I follow Jeff everywhere he goes. Hes just too cool of a guy. Ryan was hilarious. Also, that how to build a bomb thing they started was pretty great when this website was just getting going.
My PS2 is always ready. I play though Beyond Good and Evil about once a year. I also find myself coming back to Jak and Daxter fairly regularly. Everything below PS2 is pretty easy to emulate so I never bother with anything older than that
Freedom Fighters! Every time I see coverage about The Division the I'm reminded of freedom fighters for some reason, I guess the whole NYC in shambles look that does it. That game would have so much potential in this generation. Both from single-player and multiplayer perspectives
@onarum: Yes! Earning a ship can in-game be a story, triumph, and conversation starter in and of itself. Bringing up Elite dangerous again (I realize it's my go-to comparison but right now its the closest cousin that Star Citizen has) I started the game out and I was struggling to make make enough credits to get my hands on better ships. By chance I started text chatting with another player who had a very fine ship. I simply asked him how he saved up millions of credits for for for ships and upgrades.
He then proceeded to show me the ropes of the trade system, how to find holes in the market and fill them as a means to make money and now we run together and watch out for each other. I just feel like there will be plenty of encounters in the early stages SC where someone will have a high powered ship and when asked how they got it they will simply say I spent "X" dollars and the conversation will end there; versus the novel social experience in ED that I was fortunate enough to have.
Also, there is something incredibly satisfying about setting your own goals and achieving them. A kind of self- made feeling. I'm not saying that this will be missing from SC entirely because it is the way RSI intended for people to play the game. That being said, I fear that people who shelled out thousands during the pre-release period will miss out on certain experiences and it seems to me that such an absence would detract from their overall enjoyment. I see it as an unfortunate and possible side effect of the current business model. Although, they did do it by choice so I guess it's fine.
@vucubcaquix88: I never thought of that either. Letting people opt into top tier ships right out of the gate will make the world more immersive around the time of release.I still can't help feel like RSI is taking advantage; not of the average backer but of the so-called "whale" players-the big spenders-. There are SC bundles that value up to several thousand dollars and more can be added piece meal beyond that. RSI has the right to charge whatever price they deem appropriate for goods and services provided people pay for it.
I understand that that because that is often the counter argument, but this seems like capitalism run amok. I feel as though the only reason they charge exorbitant fees for a single ship is simply because they "can". The highest bundle as it stands is 15,000 USD. More than my car costs, a good chuck of my yearly earnings, I've had had major surgery that has cost less. Maybe its my perspective but but that seems like a loosing proposition. I can't fathom how anyone would get 15,000 of value out of the game and the fact that people are willing to hand the cash over sight relatively unseen is kind of mind blowing. I think that just someone is willing and able to pay 15,000 dollars into a videogame doesn't mean they should. Am I wrong? this whole thing is draving bonkers and you've all been super helpful in discussing it and I thank you for it
PS. I know it seems like I want to rage against SC and I don't. I want the game itself to be good I just want to understand how the huge sums of money people are dumping into it fit into the equation. How it will affect the game itself. I wish I could talk to someone who bought the completionist bundle for 15 grand
@onarum: A good point. Something I never thought of. You paid more because you wanted to see it succeed and to a certain extent I'm glad people are doing so. It seems you were savvy enough to already get more than your value (in dollars anyways) out of the game. Thus, no matter how the final release sits with you it is of no financial consequence. I applaud you for this.
@theht: Thank you for clarifying that's what I've missed. However, that begs the question How much in game currency is equivalent to a $150 ship. Do we enter a pay to win scenario with the economy? It just seems to me that SC has way to much money behind it to deliver its hype or expectations.
Comparing it to Elite Dangerous on the other hand it had somewhere close to an 8 million dollar crowd funding budget plus pre-orders and while it has not yet delivered on all of its promises it is a vast and enjoyable persistent universe that totally works. A universe that I have already had plenty of memorable experiences in. Everyone on a pretty even playing field due to the all ships and equipment are bought with in-game currency. I see the release of SC creating a "1% versus the 99%" type of economy with the top Kickstarter backers pretty much controlling the things and everyone else left to at a huge disadvantage.
Not sure how that will go over. I want it to be good and I want it to live up to the hype and be worth all of this money but I I don't see how it avoids major fallout due to the endless ambition and promises. I think Vinny or someone mentioned it on a Bombcast at some point to the effect of, "I don't know what that game is and it scares me cause with all of that money behind it it's either going to be the best thing ever, or go down in history as the biggest disappointment of all time of all time" I guess that's what I feel.
When I see videos of the guys at Polygon salivating over a $150 ship or a hanger full of 10 thousand actual dolloars worth of content with no caveats or apprehension whatsoever, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
I love space sims! I've played every game in the X series and I've put hundreds of hours into Elite Dangerous at this point, so it is safe to say that if a game lets you lets you choose your own adventure in space I'm all for it... Except for star citizen. It promises a huge open ended universe with limitless possibilities but I never could quite wrap my head around the sheer absurdity when it comes to rgw star citizen business model.
They kickstarted over 70 million for it(and continues to soak up more money buy the day through their own crowd funding site) and you have to pay $60 to play it. That makes perfect sense to me but what I don't get is how they can charge hundreds of dollars for individual ships outside of kickstarter and people continue to eat it up. Especially when they game full game won't even be released for at least another 18 months. If any other developer did this I feel like there would be massive backlash.
Personally I don't think I can support SC they are making tens of millions from the good will of fans but I feel like the game will just be a huge money pit based on the pricing and "rental models I've been reading about. Is anyone else a bit frightened that so many people have forked over massive amounts of cash for this when we have only had vague promises of what this game is?
I see this setting a bad precedent for future games I just fear that we'll start to see EA or Ubisoft games with the same pricing model if Chris Roberts is pulling it off. Full disclosure, I don't have all of the answers, I am not a backer and have not given a dime to star citizen. I just want to know if I'm missing something here. Can people please fill me in?
Whose backing it? Whose not? and Why etc.? Thanks.
I'm not surprised, nor am I upset. It is quite possible that there are a ton of people who have never played the Arkham games that just bought current gen consoles. Giving a larger number people the opportunity to play great games is not a bad thing. Before I got a PS4 I never had the opportunity to play The Last of Us. Thus, I'm glad that the remaster came around because I may never have experienced the story and atmosphere that the game had to offer otherwise. Just because "you've" already played a game on last gen hardware it does not mean everyone else has. If you don't want a remaster don't buy it.
Also, I get the argument that the time and money spent on remastered titles should be funneled towards new games but if you look at the seemingly astronomical size of development costs at big name studios these days maybe remastered titles are a means for developers to get huge returns on the relatively small investment of remastering an already successful game to build seed money/ good will to make a new game. Maybe the publisher only gave Rocksteady the publicity and funding for Arkham knight on the condition that remasters of the game had to be done. It could be they have no choice but we can only speculate.
Log in to comment