Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Star Citizen's Crowdfunding-Driven Grey Market

Soulskill posted about 9 months ago | from the arbitrage-knows-no-bounds dept.

The Almighty Buck 88

szyzyg writes "Star Citizen has broken all the crowdfunding records, raising almost 25 million dollars in the last year to fund Chris Roberts' promise of the ultimate spaceship game. However, an investigation sheds light on a murky secondary market where items are being resold by investors for profit, all for a game that won't be fully released for two years. The standard crowdfunding tactic of rewarding early backers has created a tiered system with ample room for profiteering, profits which many not be shared with the developers. Few things would please me more than Star Citizen succeeding, but backers should read this article before being tempted to trade up their internet spaceships through a third party."

cancel ×

88 comments

Another EVE online? (2, Insightful)

duke_cheetah2003 (862933) | about 9 months ago | (#45238977)

Just what we needed.

Re:Another EVE online? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45239107)

Except... fun, visceral space combat rather than a trading simulation.

Re:Another EVE online? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45239281)

Except... fun, visceral space combat rather than a trading simulation.

Lol!

Re:Another EVE online? (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about 9 months ago | (#45240271)

Well I just hope they implement the necromonger's creed for PvP: "You keep what you kill!"

Re:Another EVE online? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45239127)

Its very different than Eve, actually. Private servers. Single player campaign. Good stuff.

Also checkout "X Rebirth" if you like single player space sims.

Re:Another EVE online? (2)

Fallen Kell (165468) | about 9 months ago | (#45239357)

You forgot that the combat is also twitch/skill based and not formula based. In Eve, 1v1 combat is all about knowing your ship's strengths and weaknesses, outfitting it properly to exploit those said strengths and weaknesses and knowing which targets are most vulnerable to your strengths with least ability to threaten your weaknesses... This plus the number of skill points the pilot has giving bonuses to the skills that affect the strengths/weaknesses of the ship.

In gang fights (which most fights are), it is mostly about who has the best logistics and/or best concentrated DPS (typically the group with the most people will win, but not always).

Re:Another EVE online? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 9 months ago | (#45240233)

Star Trek Online failed miserably in my mind because I had to micro-manage the damned shields, "reinforcing" them, all the while mashing other buttons to fire phasers or torpedos as soon as they recycle, can't automate any of that crap. 100% console type design.

Please tell me this isn't that. God almighty please tell me it isn't that.

Re:Another EVE online? (3, Informative)

Fallen Kell (165468) | about 9 months ago | (#45240505)

No, this is actually flying/piloting a spaceship in WWII style dog-fights (with the aid tracking/locking computers, but aiming I believe will be up to the pilot for many ships/guns). Damage occurs based on what was actually hit by the aimed shots which ships having physical locations for things like engines, weapons, life systems, power generators, shields, armor, thrusters, etc., and damaging those different systems will physically affect the operation of the ship (i.e. if you lost all your port thrusters, and the ship doesn't have have a thruster on a gimbal/omni mount, you won't be able to turn to the starboard side (and would instead have to first roll the ship upside down so that you have active/working thrusters so you could then turn to the direction now that you have thrusters that work to push you there).

So actual flying skills will mater. Knowing how to properly dodge enemy fire, perform evasive maneuvers (possibly overriding safety systems that limit the G-forces you receive to do more extreme maneuvers, but then risking blacking out if you go beyond your body's and your suit's limits to keep oxygen going to your brain).

Re:Another EVE online? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45246881)

Actually you can automate all of that. STO allows keybinding and macros with an extensive list of console commands. You also must have missed the options for auto-fire weapons and the fire all weapons buttons. I have my spacebar set to fire all weapons and redistribute shields. I also have a tactical bridge officer that has a skill to automatically handle shield balance for a brief time.

Basically you didn't bother to learn how to play.

Re:Another EVE online? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 9 months ago | (#45239937)

Eve requires you to noin big, mrderous bands to build essentially persistant space cities in fully PvP space.

While that is fun, it's difficult for autists to make headway by themselves.

And now there's voting, so not only do you have to worry about seizures through force -- you habe to worry about seizures by way of charasmatics leading voters.

Waitress, can I get another tallboy? Thanks.

