SaltEMike Reacts to Store Citizen is full of Red Flags | Pirate Software

The Video - • Video
Check out my main channel - / @saltemike
Check out my clips channel -
/ @saltemikeclips
Check Out My Twitch Stream to see this live: / saltemike

[@rakaydosdraj8405]

"Here is my $40. One Pokemans please." "Red or blue?"

[@larrymitchell6470]

I agree, the difference is most Devs need publishers to keep the door open as publishers, usually fund and request a large chunk of equity in return. Publishers traded in sadly today even staying flat for one quarter is considered unacceptable by shareholders. So they tell the developers to find ways to make money and when they see other people make money through a new revenue stream then they tell them to add it, and if they do not, they will replace the president of the developer with someone who will . Just how the world works.

[@waynewilson312]

Star Citizen effectively managed to turn crowd sourcing into a business model. I’m guilty of playing, but I also strongly believe that we will still be having this conversation 12 years from now. I truly don’t believe that a final game will ever be released and the community is hanging on to the “alpha” state for far too long. I think the contributors of the $700,000,000 deserve to have a realistic timeline and a clear direction from the developers.

[@Ghost_in_the_machineworks]

LTI MATTERS! when I go to sell on Ebay after realizing I went in too deep.

[@cptmcquacken4887]

I've always cared about LTI because insurance is a stupid mechanic that I don't want to worry about, however insignificant paying it may be....That along with hunger/ thirst etc.

[@PragmaticTornado]

@@cptmcquacken4887 Same, all my standalone ships have LTI.

[@Aluzard]

store citizen was a great name for it ^^ If only the store was as buggy as the game is we would be happier :P

[@scottjgray83]

😂😂🤣🤣

[@derjadebaum9159]

I do prefer Star Hangar ;)

[@Aluzard]

@@derjadebaum9159 what about pay to be a citizen :P

[@Koranthus]

@@Aluzardis pay 2 citizen better?

[@toyahinata]

he has a outside perspective which is good for the star citizen community which became a literal cult even for those who "hate" the game.

[@btr003]

any game is a 'cult' if you enjoy it enough. I probably spent over $2000 on free-to-play Heroes of the Storm, just buying new characters and skins. and yes, the new characters were always super-buffed and better than the previous characters, so I was suddenly winning a lot more than before.

[@DracoEX]

Its not a cult, if your getting what you pay for. Its a cult when the cult is telling you what to do, reguardless of if it benefits you or not.

[@DracoEX]

Its a product, plain and simple.

[@VortexStolenName]

yeah I hate this pirate guy. Hes so arrogant and acts like he knows what he's talking about because he watched one video of another streamer complaining about the game.

[@Tazytots]

Outside perspectives are only good if they're actually informed. Thor is not. I hate the whole idea that SC's community is a "cult". Have you fuckin' SEEN the community? Everyone you ask wants something different from the game. They constantly bicker. Spectrum is FULL of arguments. They're the least cohesive community on the planet. The whole idea that we're just a bunch of people fawning over CIG is idiotic. It's just another thing said to alienate and belittle people who like something you dont. That's it.

[@The1RandomFool]

Store Citizen. I'm going to start using that.

[@GUnit2214]

Imagine having life time insurance on your ships in SC...but not actually getting to use said ship LTI in your lifetime.

[@woodzy6100]

The chat is the embodiment of delusion.

[@chucknorrisffs]

"I don't think he sees enough because he thinks too classical about Pay to win.." You know it's time to re-evaluate your life when you think there is an acceptable version of Pay-to-Win.

[@MalakianM2S]

The Overton window effect in the gaming industry is horrible, what people consider now acceptable with dlcs, paid open betas, vaporware, triple A titles, etc. is just abominable.

[@chucknorrisffs]

@@MalakianM2S It's one of the reasons I treasure indie titles regardless of graphics. Just oozes passion and that's all that matters to me anymore..

[@wriggles188]

my thing is i have fun playing star citizen. nothing else matters to me at the end of the day. im enjoying myself.

[@saltemikereacts]

Ok cool, but as long as you don’t negate the way other people feel because you are having fun…I’ll always respect that feeling. People use their feelings to negate others, or even facts. P2W games CAN be fun too, but they are still P2W.

[@phoenixsui]

I dont care if people buy Javelins. CIG will have to make anyways that those ships wont be able to just gop to a station full of traders and blow everything up with no consequenses. Like this XT when the captured Idrises start railgunning cargoships for the next mission. You cant prevent it. There will always be a bigger ship a bigger fleet a bigger org. Its never goign to be level field. But i buy ships to skip the grind. I am grinding enough in real life. Why would i do it in a game afterwards. I just want to fly around and have some fun doing activitys.

[@BGIANAKy]

@@saltemikereactsSC isn’t pay2win. Unless you make a weapon gated by money

[@SourDonut99]

How much fun are you having though? Are you just evaluating your fun in the moment or are you adding the prospect of the game being better in the future? How much did you pay? If you paid $40 and had some fun, maybe that's okay. If you spent $40k, you are likely making that purchase with an assumption of a future outcome where the game gets more complete and gets more fun. That's where the predatory nature comes in where the thing in your mind might not be what comes out. Also the communications from the devs not being extremely clear. Usually the closer an MMO gets to launch, the less people like the game. Whats in your mind is always better than reality. Happens every single time without exception. Some people spent thousands and will probably get disappointed. If you spent $40, you might be fine but I bet some people will be miff'd. I bet lots of people will be sad if the game never comes out.

[@BGIANAKy]

@@SourDonut99 I spent 5k but I don’t care if I spent 40 or 50k. The direction they pitched at the start of the crowdfunding, that I did in 2013, is not the direction it’s going now. On top of that, they didn’t ask the community if we wanted this shitty master modes or not. They just did it.

[@talonsyn]

I have a feeling ship sales will tank when/if the game actually releases. Right now most people buy more than a starter ship so they always have it after a wipe. When the game does not wipe why would people spend hundreds on a ship they could grind a few hours for? Sure there will be some, but most of us bought ships to support the development and to have them after a wipe. An advantage? Sure, but short lived once release. Besides what good is a expensive ship like say the Polaris? Sure its an "advantage" getting it without the grind, but without any friends to help crew it you're paying to lose. The real question is and Thor touched on this.. how will SC pay for the servers when the game releases if no one buys ships after?

[@Tazytots]

A prime example of why people who dont know anything about the project shouldn't be saying shit. Thor asks; ".. how will SC pay for the servers when the game releases if no one buys ships after? " It's an extremely simple answer if people actually bothered doing any investigative efforts in to the thing they're talking about (Thor). Why do you think CIG has focused so hard on the development of the engine? Why do you think the biggest draw, the largest marketed aspect of CitizenCon last year was.. StarEngine? Not Squadron 42. Not Star Citizen. The Engine. Why do you think they went through all that effort to display in precise sequencing all the features the engine can provide that was clearly aimed at other game studios, and not the players? It's simple. They intend to license the engine to other companies. It's a money printer. Just look at Unreal Engine. They won't need to lean so heavily in to ship sales when their revenue is coming from the industry itself. On top of that, CIG also said they'd go the ESO route where they're going to do everything in their power to entice the player in to an optional sub. ESO is one of the most profitable MMOs on the market that has a buy-to-play model, *because* of the optional sub, and how all that ties in to their cosmetic store. I feel like people just.. dont understand how this industry works when they look at CIG selling ships and ask "Where do they go now?". Trust me, fam. There are a LOT of revenues for money.

[@fajarn7052]

We can argue that is LTI, or insurance is for, right? After all, that was why it became such a hot commodity. I still stick to my suggestion of them selling in-game, in-world billboard as ad spaces to real-life companies. Like, we will buy Fanta instead of Fizz, Wendy's instead of Whammer. We already have artificial ads anyway, might as well.

[@Tazytots]

@@fajarn7052 If there is anything people hate as much, or almost as much as social issue pandering in movies, it's ad-placement in literally anything.

[@GrimGatsby]

didn't they say they would stop selling ships and make them only earnable in game after release?

[@Tazytots]

@@GrimGatsby They said they'd stop selling flyable ships, but would continue to sell new CONCEPT ships, in the rare occurrence that they make a new ship.

[@MDR1405]

Great show, DailyDoseOfThor is mostly correct, and you are a crack up. 👍👍

[@TheMediaMakerYT]

All the defenders of those Advantage Purchases are the ones making those purchases.

[@grifson_1065]

Way I see it; I want this game to happen and so I'm ok with giving them some money, especially if I get some novelties for it. When I was younger there was a pizza place trying to open in my town, they opened a kickstarter for people to donate, people did, they opened, great place. My family donated and so our name is one a special wall, other people donated more and so their names are bigger, some people donated more more and so they got discounts. Nothing really wrong with that. Its appreciation for contributing for something to happen. I can't say I'm surprised that this rolls out a bit differently when its in the format of a videogame, especially when its one that needs damn near bottomless pockets to do something a bit crazy that hasn't ever really been attempted before, let alone done. As for ships being more cosmetic, idk, I feel like that can't really happen with the way they have roles. I feel like it implies that you could fit an apollo into a combat ship, which I suppose would be cool? But doesn't really make sense. Then theirs the P2W aspect. Pay to win what? You spends thousands on a javelin, I spend 45 on a mustang, who's going to win? Well, I cant really hurt you, but you can hurt me either. Unless you have either players to man that thing or the funds NPC crew it, let along the typical operational costs. At that point I really don't care how you got the ship, its not my problem whether you played or payed to get it; it's actually more of an issue for me if you played that much to get it. Aside from that; in sandbox economy games, player count and funds being a key aspect of a fight is just part of the deal. If you don't like that you need to play an arena type game instead. Warframe also mentioned? I play that game a lot. No, they don't only sell cosmetics. Almost every single frame and weapon can be purchased, and you can also buy boosters to double your acquisition of just about any loot type in the game. No, its not a problem, I don't care how *you "won", Its my experience that I care about. You want to pay to make it go quicker? Your problem.

[@Helix_22]

When I bought into Star Citizen it wasn't for the thought of playing but to support an amazing group trying to do amazing things that need to happen not for Star Citizen but the gaming industry as a whole. Because of their efforts other games will be better for it.

[@CouchCit]

Yup, and that's why you/we get to call it an investment: We invested in the betterment of the project and the industry. This is where Thor and Mike got it wrong; investment and return-on-investment are 2 separate things.

[@woodzy6100]

By that logic, you would have no problem losing the ships you bought on release, right? It's not really a purchase. You are just supporting the development and using the ship to test the game while it is in early access. Once it releases you will certainly be happy to lose the ship and start with your starter ship with no issues, surely.

[@Kylen-d2o]

@@woodzy6100it would take one month of play to get a fleet of ur own ships new players don’t need to worry ab ppl who pay for stuff bc u can buy it all in game

[@btr003]

My thing about Whataboutism, it is exists for a reason. When my friends don't play Scam Citizen with me but they tell me all the amazing things about Starfield, they can go fuck themselves. When people are unwilling to talk about x-game costing $2 billion to fund and being in development for 10 years, then that's being a hypocrite. They tear down this game, but won't tear down other games that do the exact same thing, and that's what irks me the most.

[@aguspuig6615]

yep, Thor himself brough up warframe as a good example when its just as pay to win while being a released game (idk if its still in beta technically but its been complete for like a decade now) Ido nt get it, because Thor always seems so honest, but also smart, and that mistake is either dumb or dishonest

[@Tentacl]

Other games bet investor money, not customer "funding". You can bet your ass people are fired for bad decisions, but we do NOT have that power. Also, and VERY important - Warframe has no PvP. Starfield is a game you can purchase and dont try to FOMO you into spending hundreds of dollars with promotions, removing ships from sales, price changes and crazy CCU chains. It's is NOT the same at all.

[@t3hsquirr3l]

I was thinking the same thing. Saying "what about X" is a challenge to your stance, and you have to at least consider it's validity before dismissing it outright, or else you can end up looking hypocritical or foolish. It's the very core of what debate is for crying out loud. The Warframe comparison is a good one, since you can actually just buy weapons, warframes, and mods. Doesn't mean it's a bad game, but it's fair to point out the microtransactions that explicitly do the thing you're talking about and it's weird that he ignored that completely. All he had to do was refine his stance. Like, "I hate it in Warframe too but it's actually a game and it's really good" or "it's less of an issue in a PvE game." I love Warframe, and I've spent a fair bit in microtransactions in the past, but I absolutely cannot understand how it wouldn't be considered pay to win. I don't mean this as a defense of Star Citizen, because there isn't one to even be made, but more as an argument that pay to win sucks and should be recognized for what it is even in games we love.

[@jaykay5838]

Back to space engineers, it works. 100%

[@Turbovolver]

​@@Tentacl Yes exactly, original comment just sounds like someone salty that their friends are having fun in a functional (if mediocre) space game

[@justinn5357]

If it doesn't make sense, why would they offer it as a product LOL? Like come ON dude. They played dumb to test the waters on LTI, saw how much money they made, and decided fuck em dude. They have ZERO respect for their supports man, ZERO. Instead of TELLING THE PLAYERS what LTI will look like BEFORE making it available for purchase they decided to scam you ALL on it instead. I love how you put all the blame on the community for that lol. Not the absolutely disrespectful practices that CIG is employing.

[@anfiach]

they actually did say what they intended it to look like. People either don't pay attention or have joined so far along they don't know what's happened over the past decade. LTI is just hull insurance. You will pay for insurance in game. So, essentially, you just pay less (in game currency) over time to replace your ship if it gets destroyed. Insurance is just an in game money sink to keep people active in the economy.

[@grygaming5519]

@@anfiach Pretty much, every game has to have a money sink or the overall economy becomes inflated to the point the new player will never be able to purchase anything. WoW and XIV have gone through inflation-deflation cycles in their longevity, WoW more now because of the Token in trying to maintain a stable market economy. XIV has housing that serves as a giant sink for players to invest in. There's no difference with LTI/Insurance within SC, it serves as a UEC sink because the expectation is the player earning excessive amounts of credits during their gameplay loops.

[@CouchCit]

"Instead of TELLING THE PLAYERS what LTI will look like BEFORE making it available for purchase they decided to scam you ALL on it instead." Yeah well, that's only partly true. It's so funny how people fail to realize/accept this, but they didn't tell us exactly what LTI is because they don't know themselves. It was a liquid idea, a FOMO concept. And it worked.

[@CouchCit]

@@grygaming5519 You're talking about the *concept* of LTI. The reality of LTI is that it's not in the game and therefore not a money sink at all. Also, why would any self-respecting game sell their in-game money sink for IRL money?

[@anfiach]

@@CouchCit They always said what it is, they just never nailed down the how. It's a lot like never watching the weather and being mad nobody told you it was gonna rain.

[@iroquoisplissken3583]

I’ve been trying to tell these people they don’t even know what LTI means and they are wasting money on it

[@dylandreisbach1986]

I am so fascinated as an outsider looking into Star Citizen discourse. I will see someone make an argument against the game, then someone will say the most stupid argument to defend the game. Every time someone defends the game they say the wackiest things. It’s hard looking in to not see it as a pay to win cult.

[@DreadCaptainSqueek]

9:00 - I was there too. It was during the way way back of circa... 2013-14? timeframe. Mike is 100% correct in that the blind LTI hype was real and CIG definitely took advantage of it. Now, it's just ambiguous "thing" that CIG refuses to elaborate on since they know it'll hurt their "exclusivity" marketing if they do.

[@Helix_22]

I like the large and pricey packages as I'll never afford em but just like real life, nothing is fair. This adds an extra line of realism.

[@romanwiller2180]

Unless it changed you can still buy Warframes in Warframe, which is a statistical and mechanical advantage, and if it did change you can still buy in game currency (platinum I think?) which lets you buy those Warframes, so it’s the same thing with extra steps. You can also buy weapons using platinum, which would be the direct analogy to buy ships in SC. It seems like his acceptance buying advantage is tied proportionally to if he likes the game or not. His points about SC are mostly not wrong, but the application of his logic in why is not applied evenly. The overall point you are both making is absolutely correct.

[@anfiach]

his points would be less wrong if he were factually correct.

[@higunner00]

Not really, you can buy Warframes but all of them can be obtained in game within like 2 hours of gameplay except for 1 prime (which is statistically and gameplay wise the worse Frame you can get)

[@anfiach]

@@higunner00 which is the exact same thing that he is criticizing about other games. It doesn't seem that way because he is incorrectly representing the game he is criticizing. I'll point out it's a matter of ignorance, not dishonesty.

