[Megathread] Star Citizen

[Orange Joe]

I'm not really trying to change anyone else definition of p2w. I was just pointing out not everyone has the same definition of p2w

[Wilian]

buying in game power you can't obtain in game. All ship are/will be available in game for in game money.

P2W is when you insert real money and obtain tangible ingame benefit. Your "definition" is just dumb.

[Cloverfield]

I am not taking about crowd funded as in being on a specific crowd funding platform, as opposed to the literal definition as being something funded by the public. Because they are not on a crowd funded platform as opposed to their own platform, they are able to redefine the terms of service as they see fit. The difference is in the semantics around "early access" and "crowd funded", which are specific to each platform and the terms of service for each. As such, being on their own platform they can define "pledging" as the core crowd funding activity which constitutes the majority of digital purchases on their web site as listed on the terms of service under Section 6. The difference between those terms of service on the RSI/CIG platform vs something like Kick Starter, is that RSI/CIG doesn't owe anybody who pays them money anything in any time frame or any specific features or functionality. As such, Star Citizen development is 100% crowd funded, as in funded by the public through direct contributions, as opposed to being financed by private capital, unlike most "early access" games, such as Palworld. That is a factual statement regardless of whatever semantics you think apply.

Actually that is precisely the interesting part. Clause VI of the ToS considers any Virtual Good purchase (ships, modules, vehicles, in game credits etc) that already exists in the game as a delivered product, and its revenue is considered earned. That means it is not a pledge or crowdfund where the revenues have to be deferred until delivery, but a regular sale where revenues are earned.

Also according to clause VI only Virtual Goods are Pledge Items. And if you look at what Virtual Goods are in clause V you will see the game itself is not even considered as a Virtual Good (or a Pledge Item). And as mentioned above any virtual good that already exists in game is sold "as is", not a pledge/crowdfund.

The ToS: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/tos

Only concept ships and simlilar that are not yet in game are considered a pledge by their own ToS. Which are a minority of sales. Except those, SC is basically being sold as a regular product since 2016. Not crowdfund or a pledge at all.

[Elim Garak]

I don't know why F2P games are part of this discussion, but should I be sad if F2P games would go away? Why would that be a bad thing? They haven't added anything good to games industry. They are part of the problem. They were the gateway to live service shit and games as a service model.

It might not be a bad thing for you personally, but it's just you personally. Don't presume to know what's better for everybody else.
Don't like it, don't play it.

Many MMOs are still alive today thanks to f2p. And WoW had MTX long before f2p games became a thing.

P2W is when you insert real money and obtain tangible ingame benefit. Your "definition" is just dumb.

That's like include even BUYING the game.
Speaking of dumb definitions.

[Cloverfield]

That's like include even BUYING the game.

Not really. That would imply that a player buying a game has an advantage over someone who is not even interested in said game, which I hope we all agree would be dumb

Every player has to buy the game to play it. But not every player has to spend money in a pay to win item. And those that do get an advantage over those who do not.

[Elim Garak]

Not really. That would imply that a player buying a game has an advantage over someone who is not even interested in said game, which I hope we all agree would be dumb

Every player has to buy the game to play it. But not every player has to spend money in a pay to win item. And those that do get an advantage over those who do not.

You've just described how that definition is dumb. Because it does include buying the game. Out of all the people who are interested in the game, if there are some people who can't buy it right now - they are at a disadvantage. All games must be free to kill p2w!

[Gorsameth]

Actually that is precisely the interesting part. Clause VI of the ToS considers any Virtual Good purchase (ships, modules, vehicles, in game credits etc) that already exists in the game as a delivered product, and its revenue is considered earned. That means it is not a pledge or crowdfund where the revenues have to be deferred until delivery, but a regular sale where revenues are earned.

Also according to clause VI only Virtual Goods are Pledge Items. And if you look at what Virtual Goods are in clause V you will see the game itself is not even considered as a Virtual Good (or a Pledge Item). And as mentioned above any virtual good that already exists in game is sold "as is", not a pledge/crowdfund.

The ToS: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/tos

Only concept ships and simlilar that are not yet in game are considered a pledge by their own ToS. Which are a minority of sales. Except those, SC is basically being sold as a regular product since 2016. Not crowdfund or a pledge at all.

