Squadron 42 - Star Citizen : Wing Commander Style Space Sim

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think arknors particularly negative to be fair, just realistic.

Bottom line is we don't how good this game will be, it's a matter of taking a leap of faith in some ways and hoping they can pull it off. I do think sometimes people are making assumptions that this game will be everything they have ever wanted, which it frankly wont' be.

I think it'll be good, I hope it's great but I'm not expecting perfection.
 
Halfmad said:
I don't think arknors particularly negative to be fair, just realistic.

Bottom line is we don't how good this game will be, it's a matter of taking a leap of faith in some ways and hoping they can pull it off. I do think sometimes people are making assumptions that this game will be everything they have ever wanted, which it frankly wont' be.

I think it'll be good, I hope it's great but I'm not expecting perfection.
Click to expand...

shhh turn on fanboy mode.
pretend chris roberts is a poor developer and not someone who sold digital anvil to microsoft and spent years producing big budget hollywood movies.

millionaires shouldn't be using kickstarter when they already have money to fund their ideas and anyone who disagrees with that is bonkers.
 
The point of the kickstarter was not just to get prepayments in. It was to circumvent the publisher model, and to convince other big investors that there was enough interest and financial commitment from customers to prove that SC is a viable, profitable product, and there's a market for it.
 
From what I recall he did use his own money to develop the work that was shown at the kickstarter campaign beginning. The kickstarter was a test to see if the genre was still alive and kicking or not, and as we can see it has. Why invest ALL your money in developing something when you won't see all of that money back. Instead, get publishers or the community to pay and then deliver what was promised.

I certainly don't begrudge him taking this approach, simply risk management in my opinion.

Anyhow, I've paid what I have to see the game developed how he believes it should be.
 
arknor said:
millionaires shouldn't be using kickstarter when they already have money to fund their ideas and anyone who disagrees with that is bonkers.
Click to expand...

I never understood arguments such as this, it's not like Kickstarter is a charity with limited funds, it's not taking money away from a more deserving cause.

Imagine Bill Gates came up with a great PC game idea, he doesn't need the profit from making said game, he'd rather spend his money on other things. But that could be the best pc game idea ever, with kickstarter the people who want that game to be made foot the money for it to be made.

While this is a simplistic example, I'm just saying that some people might like the money more than the idea, and instead of that idea going nowhere the people who like the idea get the product. The rich get richer, but if a poor lowly dev had come up with Star Citizen, everyone would have given their 28 mill to them.
 
arknor said:
shhh turn on fanboy mode.
pretend chris roberts is a poor developer and not someone who sold digital anvil to microsoft and spent years producing big budget hollywood movies.

millionaires shouldn't be using kickstarter when they already have money to fund their ideas and anyone who disagrees with that is bonkers.
Click to expand...

Nobody with any business sense would pump $23 Million of their own fortune into a project, without any idea on whether the franchise could be a success or not.

The kickstarter didnt ask for the full amount either.....just enough to show interest in the game from potential fans and then the remaining amount was to be taken from Investors, which I imagine CR would have put some in himself. (he had to put in his own money and time to develop the early kickstarter campaign footage etc.)

As it turns out PC Space Sim fans all over the world have VERY deep pockets and have funded the game all themselves and then some.

Nothing wrong with that, as long as they deliver what they promise and people get the game they expect.

Nothing malicous in this kickstarter what so ever.
 
francky said:
Nobody with any business sense would pump $23 Million of their own fortune into a project, without any idea on whether the franchise could be a success or not.
Click to expand...
I wonder who funded the 30 million wing commander movie he made, he also jumped to making hollywood movies out of nowhere which makes me wonder if he was paying for the privilege of following his dream using the money microsoft gave him for digital anvil but he ended up running out of the millions and decided to go back to gaming where he had more sucess once he found out about kickstarter

I'm sure the game will be awesome though
 
arknor said:
I wonder who funded the 30 million wing commander movie he made, he also jumped to making hollywood movies out of nowhere which makes me wonder if he was paying for the privilege of following his dream using the money microsoft gave him for digital anvil but he ended up running out of the millions and decided to go back to gaming where he had more sucess once he found out about kickstarter

I'm sure the game will be awesome though
Click to expand...