Re:Another EVE online? (1)

jythie (914043) | about 9 months ago | (#45239381)

EvE could really use some competition, but this is not going to be it. There is going to be some market overlap between the two, but from the sounds of it they have rather different focuses in what will make them interesting.

So far no one has really tried to make another 'EvE' on any significant scale, not when it comes to the things that make EvE unusual.

Re:Another EVE online? (1)

desdinova 216 (2000908) | about 9 months ago | (#45239645)

exactly, it seems like every MMO out there is trying to copy WoW.

Re:Another EVE online? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45244935)

No every MMO tries top copy SWG

Re:Another EVE online? (1)

desdinova 216 (2000908) | about 8 months ago | (#45248171)

before or after NGE?

I just don't like the scamming hacker thieves (4, Insightful)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about 9 months ago | (#45239043)

I bought/sold items in games before. People did it with baseball cards. People did it with magic the gathering cards. Buy/sell/trading of virtual items makes sense.

What sickens me is the hackers who steal people's accounts. This is really not much different than people scamming people's bank accounts, but there is less enforcement. I just don't like hackers stealing peoples video game assets. These people who phish for passwords and steal credentials should have to go to jail if caught. And people should be trying to catch these guys.

You can't write it off as the account being worth nothing, so there is nothing of value lost. The fact that they sell your lewt shows that there is stuff of value there. They're nothing different than common thieves. I just don't know why law enforcement doesn't target them.

Re:I just don't like the scamming hacker thieves (4, Insightful)

CitizenCain (1209428) | about 9 months ago | (#45239113)

I just don't know why law enforcement doesn't target them.

Limited resources. They spend more resources on crimes that are more damaging than simply having a game account stolen (which sucks, but is hardly life-altering) or crimes they can make money off of (speeding, asset forfeiture, etc.).

And, except for that last part where they play the role of modern-day highway robbers (literally, even), that's as it should be. There are enough *real* crimes that cause victims serious harm, so having your video gaming account stolen should never be a top priority for police, IMO.

Re:I just don't like the scamming hacker thieves (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45239597)

On that note, I wonder if the fact law enforcement doesn't bother prosecuting digital theivery could be used as precedent. It would be very, very interesting if that could be turned into a legal case showing music/movie studios "losses" have no real value.

Re:I just don't like the scamming hacker thieves (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45240723)

Not only that, but the victims of these types of crimes often get back all the virtual goods that have been stolen from them, because the staff of the game company can issue the stolen gear with a few keystrokes. Furthermore, hiring people with the technical skills required to go after people who commit virtual theft may not be cheap. TLDR: I agree with you 100%.

Re:I just don't like the scamming hacker thieves (1)

dkf (304284) | about 8 months ago | (#45244351)

[The police] spend more resources on crimes that are more damaging than simply having a game account stolen (which sucks, but is hardly life-altering) or crimes they can make money off of (speeding, asset forfeiture, etc.).

To be fair, speeding is a major factor (though clearly not the only one) in increasing the frequency and severity of car crashes, which in turn can definitely have life-altering consequences. (You can't get a much more "life-altering consequence" than being killed, and even with modern car safety features, the best way to not die from a car crash is to not be in a car crash at all.) Speed has a two-fold impact on crash frequency and severity: more kinetic energy, and less time for drivers to react so as to avoid the smash or reduce its consequences.

Re:I just don't like the scamming hacker thieves (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45239345)

I believe many are in other countries, and many of those countries have bigger fish to fry than virtual item thieves.

I've heard of some U.S. based ones as well, and the reason I heard about them is because they WERE caught.

Re:I just don't like the scamming hacker thieves (1)

Rhacman (1528815) | about 9 months ago | (#45240945)

You can own a trading card however many online games have explicit terms of service that state that you do not own the in-game assets associated with your account. A real-world analogy would be when you play checkers at your friends house; you don't own the game pieces but you are permitted to control them within the scope of the game. This makes the publishers the judge, jury, and executioner with regards to any dispute involving in-game assets, no need to waste the time of law-enforcement. Now perhaps there could be real world charges associated with unauthorized access to your account but often the terms are written such that any such action would be between the publisher and the offender and that any charges would not factor in the supposed value of the in-game resources.

what a great idea! (1)

Sterculius (1675612) | about 9 months ago | (#45239053)

How could this possibly fail?

Re:what a great idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45241779)

The same way greedy scum ruin everything they infest.

"all for AN game" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45239067)

'An', 'a', what's the difference? Fucking American cretins...

WHY do you AMERICANS keep writing 'an' instead of 'a' all over the place? How can you possibly not notice this? And why is it always Americans?

Re:"all for AN game" (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45239157)

I'm a American and I think that most of my fellow citizens are kind of stupid. Their just not that smart compared to a Europeans. I blame are government.

Re:"all for AN game" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45240153)

I don't know where to start with this comment! There is so much wrong with it!
The government cannot be blamed for how stupid the Europeans are, they don't have any say in another country's education system. Besides, it just isn't right to compare North and South America like that. There are a lot of cultural differences you have to be sensitive to.
Please fix your comment.

Re:"all for AN game" (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about 9 months ago | (#45240313)

WOOOOOOOSH!

Re:"all for AN game" (1, Informative)

Fallen Kell (165468) | about 9 months ago | (#45239187)

The use of "an" instead of "a" is determined by the beginning of the word after the "an" or "a". If the word following it is in singular form and begins with a vowel sound, "an" is used. Otherwise "a" is used for the singular form.

This rule is not unlike many other languages. In Spanish, for instance, verbs take on a masculine or feminine form depending on if the subject is a male or female....

Re:"all for AN game" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45239269)

I guess Canadians are cretins as well as our English dialect also uses this rule.

A game.
An apple.

Perhaps you need to realize that your dialect is not the same as the dialect of others even though it seems quite similar.

Re: "all for AN game" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45239465)

An helps the speaker elide into the next word by breaking apart vowel sounds.

Re: "all for AN game" (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 9 months ago | (#45242171)

Yep. English doesn't really do glottal stops.

Re: "all for AN game" (1)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about 9 months ago | (#45244077)

Tha''s a li'le bi' bigo'ed of you. Some of us li'er our pa'er with glo'al stops.

Re:"all for AN game" (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45239489)

I don't know what dialect of English you're speaking where you DON'T use 'an'... but I've never seen one - and I'm not American (I'm English).

1st rule of being a grammar-nazi: be good at grammar

Re:"all for AN game" (1)

DoomHamster (1918204) | about 9 months ago | (#45240005)

I wish I could vote you up. I've been all around the world and have never encountered English spoken WITHOUT the distinction between 'a' and 'an'. I am baffled as to how the OP could possibly come to the conclusion that this is errant, and that it is ONLY Americans that do it. Makes me chuckle a bit, actually.

Re:"all for AN game" (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#45239513)

WHY do you AMERICANS?

Why do stupid non-Americans* always make such idiotic blanket generalizations about Americans? Some sort of ePenis-envy?

* Not that all non-Americans do this - just the stupid ones.

Re:"all for AN game" (1)

boarder8925 (714555) | about 9 months ago | (#45241383)

Because we're Americans, not Amiercas.

Re:"all for AN game" (1)

boarder8925 (714555) | about 9 months ago | (#45241425)

Apparently we can't even spell our own goddamn demonym correctly, either. I'm an idiot.

"Scare Quotes" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45239081)

Black market is for illegal trade, and grey market is supposed to imply some sort of wrongdoing.

Honest evaluation: people who got in early enough and anticipated a larger future demand than would be present for the initial kickstarting decided to buy up extra packs and sell them for a profit. This is the same as people who wait in line to buy PS4s and then resell on ebay for profit. They are selling their small amount of time, effort, patience or simply timing so that people who did/could not get into the first round of buyers can fight over the product a different way.

Re:"Scare Quotes" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45239907)

I'm pretty sure you didn't actually read the article, since it points out
a) There's a class of users who can get the most popular packs 10% cheaper and with lifetime insurance, no need to invest and sit on inventory.
b) They offer to help new users get 'lifetime insurance' without telling them about the 10% profit they're making.

Re:"Scare Quotes" (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 9 months ago | (#45241063)

But, but, think of the children! These people are clearly promoting terrorism, drug abuse and copyright infringement! Probably the starships traded also had lewd posters on their interior walls!

Re:"Scare Quotes" (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 9 months ago | (#45244139)

It works the same way when investing in businesses.
People who invest earlier get a larger part of the pie, then they sell it for profit to new investors. The whole point of the exercise is to get a return on your investment, typically multiplying it by 4.

Of course, this isn't quite like investing: crowdfunding is more like a gift in exchange for a future product, there are no returns on investment.

Stupid people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45239155)

... will be stupid despite themselves.

BS (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45239159)

So? What's the problem?
The dev team got the money to make a AAA GPU-burning space-sim without moronic publishers ruining it.
People get to see the inside of game dev, week to week, which is really cool imo

Someone else making money with it is, for me, completely irrelevant, it is not detracting from the development, it's not harming their bussiness, why should I care?

Or is it one of those "only me" concepts?

PS: Star Citizen is AWESOME. and it is NOT Eve online, for fucks sake....

Re:BS (3, Insightful)

szyzyg (7313) | about 9 months ago | (#45239261)

The problem is:
Trading forums deliberately suppressing information on actual prices and alternatives.
Package resellers on Amazon & Ebay charging large markups because the buyers don't know the mechanics.
Star Citizen MODERATORS in charge of enforcing the trading bans on the official forum directing users to their own trading service.

In short, the problem is information asymmetry, which this article attempts to address.

Re:BS (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 9 months ago | (#45239799)

Two problems:

1. People who want to buy the limited packages could have been giving the money to the devs to fund the game. Which is the entire point of the whole "selling ships before game is even out" thing.
2. Obfuscation: by not allowing discussion of some of the practices and fine points, such as price differential for early backers, newcomers may actually end up getting screwed. They think they're backing the dev, when in fact they're lining profiteers' pockets.

Re:BS (1)

Fjandr (66656) | about 9 months ago | (#45242139)

2: These people are actually backing the development, just at a slightly smaller percentage than they may think they are.

Re:BS (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 9 months ago | (#45243073)

So when you donate money to charity through a middleman and he takes a sizeable portion of your money, it's ok?

Where do you draw the line? How much can he take? Can he not tell you that he's taking a portion of the money for himself? In some countries that is actually illegal to do.

Re:BS (1)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about 9 months ago | (#45244087)

So when you donate money to charity through a middleman and he takes a sizeable portion of your money, it's ok?

It's not necessarily OK, but it's definitely standard practice, more's the pity.

Will probably matter very little when it comes out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45239173)

Hasn't the history of promises of in-game exclusives for hard cash up front pretty much always been followed by said in-game exlusives being pretty worthless?

It kind of makes sense - first extract as much money as you can from the die-hard fanboys, then avoid casual gamers being pissed off at preorder to win mechanisms.

Re:Will probably matter very little when it comes (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 9 months ago | (#45239809)

They have specifically stated that these things won't even be exclusive - all ships will be attainable through in-game means. You may get a unique skin at best.

Stock IPO (1)

Luthair (847766) | about 9 months ago | (#45239183)

Almost always exactly the same thing, share prices spike after they become "available" to the select few.

Re:Stock IPO (2)

Fallen Kell (165468) | about 9 months ago | (#45239273)

Well, that is due to proper market analysis more so than anything else. It is obviously in the best interest of the current share holders to properly evaluate the stock price before an IPO. An accurate evaluation with erroring on the side of being low means it will grow in price out of the gate, allowing those early backers a chance to sell their existing stock without fear of flooding the market with sell orders when there are no buy orders for the stock.

So overblown (5, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 9 months ago | (#45239247)

Disclaimer: I am a backer of Star Citizen.

This is ridiculously overblown. People are so butthurt about not being able to get in on the super special offers of Idris Corvettes or whatever, and they're jealous of people who can pay the ridiculous secondary market prices. Meanwhile, CIG itself is butthurt that they're not getting any money off the secondary market that they inadvertently created by offering limited issue ships and empowering users to transfer them. You know, because the millions upon millions of dollars that people have given them up front isn't enough.

If you create items that are scarce and enable people to trade them, you are creating a market. Period. No exceptions. You cannot then start whining about how you don't get automatic royalties every time somebody sells an item, or even stupider complain that people are selling them in the first place. Making them scarce gave them value, making them transferable created the market. Everybody get over themselves and stop whining. Oh and scams? First rule of ANY market: CAVEAT EMPTOR, BITCHES.

