Star Citizen’s Reputation - An Outside Opinion (Ft. LukeStephens) | Launch Sequence Podcast

[@staceybertran52]

I really like Luke Stephens. He is really eloquent on explaining the temperature of the community outside of Star Citizen.

[@fwdcnorac8574]

This project is a once-in-a-lifetime thing and will never be repeated. There will never be another developer willing to build a game of this scale in a live environment. The people that bought/pledged for this game are pissed and do not have any tolerance for "in development." No matter how you spin it, they feel they have spent money on a product and want the finished product now. Speaking only for myself, I'm ok with the janky mess that is game development. I see clear-cut progress and reworks with clear eyes. But I recognize that I am in the extreme minority. Most people can't differentiate between "in-development" and 1.0 and see it simply as "I paid for a product, and you don't have that product." and that inability for either end of the conversation to agree on what they are dealing with is the source of 99% of the online arguments. I used to be a bug tester for THQ, and being forced to test Wrestlemania games is well past my tolerance, so this is a cakewalk to me, but again, I am in the extreme minority. I have a buddy who follows this game and loves where it is going, but he has recently told me that he won't play it till 1.0 because he can't take the jank anymore. He's still looking forward to it but can't afford to pay attention now since it just brings frustration. He watches a video occasionally and sticks to fully released games. More people should be like my buddy and let CIG cook if this brings more pain than joy.

[@TruthIsKey369]

Based, and I have supported this project with 280 bucks since 2014, and in that bundle I get to play Starcitizen as much as I want, and get SQ42 at release. I don't like bugs etc and jump in once in a while, but I will try 4.0 and take a deep dive. I like the progress they are showing us, compared to any other game developer studio there is no comparasion. CIG is unique and are the first to do this, and yes it has been a rocky ride, but they have landed in a good place and quality wise pretty high standard. It looks, feels and sound very professional and that helps the project along nicely. I want this to succeed, because I can't stand how the industry has gone down the crapper and released dumpsterfires time after time, where they want us to literally eat crap and enjoy it. CIG are doing industry changing stuff and I like it. No one dislikes things like destruction :) but this will be on a scale never seen before! That's like Crysis and BF Bad Company vibes all over again!

[@jonnymcjonface6068]

I disagree I think most backers don't visit spectrum or even reddit, the loudest people are the minority on social media etc. They shouldn't be ignored I'm just saying most backers I know just don't even think about Star Citizen very often and others just pop in now and then to see whats changed. However very few are happy with the slow progress (including CIG) but most understand why ie mismanagement, "scope creep", tech issues, unforeseen issues that crop up with game development etc etc. some criticism is overstated and some justified.

[@BradAhrens]

I'm in that extreme minority you speak of. We get called White Knights for simply knowing that game dev is iterative, and necessary technological inventions can take absurd amounts of time. If inventing the server meshing technology needed for this particular MMO was easy, it would exist elsewhere. I've heard people claim it exists already, but it doesn't...not in the same way. It's been explained by engineers at least a few times over the years.

[@scotttimbrell8632]

You're not a minority, you're just one of those willing to defend obnoxious people who watch SC videos just to spout disinformation.

[@gumpthegreat1]

Yep. As someone who has played multiple game alphas in his life, Star Citizen has the most polished alpha of any title I have ever played easily. Most gamers don't even have a basic understanding of game development, let alone have experience with playing actual alpha code. This right here is also why most games do not ever show alpha footage. Gamers just don't understand what an unfinished game looks like. A fantastic example of this is how gamers freaked out at how GTA6 looked when it leaked in 2022. It looked like what it should at its current state of development, but since people never see Rockstar games in an alpha state, they thought that would be how the final game looks. I will be honest, gamers in general aren't too bright...

[@lawrencesounddesign1862]

Spend 10 minutes on spectrum on any given day and you'll see piles of frustration manifest itself. A lot of that stems from people not reading the EULA and disclaimers, it's not a finished game you are purchasing. You are not a customer, per se. You are a tester who pledged to back a project that is unfinished, and no one is going to bend over backwards to treat you like a rockstar, regardless of how much you contributed. People act entitled to a great experience but the first thing you accept when you hand over money is that the project may not ever finish or be finished to your particular liking. What you can do is contribute to hunting bugs, providing constructive feedback, and enjoying the development process as it progresses. There's unforgettable experiences in SC, I haven't seen or felt in other games. However.. it's not a finished game and along with those unforgettable moments also comes days when it's just more frustrating than not, backends are breaking, servers are crashing, and missions are bugging out. So it takes a bit of patience to endure.

[@cedric5947]

Feedback that's not listened to, bug tracker (issue council) that is basically abandonned with years old bugs not fixed and an overall direction that is not what was advertised originally. It's clear that you don't actually read those Spectrum posts or are just one of those white knights.