As with most hollywood productions...both film and TV series, a group of investors put money into what they think might be successful, with the hope that they will reap profits back, should the production be a success.

Multiple investors will back the project, as to spread the risk so that no 1 man/woman takes on all the risk.

But your right, he may have put his own money into a lot of these projects over the course of time and now might be less well off.

But regardless of his personal finances, I think he is still great game developer in the Space Sim genre and everybody that is involved, fans, CR and devs alike all want a great space game....as long as they deliver, everyone will be happy!

Also I notice they raised $500,000 dollars yesterday alone....that is crazy!

This weekend, when the Super Hornet, The Gladiator and the Retaliator go on Sale.....I reckon they could do close to $1m a day....big bananas!
 
As excited as I am for this game, I am amazed at the amount of money that has been dropped on a project for which we have not yet seen any gameplay footage.

That said, if anyone can deliver I suppose it is Chris Roberts.....loved Privateer :).
 
francky said:
As with most hollywood productions...both film and TV series, a group of investors put money into what they think might be successful, with the hope that they will reap profits back, should the production be a success.

Multiple investors will back the project, as to spread the risk so that no 1 man/woman takes on all the risk.
Click to expand...

Which is ultimately where the problem lies in crowdfunding, especially when it's as large a scale as this. The public have taken on over $28 million of risk yet will receive no profits if it's successful.

People are in effect donating money as if it was a charity, it's not, and all the profits will go straight into someone else's pocket without them taking any (or very little) risk at all.

This is not a sustainable model for publishing big budget games.
 
Vtec9k said:
Which is ultimately where the problem lies in crowdfunding, especially when it's as large a scale as this. The public have taken on over $28 million of risk yet will receive no profits if it's successful.

People are in effect donating money as if it was a charity, it's not, and all the profits will go straight into someone else's pocket without them taking any (or very little) risk at all.

This is not a sustainable model for publishing big budget games.
Click to expand...

Not sure how you come to that conclusion??

No one is investing in this model.....pledgers are simply putting their money in to see a project that appeals to them to see it happen.

Its like someone saying I can invent you the best car you will ever drive.......if you give me the money to create it, I will spend the time and effort making the car and once complete you get the car for no extra cost.

So in affect, the consumer has paid for the item before its made and given the maker the funds to do so.

Giving money up front doesnt mean that you have to be an investor and that you should get a return on that investment.....I certainly didnt go in with that mindset.

I saw a game that I thought would be great fun, I put some money into it to help it get developed and after the 2 years are up I will get the completed game I paid for.

Consumers dont put in any risk....I wouldnt consider the fairly small amount of money I put in any "risk" to my financial future.
 
Vtec9k said:
Which is ultimately where the problem lies in crowdfunding, especially when it's as large a scale as this. The public have taken on over $28 million of risk yet will receive no profits if it's successful.

People are in effect donating money as if it was a charity, it's not, and all the profits will go straight into someone else's pocket without them taking any (or very little) risk at all.

This is not a sustainable model for publishing big budget games.
Click to expand...
which is why I don't like this games funding model.

look at all the studios and stuff they have been buying we have essentially bought chris roberts a bunch of devs studios and fancy expensive equipment as well as paid for everything else involved with the game and more which is how they are wasting some of the funding on there star citizen con crap.

if future dlc/expansions were free until all of the games funding raised was actually spent on the game then brilliant but I don't see them justifying the costs or explaining where the money has gone.

there really needs to be some kind of regulation with crowd funding and an outside accountant with transparent records for any project funded to tens of millions of dollars

Giving money up front doesnt mean that you have to be an investor and that you should get a return on that investment
Click to expand...
it does when we are essentially paying for all of his company.

if you paid someone to make you the supercar of your dreams you would not expect to pay for the tools , prefab equipment , garage space etc you would expect to pay for the cars materials and man hours + a mark up
 
Last edited:
francky said:
Not sure how you come to that conclusion??