Re:So overblown (1)

szyzyg (7313) | about 9 months ago | (#45239413)

"CAVEAT EMPTOR, BITCHES."
Good thing someone wrote a guide explaining all this then eh?

Re:So overblown (2)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 9 months ago | (#45239505)

If you reach adulthood without knowing and understanding the fundamental principle of a buyer's responsibility in markets, you either had the worst succession of parents, family members, teachers, friends and mentors, or you're purely and simply an idiot. It is the foundation of a individual's ability to be functional as an independent adult.

Considering some of the tales of folly I've heard, I do indeed question the quality of those in mentoring roles, but in the end the responsibility lies ultimately in those who take upon themselves the pretense of independent action to be worthy of it. (Sometimes I even wonder if I've been wrong to dismiss Aristotle's concepts of human hierarchy. And for any pedants who would use such an admission as cause to paint me as a monster, I'm being facetious. Dawg.)

Re:So overblown (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#45239539)

"CAVEAT EMPTOR, BITCHES."
Good thing someone wrote a guide explaining all this then eh?

Yea, that guide is called "capitalism."

You're seriously going to pretend that a concept normally expressed in Latin is some newfangled idea that you have to be made explicitly aware of on each and every financial transaction?

Re:So overblown (1)

szyzyg (7313) | about 9 months ago | (#45239927)

No, I'm suggesting that the article explains all the things that buyers should be wary of and therefore makes an excellent guide for buyers.

Re:So overblown (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#45240017)

No, I'm suggesting that the article explains all the things that buyers should be wary of and therefore makes an excellent guide for buyers.

If you're referring to some specific document that exists, cite the source.

Otherwise, your post is ambiguous enough to make the rest of us think you're generalizing.

Re:So overblown (1)

Fjandr (66656) | about 9 months ago | (#45242159)

The specific document is the articlee

Re:So overblown (1)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about 9 months ago | (#45244105)

The specific document is the articlee

But the article only exists because unscrupulous individuals were profiting off others' ignorance, and the guys who make the game should have written such a guide earlier to protect the majority of their customers from being exploited by a minority.

Re:So overblown (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 9 months ago | (#45240209)

As CanHasDIY has already said, your statement was ambiguous, especially in Slashdot's RTFA?lol environment. Ambiguity is an opening with a neon sign over it for every dime store rhetorician to make use.

Re:So overblown (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45241651)

Disclaimer: I am also a backer.

Exactly, but it goes further than this. CIG created a market with perfect arbitrage opportunities.

Original Backers (people who pledged before a certain date) can buy packages and ships at cheaper prices than Veteran Backers and New Backers. The OBs (if they wanted) could offer to buy ships for newer players at slightly below the price offered 'officially' and pocket the difference. The new player is better off because they pay less and the OB makes money. (The only additional consideration is the market risk incurred by using unofficial trading channels - but that is easily mitigated by using several of the trusted and verified traders.)

Not only that, but the items New Backers buy don't come with LTI (life time insurance) for the ship. It has been stated that this won't be a big deal in the game, but LTI essentially frees you from buying hull insurance for those ships ever (you still need to insure your cargo and ordinance separately).

So the market CIG created has perfect arbitrage where the arbitrageurs offer a superior product. An undergrad taking their second semester of economics could have predicted what would happen.

I'm not complaining about any of this at all. I love the concept of Star Citizen and have happily pledged more money than is reasonable. I have no issues with the aftermarket resellers - they are providing a service that isn't otherwise available. I haven't heard CIG actually complaining about it, but if they are, surely they must realise they created the situation themselves. I understand the need to give benefits to the people who originally got the money ball rolling, but the outcome of the subsequent structuring of offers is entirely predictable.

Re:So overblown (1)

Fjandr (66656) | about 9 months ago | (#45242151)

CIG is getting money off the secondary market, just not as much as if the buyer paid them directly. The veteran backers are still paying CIG for these items, just at a slightly smaller rate than the non-veterans to which they re-sell.

Monetizing the early mover advantage? (1)

idontgno (624372) | about 9 months ago | (#45239249)

I'm shocked. SHOCKED.

Markets, like life, find a way.

This is a great sign (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45239265)

A thriving grey market means that Star Citizen has a healthy fan base. In many ways it's a better indicator of Star Citizen's future success than the massive funding.

I thought about buying in on this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45239283)

Figured I'd get the Millennium Falcon analog, and the alpha / beta access that comes with it. It was like $200. Forget that.

If there was some guarantee that I'd get the advertised game on a specific date I'd consider it, but AFAIK there is none. So it's like gambling.

tl;dr version (3)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 9 months ago | (#45239349)

people bought goods that were of limited distribution and then resold them for more money.

isnt this just basic supply and demand?

Re:tl;dr version (2)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 9 months ago | (#45239421)

Yes. And if CIG really wanted to have made a mint, they would have offered the Idris Corvettes in auctions. Considering that the manage to sell like a hundred of them for a grand each in a matter of fucking minutes, think of what ridiculous prices they might have fetched in an auction format. Plus, it would cut down on the secondary market transfers, because only a few people would likely pay more for the near peak prices of the auctions. The high rates of sale for even the ludicrously priced corvettes indicate that the market will clearly support even more ludicrous prices.

Remember, kids, "everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it." ~Publilius Syrus

Re:tl;dr version (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45239699)

Remember, kids, "everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it." ~Publilius Syrus

"There's a sucker born every minute." ~David Hannum

They'd better ship the thing. (1)

Animats (122034) | about 9 months ago | (#45239415)

They'd better ship the thing. There have been some large, overfunded Kickstarter projects that never shipped. Remember "Clang and the Pitfalls of Kickstarter"? [slashdot.org] Then there was the Form 1 low-cost 3D printer. Despite being way overfunded, the delivery date always seems to be four months away. It was four months away last December [archive.org] , and it's four months away now [formlabs.com] .

Re:They'd better ship the thing. (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 9 months ago | (#45239441)

I'm one of the lucky folks who's never funded a Kickstarter project that failed to deliver. All of my friends have been burned at least once now.

Re:They'd better ship the thing. (3, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about 9 months ago | (#45241093)

If you take into account that kickstarter games are about 50% cheaper, unless you get burned half of the time, you are still financially ahead. And if you take into account that most of these games would have never been made without kickstarter, you are even more ahead.

But I guess that bit if math is beyond most people.

Re:They'd better ship the thing. (1)

Fjandr (66656) | about 9 months ago | (#45242169)

Any time people don't get the maximum benefit, they bitch and moan.

They are apparently unaware that life fundamentally isn't fair, and never will be.

Re:They'd better ship the thing. (1)

NoZart (961808) | about 9 months ago | (#45243695)

I never backed anything on kickstarter yet, but from the secondary information i got, i always thought that you get your money back if the project fails. Am i under a false assumption?

Re:They'd better ship the thing. (1)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about 9 months ago | (#45244141)

I never backed anything on kickstarter yet, but from the secondary information i got, i always thought that you get your money back if the project fails. Am i under a false assumption?

You're right -- the terms and conditions of Kickstarter state that you must give out all the promised rewards, and as most of the rewards tiers for Star Citizen include access to the game, they have to ship something. The problem is, what constitutes a game? Are the claimed features all contractually binding? Would there be any legal comeback if Star Citizen was released as simply an old-school Elite clone with a slightly fancier flight interface made with CryEngine and featuring all the starship types included in the Kickstarter tiers? Probably not. But there's the further problem of the non-Kickstarter backing to deal with, because they solicited further funds independently of KS, so the contractual conditions are a bit murkier.

Re:They'd better ship the thing. (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 9 months ago | (#45244155)

I'm one of the lucky folks who's never funded a Kickstarter project that failed to deliver.

You could have just said you've never funded a Kickstarter project.

Re:They'd better ship the thing. (1)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | about 9 months ago | (#45242807)

That's the shipping date for a new purchase ... formlabs has been shipping out the kickstarter orders for a while now.

Harry (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45239565)

It's really work www.kdwin.org

This game already exists, wtf. (1)

ReekRend (843787) | about 9 months ago | (#45241973)

It really REALLY bothers me that this game has gotten $25 million when this AMAZING PERFECT GAME already exists, and it's called Vendetta Online. This is reinventing the wheel and marketing nonsense, and if people actually cared/desired to play such a game they would be already.