[@4tonmike]

​@@cedric5947 Yep. Either you see CIG as Jesus's second coming and everyone else is unreasonable for complaining, or you look at 12 years of past behavior and predict that the next 12 years are going to be more of the same.

[@beavschannel5217]

I personally don't care how they fund it now, while in development, what I'm curious, and very worried about, is how they fund the game from 1.0, as they state they're not going to sell ships anymore, or use a subscription model, and I personally don't see paints and merch bringing in enough to find the server structure they have now, let alone a dynamic meshed server structure, where the amount of server usage could be far greater than what we use now.

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

heres a cool funding model, have a release date, then you sell the game to make profit

[@beavschannel5217]

@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n I get you're trolling, but how do they continue to fund after release for a live service?

[@trevoroliveira2588]

@@beavschannel5217they could introduce their own version of a battle pass where they bring in a new faction we could earn rep with over a span of a “season” and get cosmetic items out of it.. seems to work for other Live Service games.

[@smoked-old-fashioned-hh7lo]

it wouldn't be ideal, but a subscription service would make sense. they have already one but they could expand it. maybe it could give players a small extra amount of daily income, new ship cosmetics, and allow those players to participate in exclusive events and things like that. if the game is good then people will subscribe to it. eve online and world of warcraft have something similar to that. it would certainly be better than ship sales.

[@1flinns]

After 1.0 the team would be cut back. That's the take i got.

[@kimjongwaifu3742]

Star Citizen already does free-fly events. Eventually, I think that'll expand into a free to play model. You can't fly or drive anything as a freebie, but you can play in a turret or be an engineer... fps missions. Maybe modes like the arena shooter and flier are free once a month. My kid's 12, and he'll download 5 new free games a week and play the heck out of em. If the world's most advanced game is free for him to play and he can ride in my dropship, he's gonna do it. And when he gets 50 bucks for a ship, he'll buy it... granting him full game permissions. If you ask me, that's the whole point of these 100 person drop ships. Whales buy $10,000 worth of ships... and a bunch of free players man em.

[@sanctred]

There’s no reason why a free to play account can’t get a game account with no ships and play with others and earn UEC to buy ships in game.

[@Metro2Metro]

You guys compared Star citizen vs Tesla. So here it goes Tesla was founded in 2003 also Tesla IPO'd in 2010 in 2012 they produced and sold the model S on a mass scale. As of today, Tesla has Tesla powerwall, model s, the model 3, model y, & Cybertruck. Tesla is very profitable. There are manufacturing factories in China, California, Texas, & Germany. They are right now building the most powerful supercomputer in The world located in Memphis, Tennessee. Has battery factories in Nevada and a few other places I don't remember at the moment In addition, FSD (full self-driving) next year in Texas. Expect ed launch. In my opinion, FSD will come out before squadron 42 and dare I say it Pyro Edit: including that worm!

[@Kiyomoto657]

Luke makes a great point. Whatever its current state, Squadron cannot be released until Star Citizen is in a position that it can accept and impress an influx of players. 1.0 and Squadron almost need to sync up to maximize their new player base.

[@sanctred]

What I'd vote for final live monetization model. 1.) Free to play for anyone. Start without a ship but you can play the full game for free. 2.) Starter packages with tiers of ships from $45-$300 or something to that extent. Aurora to the Zeus/Spirit 3.) Warbond LTI Ship sales only for the first month when any new ship is announced and added to the game. 4.) Blue Prints for cosmetics only 5.) Full transferable warranties (very expensive $100+)

[@Gundobald]

Part of the point that needs to be made is that players DO NOT have to purchase any ship other than the starter ship, which is roughly the cost of any game. Most other ships can be purchased in game. Still some questions on how they will handle the larger capital ships initially but eventually they will all be in the game without real world cash. That is the point anyone looking from the outside in needs to know. Purchasing any ship with cash outside of the starter is entirely optional.

[@kityhawk2000]

Yeah it is although I think the bigger problem is the cost of some of those ships. Ultimately the biggest criticisms of SC from people on the outside will be selling digital ships for hundreds and thousands of dollars. I guess it's profitable for them or they wouldn't do it but my personal feelings is they should have kept the prices under $100 and just sold smaller ships. They could still sell other items like merchandise, ingame cosmetics, subscriptions to exclusive whatevers and this would generate a lot less backlash with people looking at the game from the outside

[@xeikai]

I absolutely think Squadron 42 needs to be a home run. It needs to introduce people to what's possible in the PU. It needs to get people to buy into the story of the world. Fall in love with the characters and then give them an option to exist into that world. If Squadron 42 is a masterpiece of a game they'll get a ton of people clamoring to check out what star citizen is about cause they'll garner a reputation for being a company that is capable of putting out a banger of a game. I took the plunge on Star Citizen and have spent like 300 bucks total on the game and i dont regret it. I can see the vision they are going for and i'm pulling for them.

