I’m glad I could give you a chance to expand on your view in a more neutral manner. I like discussing things and learning other people’s points of view so I try to approach online discussion in a positive and open-minded way. It’s not always easy but I try.

I think the main reason people jumped on you so easily was the tone of your OP and some of the more heated comments - they come off like you aren’t really interested in an explanation but rather looking for affirmation in shit talking other people’s interest in those games. Feeling strongly about a topic can be a detriment at times and it’s an easy way to derail a decent topic for a conversation.

That said, seems like we’re pretty much on the same page even if I don’t feel as strongly towards the disliked parts of the industry as you do. I simply stick to titles that don’t punish me for not spending ever increasing amounts of money.

Alright, that cleared up some things, thanks. I assume FIFA’s (well, EA’s FC) Ultimate Team also falls under that umbrella since it’s straight up rolling for power?

Since you’re fine with cosmetics what about mobile/gacha games that are primarily that?

For example, I play a game called Girls Frontline - I didn’t pay anything yet have all bar 3 characters (the missing ones can be farmed on stages I haven’t played yet) with most of them leveled up and equipped for pretty much any available content. There’s no stamina that needs to be refilled and events have 3 difficulty levels to allow even new(ish) players to complete the story. The main monetary incentive here comes from skins (which can also be obtained using saved up resources). Would a game like this be alright according to your perspective?

While majority of gacha can absolutely be predatory there are more titles like that within the “genre” which is why I’m interested in your focus on mobile titles. Sorry if it sounds like I’m trying to look for a “gotcha” or something like that - that’s not my intention.

Which is totally fair - I feel like most (conjecture?) people who dislike such things will simply avoid these games and play other stuff.

OP focused on gacha games but didn’t mention paid ones despite the fact many of them implement similar monetization schemes which is why I’m curious about their point of view on this.

I have a side question if you don’t mind.

In multiple posts you mentioned how you expected people on fediverse to be “more principled” and how they can only support the smaller option or just give up and accept everything corps throw at them which is why you’re surprised some play gacha games.

Does that expectation also extend to “normal” F2P games like Apex, Fortnite etc? Does it include people playing full-price AAA games? Titles like GTA, Diablo, Halo, majority of MMOs and more - games that not only are paid but also include season passes and micro transactions.

Should people also avoid those?

Just so we’re clear, it’s a genuine question. I have no skin in the game as I don’t really play HSR, AAA games or really care what people expect from me but I’m curious about your perspective on things.

Tim partially retreads the stuff that was already mentioned by various people in the industry (including Gabe Newell) but it’s by no means a bad thing - especially since he adds some personal stuff as well.

If anyone is interested in game design and history of the industry Tim’s channel is a great watch in general. There’s lots of cool stories and tips for aspiring devs.

According to this tweet by the dev game will also be available on mobile (albeit after the PC release).

Damn, that’s a good chunk of info! Thanks for taking the time to go into details on how things work.

Thanks for the links, that’s exactly why I wasn’t sure where things stand currently. While I am familiar with EFF, I wasn’t aware of that article so it was an interesting read.

The one I kind of remembered (even though only partially) was the Reuters article, which contains this quote I was referring to:

The office reiterated Wednesday that copyright protection depends on the amount of human creativity involved, and that the most popular AI systems likely do not create copyrightable work.

It’s obviously a bit more complicated than how I mentioned it initially so I’m glad I could read it again.

The original ban was always meant to be temporary as far as I understand, Valve simply wanted some time to decide rather than make a rash decision (it’s easier to open the floodgates than it is to clean up after the fact). I’m sure things will change in the future as AI tools become more and more common anyway.

I’d like to mention that I’m not exactly up to date with AI related legislation so treat what I’m about to write as a genuine attempt to understand their worries rather than trying to be smart.

I remember there being a lot of uncertainty about the legality of what and how can('t) be used in training models (especially when used for commercial purposes) - has that been settled in any way? I think there was also a case of not being able to copyright AI generated content due to lack of human authorship (I’d have to look for an article on this one as it’s been a while) - this obviously won’t be a problem if generated assets are used as a base to be worked upon.