[@shippy1001]

Just my 2 cents here, own opinion. But SC to me is not exactly P2W, it`s a more akin to Pay-2-Skip, where you skip the grind of buying a ship and/or ship upgrades as is TODAY, people seem to forget that SC is not going to be like this forever, next update if they start introducing more store stuff, that could 100% be P2W. Same with the aUeC, people tend to say, ah it`s only 2 mil for a good ship, it`s like a few days of grinding, yes, today, will it be like this next patch? what if they nerf the payout for missions and increase the prices of ships? Oh wait this just happened, what prevents them from doing it again? Also I keep in mind the F8C, when it got released you could only buy with real money and it was by far the best fighter in the game during that patch-cycle, we still can`t purchase the F8C in-game, it would be P2W but right now is not great ship, so while you can only buy with real money, other ships that you can buy in-game are better, so you kinda pay2lose in this scenario. Additional to that we have the Vulture, which locked an entire gameplay loop for 2 full patches with real money, before it was able to be purchased in-game, this was clearly CIG using FOMO tactics trying to push people to the store, and hey, it worked, although the gameplay loop was broken, if you bought the vulture thinking it would be "good" it was actually really bad until they finally fixed in 3.20-21, when you already could buy the Vulture in-game, so still, not P2W. Big ships also requires bigger crew, so, not P2W, obviously more players = more power, regardless of the ship or ships in this case, so even if we are talking about 2 Big Crew ships fighting each other, skills and in-game knowledge will be much more relevant, also if you are in a worse position, like you have a weaker ship, you are not required to fight, just fly away. Piracy is also different, usually requiring multiple ships to be successful, still not P2W, wouldn`t say its fair, but it`s nothing ridiculous like a black custom cosmetic skin for a character that make it so said character becomes totally invisible while in the shade. So while I don`t agree with saying it is P2W, its not exactly a fair, comprehensive and rewarding monetization model, it is very shady and very similar to real scam scenarios that we seen before, from FOMO to Hype Inducing marketing, SC has it all. But be conscious that SC might introduce real tangible P2W stuff in the near future, when we start having more gameplay loops.

[@KildalSC]

Well said with great examples. When I was playing WoW I didn't really mind the pay to skip people buying their level boosts, or even some pieces of gear. The things that really made a negative impact for me were gatekeeping and optimizing the fun out of activities, bots, gold sellers and some big guilds having too much gold impacting the economy. Gatekeeping happens when you have progression locked behind punishing content where one persons mistake can severely impact others in a negative way. Hopefully something we won't see in SC. And a healthy economy might be achievable with enough money sinks and other valuable resources than money. Star Citizen will never be a truly fair game, but I do hope they will adjust their monetization to be more fitting for a commersial release with no more wipes.

[@GrimGatsby]

Anyone who thinks it's p2w hasn't had a proper pvp encounter. Any ship you can buy can get clapped by a decent pilot in a hornet or an eclipse. Both of those ships are dirt cheap in game.

[@rjlolatte1]

The thing with bigger ships is that CIG already said they will add NPC crew you can hire so a solo player can run the ship properly. Which really isn't "more players = more power". The arguments about combat is being if you have enough skill you can overcome better ships, while true, that's not worry if new players with money playing SC and buying the strongest fighter to go after seasoned players. The problem is when the SC has the official 1.0 release with an influx of new players, the new players with money buy the current best fight day one and start harassing new players in the starter ships.

[@GrimGatsby]

@@rjlolatte1 You'll still likely have to grind rep before any npc org just hands you a crew. Plus they've mentioned not wanting npc crews to be better than players. ALSO they've mentioned now a few times that they want to disable the ability to buy flyable ships once game goes to live.

[@shippy1001]

@@rjlolatte1 I have to say, the "NPC Crew" doesn`t exist today, and it might not exist for a good while, like, SC 1.0 might release without NPC crews, we can`t keep dreaming about the future, because we don`t know what this game will be like, we know what we want it to be, but right now that's not it, today you can`t hop on a Hammerhead by yourself and demolish everyone in PvP, so it doesn`t matter if you own one or not, it doesn`t function with just a single player. If you have friends to jump on the HH with you that's great, but whats the power difference of 8 Players on a single ship VS 8 individual ships? this changes the scale, and players don`t want to be turret gunners, it`s actually boring, players don`t want to be "engineers" it`s boring, players don`t want to "fix the ship" its boring.

[@yous2244]

The way they're making money to make the game is definitely something I hate, however how else would they able to do it? It's a lesser evil we are forced to allow come in terms with. Just hope they lessen it when the game is released, sell more cosmetics or only 1 in 3 new ships are sold based on lottery so they don't sell the best ships only.

[@123TheCloop]

the problem stems from the actual developement and chris constantly moving the goal posts. if we got back to what was originally promised (ships included) a lot if not all of that could be in the game, yet christ continiously pushed features/concepts out the door to "keep funding going" but to push those bigger feature goals and concepts the price of ships also had to go up to match the cost of developement. Genuinely had christ stuck to the original end goal of SC and not had to push for more funding to fund further feature creeping and concept ships, i dont think ships in general would be half the price and any future features could easily have been seasonal content in the live service aspect of SC PU release. im dumbing it down best I can but that is the crux of the issue.

[@Soccerrockker6]

@@123TheCloop When have the goal posts moved? The reason there was so many bloated features is because the kickstarter hit EVERY single goal they had and they kept adding stuff before the kickstarter ended. Since then, it hasn't shifted.

[@MachinedFace88ttv]

Q2p0😊​@@123TheCloop

[@rjlolatte1]

Subscription with different tiers would be a far better option. It 1 would give them a steady stream of constant monthly income to plan development around 2 it wouldnt create a massive pay-to-win problem SC is gonna have with it fully releases with the current ship selling model. People who think there wont be pay-to-win issues delusional

[@feariex]

They need to cycle the real money store every day with random ships so orgs can’t just buy ships when a war starts and have to actually earn the majority of them

[@monarchco]

I don't know how anyone could possibly argue that warframe isn't pay to win and is cosmetic only. Warframe is identical to star citizen or eve. Anything you can buy you can earn. Likewise, anything you can earn you can buy. It's identical across three games.

[@philipm5043]

Warframe is 99% pve though. Also their premium currency is tradeable between players.

[@monarchco]

@@philipm5043 so fucking what? Star citizen will also be overwhelmingly pve. That's the whole point to them planning to add hundreds of thousands of npcs running around doing shit. Also, you can literally send (trade) SC ships between players. Eve "premium currency" is also tradeable between players. You're just making excuses.

[@lolsalad52]

​@@philipm5043 you must play warframe, to any new player, the force you to pay for shit $$$ is strong, its predatory. The only reason it "works" is the community mostly supports each other and is a great community. And once you get far enough in you realise you don't need to pay.

[@philipm5043]

@@monarchco You said "warframe is identical to star citizen and eve." The difference is there's no such thing as non-consensual pvp in warframe. pvp in warframe is something that players can choose to participate in or avoid, kinda like the old jumptown in SC. Also even if you pay for a meta loadout with irl money, you'll just be helping your squad get through a mission faster. To be fair, I don't care about SC being slightly pay to win, as long as the game turns out great and nothing is locked behind a paywall unlike other games.

[@philipm5043]

@@lolsalad52 completely agreed.

[@Xalantor]

I call my purchases an investment. The thing I get in return is the game existing at all. That a game like this is being made at all is worth me spending multiple times what a modern "AAA" game demands.

[@edenyan7237]

well, there is a ship, no a concept ship, no, a PPT called the Banu merchantman, before that PPT, concept ships would come out more or less similar to their concept at somepoint. But Banu merchantman is the turning point: it never comes out. It had so many promises, at one point it was the most expansive thing in CIG store, it had been 'in develop' for so long. But now it is 'on hold', and its leading developer has left the company. There is no timetable of release of that PPT, there is no refund, there is no apology, there is not even a plan that to pervant this from ever happening again. NO NOTHING and CIG keeps pushing sales on more PPTs. THAT WAS AT ONE POINT THE MOST EXPANSIVE THING IN GAME STORE CIG and Robert treats players whom supported them THE MOST, THE WORST. there is no sophistry can change the fact it is filthily disgusting. The story of the farmer and the snake he once safed is happening right now in between players and CIG. One thing he was wrong about Starcitizen though is that he called the game: a pay to win game. that was wrong, this is a you pay but you can't win game.

[@mcalhoun73]

Second comment: SC was not the goal of CR or CIG in the beginning, it is a byproduct of SQ42. The "pay to win" aspect doesn't apply to SQ42 so it has the potential to be the game that CR envisioned and maybe it'll be great. Time will tell.

[@DracoEX]

Videos like this make me want to be a KZbinr for a day just to correct bullshit thats said from bad takes. But i have more important things to do like working on buying a house.

[@arenomusic]

"I'm more of a classical pay-to-win enjoyer, their modern stuff feels more like the Microtransactions album"

[@realWorsin]

The problem that nobody ever talks about when they criticize the monetization of Star Citizen and CIG is, how else are they going to pay for the game? Please enlighten us with a new business model that can successfully pay for all of the development of this game any other way. From my perspective CIG has done what is necessary in order to keep the lights on and get this game developed. When you write them a check for 700 million or come up with a better plan then you can criticize them. For now they exist because a lot of people agree with the strategy that they're using and a lot of people are willing to make that sacrifice to get the game developed.

[@mikeled1754]

Some would say that bit donations are macro transactions…he didn’t even acknowledge any of them…but what about looking at the $48k legatus package as pay to get all game loop ships? If you pay that much you’re not instantly better at the game, still have to fly and fight.

[@Thoringer]

On Pay to Win: There are 2 types: The one where you get an advantage you only get through your wallet - for example, World of Tanks: You can buy tanks that are more powerful than the ones you can earn in game. Then there is what CIG is doing or EVE online for that matter: It is more a pay to skip. You can earn everything without paying extra. Less scummy, but still giving an advantage. Thing is: This is part of the monetization model. So, there is still this issue and without an alternative income stream, that's how this just works.

[@Stephen_Newport]

I don’t care that people can pay more to have more power in the game, it creates natural “bosses” of various skill levels you can choose to engage or avoid, and means there could be beatable whales. This creates natural “skill” progression, not “item” progression…. Which is great. In a game where only the skilled get the best tools, you know you’ll never have a chance against them, and thus will never engage. This game allows the unskilled to have good tools, and allows skilled players with worse tools to take it from them…. That’s fun

[@timothyds7453]

RE: since this game is fully funded by the community and most whales have limited time to game as adults, it is acceptable to be able to buy ships with real money If the only thing you could get by putting real world money into the Star Citizen project are cosmetics, you won't get the amount of funding they have accumulated. Indeed, it would be better to have people who play the game be rewarded with being the only ones who obtain the eng-game ships. This is something that can be implemented by having the biggest, most epic equipment be only obtainable in-game; like how the Bengal is supposed to be. Owning the ships by paying real money is not that big a problem in this game, in my opinion, because the ship itself is only a small part of the content. I truly hope the main content of the game comes from the gameplay-loops, exploring the vast and varied worlds with lots of NPC creatures and stuff and the interactions between players and orgs. Buying the ships only gives access to the content faster. If I have limited time to play, I want to spend it having fun with my org. Not having to grind up for at most medium tier ships and being unable to also fund the FPS equipment needs as an org soldier. At most my biggest grinding will be for ship components and that FPS gear. It's being like the Joker: everything I'll need is relatively cheap; which is only possible because I own the ships. Given that the game relies for its development on money from the community and most of the whales are people with jobs who don't have kid-levels of time to play and grind anymore ... buying the ships give the option to join in on the fun as a working adult with lots of real world responsibilities. If I loose my in-game ships that I've grinded after most reset, I as a working man would not be able to always get them back ... I simply don't have the time. Now however, I know I can focus on every other aspect of the game except grinding for ships. When I come online, I can play with my friends who are in a similar situation as me. If we all had to grind for just the ships, we would not get to the PvP content together.

[@CouchCit]

I can agree with this take actually; it makes sense to a large degree, and I share your views on time being an equivalent commodity to IRL money: both are spent on these games to provide entertainment, and all people have more or less of both to spend. Here're my problems though: 1. Most players who feel this way still argue against the label of P2W (or Pay-2-Advance as I like to call it), as to avoid the negative connotations that typically come with that moniker. Don't deny it; OWN IT! I get sick and tired of these players getting so defensive about it! Just accept that fact that it's P2W and stop trying to convince the world that it's not. 2. I'm fine with this concept as long as PVP isn't forced, because the minute you force PVP into the equation then it becomes the worst type of P2W. This is why I lobby for some form of optional PVP in SC. If it's optional, then everybody is on equal ground in a way because we all get to choose to engage in the P2W or not.

[@zawadlttv]

i eaned the auec to buy the 890 jump ingame in less than 10 hours. i dont earn 120$ per hour. and the 890 costs 1200$ iirc

[@zawadlttv]

so i would assume its not too p2w

[@Fulbor]

currently heavy into OldSchool RuneScape and that game is pay to win but the amount you have to pay to win in the game is so crazy that it is easier to put in effort to get the same shit. and none of the stuff is exclusively buyable through real world money

[@ceb1970]

I still think they can pretty easily solve most of the problems created by having sold ship for real money. My favorite idea is to severely reduce insurance effectiveness outside of safe solar systems. This way, people can play around with their real money ship purchases all they want in safe systems (where earning potential should be low), but if they choose to go to dangerous systems to earn more the insurance timer will take a LOT longer and it will be a LOT more expensive to recover their ship. This still gives an initial advantage to people who buy ships with real money, but ultimately after the ship is destroyed the first time the cost to recover a ship should be the same whether the ship was purchased with real money or not. Over time, I think the initial advantage of paying real money for ships will dissipate to almost nothing.

[@grygaming5519]

Or, just make it so that the LTI prevents upkeep charges. You still need to buy insurance but the LTI prevents a annual upkeep charge that would be paid out. If you do it that way, the ship in question would never leave a safe system, the smarter player would just buy a duplicate of that ship and use that as their daily driver. No reason to risk your cash ship in a low sec system where the LTI is ineffective vs a in game purchase ship that will have the same issue.

[@Cynry]

About it being a game or a testing ground, about "facts vs feelings", I mean, yeah, facts are facts, but let's not forget that games are made first and foremost to have fun, ie, to induce a specific feeling in the players. The feelings matter at least as much as the facts in this case. It's both a live testing ground for CIG, and a game to some of us. And it's not a nitpick, it's a huge difference for CIG, they have to deliver something at least remotely playable. If this was all done in studio, they would happily leave parts of the game in shambles and would be right to do so, from the "efficient use of dev time" point of view. That they have to at least try to keep it playable 24/7 (not gonna pretend they succeed, eh) is a huge weight to carry. As for the marketting, they're ruthless for sure. But it's also super easy not to care? I'm sure I'm not the only one, I follow the ship releases and all, and yeah, it does nothing. At most, "cool, something to farm a few months after store release". And let's remind everyone that absolutely no mention of the store or real money transactions is made ingame. They don't have to do that, but they do, and as someone who doesn't care about spending more in that game, I really appreciate it. Store citizen isn't inside Star citizen, only outside. But yeah, if you're a spender, you're in for a rough ride, they use all the dark patterns (limited stock of digital products, fomo, etc) to squeeze more money out of those. I agree with the ick on that part, but hey, gotta finance this madness somehow. If that's the worst they do, and they end up with a playable mmo, why not. Too bad we only have a half playable not mmo for now 😅

[@FillenNaymeer]

Do i disagree with the funding model? Yes. You want more? Will you not be happy until i fully denounce the game, chris roberts and everything it stands for? Im not gonna do that, im not gonna abandon this game unless an alternative is made available. Im in this for the gameplay, that it currently has and i believe it could have. Its really simple as that, i want to play a game that lets me do the things star citizen lets me do. The scummy funding practices are unfortunate, fully agree. Impacts gameplay from a progression standpoint. Fully agree. Honestly progression isnt the main reason i want to play star citizen. Its for the level of emersion the game provides. I wont even mind that much if the progression systems suck. I just want the performance to be better. Better AI and stuff. Progression is important to make mining hauling and all that stuff relevant so ya im not saying its not important. But the focus of the game for me is on the experience. Flying around, landing on planets. Maybe delivering materials for base building. Mining those materials. Deffending an orion. Trading in sketchy places. Really i want the focus on multiplayer but i also want them to implement good group finding mechanics. Ya self organize with an org but i also wanna be able to like, pick up a contract and meet other operatives there without needing to organize it. Like have a scheduled time to meet at the planet to do the operation. Make it easy. Click a button, get an alert when it recommends you start making your way there. The 2 things i want the game to have is better performance and just smooth intuituve gameplay. As much as possible for a game as complex as it