[@weskandel]

Watching the development is a big part of the fun for me. They really need to keep up the pace with that even after 1.0.

[@TAJ1977]

I love that game - and we will see what happens... I bought a entry level ship and now I need a better PC 🤷‍♂️ but it looks still sooo great... greetings from Germany 🖖

[@VinePest]

Well, if it's a scam, it's still the best scam I've ever played. However, management and technical direction have to be pretty bad... 10 year old broken gameplay loops (like package deliv.) paired with more recent and cool gameplay ("cargo empires") in the same build makes for a mixed experience. It would be in everybody's best interest to fix the little things and existent missions for new players -> even more funding, more retention, better press.. Having tons of new players run into obviously broken shit every citcon/Invictus/IAE is embarassing for everyone. CIG is too afraid of a calm consolidation and fixing phase for some reason. They probably make more money short-term with new features that conceal the broken shit or they must think so.. I dunno, put me in cryostasis for 10 years, I don't wanna die waiting for SC :D

[@4tonmike]

I agree. People have a lot more patience when they aren't frustrated, and all that requires is maybe more tangible progress in terms of stability and fixing bugs. It's one thing to be unreasonable, but I think we can agree that being marooned on your home planet with no fix in sight after $700,000,000 and 12 years of development, invites some very vocal and well-justified consternation. Not to mention the negative PR.

[@georgesliker5087]

I love the game here it is just So great has anyone ever stated just So Star Citizen is StarWarsGalaxies x 100 it just shows the idea just how the idea SWG was ahead of its time . And how Star Citizen just takes that old idea and multiply x 1000 more

[@elementsk8r1717]

Also I think S42 and SC PU should be packaged together in starter packs, it’s going to be hard to bring in people to both when most people barely want to spend money on one side of the game. If CIG can funnel everyone into the PU that’s where they’ll make up the money.

[@passeeo3631]

Luke is one of the few to actually do the leg work when it comes to star citizen. There are a few holes in his knowledge of the project, but that's to be expected from someone who doesn't only focus on SC. Meanwhile his peers mostly just sneer at CIG while trotting out the same headlines from 8+ years ago. Luke will mostly criticize CIG for things they have actually done and that's good.

[@AccidentalFriendlyFire]

"If ANY other game company did what CIG does with pricing-" Let me introduce you to various travel sims like DCS or Train Simulator... (EDIT: Correction, Train Sim World series. Might actually be a different train sim game I originally had in mind but I haven't found it yet)

[@fnunez]

Earlier today I watched a video about the new monetization model in Leage of Legends, they have $400 skins now. By the time SQ42 comes out, people will not bat an eye at $250+ microtransactions.

[@AccidentalFriendlyFire]

@@fnunez I mean, I shudder to think of anything over one digit being considered a microtransaction at all...but it blows my mind how many people have no idea what the industry is actually doing right now with these sorts of things. People got used to first expansions, then DLC, microtransactions, loot boxes, and more. DCS is free, but has just under $4k in "DLC", which means access to most of its craft, and while none are into triple digits they're still anywhere from $9.99 to $79.99. The Train Sim World franchise has four games on Steam, each with anywhere from $1300 to $2800 (each higher than the previous game) in "DLC" content after buying the game in the first place. Fortnite's lowest earning year since releasing their free Battle Royale (and dropping pretty much all support for the co-op campaign that allowed them to have the assets in the first place) was a mere $3.7b in 2019, with all other years earning over $5b. A free game, literally earning more every two months than CIG has raised over the last decade plus, and people are upset about THIS?

[@kityhawk2000]

Yeah but the problem with is not selling content, it the price of some of that content. If the most expensive ship package you could buy with real money was $100 I'm pretty this would be far less of an issue

[@NinjaFresh]

​@@kityhawk2000 But the largest package the general public can even buy is what $300? I have knives in CS worth more than that.

[@AccidentalFriendlyFire]

@@kityhawk2000 Except it's also all optional, same as with Star Citizen. Where's the actual problem?

[@Captain_Alkami]

I like Luke. He's handsome, and his criticisms are constructive, and his points on backers are incredibly reasonable. I hope you'll have him back on Tomato! 😅❤

[@themarveluniverseonline]

When all has been deployed, the shift should be to selling a wide variety of starter ships and fewer and fewer of the larger ships.

[@reginadea2821]

I never would've expected to see Luke on here. That's a surprise.

[@jazzynupexbox6008]

@25:30 I think they will get more nuanced in messaging but you will see them focus on insurance. Notice most ships only have 6 months of insurance now. So new/concepts have 10 year or LTI but older one are only 6 months.

[@devoemewborn9541]

As a sim racer and all the troubles various titles have had over the years getting physics, weather, tire modeling, FFB, shaders etc right. I think its amazing the scope of SC and where they are right now. I mean we are still waiting on GTA6 too 😂

[@cedric5947]

"Maybe if you make the game approachable to a broader audience, maybe it stops being Star Citizen" Well, it's EXACTLY what CIG is doing right now.

[@MrQuik09]

When Luke said using 200 dollars on a ship is insane all i could think was i bought the Perseus the first time I saw it last iae and buying the Polaris when it drops 😬

[@JaleTechAndGaming]

WoW has some of the release and forget issues as well, even as a fully released game. E.g. It took almost 20 years to add pins the map system. Saying that, they do lean heavily on players using UI mods which made them lazy on most UI development.

[@zeer0squared]

Here is what the non-SC community doesn't get. CIG was making 3 products this whole time...well, since 2014. 1. A whole reworked game engine 2. A single-player, linear story-driven game 3. An MMO NOW, they've added new tech, server meshing, where if they can pull it off, most other MMOs may likely start using the shard method.

[@wdipuccio]

MMO’s already have sharding and server meshing. The reason the existing methods don’t work for SC is because of fidelity. They are pushing the tech for sure but most MMO’s don’t require the level of gameplay fidelity demanded by something as ambitious as star citizen

[@scotttimbrell8632]

It blows my mind to how obtuse anti-SC people are. Regardless if you prove your points..

[@aleclowry7654]

Also building the physical company and workforce/talent

[@ulosen]

Maybe they should have completed one game instead of none

[@scotttimbrell8632]

@@ulosen Maybe you should open your eyes to the type of game they are making and not look at the yearly £100 game that fakes everything? SQ42 is nearly out, so what you're saying is irrelevant.

[@elementsk8r1717]

Honestly what I didn’t like was most of citizen con was showing off things that are in the distant future and not so much of what they’re doing with stuff within the year.

[@jamesschmames6416]

They will eventually have to go to an MMO financing model. Probably with multiple tiers. So prepare for monthly subscriptions. This will be required for the compute necessary for NPC crew.

[@kainplays]

New to the community. I have a question about squadron 42. Is this meant to be a completely story driven, even LINEAR experience? Or is it a open world like Star Citizen? Like is the whole game gonna be you playing this military story out and then it ends, Or is that just the start and then the world opens up after you finish the story?? Better question, Do we even know yet?

[@OnyxIndustries]

I feel like you two danced around the deeper or actual topic. The phrase “elephant in the room” was used multiple times and you two almost got to it. Chris Roberts hasn’t been able to get out of his own way while we’ve all been on this journey. He has been the elephant in the room with the developmental problems but I do understand not wanting the stream to turn into a CR bashing episode. I recently went back down memory lane on our own group discord and read some 20 year old articles about Electronic Arts buying Origin systems and Microsoft buying Digital Anvil. Extremely interesting reads. Some of the quotes from CR then about “ technology not being ready yet” sound/read just like it was yesterday. But these were issues with publishers 20 years ago. No wonder he jumped at the chance to crowd fund when that business model became a thing. I recommend folks do some internet research on CR past and video game development. What he is doing has been his MO for 30 plus years now.

[@lordfraybin]

Too late. Sunk Cost fallacy.... we're stuck. Like a slow car crash you can't avoid watching. You're too invested.

[@kityhawk2000]

As someone who backed SC years ago I feel S42 should have been the immediate focus from the start. The persistent universe was always going to be a long term project that would never essentially be "finished" in term of adding content or features and thats fine but S42 is a something that does have an end and once that is released it would be a proof of concept for the PU, something the CIG can point to and say look heres a complete finished product that we have made. It proves that this is not vaporware or a scam. Then they can use the goodwill and success from that to build up the PU. I feel like they tried to do everything at once at first and it wasn't until a few years ago when they said they were focusing on S42 that we started seeing real progress

[@TinMan445]

I think you’re right. And making money from the sales of SQ42 to fund SC dev gives the entire thing a lot more legitimacy to the wider audience. Like you said, it’s still all a long unfulfilled promise.

[@Sparky_007]

Once 1.0 comes out, they can't keep selling ships like they have been. If they want to make this game accessible to the 'main stream', the need to come with several 'packages' (with starter ship selection), as well as some optional add-ons at the start. The game will have crafting and industry, and REP missions and other methods to earn ships IN GAME pose 1.0. They have to change over to a monetization model around things like Ship Insurance, Extra Insurances and Warranties. Stuff you can purchase with real world $$. Not all of this stuff should be for sale for $$, and all of it of course can be acquirable in game. They have to push the cosmetics, skins and add-ons heavily to help continue to fund the game as well. For backers, all stretch goals are automatically grandfathered in. But for new players post 1.0, they might have to pay $$ for future expansions when further systems come out (besides the first initial 5 systems). Will this be enough? We'll see. Perhaps the ability to purchase various insurance packages for $$ for ships (to help those who don't have as much time to play to earn in game credits to pay for that) will be a thing. They also need to do right by their backers by introducing some tiered rewards/benefits/discounts based on amount of time/money/effort(like bug reporting)/playtime in Alpha etc etc.. Based on this, backers could receive discounts on things like insurance claims, future content price discounts on above/beyond original backing goals. etc. I don't really think the can/should be selling ships for outright $$ after 1.0

[@B.D.E.]

Yes they can. Maybe you mean shouldn't. But CIG has never cared about should/shouldn't. They want your money.

[@1flinns]

Less than £100 spent, More than 5000 hours of fun, I don't see the problem.

[@NaranKPatel]

It's a mistake to think that bringing agile development into gaming is wrong, i.e., trying to think you'll have all the information from direct user feedback upfront?; there is a mindset to "develop the plane while it's flying it" so that they are "continuously plugged into requirements for their user communities" as they develop the game. I discussed this with Chris and Aaron in person several years ago and they appear to have adopted this. However, as a long-time backer and fan, I agree that they need to clearly state the features and milestones in releases; they need help doing this with the tech debt they appear to be continuously creating. They keep designing and developing new features and must be much stricter with the timeline of features. Their product owners (producers) should be rigorous about timelines with their developers and avoid creep and push additions into newer major/minor release iterations to add to the existing features. The other problem is the quality of features released, making sure quality of life is included with them upfront; after 12 years, they should have good hands-on experience on what makes the quality of life a releasable feature; this is a concern to me as they get closer to 4.0 and 1.0. Are they evolving? I believe they are since they are creating more tooling that sits on the game engines to make developing the gameplay easier and faster; however, instead of getting distracted by other projects behind the scenes that they can use on different projects, they need to "release value to users first" and build upon the release of that success.

[@Wickwire86]

My impression on people that are hyper critical of ship sales is that there are two main types: 1. Those who ignore all warnings they have to click through on the webpage and bying ships with money they shouldn't have spent. 2. Those who are angry that other people spend money on something they themself don't want to spend money on.

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

people compare CIG to gta 6 or whatever the difference is GTA 6 have a release window and will respect it, then will be super profitable, big difference. like the difference is between actually making games and scamming people

[@Wickwire86]

@@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n What are you trying to say?

[@angelarch5352]

17:20 "(the expensive ships) are bought by groups of people" 100% WRONG... the big backers of this game including myself are addicts, and we are buying massive fleets personally, with a pipe dream of playing with them all with our friends, but they have also purchased massive fleets, which makes it all a redundant exercise. SC ship sales are absolutely predatory and taking advantage of backers lack of restraint, and seling upon the premise of a dream that will not happen. Addicts will never stop spending because they are addicts.

[@mrsasquatch4828]

Have you tried to actually work on your self-discipline?

[@MaserJ0e]

We thank you for your funding

[@kityhawk2000]

I agree with some of what you say but it seems like becoming an addict to buying ships is not necessarily something CIG were trying to encourage. If you are unable to stop yourself buying things you cannot afford or don't really need I would say this is something you should seek help for. I never felt the need to buy more than a base level ship but I don't really like them selling massively expensive ships because people are treating these as transactions and DLC purchases when in fact they should be seen as donations to fund the games development

[@jeremyb3991]

@@kityhawk2000Considering it’s how they make their money it’s absolutely something they encourage, if it wasn’t they wouldn’t do so much FOMO marketing with limited ship sales, and incremental price increases, “CCU tokens”, etc

[@Tainted-Soul]

I do play other games and spend 100's of hours into them I'm 57 I don't smoke and cant drink so if you think how much people spend on Drink and smoking £££ a year on SC isnt that bad, my problem is I have a lot of hobbies and some could sink a lot into it them eg Photography my R5 and RF lenses cost a lot more than Ive put into SC, same with my motorbiking and the other hobbies, Luke has a good points on SC and may be right on some but time will tell

[@trevoroliveira2588]

People in the community that defend the monetization and berate people with valid criticisms are actively hurting the growth of this game.

[@wdipuccio]

I don’t like the way ship sales are done but it is also a known fact that the top 1% of spenders in games end up spending more than the bottom 99% so having the ship sales potential profits being so high gives them a better chance than selling smaller transactions to more people. Car companies would rather sell one $90,000 car than 3 $30,000 cars.

[@lordfraybin]

Not true. I've done both. Earned a lot more money selling used cars than new ones. Margins on new cars are tight and they cost a lot more, so fewer buyers and you don't earn as much. But the truth of the matter is, the bulk of profits came from Financing and Extended Warranties.

[@wdipuccio]

@ I’m talking about manufacturers, not dealers.

[@volodymyrduka888]

Excellent interview, thanks

[@Hemebean]

Great disscussion guys !

[@kainplays]

Only thing even close to SC is X4: Foundations. And SC looks way better, imo. Gonna be finally getting the game. The special they got for the avenger titan game package rn is pretty nice.

[@rybuds47]

I didnt realize when i was playin 3.22 that this is as good as its going to get.

[@viperswhip]

I am guessing we will get some gameplay at the nest Citizencon.

[@fwdcnorac8574]

58:00 I'm pretty sure they are going "free-to-play" in 1.0. All signs point to it. Grind and craft a ship OR hop onto our website and buy one outright with warranty and insurance. It would be similar to any popular MMO, where you can play for free or subscribe for a "free" mount for 30 days. Now, will it move to an actual subscription model? Not a chance. 0%. Not happening. Why? Because you all bought your ships already. They couldn't force you to pay a subscription OR lose access to the thousand bucks you spent over a decade. So here's my prediction. 1.0 will be free-to-play to counter all the solidified scam narratives that plague this title. But you won't get a ship to start. Nothing but a space suit, the starting gear we all know, and a handful of credits to afford some food, drink, and maybe a couple of guns. They can sign on to another player's ship as a gunner or engineer, or they can go it alone and do local missions until they make enough money to buy a ground vehicle, which will allow them to take on missions at a regional level surrounding a city or hub, which will garner them enough money to buy a ship and finally get off the planet, with the main story being the catalyst that propels them to greater and greater distances. Again, it is similar to any current-day popular MMO. I wouldn't be shocked if the prices for SOME ships were drastically discounted in 1..0. Some as low as $19.99. So, in conclusion, the way they generate money will remain, more or less, the same. The game will be free-to-pay in 1.0. And lastly, everyone reading this will always be the tester who tests stuff out before the public sees it. PTU will not end at 1.0. We will always be the first to see a new star system or game mechanic. We will always be the first to run into a game-breaking bug. It's our lot in life.

[@VinePest]

I love your vision of 1.0 progression: walk, do missions, buy/craft vehicle, drive, do missions, buy/craft ship, fly. I'd melt my ships and play that kinda progression right away if possible. Doubt it'll happen, though, not at 1.0. I expect walking will still just be there to use the tram and buy a multitool at first. Your arguments against subscription fees are compelling, but they will come up with another premium-tier subscription like Centurion now (or EVE Online Omega) with speedy progress to rope you in.

[@BradAhrens]

This would be pretty cool!

[@kityhawk2000]

Lol I'm more worried about them continuing to do the ship sales post release. Personally I feel they should scrap all ship sales or the very least all but the lowest priced ships. They can sell lots of other stuff like physical merchandise or, cosmetics or soundtrack, but leave off the super expensive ship sales.

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

Dude if ur gonna shill this hard get CIG link lol I thought you were like a fake marketing dude but it appears you are a real adherent. they have your money so the idea that "They couldn't force you to pay a subscription OR lose access to the thousand bucks you spent over a decade. " no you are not a customer to them you are a potential customer only , even worse

[@fwdcnorac8574]

@kityhawk2000 I'm predicting they will always sell ships. But it won't be required. They said they will continue to sell ships, and all ships purchased on the site will have LTI and warranty. Plus, all ships can be built, so what's the problem ?

[@shikopavelson7285]

Nice video! Really good discussion

[@tossitupman]

If they no longer sell ships they need a whale bait alternative. Like what $200+ purchase can a whale buy outside of a ship.?

[@nonleft96]

Valerie has like $150 skin collections and there's all these crazy skins for all these stupid amounts of money ships are just the same bloody thing, aren't they?

[@mactan_sc]

700m is less than rockstar will spend just advertising gta 6

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

lol thanks for bringing that up. star citizen probly used more in marketing budget than gta 5 which sold 200 millions copies

[@TinMan445]

Horrible comparison. Rockstar has a proven track record of delivering a product.

[@windemeregaming3004]

Don't you guys think they could make money from insurance basically being a subscription fee? every 3 months or every 12 months or whatever?

[@idkidk-qe9cf]

Anybody who pays should have access to a playable Demos of s42 and the ptu if both are being funding by the same pool of money.

[@Sir_f4ttius]

This was a great episode.

[@ufeelinselfrighteous8470]

Im a longtime backer, and i have spent... to much money. CIG has zero credibility, IMHO. They have failed to hit any long term goal, with any metric you use. Im not saying "scam". im saying "mismanaged"

[@TheRealBillix]

why not just play the game instead of buying stuff with real money?

[@poxon4515]

@@TheRealBillixbecause some us spent money and brought into the game before that was a thing

[@fwdcnorac8574]

The problem is they did this in a live environment and should have done this behind closed doors like Grand Theft Auto 6. Both games have been in development for the same amount of time. The problem is CIG allows you to get an early look at the game and participate in its development while you don't have any desire to be a tester and want the finished product. They can try and tell you, "It's in development," but you don't care. You want the finished game that you paid for. And you will take every opportunity to let everyone know that you cannot differentiate between "in-development" and "finished product."