Remember when talking about legal things that ToS's are rarely enforceable.
It really doesn't matter what they say when they go against laws.

[Wilian]

That's like include even BUYING the game.
Speaking of dumb definitions.

Ok.

[Cloverfield]

Remember when talking about legal things that ToS's are rarely enforceable.
It really doesn't matter what they say when they go against laws.

Oh absolutely. But I highly doubt a judge would try to argue that CIG revenues are still crowdfund after 12+ years (this is something that is very easily verifiable with a quick look at at the deferred revenue item in the company financial accounts, the real accounts, not CIG's useless blog). And on this point CIG would only be more than happy to agree!

You could argue that what CIG represented at the point of sale does not match what we have received though. And you could even bring them to court on that basis (bait and switch etc). But CIG could as easily simply argue the game has just been sold as is since 2016 with all kinds of disclaimers about it being bad and broken (alpha, Early Access etc).

[Gorsameth]

Oh absolutely. But I highly doubt a judge would try to argue that CIG revenues are still crowdfund after 12+ years (this is something that is very easily verifiable with a quick look at a company financial accounts, the real ones, not CIG's blog). And on this point CIG would only be more than happy to agree!

You could argue that what CIG represented at the point of sale does not match what we have received. And you could even bring them to court on that basis (bait and switch etc). But CIG could as easily simply argue the game has just been sold as is since 2016 with all kinds of disclaimers about it being bad and broken (alpha, Early Access etc).

Oh CiG absolutely considers the game released. They have to or else anyone in the EU could request a full, no questions asked, refund.

[Cloverfield]

Oh CiG absolutely considers the game released. They have to or else anyone in the EU could request a full, no questions asked, refund.

Indeed. Except most everyone, including the game press, still thinks the game is crowdfunded, when in fact it has been released in early access and sold "as is" since around 2016 as per CIG's own statements.

Also, if we agree it is released, then it should get the scrutiny of game press reviews and scores etc (many popular early access games get their scores etc). But sadly that is not yet happening. On this I blame CIG as their "alpha" narrative is bamboozling the whole market making it think the game is still being crowdfunded and not released.

[InfiniteCharger]

Actually that is precisely the interesting part. Clause VI of the ToS considers any Virtual Good purchase (ships, modules, vehicles, in game credits etc) that already exists in the game as a delivered product, and its revenue is considered earned. That means it is not a pledge or crowdfund where the revenues have to be deferred until delivery, but a regular sale where revenues are earned.

Also according to clause VI only Virtual Goods are Pledge Items. And if you look at what Virtual Goods are in clause V you will see the game itself is not even considered as a Virtual Good (or a Pledge Item). And as mentioned above any virtual good that already exists in game is sold "as is", not a pledge/crowdfund.

The ToS: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/tos

Only concept ships and simlilar that are not yet in game are considered a pledge by their own ToS. Which are a minority of sales. Except those, SC is basically being sold as a regular product since 2016. Not crowdfund or a pledge at all.

They literally say the game is crowd funded on the terms of service because it is. All development costs for the game are 100% being paid for by the public. That is simply a fact. Even the terms of service states this explicitly:

RSI is conducting a crowdfunding campaign to support the development of the Game and the related RSI Services. You do not purchase anything, you make a pledge towards the development of the Game and the other RSI Services. Depending on its specific offerings, your pledge entitles you to receive one or more of the following: access into the Open Alpha releases of Star Citizen, certain in-game items when they are developed and introduced into the Open Alpha releases of Star Citizen, and/or to receive the game Squadron 42, as selected. Please read this clause carefully to understand the differences between crowdfunding and a purchase.

Which is further clarified

For the avoidance of doubt, recurring subscriptions are not covered by this Section VI, but by Section VIII below. Merchandise is defined and covered by Section IX below.
RSI is raising funds for the Game and other RSI Services. You may select one or more of the pledges for Virtual Goods (“Pledge Item(s)”) offered on the Website, or through RSI’s customer service, and pay the indicated amount(s) (the “Pledge Funds”) in accordance with the following terms agreed between you and RSI:

And to further reinforce this, when you actually go to purchase anything from CIG, you have to go through the "Pledge Store", where all game packages, ships and everything else are sold.