As for illegal content - Valve mentioned it in regards to live-generated stuff. I assume they’re worried about possibility of plagiarism and things going against their ToS, which is why they ask about guardrails used in such systems. On a more general note, there were also cases of AI articles coming up with fake stories with accusations of criminal behavior involving real people - this probably won’t be a problem with AI usage in games (I hope anyway) but it’s another sensitive topic devs using such tools have to keep in mind.

Again, I’m nowhere near knowledgeable enough to write this stuff from a position of confidence so feel free to correct me if any of this has been dealt with.

Is it really dumb?

AI generated content has a lot of unanswered legal questions around it which can lead to a lot of headache with moderation and possibility of illegal content showing up (remember that not only “well meaning” devs will use these tools). It’s seems reasonable for a company to try minimize the risk.

As for disclaimer, it will allow people make an informed decision - not sure what’s wrong with that.

So nothing will really change? Seriously though, I’m just glad this stuff will be properly marked so people can make an informed decision.

Based on dev comments CIG won’t be looking into licensing their tech as that implies support and they have A LOT of work to just finish the game, adding more on top of that would be a bad idea.

I hope more companies try doing similar projects, even if not intended to be as ambitious as the mythical SC target. Competition is always welcome and can lead to many fun experiences along the way.

Nah, that’s a fair criticism. The whole “when we get there” can be quite infuriating, more so since vast majority of games doesn’t even show up on people’s radars (or ask for money) until it’s way closer to being done. CIG wanted to share the development process with their players so they have to take both good and bad aspects of such approach.

I definitely feel that unless SC in its current form is something you’re willing to put up with, there’s no reason to spend any money on it. If something cool comes out of it in the future - nice. If not… well, backers gave them a chance.

It’s all good.

SC is a pretty controversial topic, sometimes for good other times for poor reasons, so things tend to heat up quite a bit whenever it’s mentioned in general discussion. I’ve been on this ride for years now so I’m immune to both hype and doomposting - until things are in the game they might as well not exist.

All I ask from people is to try learning about things they dislike - even it won’t change your mind, you’ll know exactly why and how it sucks beyond “well, it does”. It’s something I as well need to work on.

No worries, I completely understand.

I absolutely agree about the state of the industy (one of the reasons I mainly play older or indie games), CIG’s business model and how some people (in general, not just in case of SC) can get way too invested in something they come of as unhinged - that’s why I tried to be as balanced and detailed as possible.

I might be a bit rusty since I had a long break from online discussion so some things might have come out less clear than intended.

To be fair CIG never said it will be easy - they specifically said that scaling it up and implementing it in the actual game will be a huge challenge.

In general though I agree, until it’s in the game (public servers, not limited access testing ones) it’s not in the game.

I’d be absolutely down for a proper article on the topic, especially one based on proper research into the pack and the company (that doesn’t mean it has to be positive, apparently I need to stress that out). Twitter posting on the other hand feels like a bottom of a barrel “content” creation.

You do though wipes become less and less frequent - these days it can be over a year unless something goes seriously wrong or there’s a big backend update (the only such thing recently was a complete rewrite of database storage to prepare for the server meshing you’ve mentioned).

To clarify, server meshing isn’t in yet - it’s currently being tested on preview channels. Recent update separated the gameplay server from the database server responsible for keeping all of this stuff in game (as in, if server dies all the changes stay online instead of getting reset).

IF they can make it work on the scale required for the game like SC it should not only help with stability but also make many of the planned features possible. For now they need to prove that they can actually do it.

Are you legitimately trying to claim isn’t in an alpha state simply because it has micro transactions?

No, not at all. My point was that having microtransactions makes the defense weaker - if you want to get this much money from people for an incomplete product you shouldn’t expect the benefit of a doubt. That was by no means an attempt to defend this practice.

Here we go again with the “no one else could have done this in less time” yeah no one would have tried because they knew it wasn’t possible to do it. (…)

There are a few things here to unpack:

• many less ambitious (since we’re are talking about what can or can’t be done) take years to make
• UE5 wasn’t even planned when the game started development so that’s kind of a moot point. Not only that but it doesn’t have all the features needed for game like SC, nor did any engine available at the time (or now for that matter).
• even if they “finish” the game doesn’t mean they’re going to stop selling ships (they say they will but that’s just words) so it’s not like one means the end of the other. Ships are the easiest content to pump out for them, they can always make and sell more (that doesn’t mean I like it).

Sorry, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

I completely agree.

You guys are fueled with cope and are the reason the game industry has changed for the worse. You demonstrated corporate fellating loyalty to a product that doesn’t exist (…)

I’m a bit confused whether you even read my post. I mentioned multiple times I’m not trying to excuse their business practices nor convince anyone to play, let alone like the game. People can make their own research and decide for themselves. I have my own problems both with the game and the development process. All I tried to do with my post is provide context, that’s all.

You hate the game, I get it but please don’t take it out on someone who doesn’t necessarily disagree with you just because they aren’t as extreme.

Just so we’re clear, I’m not trying to convince anyone to buy (or even like) the game/alpha/whatever you wanna call it (personally I think if you have micro- let alone macrotransactions, “alpha version” defense doesn’t hold much legitimacy). I absolutely agree that there were (and still are) issues with the development process and CIG’s approach but let’s not pretend like any developer could create what SC is aiming for in less time.

And I don’t mean “has similar features” like in case of Elite - I’m sure it’s a great game but they have a completely different approach even if many features are similar. SC aims for a borderline immersive sim gameplay in an MMO setting which, in addition to all their other goals, is a massive technical undertaking.

Officially (and yes, I’ll stick to this wording as that’s all we have) the last few years were spent on building the tech to do just that, as was shown during the last CitizenCon (I know, convention for an unreleased game). Some small parts of said tech were already added in the last patching cycle, many are suppose to trickle down throughout this year - will this really happen? We’ll see.

For many people, SC is their dream game which is why they are willing to spend way, waaaay more than that. Additionally, many of those $300 or so purchases aren’t one and done affairs but rather people who bought a cheap package and decided to upgrade throughout the years.

Next point is the fact that a good chunk of the player base consists of older IT folk (i.e. people with lots of disposable income). Finally, many people decide to throw money at the game after trying it out during free flights - one of the worst times to play due to overloaded servers, as mentioned in my original post.

And to reiterate, I’m not trying to excuse the spending, just want to add some context.

While for me SC is also a dream game I’m not a whale. I can’t justify spending shit-ton of money on a game, no matter how good (especially an unreleased one). I’m someone who bought a $40 package (Star Citizen + Squadron 42) back when the only thing available was the hangar module - a simple, single player map where you could run around and enter your ship. That’s it.

I enjoy what’s there, take a break when I’m bored or annoyed, hope for the best and criticize CIG when they do something stupid. I don’t expect SC to be perfect nor take everything the devs say as gospel. There are many like me but, as it usually is with online discussion, the ones most passionate/crazy for or against something are the loudest.

As for people starting with more ships, here’s my take on it:

Having a massive fleet doesn’t mean squat if you have no one to operate it. This isn’t EVE where one person can control a whole capital sized ship and rule the world. Ships in SC require actual crew to be effective or even used beyond flying. Personally, I don’t plan to upgrade to anything bigger than a two player ship for that very reason, and even when I do that, I’ll stick to buying stuff in game.

At the end of the day, this is a sandbox - some people will aim to have everything, others will be fine having a basic ship and going about their day doing chill activities. For people with huge fleets to have advantage there needs to be some kind of victory condition and as of now, there really isn’t - nothing beyond what you set out for yourself anyway.

Lastly, I’d like to add a quote from CIG included in this article from Polygon written in 2018 on the topic of the same package (different price though since it includes more stuff now).

In a statement to Polygon, Star Citizen developer Cloud Imperium Games said it created the Legatus Pack in response to requests from a hardcore segment of the community. That includes people who lead guilds and others who view the game as more of a lifestyle hobby consistent with golf or sailing, according to the company.

“It wasn’t created in a vacuum,” said Eric Kieron Davis, the head of Cloud Imperium’s studio in Los Angeles. “We were responding to what the community asked for. We have some passionate supporters that are not looking at Star Citizen as your typical game purchase/transaction but rather a dream project they want to see happen.”

Sorry for the wall of text but I wanted to add some details to the discussion.