[@lordfraybin]

Yes.. it's pretty obvious Chris is a terrible CEO and manager.

[@IianaDRK]

For the games own reputation they cant afford to sell ships after 1.0. Thats just a fact

[@artsolano6762]

Mobile “free” to play games are more expensive to play. Raid Shadow Legends is a major money pit.

[@ryanmitchell4044]

Here’s an idea backers will probably hate. Make a separate mode where everyone starts with one starter ship of their choice and a few thousand credits.

[@sjoervanderploeg4340]

Wait, did you see the new WoW mount?

[@sjoervanderploeg4340]

DLSS is not an optimization, it is a band aid and a pretty bad one as well!

[@honorabledodger]

Luke is not an outsider.. he plays star citizen

[@weskandel]

Star citizen is the Donald Trump of games...

[@theg0z0n]

How do you produce this much content. You're getting to where you're Simon Whistler level

[@reflexdogtraining1337]

Let's goooo! 🎉

[@GtSaalfeld]

Halo is dead but squadron will not be the one to kill it well any more than it already is. Squadron literally will never come out and I’m at the point that I accept that

[@angelarch5352]

He started following SC in 2016?... SC was already old and years overdue by 2016 lol

[@MrZara4267]

I didnt realize I was an Org buying big ships lol. TBH gacha games are just as bad, just smaller dollar amounts.

[@justalex4214]

Smaller dollar amounts? Lol no. SC is absolutely dwarfed by some of the more successful gacha games out there. I know of a few gacha game youtubers/streamers who spent several tens of thousands of dollars to get their SSR waifus, it's absolutely wild. Fate Grand Order for example earned over 7 billion dollars after 8 years of service, that is 10x what SC made in 12 years.

[@kityhawk2000]

Well if you are buying big ships you'll need to be part of an org to successfully use them. I don't think I'd want to have a big ship myself because I always felt like it would be a real pain getting enough people together to use them.

[@AnEmortalKid]

Holy shit it’s lookypoo

[@Dumb-Comment]

Beyond good and evil 2 is Ubisoft? Oh well

[@TheLordSkippy]

Big Old Space Nerd Circle Jerk!? :D

[@Moon_Goose]

The marketing team will be the downfall of this project.

[@fffx2]

Repost?

[@ExileVideo]

LukeStephens makes good videos and I enjoy his opinion on it but he seems to glaze over or not know the monetisation now is basically like a kickstarter and its well documented when you spend in store... you're pledging money to the company to continue their tech demo basically, in return for a pledge of X you get ship Y basically... yeah theres whales with huge money invested and huge fleets but in game they're not much different from the freeflier... thats how i see the money side of the game now, its to keep the project moving (at glacial pace) but once released, it wont be the same, and I find the likes of rockstars monetisation of GTA online, or every other games DLC far more problematic I encourage people to try this game, the freefly events tend to stress the servers so much but either go in through that or buy the cheapest game package you can find, it's still cheaper than most games, and see how much is available in SC- and how the person with minimal investment still has full access to pretty much everything the game has, most ships can be bought in game anyway with money earned from missions just fair warning, it is a tech demo, it is buggy, but its still one of the best online game experiences out there, for $5,000 for $500 for $50 or for free, all players are the same

[@xenomorphisisdilage472]

Not a tech demo, but yeah

[@kityhawk2000]

My problem has always been the massively expensive ship sales because I feel the whales are basically treating them like DLC purchases. If this was physical merchandise like some hyper detailed models of ships or a donation where you got to visit the studio and have your name appear in the credits of the game I'd think it was fine to set a high donation price on that but I get uncomfortable with doing it just for ingame digital content

[@RandomNobody510]

Star citizen is an amazing idea with poor implementation coupled with poor management.

[@csdigitaldesign]

There's nothing poor about is implimenation. Some things are rough but it's because it's an unfinished alpha. That's why it's not release yet. As for mismanagement... there could be some of that happening... especially in the past.

[@crsferfer]

Sure.. try to make a server meshing tech, a big game engine, 2 games and a game company in 11 years from the scratch. this project is unique, no one ever did the same

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

they lie about what they can do which makes it fraud. thats the difference with SC and normal game developers. they perhaps knew since the beginning 100+ system was impossible on their tech this was a grooming/mind control operation using backer dollars to manipulate backers themselves into throwing more money at the potential they knew wasnt possible. this will all come out later in court im assuming

[@lordfraybin]

It's well known Chris micromanaged much of the development. This slows shit down to a crawl. And.. THAT is pretty apparent in their progress. They've even spilled the beans more than once showing how little they've actually thought about game play.. after we've discussed the loops for a decade on the forums...