[@grygaming5519]

The problem I have with Mike, Thor and anyone else when they are presented CIG's funding model is the lack of alternatives. The reason they wont put any of these alternatives up is mainly it looks hypocritical. Lets even put this as a hypothetical, if Roberts was to put everything he owned as collateral to fund Squadron 42 (because that'd be the first game we get). Would it even meet the standards that we the players would even like? My take a possible no, it'd be called Ace Combat in space due to how on the rails the game would be. Given everything and its release state it'd be no better than average a AA title. It may even bankrupt Roberts fully as the return to pay off his creditors would not be there. Banks, private investors, and Publishers, they would all push for a quick flip on the investment dollars put into Robert's game. Looking at the modern landscape of games right now, would anyone want these asshats near a Title right now? Can we even argue that having these people meddle in current gaming is even a good idea? Yet Thor, Mike or anyone else has yet to give us the silver bullet on ethical funding. Its just a buzzword with no backing or meaning. We are watching the sausage being made on a very large game that may be the true AAAA game on the market. Yet no one likes the production part of it because its called 'scummy'.

[@GameTalkEddie]

"Only Cosmetics are okay! - Storage in a Loot Game is fine"

[@larrymitchell6470]

lol, damn Mike, you are LESS miserable at your previous job?? I am very happy this worked out for you then and hope you find another game that makes you happier. It’s awesome it allowed you to be able to be there for the wife as making enough to be profitable doing this is hard AF.

[@productionkos8816]

Every game have this, you can use money to unlock characters or grind & use ingame points/money to buy/unlock it

[@miketiido9349]

Mentioned this in spectrum once, got a 3 day ban and messages edited/deleted. XD Reading terms of store citizen as suggested by admin found out I dont own my ships. Still bought a pulse. Im a sucker for sexy sci fy stuff but the buisness of milking players the way they do is brutal. Was there a kickstarter goal for $ and did that include and elite advertizement machine? Its beauty, but its all still just tech demo. The one thing Store Citizen has gotten absolutely on point is fomo v-slice questionable advertizing, that part of "the game" is working amazing. o.0 I know they gotta make money but when you say you can do something as a buisness, give a quote, miss deadlines and continually ask for more money to no end without proving yet you can do what you said you could do, its a bad look as well. New tech, suuure, how much time and money would they have needed if our Cyber Lord CR knew what he was doing, did it well, and didnt take thoes executive salaries for him and his fam? lol classic "pledge" definintions are way cooler than the modern one$.

[@Pygmay]

I'm wondering about he 2 first minutes of this video, regarding the fact the game is a technical testing. I knew that since I backed the game in 2016, and at the time (my feeling) most people knew that as well. And when I occasionnally come back to the game and say that, people get angry and do not seem to understand it, and there, I'm surprised the reaction of Mike. Why does it need to be said ? Why such a reaction ? Of course I know why, I just described it before. I just find it particularly telling, and it gets me angry, and angrier over time the direction the player base and CIG is taking and what are/will be the consequences of it.

[@moonfly1]

I have 2 accounts on SC, my OG account and one that I got because of a referral. My OG account has 40 ish ships on it and I never play on it. My other account has like 4 ships and I honestly prefer that. I hope when the game releases, you have to earn your bought ships before they unlock, I really do.

[@myztklk3v]

well the idea is that in the end there's going to be enough content at every level that even though I might have a starter ship (I dont) I can still do my own thing without pvping or competing with other players that have bigger ships with more firepower

[@BlakedaBull]

woah it's great seeing mike hold his ground, I'm reminded of metropolis "if you destroy the factory we will all die," the foreman shouts as the mob overtakes the ancient doorway. I usually point out how the money changes the directions of game development, corrupts the design document. But playing in competition with people who only do pvp to attack the backside of other players, now you know why they be spending the money. this of course is only a small loud group, like 10 percent of the players the other 80% are quite lovely in general. (and in the last three years every year there is a new crop of people, going through the seasons of star citizen. Love anxiety anger and acceptance. edit for "instant cook" >_< >O>

[@omnipresencetv8929]

all CIG need to do is make SHIPS crafted as chassies and components and moduels the ships need to become your characters and we need to remove Avatar roles instead have CREW and you can jump from any crew member you hire and leave them any location so you can run a Hull C from one styar system to the other but automatcially if your crew members are under attack you can swap characters in real time (loading) so you can assist your HULL C you can also do this with your org friends putting their crew members on the same ship this would be the ULTIMATE space game then because if we had some XCOM style control of crew but also direct FPS controll of any crew it would be something we could also allow a friend to controll our crew memebers and support or have DROP in gameplay for subscribers who pay to access the game to play as crew to unlock ship licences

[@Brodoodle]

I know it would never happen but I would love if they just did a seperate montly subscription set of servers. Just you and a starter ship on a level playing field with everyone else.

[@hooTmann]

i actually feel like P2W in this case is better for immersion. my classmate got a very expensive car for her 18th birthday from her dad. i had to grind stupid jobs while studying to afford a basic vehicle... life is not fair and parents are usually the ones that pay for your win in capitalism.

[@jasonmaxwell9762]

More like pay to lose because you can buy a $1200 ship and still lose to a skilled pilot in a fighter that cost $80 bucks. Pay to progress maybe. But progress doesn't necessarily give you a winning advantage either unless you are buying skills. In this game the only progression is money. Pay to win would be buying something that gives you an advantage in a fight to "win". "Hence the term pay to win". You could use the F7A as this example but the reality is you can use any new ship that's OP and gets nerfed later for the same example. The F7A is a rare case because it should have never come out until after SQ42. The military variant was always meant to be OP. I think its funny when people complain about how unbalanced the F7A is. Well of course, they only told you it would be for 10 years before it came out. All military variants will be OP. They are not meant for civilians. The only way to really nerf the F7A is not let anyone own it. Same for F8A. It will be even more OP.

[@lucieux8978]

I would say the comparison to warframe is fair for star citizen. You can buy almost everything in warframe that you could instead grind for. You can do the same outside of a few ships in SC.

[@batboy555]

LTI seems like free armor repairs in other mmos. Which in eso, wow and ff14 are nothing basically.

[@hierox4120]

Classical P2W is the same as saying the classical Pyramid scheme

[@fubar-fpv8354]

They can never make the ships cosmetic, after gathering the massive amounts of money...... This would mean that someone har spent several 1000 hard earned dollars.... for cosmetics..

[@TerkanTyr]

12:17 I googled a bit and I'm pretty sure that InfectedRonin guy who said "WRONG" is an actual child. I feel like online communities have an inherently difficulty in setting a reasonable consistent tone when literal children can anonymously interject with something absolutely idiotic, and have people take it seriously as if a serious part of the community actually thinks these things, instead of addressing the kid appropriately and disciplining them for interrupting.

[@baronvonsatan]

Bro you spend so much time reacting to him reading comments as though he were the one saying the thing in the comments.

[@4hire565]

Oh God, this again… Pirate just got into it late, he is correct, but fuck it, we all heard this shit before.

[@jaykay5838]

I'm commenting to the guy who is reacting to the guy who is also reacting to learning about said game, while his chat chats along. Helping you out of the algorithm. BTW i have been subbed to EVE since 2009, i log in 1-2 a year to set skill Que.. just in case.

[@StarshipCaptainNemo]

This is extended crowd funding guys. Did you all forget the poll they made and asked the backers, if they should stop or continue and the overwhelming majority of backers at that time said they should continue, because everyone was sick of those 45 bucks one shot into the blue games that get released prematurely, and then charge ridiculous amounts of money after release for pathetic DLCs, or even abandon the games in that prematurely released state. Those games are dead for me. They are throwaway goods. I get way more bang for the buck with Star Citizen, even in the unreleased and buggy, but playable alpha, even with all the wipes. And as you can set your own goal in Star Citizen, the way I set my goals, Fashion is my endgame, so as he arguments, cosmetic items would give me an "unfair advantage".

[@Gunnberg85]

10% of the backers voted. The concept of an "overwhelming majority" is a falsehood.

[@MrDearCandy]

If CIG really cared about voting and the community's opinion, they would run polls all the time, for all we could know that vote was skewed and fake, there is no way for you to prove its a real vote anyway.

[@kishkin8743]

I find the topic odd, because until there is permanency we can't have pay to win. CIG has a brief amount of time to fix their system to prevent pay to win when there is permanence. I'm not confident they will.

[@Ragecon87]

Someone in chat said you can buy every ship in game how is that pay to win…. 🤦‍♂️ bruh because you are paying real money for the ship vs having to earn the money in game to get that ship.

[@rom7647]

You cant even pay the people to make the ships for the skins to go on in a crowdfunded game if you only sell cosmetics.

[@SultanDesync]

I wish they'd have the confidence to commit to going from ship sales to a subscription model with the release of 1.0. Let the people riot. Subscription model is superior.

[@GrimGatsby]

I believe once they game goes live, their plans are to disable the ability to buy ships with cash. You'll just be buying the game and will have to earn them. So I'm curious how they are going to continue to fund the live service model if it's not by selling 1500$ ships.

[@fajarn7052]

Not really, ESO was shit when it was subscription model. I'd still suggest that CIG sell in-game billboard spaces for companies after 1.0 or after release. Heck, they can even work with the lore and brand team to add KFC into the game, replace Whammer with KFC or Fizz with Fanta. It will be much more immersive and its not that different anyway from what we got now. Rather than pop-up ads, just make a virtual Wendy's.

[@SultanDesync]

@@fajarn7052 If you're not paying a set fee for a product, you are paying too much. One way or another.

[@Dumb-Comment]

isn't SC just pay to play certain gameplay? if i have a capital ship that is just sitting there and all i can do is just fly around then it wouldn't be pay to win BUT! you can buy single seater that is waaaaaay better than the starter ships

[@MrBenjaminRhoades]

You're right, Mike, and so is Pirate Software. The only way for this game to succeed and not be pay-to-win is for the ships to either a) not be a meaningful form of progression (or at least, not in the top 10) or b) insurance works drastically different to the way that it currently exists in game. The game cannot work, IMO, if getting ships is "endgame content" and if losing a ship doesn't hurt dramatically.

[@GrimGatsby]

Big ships aren't the end game content. You get big ships FOR the end game content....which doesn't exist yet.

[@ESC_907]

Dude, Mike & Thor bitching about the online store of Star Citizen as though the ships are the endgame? WTF? The ships are a mode of transport to gameplay, so who gives a fuck if someone pays $500 in the online store or grinds for a month to purchase in-game?

[@Mindbulletz]

This strikes at the heart of the fundamental misconception most people have about Star Citizen. It is NOT Elite: Dangerous. Progression isn't built with buying bigger and bigger ships as its core mechanic. Ship progression is very squarely secondary. In fact, ship size is already incredibly situational in the live alpha, before engineering comes online.

[@DummyThinksThoughts]

On the topic of eve monetization.. it used to just be a game you paid a monthly subscription and played . Everyone earned everything the same way . And RMT tho it did exist ccp went after it pretty hard and tried to minimize it . They were purchased by a chinese company and what you see in eve now is the result of that . It is unfortunate.. which is why I quit EvE after years starting as far back as the beta .

[@TehBrownie]

P2W MMOs create the problem to sell the bypass. So things like To pay for Skills in Eve. They remove the value of spending time to get those skills to fly those set ships. Before this Shit IF you could fly a Titan was Huge Respect to be a pilot cause you grinded to get those skills unlocked. Now the respect is lost cause you can just swipe to Fly the Titan. Ya loose respect for people that can do set things in the game cause you are sure they just swiped their way to the items. It waters down the MMO for a quick buck.

[@Revster]

I mean I don’t think what he’s saying is super harmful even if it’s misinformed, like insurance in star citizen doesn’t matter really, it’s just for resellers The real issue is he thinks spending more on ships = game becomes easier, that stops at $190, beyond that it’s all unnecessary

[@AkuJuo]

As a gamer and and game tester.... $700 million, 12 years later Star Citizen is in Alpha... WTF? it should be in Beta by now and in a very good stable state... All I see CIG is milking it for all it is worth...Also I see it as a P2W buying ships for IRL cash... Anyway by now it should be an MMO, but it is not, by now it should be in a BETA state and it is not... It is still in an alpha state as CIG continues to milk it from the cash cows... I am sorry this game, well its not a game yet.....This is a SCAM!

[@laughingman630]

"it takes longer then 1hr to talk about all star citizen monitization" I agree everytime someone tries to explain SC to someone not in the know there is always a lot that is left out or missing.. Why not make a video with a couple of your other Star Citizen content creators friends about this topic. Think about it Asmon and pirate mainly do react videos, so just have them react to it..

[@JexInSpace]

Here's my two beefs with this @saltemike - 1. You are basically saying SC won't be a great game, and has only a thin chance of being a good game. That you don't really have much hope it will - just a very slim hope. So, why are you all in on it then? If you feel 95% sure it's going to be a bad game, and fail, and monetize things in a way that only hurts the game - why are you proselytizing it so heavy? In this Stream, someone made the point you make a living on covering this game - and your response was, "Only in the last year". But that doesn't change the point. So the catch-22 here is that you are NOW making a living supporting a game that you don't believe in? Don't you see the conflict there? 2. You seem to be against the idea of being able to buy ships in the game because that is buying end-game content, and you agreed that immediately makes any game terrible. Yet, just a week or two ago you were over the moon about the Ironclad. Don't you think your response and videos about the Ironclad contributed to some people buying the Ironclad? I didn't buy one, but your videos really had me thinking about it. And I know your response is, "Well, I didn't use new money". So what? You can't on one hand say, "Being able to buy end-game ships is bad and CIG shouldn't do it", and then on the other hand be all, "OH WOW! CIG JUST RELEASED AN AWESOME NEW SHIP AND I SOLD SOME OF MY OTHER SHIPS TO BUY IT IMMEDIATELY!!!!" So, I think you have to figure out your messaging a bit more. It doesn't work to criticize something, while being supported by that thing, and also supporting all the things they do that you are criticizing them for.

[@yous2244]

That's because he and everyone knows it's impossible for SC to stop. And that doesn't mean you can't talk about it. You people are just crazy

[@JexInSpace]

@@yous2244 - I'm not saying don't talk about it, and you don't have to resort to personal insults because you disagree with someone. You can do better than that. I'm not saying anything crazy. Read the message again. I'm not saying don't complain - I'm saying it is a contradiction to complain about something, while also embracing the thing you are complaining about. I.E. "CIG shouldn't sell ships" - "OMG! Look at this new ship CIG is selling, I LOVE IT and bought it immediately!!!" I mean, yes, you can do that - but it sort of makes either of your points moot. And, on top of that, if you are saying, "This is a shit game, and CIG is bad for doing this" - but then you are making a living off that game, that sort of makes you complicit. This is just my take. It's not a crazy take. You might agree with my take, or disagree with it. If you disagree, that doesn't make you crazy.

[@Traumglanz]

He said the same thing a long time ago already, so he might not even have seen the Asmon clip. Though to be fair, I still would not buy a ship without LTI. Why? Because why should I buy anything without LTI? Ships with LTI are cheaper anyway, ships without LTI are usually released soon after and can be bought with Credits. CCU Chains make some ships affordable, so why not start with a LTI Token as your first step? I simply don't see any point in not going for LTI. even if it is irrelevant in the game later on. And I still do not know what LTI really will do anyway. So, better safe than sorry. ;-) And with LTI my ship usually is an investment on top as LTI ships will sell very well on the grey market afterwards, so a lot of my friends made thousands of dollars just from their pledge ships.

[@rhoenik7999]

wow what an advantage the 50k packages have u can fly solo all ships and can do nothing with it

[@GrimGatsby]

yeah and get instakilled by a guy in a eclipse

[@Verinia]

Buying game power is not done in vacuum. It's funding a game. my purchase decisions isn't 'to win' it's to fund the game and I happen to get stuff by doing so. P2W is the wrong debate. Debate whether we should get anything for funding this game. Would I send them $100 and not get a ship when they send out fundraiser emails like PBS or a politician? Maybe. Probably a lot less unfortunately.