No one is investing in this model.....pledgers are simply putting their money in to see a project that appeals to them to see it happen.

Its like someone saying I can invent you the best car you will ever drive.......if you give me the money to create it, I will spend the time and effort making the car and once complete you get the car for no extra cost.

So in affect, the consumer has paid for the item before its made and given the maker the funds to do so.

Giving money up front doesnt mean that you have to be an investor and that you should get a return on that investment.....I certainly didnt go in with that mindset.

I saw a game that I thought would be great fun, I put some money into it to help it get developed and after the 2 years are up I will get the completed game I paid for.

Consumers dont put in any risk....I wouldnt consider the fairly small amount of money I put in any "risk" to my financial future.
Click to expand...

I agree with you mostly.
But it is important to remember you didn't buy a product and it is an investment. only in terms of if it goes pear shaped they don't 'owe' you the game.
But for a game like SC the backing was there already, it's just great that he didn't need to take investor money and has full creative freedom
 
arknor said:
which is why I don't like this games funding model.

look at all the studios and stuff they have been buying we have essentially bought chris roberts a bunch of devs studios and fancy expensive equipment as well as paid for everything else involved with the game and more which is how they are wasting some of the funding on there star citizen con crap
Click to expand...

But if you get your game at the end, A game that delivers everything it said at the time you invested.
Does it matter that they had a Star citizen con?
Or if he bought a gold toilet
or had a stripper for lunch every day?

If the game comes, you got what you paid for, same as any game.
 
GiraffePencils said:
But if you get your game at the end, A game that delivers everything it said at the time you invested.
Does it matter that they had a Star citizen con?
Or if he bought a gold toilet
or had a stripper for lunch every day?

If the game comes, you got what you paid for, same as any game.
Click to expand...
the money should be spent on the game and nothing else we aren't supposed to be funding a lavish lifestyle or development studios of which there are many now.
you expect to fund the game not multiple dev studios start up costs which they can make a fortune from afterwords even if they just close them down and sell them off

how will you guys feel if he sells the company to microsoft or someone for hundreds of millions after delivering the game?
 
Last edited:
arknor said:
which is why I don't like this games funding model.

look at all the studios and stuff they have been buying we have essentially bought chris roberts a bunch of devs studios and fancy expensive equipment as well as paid for everything else involved with the game and more which is how they are wasting some of the funding on there star citizen con crap.

if future dlc/expansions were free until all of the games funding raised was actually spent on the game then brilliant but I don't see them justifying the costs or explaining where the money has gone.

there really needs to be some kind of regulation with crowd funding and an outside accountant with transparent records for any project funded to tens of millions of dollars

it does when we are essentially paying for all of his company.

if you paid someone to make you the supercar of your dreams you would not expect to pay for the tools , prefab equipment , garage space etc you would expect to pay for the cars materials and man hours + a mark up
Click to expand...

I agree that there should be regulation....in the form of an outside body protecting the consumer.....so that people dont create false campaigns take millions and deliver nothing.

But its all a means to an end.

The current model with a publisher means that you introduce a middle man, they offer the up front costs to the devs, but then take most of the profits, giving the real creative people minimal money, so that they dont become finincially independant and thus make them redundant.

You as a consumer still have to put you money down to get the end product....you still take a degree of risk, as the game could turn out rubbish. (im looking at you X Rebirth).

But the crowdfunded model connects the creative people with the fans and allows them to create something they both want, while keeping out the men in suits that only want as much money as possible.

Its not perfect....but I prefer it far more than giving my money to the shareholders of these huge publishers that dont give a damn about how good a game is or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom