FIFY

CIG is making me wonder. Gamescom ship and variant are $400-450. 

Maybe they're not as confident that they'll be making ongoing sales as once they were, and are trying to build a buffer? A cloud based game isn't going to be very long lasting if they shut the servers down.

Jingles was talking about something like that. He was of the opinion that the market for SC has gotten pretty close to saturation, and that about everybody who's likely to want to pay money for it already has.

I'm up in the air, and am trying very hard to give them the benefit of the doubt, but over the last couple of years, they've begun seeming increasingly cash grabby, and it's starting to make me worry.

Kinda in the same spot. We'll see what happens I guess. 

Concern aside, here's some new stuff.

-Outposts
-drugs
-mini holoviewer
-Void Bomber is done on greybox

I guess that puts the 600i at 400ish depending on variant.

don't discount the power of  in-game currency sales to keep the lights on, lots of gamers have zero patience and tons of cash. Their staff level will obviously reduce or move to other games, but the SC team and servers can keep going.

Kharn

They only seem cash-grabby due to backer impatience, and the fact that they're getting closer to release and need to start shifting away from "we're rewarding backers" to "in-game purchases need to be equitable."  Also, with some of the systems they have in place to more accurately (and equitably) price ships, and a ship pipeline that is putting out ships that no longer need to be reworked...you won't get the awesome bargains like you did with early concepts that got some loving attention in re-design.

Me, I'm happy there's a big ship for the next sale...I've been saving up.  

As for market saturation, the backer market may be drying up, but I'll bet starter ship sales exceed backer contributions inside the first year.

If it's the 600i that gets released, and it's comparable or better than the Phoenix, then I'll buy one and be done. My wallet has been closed for awhile now, just shuffling ships around trying to decide on final hangar layout. Bought two LaRue upper kits so my play money for the month is pretty much accounted for, but if the two prices are for two different configurations instead of warbond/regular price I might be tempted to get both...

I don't agree with those at all. They seem cash grabby for selling things like a ground buggy for more than the price of a new release triple A game. Is selling a scooter like the Nox for the price of a spacecraft? Are the two going to be priced similarly in the game? How about the Argo? Go into a showroom and buy either an Argo or an Aurora LN? Same price? No? Then the equability thing goes out the window.

They seem cash grabby for selling ships that were already going to be in the game for the price of a real world rifle and up.

The notion of charging for a ship based on how much work they're putting into its creation doesn't jibe with the theory that the ship was going to be in there anyway. Remember, many of these ships are stretch goal ships that should have been covered in the stretch goal total. Smacks of charging me a $400 delivery fee for a ship I've already paid for. Don't get me wrong, I don't expect them to give me a ship, stretch goal or not, but charging $200 and up for ships they were already putting in the game because of the extra work they had to do on them smacks of the disingenuous.

They seem cash grabby because I've spoken to many a flim-flam artist, politician, and lawyer, and the language I'm hearing is suspiciously similar.

I'm also pissed that they seem able to do EVERYTHING in the world, possible or impossible with utter confidence, but ship downgrades are too hard? EVERYTHING involved in the game seems bent on costing some sort of cash, automated or not. That's not confidence building, given the promise of buy to play and no subscription fee. At what point does having to pay for seemingly arbitrary changes (which, admittedly hasn't been mentioned yet, but which I see on the horizon based on what's been going on) eclipse a subscription fee? They've already talked about taxation as a money sink to keep the economy from imploding. Once upon a time I wouldn't have worried, but these days, I'm wondering if Ben isn't in a back room somewhere trying to figure out how to monetize it.

It's not the game I'm worried about at this point. I'm fully convinced that the game will come out and that it will be awesome. I'm far less convinced that it will last as long as they think it will due to the less than epic way they're grabbing at our pockets with every breath. The tech is epic, the marketing seems overly fucky.

Marketing is overly fucky?  There isn't any marketing, not in the traditional sense.  Marketing budget:  $0.  Community content?  Subscriber funded.  So if they need to shore up the budget with some content that will sell....fucking do it, that's how the game development is funded.  If you don't like the price, don't fucking buy it, you don't have to spend more than the cost of a starter package to play the fucking game.