[@MostlyHarmlessEntertainment]

SaltE.... Omega subscription to EVE gives everyone access to endgame content. You can buy all the skills you want, but if you don't have Omega in EVE you won't have access to many level 5 skills. Level 5 makes a HUGE difference in EVE. I have 3 accounts. All of them have over 80million skill points. If I want to play EVE I must subscribe. Because Alpha walls off access to tech II weapons/mods/hulls. Flat out simple. Now does T2 mean you will win? No. Because Deadspace/Faction/Officer modules are technically Tech 1. The only thing Pay to Win about EVE is the ability to buy ISK with a credit card and then spend it on expensive modules. Problem is in EVE you might kill guy number 1. Maybe even guy number 2, but they will have guy number 3 and you will lose that shiny ship. Pay to win you say?

[@fajarn7052]

No slight to the guy, but he speak like an expert of specifically SC. Even an avid SC player doesn't automatically be an expert at everything Star Citizen. This LTI or insurances are one of the future 'monetization' scheme that might help fund the game, instead of Ship sales. But wooosh, to the scummy practice it goes. We don't need to argue what it means NOW, but no need to lie and act like it was something that it wasn't. Its something that isn't currently matters. Come on man, he said a massive red flag is LTI? 1. He didn't even get the thing right, 2. We don't even know what it is. How come then LTI is the red flag. Call him out on that please, there are other red flags if you really want to talk about it. Feature creeps, delays, retcon of planned feature just to sell some Nursa, prioritizing ILW instead fixing exploits, banning people who use exploits while ignoring the very exploits at the same time.. And here, LTI? Ship purchase being an advantage? Didn't we just address this on Asmon video? What is then the difference between you purchasing ships, in-game and you unlocking heroes/champions in LoL? You can either grind for it or pay for it, both heroes you got are the same stats, kinda like both ships you got whether it was in-game purchase or not? Then, what's the problem? This is why I said, you kept championing people like this, Mike. Who are uniformed but shitting the game, while you shit on the community who are genuinely enjoyed the game. I guess it is your 'identity' here...

[@grygaming5519]

I wouldnt even call the Nursa thing a recon. The issue is DoaSM looks great on paper, but in game play practice would really suck ass. We dont really have to go far, just look at Single Life WoW Classic right now, the player base is tiny (tho streamers make it look larger than it is) vs Classic WoW. Then on top of how long it actually takes to regear and get back into the fight does harm gameplay loops to a certain extent. In all reality DoaSM should have never been proposed until more study can be done on a better spawn system.

[@fajarn7052]

@@grygaming5519 Till as late as...maybe 2022, medical bed was still 'on track' with their planned mechanic. We obviously can say many things about how stupid DoASM would be, but all we have is their word, if their own 'word' doesn't have any weights, we really don't have much going on. The point is, from their every pitch for the Nursa, and their own marketing material, doesn't reflects their own 'words'. And its all that we got. They even change the Patch numbering, to reflect better for them by releasing 2 patch in 2024. Which was their own problem to begin with, no one have any problem with them not being in 3.23, but they INSIST on it. And then change it now.. Words is all that we have, and although it seemed redundant for us holding to their words a decade later..

[@LPuca]

10:19 LTI is an investment. It's an investment into my time to step away from the game and not being pressured to play a game when I don't want to. Also gotta love normie's talking as if they have something important to say.

[@soufianehiyadi2065]

its pay to unlock tho since you can buy the ship ingame. and 1500 dollars in unplayble solo also...

[@JBoomerOfficial]

I worry that another game is going to come in that's been in development secretly for a while and eat CIG's lunch. I love the game but the monetization does need to change.

[@sidrat2009]

There just isn't a clever way to make it work without some form of match making - comparing both in game rank as well as life time spend with money/premium currency and who wants that in an MMO?

[@Terran0va_Plays]

I’ve followed the game for years. Never once have i thought the game was a scam. Another year of missed deadlines and actually realizing how much longer it will take to deliver the features they want to make SC a complete package, im not sure it can ever happen. But, i hope they can deliver. Not spending another dollar though thats for sure.

[@alexpetrov8871]

I don't care about LTI. I don't care about pledge, alpha, beta, 4.0,1.0. I pay money to have fun in the game right now. I don't buy ships which are not available ingame. If there is no fun right now - I'll go spend money somewhere else.

[@Haegemon]

I doubt any pricey ship in SC is going to give any stat or mechanical advantage. Soon it will be impossible to even make them survive unless you got enough people to make it work. A whale may have bought and Idris, meta end game ship, he can only use a single gun and can't do repairs while piloting. It's a fancy useless ship without a crew. For this reason some people is so desesperate about AI crews. An even with that isn't going to survive a collective attack from other players piloting cheaper ships.

[@AlleniumProductions]

Who is still wasting time with SC? Not me. I'm not going back until they get personal hangers and server meshing. I don't get paid to test their garbage.

[@gedrot2486]

Classical P2W: You buy power Modern P2W: You gamble on a chance to get more power

[@riosasin3086]

so modern p2w was classical p2w with extra step, got it

[@gedrot2486]

@@riosasin3086 Monetized extra steps! :D

[@derjadebaum9159]

You better be worried to get a timeout lmao

[@dekulruno]

Star Citizen p2w: You buy jpg and wait 12 years and a new guy earns it within a month of you getting it

[@Neacail]

@@derjadebaum9159 yeah going to be honest, that felt very petty from mike and got me super angry, and i agree with mike on almost everything, but the pettiness i cant handle

[@CobusGreyling]

CIG has 12 years of data that selling ships pays their bills. They have 0 years of data that shipping a game pays their bills. They will always spend more money on selling ships than making a game. People believe this is a Project funding a Game. In reality it is a "game" funding a Project.

[@m.poppins4843]

it was a funding tho, just for another game: sq42 edit: ho thats probably what you implied in the last sentence, read too fast

[@dominicgunderson]

The ship team is pretty small though...

[@Shaijn815]

Agreed the incentive structure here is look like they are making a game and its a endless money printing glitch. If they actually released a game the community wasn't happy with they would severely tank that revenue stream and possibly go bankrupt it's now completely up to the morals and ethics of the leadership team if they actually try their best to release the product they promised or just drag out this passive income as long as possible the risk reward isn't on the side of releasing a game unless they are 100% sure people would keep paying them like they are now for this potential dream space sim.

[@BernhardMarchhart]

The point is 6 only get an advantage when u see getting rich or getting the ships is the goal. But when getting rich is the game we are done at the beginning. The gameloops are the target, and yes, we dont have them now. There will be no endgame in SC.

[@bio0link]

ITs amazing how Star Citizen players can just twist and bend things until it means what ever they want.

[@Xullista]

I can't stand him, dude has a "know it all" kinda attitude that pisses me off. I guess we can't like everyone. And no, he doesn't "know it all" he worked on Cyber Security, the only game dev experience he has were a couple of very small indie projects. I'm a software dev and studied computer science but I never assume I know how gamedev works, but he talks like he invented it. P.S. I do agree that SC monetization sucks, we should never have started selling space ships but they can still fix it, I hope.

[@TheRevanchists]

Dude worked for Blizzard, that's not a couple indy projects lol

[@aguspuig6615]

I think hes a genuenly good dude, and hes smart too, but hes too used to being right all the time, and is currnetly overconfident in topics he doesnt know enough about

[@grygaming5519]

Until an alternative presents itself to the team on funding that doesn't need an external force that harm current production, we are stuck with the ship sales as the primary motivation to keep funding going. Now if Dynamic Server Meshing works to its entirety....i'd license that shit out as soon as the ink dries on the patent office and slash ship prices by 60% for one last big BANG before closing the shop up and selling dumb cosmetics that cost 2-3 dollars.

[@higunner00]

...bro, he worked in StarCraft 2

[@Sharky1986]

The thing is though, I'd say the LEAST predatory thing is to have a big honking package costing 48,000 dollars. Blizzard and Gacha games are far more predatory, CSGO leans into gambling addiction. Star Citizen 'preys' on those 2nd life spend the dream type people. Noone is 'accidentally' getting 48k in debt because of SC but there are ABSOLUTELY people getting addicted and going broke from Diablo 4 etc..