[@TheStumafoo]

Sorry but regardless of "in development" you cant advertise this great amazing gameplay then you get in and its a pile of dog shit.. Just don't do it, they have the most aggressive marketing that does not coincide with what the game experience really is. I don't mind them developing and having issues upon issues , I 've been following for 13 years total pledged over 2300 , that's including subscriptions over the years , which at $20 is really not much. Many have way more. I'm not expecting greatness, but when you open youtube and see this amazing ship flying through all this battle and great looking experience, then get in the game and its bouncing AI bounties all over the map, Its bullshit..

[@dekulruno]

Sad thing is those videos were recorded when things were working and the gameplay was fine, right now the servers are a broken and janky mess

[@ryanmitchell4044]

⁠@@dekulrunoyeah I got on to try this with my friend after both being on hiatus since 3.16 and things were bad. Some things even worse than I remember.

[@LucidStrike]

So...What should they do, not show intended experiences, not market? Should they promote using the WORST experiences? What exactly would you have them do that would make sense for a project that needs money to pay workers to make the game and isn't a volunteer-run hobby project...? 😳

[@RAVPower-]

But it is not dogshit, that's the thing

[@scotttimbrell8632]

I don't understand how someone can spend so much on the game and be following for the entire lifecycle of the game and not realise the point of showing their gameplay and understanding why it works well. They are meant to portray the finished product, not the current state of an alpha. There's no regardless, it quite literally is in development and you're complaining that it's not done and that it should be despite that it's IN DEVELOPMENT. It's like looking at concept art for a new build house you bought and then complaining when it's still being built....fucking hell the anti-SC crowd are dense. Like you saw SQ42 right?

[@SgtHack802]

This a rerun watched it last week lol

[@macrot5419]

@sgthack802 some of us didn't. Pointless comment.

[@SgtHack802]

Now the single players are told they won’t be able to fly the bigger ships. They say the AI blades won’t be very good. We weren’t told that at sale. I see refunds coming if it isn’t fixed

[@Roboticus_Prime_RC]

This.

[@LucidStrike]

No, he said they won't be as good as a "good" player. This may be news to you, but, uhh...not all players are good. Also, solo isn't getting any harder. That perception is from people not thinking things through fully. Multicrew extends OPTIONS. It doesn't remove them from solo. Like, even if a solo player can't replace a component WHILE piloting, they can use repair services just as they can rn. That's not going away. 🤷🏿‍♂️

[@Biter1975]

They said what they needed too to get funding, with no idea if they could actually achieve it. People have purchased ships, game packs for NPC’s etc. That’s why it gets called a scam. As more promises get broken, more people will call it out as a scam. The difference is now it will be previously loyal stakeholders calling it a scam.

[@gumpthegreat1]

You are stupid if you ever thought you could fly large ships solo. They have said since literally the start that this will not be viable long term. Just like how in WoW you can't participate in end game raiding solo, you can not operate large/capital class vessels solo in SC. Its an MMO. Maybe try having friends?

[@kityhawk2000]

I never really understood why you'd buy massive multicrew ships to fly solo? The costs would surely outweigh the reward. These ships were never sold as being suitable for one player. If someone attacks your massive ship you are basically a sitting duck same as if you tried to work an aircraft carrier by yourself.

[@SgtHack802]

Long time backer 2013. Very disappointed with the game. It’s a money hole now. Building ships in the game, $$$$$$ real money to build them. CIG will never give that up. A Bengal Carrier built in a dry dock. No way CIG will give up a $5000 ship. Lol

[@FEVB]

So they're lying about being able to do that?

[@TruthIsKey369]

Support it or don't, CIG are making progress.

[@BradAhrens]

It's not gonna cost real money to build ships unless you wanted to buy a Pioneer, which isn't necessary. There's a lot of fear-mongering goin on these days. There's no need for it. When something gets implemented in a way that doesn't make sense, the backers get loud and CIG responds. What will likely happen regarding ship-building is difficult to acquire blueprints, long print times, and vast amounts of materials being needed to print with. Also, it's unlikely that every ship in the game will have blueprints, so ship sales will still have a place in their funding model.

[@crsferfer]

You're so wrong bdy 😂

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

@@FEVB CIG lies all the time. they didnt suddenly realize in 2024 that the vision suddenly became 5 system lol it was a process, of brainwashing, at backer expense

[@callsigngrimdoll]

Yawn.

[@Biter1975]

Star Citizen is like the online romance scams, they get people to fall in love by sprinkling breadcrumbs but when the game launches there will be nothing there. Tier 0 everything.

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

not just that its like u finance ur own romance scam

[@phseeure-leaker]

Tattoos are ugly, don't get them if you don't want regrets.

[@kainplays]

That's a ridiculous statement