Ship downgrades ARE fucking overly complicated, and if the uproar over the Ursa LTI didn't make that obvious, you weren't listening.  And every "free" transaction has an overhead cost associated with it...money CIG has to spend on shit other than game development.

Taxation is going to be a necessity in game.  It's a closed economy, so the UEE is going to have to get the money for mission payouts from somewhere.  It can also prevent some dickhead from flying his Hull E to a remote, but vital, space port, buying up all of some necessity, and highway rob every sucker in the area...port taxes on goods kept too long in port, shit like that, will make that sort of monopolizing much more difficult.

You do not understand marketing. You're also getting overly excited. Maybe you should cut back on something.

There's a lot of shit going on, much of it not right out in the open. Overall, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but that doesn't mean I'm going to overlook shit in a reflexively violent denial.

As a point of specificity, since you must have missed some of my post, I don't have an issue with credit sinks. I understand their necessity in a game economy. I also understand that I don't have to buy anything. Lately, that's the path I've been following, although I've got about $1,000 worth of ships and packages already. I don't even regret the money I've already spent, and as I've pointed out, I expect the game to actually come out and be great.

That being said, and sorry for your upcoming aneurysm, the words coming out of the mouths of the CIG crew regarding ship pricing are becoming increasingly greasy.

Also, please illuminate me on the overhead cost of an automated transaction that adds credits to an account rather than takes them away. Or even the cost of an automated transaction that does no more than issue credit or take it for an upgrade. I'd really be interested to hear that from a professional point of view. Seems like they don't have any problem deducting from my credit pool if I do an upgrade, or adding to my credit pool if I melt a ship. But adding to my credit pool for downgrading is too hard? Really?

If you're talking initial programming time taken away from building the game, that's an even harder hurdle to jump. I've watched too many videos on office upgrades to buy that one. They're not doing downgrades for the same reason they're getting rid of $0 cross chassis upgrades. They see the cash and the natural course of human nature takes hold. They're doing it because they can. That doesn't mean that I have to ignore it, approve of it, or like it.

I understand marketing just fine, thanks.  And I know that not marketing by traditional means...advertisements, paid praise pieces, etc...is just a marketing tactic as well.  The point is that no significant backer money is spent on it.

Yes, $0 transactions cost money.  A certain % of the transactions will have errors...double taps, failed transactions at some level, glitches...those cost money to fix.  And a % of them will generate customer service calls, which cost money.  And because it's tied to a financial system, I'm sure all of it gets audited, even the $0 transactions.  Not a lot of money per transaction, but enough when it all adds up.  They've given months of notice that they were getting taken away, and they've not always been available, so I don't get why people feel entitled to them.

As for the downgrades...look, it sounds simple, but it isn't.  It was explained to me, I had the ahah! moment of understanding, and now it's gone but I still have absolutely zero issue with there not being downgrades...and I know there will not be any.  You might try asking in Concierge chat, I think that's where I was enlightened, however briefly.

I sure hope you're not sitting there gleefully waiting for me to pop, because it ain't happening.  You're far from being the biggest negative nancy I've had a conversation with.  The thing is, I'm not some gushing fanboy, I don't necessarily like all of CIG's decisions, but I remember why I bought into the community...so CR could make his game, his way, for all of us to enjoy, without the pressure of a rushed timeline from profit-demanding investors.  We didn't start with CCUs at all, so bitching about the limitations placed on the system is just crass, entitled bullshit that fucks with the good vibes of the community.

If you look back at my history of posting through this thread, you might notice that I'm far from a negative nancy. But claiming that the error margin equates to a significant cost reminds me of the time that a manager at Sam's Club tried to tell me that they didn't have plastic bags as a money saving measure so they wouldn't have to raise prices. This while their fake austere decor set them back more than a more traditional layout would have.

As for waiting for you to pop, I was responding the overflight of your 549th F-bomb wing regarding my previous post. That was quite the emotional sounding rant.

As for marketing being done out of subscriber money, well... I suppose it depends entirely on what you consider marketing and what you don't. They've been pretty clear on what that subscriber money pays for. There's stuff going on beyond that that falls well within the marketing umbrella, don't let them fool you.