[@BunkerSquirrel]

This is an interesting take. I actually agree with this. Being upfront on how much something costs is the least predatory thing you can do

[@aguspuig6615]

SC has alot of mistakes, but i think its a depressing case of how honesty can get you fucked. Everyone focuses on every missed deadline, every broken promise, while the game has the best dev to fanbase comunication of any game out there, and its the most upfront game about its funding besides small crowdfunded indie tittles

[@KildalSC]

Having tried the "ccu game" for just one ship with no leftover store credit and never touching that shit again, I can say that it can get very addictive. If you just follow recommended good warbond CCU deals you can quickly end up with many chains. Before I started I did my research and this is a quote from one guy helping me answer questions; "I now have 187 CCU's, which cost me 1695 dollars, but have a "value" of 3865 dollars." I still partly agree with you though, I think SC is less predatory than your examples, with "trick" currency like gems or gambling. SC has their tricks though, with artificial scarcity, fomo and speculation for future warbond CCU deals, price increases for released ships or other price adjustments.

[@Kyte316]

yea but then they sell u some gear set on the store for 15$ and if u die in game u only get it back after a reset is predatory

[@grygaming5519]

@@aguspuig6615 See and that's the problem. The gaming industry is dealing with Battered Wives Syndrome, where its constantly used to Devs and publishers doing incredibly scummy shit for their investors (Blackrock, Vanguard, and Charles Schwab). Then here comes CIG and Roberts who have been completely open with the fans since inception. They will often play the diplomatic tune but rarely try to obfuscate at the level of EA or Activision. Any one that looks in on that is goes "that cant be right, they are doing something wrong....there has to be something wrong. Its not natural" all due to the effect of current modern gaming.

[@DarkAssassin274]

When it comes to eve, it used to be a titan pilot had to be YEARS AND YEARS old. But now, a day 1 account with the financial backing can fly the single largest and most expensive ship in the game.

[@liljay300000]

Well it also used to be people would just build up an account and sell it to the person with a wallet. All EVE did was make sure the money went to them and saved the rich people a few bucks.

[@VolondM]

Yeah, but in EVE you can control a titan alone.

[@rjlolatte1]

​@VolondM give it time. CIG will 100% provide some way to pilot the large ships yourself. Either by hiring some NPC crew or another method. Hell being able to hire a crew opens of another funding avenue for them with different types of crews people could buy with different skills

[@liljay300000]

@@rjlolatte1 they have already stated there will be some version of npc crew

[@rjlolatte1]

@@liljay300000 oh they have? Weird so many people are using "you can't fly the big ships yourself" as defense for it not being p2w if you will be able to fly the big ships yourself.

[@EliasWindrider]

Hey Mike, good on you for being there for your wife. From personal experience the right meds are a like a 98% solution, as in it's almost like not having Bipolar.

[@joshua41175]

I think people are hung up on warframe because it may not be p2w but it us definitely pay to skip content, and one of his earlier points about buying ships is you are paying to win by skipping the grind to getting a ship. Implying SC has depth to its content though is a bit of a reach.

[@Koranthus]

Warframe is pay to lose. Its a looter shooter, paying money to get things is just robbing you of content.

[@PatriotJedi]

Its interesting. I guess its maybe just my personal experience but in over 4 years of playing and what ive done in Star Citizen but i have NEVER felt a negative effect of other players with a "mechanical or statistical advantage" the bugs and server issues have been the only roadblock and when it doesnt play well i simply go play something else.

[@saltemikereacts]

Because they have nothing to really have an advantage for yet.

[@PatriotJedi]

@@saltemikereacts hence once again this dude knows so little about what he talks about. Nobody cares he is a out of work developer because that really doesn't mean shit lol

[@mikezr1000]

In my opinion the best way to fix the monetization problem is to change it to cosmetics-only after release, and that way all the ships people bought early on will just be legacy items for early backers for funding the development.

[@joemama114]

What that will do, is tell new players "don't play this game." Because everybody online who has good shit, already bought all the good shit years ago and you can't even buy it now, and you the new player won't stand a chance in hell. Imagine you start out on rust, and there are already people with space ships, orbit space stations and planetary mining lasers, and you got a rock.

[@HelloFumofu]

@@joemama114 but pretty much all the "good shit" is pretty much available in-game for in-game currency. what he's saying is the legacy players keep their pledges and the new online store becomes a cosmetic store. legacy players in Star Citizen having better ships than others doesnt really affect the gameplay of others in 95% of situations. thats like walking out onto the streets of beverly hills to go to work and being upset someone else is going to work in a ferrari. most high end ships require multiple crew members anyways, so " P2W" players cant even really fully utilize them without additional help. unlike CoD, Valorant, etc, there isnt really a skill gap gate keeping new players from getting in. the starting jobs in the game are easily done solo and with the size of the planets and systems, you likely wont run into other players especially outside of armistice zones (non combat zones)

[@jojak0512]

@@joemama114 Fun fact, there are tons on rust servers with exactly that problem. Go join any community ran server and I'd bet you at least half of them have kits full of thousands of materials and tier 3 gear that you can buy for like $300. This has been a problem with the game for years but thousands of people will still play these servers, you wanna know why? Because the whale who spends 100s of $ to get the best stuff early is still going to get steamrolled by the skilled players who take the time to actually grind in game. Tbh this is more of a problem in rust than it is in sc because when the game fully releases there will be no more wipes, which means that the person who took the time to grind out their javelin or whatever will be on the exact same level as the whale who bought 1 and there's no way for the whale to get an advantage again. I'd also say there's a pretty good chance that the guy who grinded for it has a better understanding of the game and not to mention is a couple thousand $ richer than the whale.

[@Wanaskiwin]

Finally, a Star Citizeneer who says all the same shit i've been trying to tell my buddies (who ferverently white knight the game and have told me repeatedly how much money i need to spend to make the game playable, even download pacman deletion software and runtime DLLS), I feel a lot less alone ontop of this hill. Personally what kills the game for me is how unplayable this game is. i've been in 3 years, Concierge (god help me). I've seen update after update change UI, In game locations (A18 changed so much). From where i sit, they've promised more concept ships than they've released updates to make the game functionally better. Sure they added salvaging, but i can't do it. Between 30ks, CTDs and nowadays even BSODs prevent me from making much if any progress beyond jumping in and doing arena commander. Look at the F7A Hornet event. it took a solid 2 weeks for me and my group to beat it and we had to fight blood sweat and rage through countless crashes, game breaking bugs, and countless 30ks after being told "theyre fixed now" (which is always what im told until i join and suddenly we get endless 30ks, maybe its me lol). Did they not extend the deadline of completion for Overdrive Initiative because of the huge amount of users joining to do it causing wide spread problems 100 fold? Then you get the token and you gotta pay 185 dollars to use it. Garbage. Don't tell me to CCU for it i have nothing to CCU for it. Golden ticket events that give us the right to buy ships, pirate/vanduul swarm awarding the right to buy ships. I want to love star citizen, it has so much in it that'd make the game so good. I so badly hope that with SQ42 being "Done" and their resources shifting away from it that we'll start to see good updates that aren't just full reworks of everything in game with maybe one new content drop that isnt a ship to buy. Like maybe some stuff for the Ground vehicles. didn't they say they had 60 people on vehicle content and sang a song about it?"

[@BC-tz5oo]

There is a lot I agree with you about. but, when I decided to “invest” in Star Citizen, it wasn’t will I get my money back or see a return. It was, if CIG can pull off what they promised it would redefine gaming, VR and programing expectations that everyone wanted in 2015. This is why I am still a “whale” in hopes they will deliver the new tech they promised. It is starting to look that way (fingers crossed) and I still intermittently play in hopes to back this up. The reality is, if they deliver half of what was promised in SC and 1/3 of star engine with a path forward including continual improvement it will have been worth it in my eyes. Imagine what the next company can do when they pick it up and run with it.

[@jaro6491]

P2W in SC? what exactly are you going to win? I can see guys in Arrow which is basic figther killing guys in F8C. so why are people who just saw some video from some long hair idiot start saying its P2W. P2W for me is something what gives you large advantage againts other players. btw i am not really fun of CIG and what and how they are doing things but I dont like people who even didnt bother to check deeper into any topic and start talking about something what they heard from somebody else. if this idiot would first check the game and atleast check what LTI is I would agree with him, but for now he is just an parrot for me who repeat something what he heard from others