Dieses Wiki dient nur noch der Archivierung!
Entwicklerkommentare: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
Zur Navigation springen
Zur Suche springen
Keine Bearbeitungszusammenfassung |
Keine Bearbeitungszusammenfassung |
||
| Zeile 79: | Zeile 79: | ||
{{Quelle|http://www.starcitizenblog.de/2013/04/klarstellung-von-chris-roberts-zu.html}} | {{Quelle|http://www.starcitizenblog.de/2013/04/klarstellung-von-chris-roberts-zu.html}} | ||
Unabhängig der obigen Zitate gibt es eine riesige Diskussion im offiziellen Forum zu diesem Thema, in dem sich auch Entwickler und Chris Roberts abermals zu Wort melden um mit den Pay 2 Win Vorwürfen | |||
{{Zitat|Wow, there's a few things that get real gamer's blood boiling more than "micro-transactions" - perhaps "DRM", "EA" and "Pay2Win" but that's about it. <br><br>It would be nice if everyone that was getting up in arms about the OP actually read the article that was referred to as I DON'T mention micro-transactions anywhere. The full article is here http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-04-22-chris-roberts-how-incredible-community-transforms-development. If you read my words I'm incredibly happy and excited about making the game, how the interaction with all of YOU is making the game better AND how grateful I am that everyone has been so generous in their contributions as its allowing us to make a game without compromises. <br><br>My reference to World of Tanks was purely about how I felt the ability for people that don't have 40 hours a week to sink into a game have the opportunity to spend some money to keep up (an early post called this Pay2BeEqual) or drive a sexy tank they don't have 200 hours of game time to earn. I think WoT has some similarities to SC because they are both skill based games so having better equipment may help you but it will NOT guarantee victory - which is very important and similar to real life (I can have a better sports car than you but if you're a better driver you'll probably be able to beat me on a road course). And it is encouraging to me that they are doing well financially as it is a PC game in what I would have considered a niche category, which at first glance is how you could categorize Star Citizen. Its going to cost significant money to make Star Citizen and more money to continue to run it. I would love to see Star Citizen hit a 10 year anniversary like Eve, and knowing that another online PC game is doing well makes me feel confident that SC has the potential for longevity that I think everyone would like to see (which was the context for my comments in the article)<br><br>For the record here are my simple rules for what I'm aiming for with Star Citizen (and personal play preference)<br><br>1) NO grind - basic gameplay should be fun.<br><br>2) NO subscription to play. Once you've bought the game you should be able to play and have fun without paying another penny. Maybe this is from all the MMOs I signed up for and then didn't have time to play yet still had to pay to keep my character (I think I paid over 2 years of subs for both WoW and SWG before I canceled, despite only playing them for the first month or so!)<br><br>3) NO unfair advantage to people with either too much money or too much time. I think its disingenuous for people to claim that they should have a big advantage just because they can commit 40 hours a week in play time over someone that can only spend 4. Both types of player have purchased the game and are both entitled to have fun. If I make a game that only caters to people that have lots of time and nothing else I'm cutting out a huge part of the audience. The same goes if I build a game that just caters to people that have money to burn (The Asian P2W game style). Just because someone plays one way doesn't mean everyone should play that way. Some people will want to just spend a few hours dogfighting, some may want spend dozens of hours doing trade runs and building up a merchant empire. Others may just want to explore corners of the galaxy. A big audience supplies lots of players to make the universe more interesting. A big audience also spreads the costs of running the persistent universe (as it costs money for new content and servers), which in turn makes it cheaper for all.<br><br>4) NO Pay2Win - You should never be able to buy anything with real money that you can't buy in with in game credits. Once fully live SC in-game items will only be purchasable with in-game credits. There will even be some items you can ONLY earn by playing / flying missions. All you will be able to spend money on that is gameplay related would be buying some in-game credits as you don't want or don't have enough time to earn the credits you need for your contemplated purchase. We'll cap purchase of in-game credits to avoid someone unbalancing the game / economy. Finally as I point out above skill will always play a factor - there will be no "magic spaceship of death" that will sweep all before it, so while you may have bought a more expensive spaceship / weapon a better pilot can still beat you (this is where people with lots of time get an advantage as they'll have spent a lot more time honing their combat skills!)<br><br>From my perspective my above 4 rules and solutions are the best compromise that factors the need to make the game fun for people with lots of time or little time, while allowing the game the ability to cover its running costs based on player's actual engagement with the game. I am confident we can balance all this in a way that works and doesn't feel unfair to any one group. Contributing additional money beyond your initial ship package will be entirely optional and not required to have fun or progression (but if you do short cut once in a while, know that you're money is going to support the development of the game and on-going content!)<br><br>I hope this allays some concerns. If not, I ask that you wait to you have a chance to actually play and see how everything will work and be balanced before making your mind up.<br><br>-Chris|https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/173901/#Comment_173901}} | |||