The $0 downgrades disappearing is a symptom, not an issue I had a significant investment in. I was making a point. The only things I feel entitled to are the things I paid for. You, I think, are missing my point. Claiming that there are sufficiently significant errors in the automated system generating any notable costs is more of that greasy talk I was speaking of. I can feel the monsoon beating down, but I don't think it's entirely rain, if you get my drift.

Look, I, too, remember why I bought into SC. Pretty much the same reason you did. Nor have I changed my mind in any significant way. I've been supportive of the game, the development, and-- mostly-- the development process. I've brought tens of thousands of dollars into the game through referrals (sadly, most of them before the program started). I've got one friend alone who's stuck so much money into SC that they should give him his own parking place. I've been getting SC ships for birthdays and christmas since '14 because he's got so much money stuck into the game he literally doesn't know what to do with it all. And that's just one guy.

I'm a supporter, and you should already know this if you'd bothered to check my avatar before you lashed out.

That don't mean I'm blind, though. I'm not going to pretend the warts aren't there for the sake of the 'community'. Community. There's a word. I quit going to the SC forums years ago because they were some of the most poisonous I've encountered this side of Korean MMOs. The so-called SC community will bitch and moan regardless of what we or CIG do. I mentioned that in an earlier post. The entitled pissants will whine and demand whether CIG acts like snake oil peddlers or not. That, however, is no reason to act like snake oil peddlers.

Trust me when I say that the future success or failure of the project in no way hinges on whether or not I pretend that they're being straight with these ever climbing ship prices, or how those prices comport with the early vision we were promised. I'm not keeping quiet, though. When they act like tools, I'll call them tools. You don't like it, don't read my posts.

My theory is if they're going to make the ship for the game world anyway, they might as well throw a fair and equitable price tag on it and let somebody buy it.

The problem comes to what is fair and equitable, and they've pretty well sated the need for low-end ships at the moment.

Kharn

I salt my eggs with F-bombs...it's a failing of mine.  Don't read so much into them.

And it looks like I'm probably reading too much into your tone as well.  But here's where I think we're really clashing:  When CIG does something you don't like, it seems to me that your posts here paint the entirety of CIG in a bad shade of green.  Rather than ask them (they're available to be asked), you're attacking them.  They KNOW some of their decisions are upsetting to people...you can't please everyone...and while they are VERY open about game development, they don't spend a lot of time explaining the business decisions.  Officially.  But if you ask them, they'll usually give you a straight-forward answer, especially if you ask a senior developer (who often disagree with the decisions, but understand why they were made).  But it just seems like you're demanding answers without asking questions, and it rubs my sense of fairness all wrong.

Spectrum chat is a lot like GD, although it's far more to the middle of the political spectrum.  But there's almost always a developer on, and it's seldom that I spend any significant time there without gleaning some new insight into SC.  Thursday afternoon/evening is a particularly good time, as Disco Lando is almost always on to chat for a bit while ATV is wrapping up and uploading.

The Disco Lando mention...lol, I typed up a paragraph after that, but deleted it to stay on-topic...but if that's what's got you criticizing the sales as "greasy," we'd need to have a whole different conversation.

ETA:  Also, I don't get your avatar reference.  Which avatar are you referring to?

I wish they'd fix arena commander. I tried to play free for all. Every time I get an opponent worn down, a new player joins and shit gets reset.

So they are showing 3.0 or a variant of it at Gamescom

This is what I've been saying.

I can't come up with any instances where I've blamed CIG as a whole for anything in particular. Most of my rants, if you can call them that, are regards my own concerns. The avatar I mentioned is my AR15 avatar, which should tell you which posts are mine and so avoid confusion. If you check back, you'll note me defending far more than complaining about CIG.

As to speaking to the Devs. I used to in the early days. Developed a real liking for some of them, a real dislike for others. I tend to stay clear of the general chats because of the general toxicity that so eclipses our GD that they can't be compared with any reasonably sized metric.

Alas, I'm not quite up to concierge level. While the value of ships and packages I own comfortably surpasses that level, some of them were gifts from family and friends.

You remember that guy I told you was so deep into backing the game that he gives ships away because he literally doesn't know what else to do with the credit? From him alone, I've got a Reclaimer, a Caterpillar, and a Mustang Beta. His fleet dwarfs mine.

My son bought me a Freelancer physical package for my birthday a couple of years back before they halted the physical packages. On top of that, I've got north of $700 of my own money into the game.

That's not the kind of money you expect to see from a negative nancy. Hell, I've got a separate account with multiple ships in it that I use solely to loan out to new guys so that they can try the game. Granted, they're shitty starter ships, but they're there.

Now, while none of that gives me the right to demand that CIG do things my way or fuck off, I think it does give me the right to gripe when they pull shit that's obviously off kilter. Yeah, I recognize that they can't make everybody happy. I'll further submit that there is a large part of the community that won't be happy no matter what they do, and insist on being vocal and annoying about it. I'm not that guy. I've never asked for a nickel back... Well, I hit the wrong button once and they credited me back my $5 so I could purchase what I'd meant to purchase, but they warned me that I'd never be able to do THAT again.

I'm more or less content to sit here and wait for my investment to mature. OTOH, I'm not willing to be silent when they're pulling shit.

I've got no grief with Disco. He seems up front and pretty honest. Ben, OTOH... Ben is the source of the greasy talk I'm referring to. At least, he's the greatest purveyor of it. Every outrageous statement that's stuck in my craw seems like it's come from him. I'm not going to do a shitload of homework at this time to go back and catalog them all. The only reason they're important at this moment is the general pall of distrust they've built over the stuff he says and the actions taken by the company seemingly at his direction.

The prices of the ships are a particular concern of mine, not because I'm too cheap to purchase them... ahem, pledge enough to be gifted them....

Most of the newer ships don't really hold any appeal to me. No desire for an Origins 600 series, didn't want the last fighter or the mining ship. Oh, I'd have picked up a Terrapin if it had in the $75 range, but mining bores the shit out of me (no pun intended). Okay, I'd probably have picked up one of those new buggies if it had been in the $30-40 range that the snub fighters or the cargo mule went out the door at rather at $60 plus.

The general trend, though, seems to be whale fishing, and that disturbs me, regardless of all the equivocating I hear about why these things have to be so expensive that has absolutely nothing to do with the underlying cost of the game itself. Hell, I don't even watch the shows much anymore. So, if you talk to them all the time, how about you tell me the underlying and completely valid reasons these things have to baseline at $200+?

Valid points there.  Btw what was the 600 supposed to be anyhow?  The 890 was the yacht, but I don't remember hearing anything on the 600.

Smaller than the 690 is all I can remember. Still a luxury cruiser. Price, I think, in the $400+ range.

We ARE getting more ships than they'd originally promised. Not sure I'd buy that as the reason they're so expensive.

@TheOTHERmaninblack

Not quoting that wall-o-text, lol.

Okay, when you point at Ben...I get the greasy comment, he certainly can come across that way...but I think he could come across that way talking about dry toast and water.  I don't really think he's deceitful, I just think he gets nervous on camera and it comes across as shifty.

As for the Cyclones, yeah, I thought they were priced high at first, until I put some thought into it.  They put all this work into planet-side content, but why would you spend time driving a buggy around when you could fly there in a fraction of the time?  Anti-aircraft defenses...the current thinking is they'll be powerful, and there is going to be quite a bit of content that's going to require that those be taken out, Battle of Endor-style stuff.  Now, go to a planet and run, on foot, the full range of a torpedo...and that's just the minimum distance to get to the battle, AA batteries will have to have greater range than the ships to make them effective.  Ground vehicles effectively open up content that you'd otherwise say "fuck that" to.  This theory also explains why none of them have shit for cargo capacity...the idea being that you take out the defenses, then just fly your ship in to pick up any spoils.  So, to sum it up, they're priced like ships because for the class of content for which they're intended they're as essential as the ships are.  And yes, even then I still think they're priced a little high, but I can't blame them for riding that wave of enthusiasm for planet-side content just a little bit.  The more they make on that, the more they have to spend on the space content, where I plan on spending most of my time.

The Origin 600i should be the first concept we see that's priced formulaically, although the Eclipse might have been, not sure.  That's not to say that existing ships are priced unfairly, their values would definitely figure into the formula used.  But the 600i price should reflect the actual cost of components, available cargo space, etc.  That's not to say the price won't be inflated for rarity or luxury tax, but such ships are openly and honestly targeted at whales...there's nothing greasy about it if they tell you up front that you're paying for a collector's item.

Finally....my fleet is somewhere in the $6,500 range. About $5k bought, and the rest won.  Amount spent has very little to do with the conversation, other than to say "I have a vested interest," but you keep bringing it up, so just putting it out there in case you're measuring dicks or something.

Not measuring dicks. I had your investment figured pretty close a good long while ago, just based on your posts. Maybe I was $4-500 short. My mentioning of my personal investment is by way of showing that I'm not a pissant who bought a $30 Aurora package and expects the world to revolve around me because of it. Like many of those shitstains on the CIG forums I ran into before I stopped going there.

What I've got in may seem like pocket change to you, but I'm not wealthy, so, for me, it's a significant investment, and at the time, was a significant risk. There were things I could have used that money for that would have served me, perhaps, better than investing in a game that might never come out. But I invested because I believed in the project, and I really, really wanted to play the game CR wanted to build. I still do.

I recognize that there are ships that I may want that I'll have to earn in game, and that my vision doesn't match 100% with many other players. Hell, I invested before the poll that showed 64% of players wanted robust exploration mechanics released and CR announced his surprise and the subsequent altering of the game's initial path. I think that video in particular caused me to drop nearly $200.

Hell, the vast majority of my fleet is cargo. I've got exactly 1 fighter to my name in a game that was originally envisioned as a fighter-centric experience.

That being said, the way they've been going about the selling and crowd funding has bothered me for a very long time. Maybe it's my background. Maybe I spent too many years in big ticket sales for the coincidences to not seem deliberate. You keep telling me that CIG don't market, with the caveat that they don't do so in the traditional way. I can tell you with absolute certainty, with more than 20 years of marketing behind me that SOME damn' body over there is VERY, VERY good at marketing, and they're milking that skill for every nickel.

Look, I'm an American, and a free marketeer. I don't begrudge them the dough. If they can make a killer living at this, more power to them, and I won't bitch because their office chairs cost more than the car I drive. Hell, I applaud them, and wish all the best, and that they can keep pulling it in. It's the dream we all share, right? CR has the money he has because he's very good at what he does, and I'm proud to be a part of that, however peripherally. You'll never hear me complain about them making too much money.

But there are a couple of things that I'm very good at too. Because of that, I've developed certain opinions based on a history of practicing those endeavors. I share those opinions here because I feel a kind of kinship with you guys. Take them for what they're worth.

Also, beware of rationalizing events to back up your preferences. Things is what they is.

The only thing I want to come out of 3.0 is the Cutlass Black's release and getting to say "I told you so" to those Cutlass bitches that were whining incessantly about how they swore they'd been sold a Super Hornet with a cargo hold for the price of a Hornet and demanded as such. Of course, I'd have to figure out how the fuck to use Spectrum to do it, but it'd be glorious.

Kharn

Gamescom stuff

-railgun vs guy
-atmospheric contrails out of a Cutlass

Damnit, why did they have to make the 600i look neat?
3x S5 triple sets
4x S3 x64 missiles
2x S2 quad unmanned turrets

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/ships/600i/Origin-600i-Touring

Luxury:

Let the voyage begin with the 2947 600i from Origin Jumpworks. This multi-role luxury vessel from Origin Jumpworks features an exquisitely detailed hull design that . The 600i is designed with a cutting edge modular technology, allowing you to customize your ship for your needs. Taking the family on a long-distance trip across the stars? The Touring module lets your guests relax in ease with stunning furniture from some of the Empire's top designers. Looking to stamp your name in history with the discovery of a new star system? The 600i's Explorer module swaps the lounge for a robust scanning station as well as additional utility hardpoints to increase the ship's effectiveness even more. Regardless of where your journey takes you, the 600i guarantees that you'll get there fast and in style.

Explorer:

Let the voyage begin with the 2947 600i from Origin Jumpworks. This multi-role luxury vessel from Origin Jumpworks features an exquisitely detailed hull design that . The 600i is designed with a cutting edge modular technology, allowing you to customize your ship for your needs. Taking the family on a long-distance trip across the stars? The Touring module lets your guests relax in ease with stunning furniture from some of the Empire's top designers. Looking to stamp your name in history with the discovery of a new star system? The 600i's Explorer module swaps the lounge for a robust scanning station as well as additional utility hardpoints to increase the ship's effectiveness even more. Regardless of where your journey takes you, the 600i guarantees that you'll get there fast and in style.

GamesCom Sales:

• 600i
• Aurora LX
• Cutlass Black
• Dragonfly
• Nox
• Misc Prospector
• Ursa Rover
• Code to use: GAMESCOM2017
  

The promo code prices seem suspiciously identical to regular prices, at least on the Dragonfly and Cutlass. Are they all like that?

They aren't promo code prices, just stuff for sale specifically for gamescom, since they are revealing the new Aurora and Cutlass, plus the Ursa isn't for sale, etc.

Apparently ship to ship hailing is in 3.0

Oh and I was wrong.  The Gamescom ships simply have longer insurance for the special sale.  6mo instead of 3.

Holy fucknuggets.  Facetracking over IP for in game. 

Skipping through the presentation it looks good, minus the atmospheric flight needs a ton of work still IMO.

I didn't know Sandy was an alcoholic.

Kharn

Yeah, came here to post that facemapping vid. That has me more excited than the new ships.

That's going to bring an awesome level of immersion to SC.

Not sure much could get me more excited than that 600i though...definitely picking one up, I may have a new favorite ship, love it.

And that Idris...I ain't gonna lie, I damn-near shed a tear when I realized that was an Idris coming in.

For all the glitches...that was still a damned fine demo.

Melted my anniversary 890, M50, and Caterpillar bundle to pick up the complete Origin bundle. Was gonna pick up the 600i regardless, but not buying anymore jpegs after this dammit...

Still debating whether I should melt my Polaris or not though.

The funniest damn thing will be if the facial mapping is still running even if your mic is muted. Your teammate is yelling at his wife, kids, or just pissed at a target and doing a constant "fuck you fuck you fuck you" while shooting, whatever, so his mouth is going a mile a minute, but his mic is muted, so nothing's coming out.

Kharn

bye bye, Carrack.

So I'm wondering if the 600i comes with a Lynx or Ursa for the explorer model.  The artwork shows a bay with one at least.

Personally, I'm pretty disappointed with Gamecom.  

They have showed that 3.0 is still a buggy mess, and a ways off.
We still don't have major gameplay mechanics.
And we haven't seen anything that hasn't been discussed before.  (Yea, they even talked about the face tracking long ago)

Well fuck....now I have to pick a name for it.  Shit!  I can't take this kind of pressure!!!

Holly shit that face tracking.

HOLLY SHIT that Idris.

HOLLY FUCKING SHIT THAT CAPITAL SHIP BATTLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Melted my m50 package to CCU my Starfarer Gemini to a 600i Explorer. I already had my "career" ship in the Hull C and my fighter in the Sabre, so the Starfarer and the M50 were doubles.  I figure the 600i will be my general purpose ship I spend the most time in.

Current fleet:
600i w/ LTI
Hull C w/ LTI
Sabre w/ LTI

It just says "Origin rover." Are either of those made my Origin?

No, they sort half announced an Origin ground vehicle by including it in one of the new big Origin packs.

Going to pass on the 600i.  While sweet, the Carrack is still better for exploration (I hope), and I don't want just a "luxury ship".

So how's the Phoenix going to be made worthwhile vs the 600? Or is it just going to remain a pile of poo?

Kharn

Arfcom style.

It's supposedly being reworked right now, but will have to wait and see if they actually make it useful or just add another hot tub... Have one in buyback just in case.