At the very top of that page it literally says:

Join the Star Citizen experience and help support development with these Game Packages that include access to Star Citizen and/or Squadron 42.

So literally paying for access to the game is a "pledge" towards the development of the game and the only thing that is excluded is physical merchandise and subscriptions. And because the platform that you use to purchase anything is owned by CIG/RSI, they can define the terms of service however they want. But at no time are they denying that the game is crowd funded.

The sticking point here is people think "crowd funded" means adhering to the rules of Kickstarter or some other crowd funded platform, when it does not. It only means using funds from the public as opposed to private capital. RSI/CIG has built their own platform for crowdfunding the game and therefore they are able to define the TOS how they see fit. And because they make these TOS publicly available to anyone purchasing from them they are able to avoid lawsuits. However, there is the issue of people who paid during the kickstarter phase of the game and for them they may have an argument, but that should have happened when CIG/RSI announced they were moving to their own platform for collecting funds from the public.

It is a moonshot project and at this point most people giving them money know it is a moonshot project, which means it may never achieve many of the goals that they have laid out. And at this point giving them money is purely at an individuals own risk.

And as far as "early access" goes, most early access titles use private capital to develop a major portion of the game to a feature complete and playable state while the rest is developed during the early access period with player feedback. Nothing in Star Citizen has been developed to a feature complete and playable state, not even the simple ability to spawn in a city, go claim a ship and fly off into space.

[Cloverfield]

They literally say the game is crowd funded on the terms of service because it is.

That just means CIG reserves the right to use funds from crowdfund as they wish, including spending that money in elements that are not sold as a pledge, such as the game itself. This alone could be grounds for a dispute, but that is a different discussion.

We need to dig a bit deeper to identify what is strictly defined as a pledge (i.e. crowdfund) by CIG. And the game is not part of that. The ToS leave very little room for interpretation there I am afraid:

From Clause VI:

You may select one or more of the pledges for Virtual Goods (“Pledge Item(s)”) offered on the Website, or through RSI’s customer service, and pay the indicated amount(s) (the “Pledge Funds”)

That is, Virtual Goods = Pledge Items (i.e. crowdfund). And Pledge Funds (i.e. crowdfund revenue) only come from Pledge Items (Virtual Goods)


But, what is a Virtual Good? From clause V:

Virtual Goods are game elements such as in-game currency (such as UEC), ships and vehicles, weapons, equipment, characters, can include attributes (such as “reputation” or “citizenship”), or entitlement items such as “ship insurance,” points, and credits (collectively, “Virtual Goods”).

The game itself is not a Virtual Good therefore it is not a Pledge Item. It is sold as is, a regular sale. It is released. Only in-game items are Virtual Goods.

And from Clause VI again:

The Pledge Funds will be earned by RSI at the earlier of:
when the Pledge Item becomes functional in Star Citizen’s Alpha Persistent Universe (or is delivered separately, such as the game Squadron 42),

That is, if the Virtual Good is already in the game then it's considered delivered, not a pledge anymore but a regular sale.

So, to conclude, neither the game itself nor any virtual good already in game are pledges or crowdfund. They are sold as is, they are released and CIG considers their revenue earned (as apposed to deferred revenues from crowdfund). This has been the case since around 2016 when CIG confirmed the game was released in early access.

The only Virtual Goods that are still a pledge, crowdfund, are those that are not in game yet (concept ships like the Pioneer, Polaris etc). Which represents a minority of CIG revenues compared to the rest.

And CIG reserves the right to use that money as it sees fit including in content that is not sold as a pledge / crowdfund, such as the game itself.

[InfiniteCharger]

That just means CIG reserves the right to use funds from crowdfund as they wish, including spending that money in elements that are not sold as a pledge, such as the game itself. This alone could be grounds for a dispute, but that is a different discussion.

We need to dig a bit deeper to identify what is strictly defined as a pledge (i.e. crowdfund) by CIG. And the game is not part of that. The ToS leave very little room for interpretation there I am afraid:

From Clause VI:


That is, Virtual Goods = Pledge Items (i.e. crowdfund). And Pledge Funds (i.e. crowdfund revenue) only come from Pledge Items (Virtual Goods)


But, what is a Virtual Good? From clause V:


The game itself is not a Virtual Good therefore it is not a Pledge Item. It is sold as is, a regular sale. It is released. Only in-game items are Virtual Goods.