Re:This game already exists, wtf. (1)

Saffaya (702234) | about 9 months ago | (#45243147)

First, I'll say thank you for bringing a game like Vendetta Online to my attention.

It seems positively interesting, I'm glad to know about its existence, and I have a deep respect for the devs for such longevity in the game market (and the support of so many different OS ... impressive).

Second, a few points about Star Citizen that Vendetta Online doesn't have.

Chris Roberts.
Private Servers.
Top of the line graphics and aimed for the future : Latest Crysys engine + 4k resolution.

To conclude, do not be jealous of Star Citizen and see it as a competitor. See it as a flagship that will dynamize the space sim market and bring lots of new and old players, which will ultimately benefit all actors of this game market.

Re:This game already exists, wtf. (1)

ReekRend (843787) | about 9 months ago | (#45248507)

While I grew up on Wing Commander and I love all that Chris Roberts has done, what is he going to bring to the table for a mature genre like this that hasn't already been done, thought of, or suggested? If there were a desire or market for private servers/instancing, I am certain that VO would or will do it. There's no complaints about VO graphics, they will be continually updated with the rest of the game as it has been all along. If there is a desire for anything it will be implemented. It's not realistic to say the only thing VO is missing vs SC is that the latest textures were drawn in 2010 or whenever vs 2013, and again if that were an issue it's easily fixed. As far as top of the line... I think the truth is that SC, even with all the money, is going to have a hell of a time even getting up to the level of VO which has been in continuous development and online gameplay for 10+ years.

Re:This game already exists, wtf. (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 9 months ago | (#45244167)

Star Citizen is actually more like the X series.
X Rebirth (upcoming)
X3 Reunion (previous iteration)

Re:This game already exists, wtf. (1)

ReekRend (843787) | about 9 months ago | (#45248537)

How is that different from VO, other than being offline/single player?

Re: This game already exists, wtf. (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 9 months ago | (#45250075)

Play it and see. Or read the description on wikipedia.

Re: This game already exists, wtf. (1)

ReekRend (843787) | about 9 months ago | (#45316251)

Obviously I did before I replied, and saw zero difference other than being offline/single player.

Sadly overhyped (1, Informative)

Pecisk (688001) | about 9 months ago | (#45244027)

SC is already getting overhyped beyond means, and ship sales are just adding fuel to the fire. This decision alone from CIG has been huge turn off for many players to check it out, because while sandbox space sim doesn't have special "win" scenarios, still it's gives huge advantage right out start at the game for people with bought ships.

I personally don't like this huge in-game assets sale. I know SC fans argue it's for supporting SC development, but...seriously. If you are so curious to support game, do it without getting ship back in return. This is not best advertisment for crowdfunding, because it reminds a pre-order gifts which lot of people loath.

Also SC feature set boasted by fans aren't that unique - for example "Elite: Dangerous" with their current development docs (see archive of Development Decision Forum here http://forums.frontier.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=36 [frontier.co.uk] ) looks more detailed and nuanced that SC - still SC gets more hype because of involved people trying to get their friends buy ships.

I also prefer ED ship design (can be seen in-game engine trailer here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE8B4KptyVI [youtube.com] ) comparing to SC "planes in space" (don't getting those "car ad" type videos for ships either, only one of them is done ok).

Sounds like share trading in Vaporware (1)

Elijha (2805781) | about 9 months ago | (#45249611)

Seriously .. think of the best game you ever played .. how much did you buy it for .. then look at what people are paying here. They are trading on dreams not a reality - games often perform below expectations upon release. Items sold here can be bought / earned in game .. I strongly suspect when you get the game and after 50 hours of playing can upgrade your ship to a $250 ship - they won't be sold for $250 any more.

Discount jordan shoes Air Max shoes (1)

shuuisoy (3419951) | about 9 months ago | (#45325287)

Hello, everybody, the good shoping place, the new season approaching, click in. ( http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] ) (Discount jordan shoes) $42, (Discount Air Max shoes) $43, (Discount shox shoes) $42, (Discount AF1 shoes) $42, (Discount Dunk shoes) $45, (Discount DG Shoes) $46, (Discount LV Shoes) $45, (Timberland Shoes) $60, (NFL New Cap) $12, (NFL/MLB/NBA/NHL)Jerseys $25, ( http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] ) ( http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] )
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...