships lowering prices more than they would be if you were all at the same point in time. Matey in the Hull-D doesn't really care that he gets 10% less because in absolute terms he still makes a tonne of cash, but if you could only move 66SCU it's a big deal and slows your rate of growth in the game.

[@blackula911]

It is

[@merc9nine]

A $1500 Javelin can not kill a $35 Mustang Alpha unless its the Mustangs fault. The Mustang alcan fly circles around the other ship due to the difference in turn speed, or just fly away altogether. The capital ship might be able to kill the Mustang if they have a full crew manning the turrets, but if you took all the crew of the capital ship, and you also put them in a Mustang, theyd be more of a threat than the Javelin or Idris to a solo pilot. You are paying for a different game loop

[@LoudGuns]

Ok, so you have to do an “all other things being equal” comparison if you want to actually isolate a factor and ask if it makes the game pay to win. So I’d put it like this. Let’s say a Jav takes 30 crew (just a number I don’t know for sure what it’ll take) to run at max capability but whatever that is - every gun and system manned basically. Now take two orgs of 30 people with an equal skill level, and give them the same objective (taking control of a particularly lucrative spot - let’s say both orgs have equal numbers of folks in vultures reclaimers to defend and they’ve both paid for wake of disaster. One of these orgs have the Javelin along with the attendant ships it carries (redeemer / a few fighters in the hangar), the other has 30 mustangs (or 40 or 50 - whatever makes them equal). Which org wins that engagement?

[@LoudGuns]

P.s. a Jav is $3000

[@merc9nine]

@@LoudGuns I don't think it's obviously the one with Javelin. It depends if you can actually get through the shields of Javelin with that sort of sustained fire from 30 Mustangs. Assuming you can get through the shields and the current state of turrets, I'd say the Javelin loses quite often. But that's assuming you can get through the shields. I chose the Mustang as an example because I consider it to be the worst of the starter ships, but imagine the same scenario but with Avengers that were upgrade ingame with EMPs. Then I think the Javelin definitely loses more often than not. The team with the Warlocks might even find themselves with a new Javelin at the end. What I'd definitely say is that there's not many situation in this type of game where you MUST fight for that specific location. Youd be choosing to fight over that location, but only because you want to. Id say the risk versus reward is on the side of the light fighters. I just think it's more rock paper scissors and all the Javelin can throw is rock. How about this scenario, 1 Polaris vs 1 Javelin. Who wins? I think the Polaris on a skeleton crew versus a fully manned Javelin, the Polaris wins every single time. On paper at least. We'll see how it shakes out in reality. The Javelin is $3000, and the Polaris is $750.

[@LoudGuns]

@@merc9nine I think when we’re comparing JPEGS rather than game assets it’s always going to end up a circular debate (my view is that a Jav also has the torps a Polaris carries and more point defence so 1v1 I still favour the javelin but I’d probably favour a number of Polaris’ vs a single Javelin). Armour is another system that we haven’t seen but that will probably effect the small ship vs big ship balance. Personally I reckon we’ll see armour introduce a dynamic where small guns like the size 2’s on a mustang can’t actually do any dps to a Javelin (this encourages way more strategic gameplay - rock paper scissors style). Maybe the industrial side is easier to see the P2W in? 2 mining orgs, one has a bunch of prospectors, the other a bunch of Orions. Their goals / objectives are the same - winning is making money with which to claim land with mineable resources on it and pay mercs to protect it. The Orion org is at a material advantage since they start at mining endgame. “But they don’t compete?” - they do. Each parcel of land you could mine resources on at the start of the game is available to both orgs but they need to raise the funds for beacons, building costs and taxes. The Orion org get ahead quickly and stay ahead allowing them to compound their advantages and price the weaker org out of assets which create even more wealth.

[@merc9nine]

@LoudGuns yes the Javelin has larger torpedoes, but I think it can only fire 1 at a time and the Polaris can fire 4 at once and is supposed to be much faster and nimble so I think you'll be dropping 4 torpedoes, and then running, reload while shooting down and incoming topedeos with your rear point defense, and then repeat. I think the Polaris can do hit and run and nullify the Javelins strengths. But yes we are just comparing JPEGs. I'm not sure if light fighters could even get through the shields of the Javelins capital class shields and in that case EMPs won't help either. I also assume turrets will be better than they are now, and if they do improve drastically, then yes, I think the Javelin wins. I still don't think you need to fight over anything.

[@stoggyreturns]

YES! But you can't win what isn't even close to finished after 12 years. We still don't have a "game" we have an alpha test bed that has one of the worst presentations out there because they refuse to maintain the servers in any real way because "it's a waste of their time". 1300 ppl I hear and not one person can be our Game Master who cares about performance instead of excuse making.

[@gravity00x]

i honestly believe they are at their lilmit and dont know how to improve the server performance any further. not that this is an excuse for anything at all!

[@CaptainSnackbeard]

Yes. 100 percent. It has a pay-to-win / FOMO business model. Hope that is clear to everyone.

[@Bscoop75]

even the first minutes in and I wholeheartedly agree. trading is so broken with C2 ´s and other BIG ships buying out all supply of basically all commodities that are worth trading. it aint fun. even BH missions need bigger ships to be worthwhile (connie at least) o realisticly doable. the only "real" solution in this game to ever stan a chance is to go big (in terms of bigger ships) or be content with the fact taht loads of elements will not be doable by you. so: cash out or keep doing mundane, awfully paying jobs.

[@BerraLJ]

I just like to not have to buy the ships over and over.

[@Roboticus_Prime_RC]

With each new iteration of MM, it gets closer and closer to PTW. Pilot skill is not the determining factor. It's all a DPS race. This is evidenced by Yogi doing balance based on win percentages of ships.

[@LoudGuns]

Yep I would definitely agree that MM reduces (does not exclude) pilot pilot skill in the equation (and therefore increases ship power as a factor).

[@nikoulph]

They reduced the power of AD5B's or increased the power of NPC's, anyway a single player ERT's bounty missions are impossible. OP NPC's, invisible NPC's that makes you go boom, ... etc... Today I decided to take a break, because the thing it's just out of control. The bugs are killing me really hard. Before I used to enjoy mining, but now, every small patch they erase days of refining orders that took 2 or 3 days to collect, and payed expensive price to refine, just to watch all disappear for a meaningless patch... And this meaningless patch did not even fix the Corsair take-off problem from hangars... so ye... I will enjoy summer!!

[@LoudGuns]

@@nikoulph ditch the AD5B’s and go full laser cannons. If I can solo ERT’s you can 👍

[@nikoulph]

@@LoudGuns haaa tnx for the advise I'll try that.

[@Traumglanz]

@@nikoulph Get hit less scrub. SCNR. But yeah, people did complain at first, adapted and doing now fine again with ERTs and doing them solo. Still Deadbolts 4tw imho. The one big difference is that NPCs now are even more tanky as they finally have the same HP as players and NPC projectiles can be super annoying as they penetrate shields and currently create damage that actually sticks even when you fly good enough and evade most of the incoming fire. Combine this with the low speeds and it becomes much harder to avoid shots. I am not sure if you really will always take a least a few hits, but I certainly do. Ships with lasers are much easier to deal with, but you can really avoid a lot of incoming fire still. Both Corsair and Conni to a fine job solo in ERTs. And they are even worth again to scan for some Eggs or Maze.

[@THEDAVILAK1]

Great watch! Hate the Mastermodes arcady feel tho

[@LoudGuns]

Thanks mate - I'm leaning towards liking MM personally but it absolutely needs a tonne of work. As a first iteration though I think it has some promise.

[@THEDAVILAK1]

@@LoudGuns Disclaimer. I have only joined SC april of last year. So there goes my "if it aint broke dont fix it" argument since I have not been around long. I get some of the reasons why it is being implemented. For example why its good to more or less force people to either commit to travel or combat. The problems that I have with it, amongst many other things, are that it dumbifies the game, making the skill floor and cap WAY lower. Less focus on Navigation, Positioning, how you engaged in first contact and more on store bought firepower/systems that I can only use in this janky Combat mode with greatly reduced immersion, freedom of movement and a TERRIBLE arcady touch. Ofc things can change like incresing the speed to 600 but I think either MM stays kinda like it is or it will be removed. Me of course hoping the latter is the case. Landing speed at 30? ahhhh *Dies* Nevermind that most Loops I engage in currently, have gamebreaking bugs so that ever since MM dropped I have stopped playing :/

[@AcidGubba]

Always funny how people think you can have an opinion about what Pay 2 Win is. It is pretty clearly defined and either you don't understand it or you are trying to talk up Pay 2 Win because you benefit from it. Just justifying it is ridiculous.

[@mariomarques1507]

There is a clear advantage of paying more. No one can deny that. And that's what pay to win means in Star Citizen. Not to mention that to perform a distinct profession, like mining or salvaging you will need to have a specialized ship to that end. And it's hard to make money in a starter ship. Especially if you are new and don't know how things really work. But if you are a player who likes challenges, you can start with a starter ship and win EVERYTHING in-game. On the other hand, there are some people like me, who don't want to spend more time in the game and accept to pay more and have more. And people need to face a reality. There is no way to fund this game without money. So... Yeah! They need to create value to have more. Come on! This is capitalism! And the independence we all wanted it costs!!! You can play harder and get everything or pay more to adjust how long you will need to invest in time to get everything you really want. There is no right or wrong. People do whatever they like with the time and money they have. And people should respect that!

[@RoballTV]

It is pay to win? No. Because it's a skill based, >sandbox< Imagine EVERYONE started the sandbox, in the same ship on 'official day 1'. *2 weeks later* A newbie starts, and joins a universe where most people have better ships, equipment, and means of making money in game. How is that different to now? A newbie still comes in and people still have better stuff. Is it pay to win? No. Is it pay to catch up a little faster? Yup. Cos there is no win, it's a sandbox.

[@drfreeze76]

How does one win SC? One can buy the best ships, but have crap skills, failing every skill based game loop like racing or PvP. As long as everything that can be bought in the store can be earned in game I don’t have much of an issue.

[@Christian_ThePumpkinDestroyer]

This comment gives me brain damage

[@Jaxxie_B]

"Winning" is subject. And with the current MM model.... the F7A MKII is about as pay to win as you can get. People bann it from events bc of how stupid broken it is. A ship that you literally have to PAY for an F7C MKII and use a token to own.

[@JDJ1213]

Cope harder

[@gizmo104drives7]

Its scary how many people think that Star Citizen is not pay to win... mental gymnastics required It very clearly and un-ashamedly is... dont take it personally guys and gals. It can still be good lol

[@LoudGuns]

Honestly, I knew there would be some denial. I am surprised by the extent of it.

[@cernunnos_lives]

Man I'm gonna be dead meat in this game. I'll have to remember not to carry much of anything anyone wants. But I'll probably end up crashing too much anyway.

[@LoudGuns]

Haha you can’t have my stuff, I already stacked it into a mountain 💥 lol😂

[@Frazec_Atsjenkov]

You can't be against the current funding model of SC and SQ42 without offering an alternative. I see the drawbacks of the current model, but I can't think of a model that would be more pleasing. And I can think of a lot of less pleasing models. That being said, I think the biggest "pay to win" aspect is for players looking to form an org or those trying to obtain an important role in an org. Someone with even one permanent capital ship on their account will have more leverage within an org, and an advantage in forming a new org. Also, the org with the most resources at launch will have a massive advantage claiming territory. My biggest fear is that the game will offer too many tools for grieving new players and that the established orgs will prevent the development of new orgs.

[@LoudGuns]

So I don’t think / I wasn’t trying to alter the funding model (I think that ship - pun intended - has sailed). But I think we can influence what comes next - hence my proposal for some speed bumps on those with big $ pledges (myself included I might add). The point on orgs is a good one, personally I believe it’s a church and state deal and I make sure to make it clear in my org that we promote people on the basis of leadership and talent not based on what ships they own. But I know elsewhere this isn’t the case and it does worry me.

[@herbaceousboredom9584]

I think P2W can have more of an impact on determinedly single players in an MMO but organisations might be an interesting mitigation for / counterpoint to P2W, and that grouping up well is the actual win in the end (I covered a lot of ground that I am not going to explain with a wall of text). I also think individual skill and ship balance shouldn't be underestimated against P2W. With the recent XT event I fancied practicing some combat in the new flight model, there was a definite disadvantage (for me) in the heavier fighters and I had more fun and success in the lighter, cheaper (starter) ones. That said, this is only one element of the game, I wouldn't say I am skillful, and the flight characteristics will change over time (hopefully to be much better but that's another story). Like you I think ships should be available for in-game credits at the same time they are newly available for real world cash and that there should be things you have to earn in-game. It will be interesting to see how things pan out when we no longer have wipes, we have multiple systems and functional law and economy systems in-game, reputation, and org and grouping tools (especially supporting things like (temporary?) alliances and ad hoc grouping).

[@scalibur56]

before 3.23 you had the aegis hammerhead cleanup mission that gave 250k for driving the ship out of the asteroid belt, nonstop missions popped up of the same thing, i bought my inferno, buccaneer, cutty and most importantly my vulture that allowed me to make like 300k+ an hour in 3.23, but theres no end game, theres no ranking system, leveling, its all basically pointless, just a sim to enjoy the graphics and views & thats it for now.. who knows if thatll ever change. sure you could pay cash to get a vulture now but for what purpose?

[@LoudGuns]

So the one (ok 2) questions I would ask are; 1. Do you think those earning rates were intentional (thinking about what has happened since)? 2. What do you think is going to happen to ship prices (in game) over time (up, down, stay the same)?

[@scalibur56]

@@LoudGuns yeah i think those payouts were on purpose tbh, there are plenty of methods rn to make 100-300k+ per hour or less. (some of those methods are fun and visually pleasing) There should be a balance in ship prices, obtainable with reasonable grinding hours or methods, but even the big expensive ships, there's not really any point in having them.. what do you actually do with big ships? just fly around and thats it, theres no player power increase or anything to progress in any way besides money. so for now its just a chill out game to enjoy visually and relax.

[@LoudGuns]

@@scalibur56 sorry I meant more the hammerhead cleanup missions pre-3.23 that you mentioned. We were making around 10m an hour with a 2 person crew doing those. (I think 100-300K an hour in the ships we have rn is about right).

[@terencespragg5708]

The pay to win could be called pay to get a head start. For myself i use it as a way to progress in this Alfa by grinding for auec then to sell it then to buy ship to get that advantage after all it is the only way to progress both skill level and in equipment oh out side of events.😊 I use this method because of all the times they said ships will not be touched in a wipe then i find that a reclaimer and a 600i gone that was got from legitimate game play.😢

[@csdigitaldesign]

Pay for convenience is not that same thing as pay to win. If you can buy those same things in game then it's not giving you an unfair advantage. It might temporarily put somebody else at an advantage over you.. but saying that's pay to win would be like saying somebody in a mmorpg with many levels above you is unfair. Does it matter how they got there? If they paid money or grinded time the result is the same. Thus SC is not pay to win. Not only that but some of the ships require a crew to function. Just having a more expensive ship doesn't mean you always even have that advantage. There are some exceptions at the moment, the F8C or the F7A, however while that does potentially give them an advantage you cannot get in game... you can often get another ship that's just as powerful that you can actually get in game. So iif anyone says those two ships are p2w I would find it a lot harder to argue against it. Everything else? No. It's not pay to win. You can try to argue it but as long as you can get it in game it's not pay to win... but just pay for convenience. Any advantage is temporary.

[@LoudGuns]

People seem to really like the idea that the advantage is temporary, so let’s put it like this. We are both investing our cash with a bank at a 5% rate of interest. You start with $100 and I start with $1000. After 10 years who has more? Answer; You have about $163 and I have $1630. Realistically given the higher potential earnings of ships of different classes - assuming other factors (org, skill, time to play etc) remain the same, the person who starts behind stays behind.

[@therealearlgrey]

Really good video, Mr Guns. As a long time fan of Star Citizen, this is exactly how I feel about this subject.

[@LoudGuns]

Cheers Earl! Generally it’s sparked a really good debate, I’ve had to clarify for a few folks that I am actually an SC enjoyer 😂

[@therealearlgrey]

@@LoudGuns Good. I've posted the video in my org's discord to see what people think too. I think that because of the negative publicity SC often gets, some people are hyper-sensitive to anything that looks critical of it sometimes.

[@redactedredacted3721]

is Star Citizen pay to win, it depends if you lost any in game ships lately when the patch updated. it also depends how many time's a year they wipe.

[@DUKE_MOONWALKER]

People…. The development is still in alpha, everything that they’re talking about is going to set in stone at release not now. What kills me is the biggest backers are this games worst codefendants! It’s quite clear people will never be satisfied with having privileges that no one has ever had ever with any other type of game development. With that being said if anything they need to fix that bogus bug that steals my damn avenger titan every other patch. They get rid of dupers for exploiting money yet for the people who earned their ships and game the right way you still have a chance to lose that ship through an update. FIX IT CHRIS! #wethepeople