And from Clause VI again:


That is, if the Virtual Good is already in the game then it's considered delivered, not a pledge anymore but a regular sale.

So, to conclude, neither the game itself nor any virtual good already in game are pledges or crowdfund. They are sold as is, they are released and CIG considers their revenue earned (as apposed to deferred revenues from crowdfund). This has been the case since around 2016 when CIG confirmed the game was released in early access.

The only Virtual Goods that are still a pledge, crowdfund, are those that are not in game yet (concept ships like the Pioneer, Polaris etc). Which represents a minority of CIG revenues compared to the rest.

And CIG reserves the right to use that money as it sees fit including in content that is not sold as a pledge / crowdfund, such as the game itself.

There isn't a big disagreement because, like I said, CIG owns the crowd funding platform and therefore can define the terms of service as they want. So even though any money you pay for items on the "pledge store" are defined as pledges in section VI, section V and the rest of the TOS makes it clear that CIG does not owe anybody anything even though they literally are pledging money towards the development of the game. And it literally states that people who give them money cannot sue them for bugs or defects. However, game packages are listed on the pledge store so that means the game itself is also considered a pledge. Subscriptions do not count as game packages because they are perks on top of the base game itself.

None of that changes the fact that the game is crowd funded because all of the money used in development comes from the public. Not sure why you seem so intent on pretending this is not the case. And anything bought in game is considered a pledge on the pledge store because the finished game doesn't exist and you are simply pledging money towards the final game. It literally states that on the web site and in the terms of service. The only distinction here between what CIG defines as a pledge and Kickstarter is that CIG does not "owe" anybody anything for giving them money as defined in the terms of service on their platform that they use to collect money from the public. It is still crowdfunded regardless. And from a legal perspective the only thing that matters is the terms of service that all customers agree to when they give money to CIG. There is no global or general set of legal definitions for "crowd funded" as that is just an umbrella term for using public money to develop a product or service.

[Kyanion]

They literally say the game is crowd funded on the terms of service because it is. All development costs for the game are 100% being paid for by the public. That is simply a fact.

So I suppose the one company that invested what was it 60 mil is 'paid for by the public'. And when they have made money from licensing off some of their tech that is also 'paid for by the public'?

- - - Updated - - -

None of that changes the fact that the game is crowd funded because all of the money used in development comes from the public.

Except for the money that you know, does not come from the public.

[InfiniteCharger]

So I suppose the one company that invested what was it 60 mil is 'paid for by the public'. And when they have made money from licensing off some of their tech that is also 'paid for by the public'?

- - - Updated - - -



Except for the money that you know, does not come from the public.

The vast majority of the over $600 million they have raised has come from the public according to their own records.
But yes you are right there is a little bit of private capital in there.

As a crowd funded project, Star Citizen's scope is based directly on the support provided by our backers. Money pledged goes directly to the game's development.

Stretch goals listed here are intended to reward early backers and to indicate how we are achieving Star Citizen's full vision.

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals

[Calfredd]

Instead of arguing about something stupid like p2w and its various definitions and if Star Citizen falls under that category, how about discussing the game and who you think could have done a better job of developing it instead of Chris Roberts and all of his half-baked games that were saved because he was removed.

[Kyanion]

The vast majority of the over $600 million they have raised has come from the public according to their own records.
But yes you are right there is a little bit of private capital in there.

I mean I think it is over 10% of their total money if I remember right, so it is more than a 'little bit' but my point is when they started taking money that wasn't from "crowd funding" or "donations" or whatever buzzwords they want to use it changed things.

[Elim Garak]

Instead of arguing about something stupid like p2w and its various definitions and if Star Citizen falls under that category, how about discussing the game and who you think could have done a better job of developing it instead of Chris Roberts and all of his half-baked games that were saved because he was removed.

Those questions have been answered to death with 100% certainty.

1. There is no game
2. Derek Smart

[Kilpi]

It might not be a bad thing for you personally, but it's just you personally. Don't presume to know what's better for everybody else.
Don't like it, don't play it.

Many MMOs are still alive today thanks to f2p. And WoW had MTX long before f2p games became a thing.

Of course it's my personal thing. MTX in non f2p games is even worse.