Entwicklerkommentare
Development Tracker
Neben den hier übersetzten Zitaten gibt es einen Dev-Tracker, auf dem die neusten Entwicklerzitate (in englisch) angezeigt werden. Ihr könnt ihn hier finden: Dev-Tracker.
Entwicklerzitate
Informationen zur Alpha
Instanzierung
Wirtschaft
Balancing
Bezahlsystem
Technik
Zur Kommunikation wurde bisher noch nicht viel entschieden, nur soviel: Es wird eine standardmäßige Auswahl an Dialogmöglichkeiten mit NPCs geben (ähnlich wie in Freelancer). Über eine Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Verbindung zwischen Spielern wird noch nachgedacht.
Chris Roberts denkt auch über Kurzstreckenfunk nach, aber es gibt noch ein paar Dinge wie etwa die Moderation zu klären.
Übersetzung Theorigin
Pay 2 Win
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).
Für Chris Roberts ist das wichtigste seine Hauptzielgruppe im Blick zu behalten. Das sind die "alten" Wing Commander und Freelancer Fans, die mittlerweile Erwachsen sind, Job und Familie haben und nicht mehr 40 Stunden pro Woche in ein Computerspiel investieren können. Eben gerade die Menschen, die es sich leisten können für die Entwicklung des Spieles Geld zu spenden.
Er sagt, dass es ihm darum geht, dass man mit Echtgeldeinsatz auf den gleichen Level kommen kann, wie jemand, der viel Zeit investiert. Als Beispiel nennt er World of Tanks. Dort könne man sich den Super-Duper Panzer entweder gegen Geld kaufen oder durch lange Spielzeit erfarmen. Ich habe World of Tanks nie gespielt, hatte aber immer wieder gehört, dass es da auch Pay2Win-Items im Shop gäbe, wie durchschlagskräftigere Munition, die es sonst nicht gibt.
Des Weiteren sieht er den wirtschaftlichen Erfolg von World of Tanks als Ermutigung an, dass sich auch Star Citizen nach dem Release gut entwickeln könnte, wenn man ähnliche Verkäufe im Item-Shop realisieren könnte. Sein Traum wäre es in wie Eve Online dieser Tage irgendwann den 10. Geburtstag von Star Citizen feiern zu können.
Nachfolgend beschreibt Chris Roberts die vier Regeln, die für das Spiel mit Blick auf den Item-Shop gelten sollen:
1) NO grind - basic gameplay should be fun.
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!)
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.
Die ersten beiden Regeln sind einleuchtend und schon oft von ihm genannt wurden. Ob das erste Ziel erreicht werden kann, keine Grinding-Mechaniken zu haben, werden wir in der Beta sehen. Beim zweiten Ziel ist die Umsetzung ganz einfach. Es wird einfach keine Abogebühren geben.
Die dritte Regel wird nun etwas konkreter. Chris möchte in Star Citizen eine Balance schaffen, zwischen Spielern, die entweder zuviel Geld rumliegen haben oder zuviel Zeit investieren können. Beide haben für das Spiel bezahlt und sollen auf ihre Kosten kommen. Je besser es den Entwicklern gelingt einen Ausgleich zwischen diesen verschiedenen Spielertypen zu erreichen, desto mehr Spieler werden an Star Citizen Freude haben. Mit einer größeren Spielerschaft können Kosten für den Betrieb des Spiels reduziert werden und somit das Spiel langfristig betrieben werden.
Die aus meiner Sicht wichtigste Regel ist die vierte. Es soll niemals irgendetwas für Echtgeld verkauft werden, das man nicht für In-Game-Credits kaufen kann. Er macht noch einmal klar, dass es mit Sicherheit Items geben wird, die man nur im Spiel durch das Bestreiten von Missionen bekommen kann.
Der Kauf von In-Game-Credits mit echtem Geld wird gedeckelt sein. Das heißt, man wird in einem bestimmten Zeitraum nur eine begrenzte Menge Euros umwandeln können. Dies soll eine Mechanik sein, wie die Balance zwischen den Vielspielern und Vielbezahlern erreicht werden kann.
Letztlich weist Chris Roberts noch einmal darauf hin, dass es bei einer Weltraumkampfsimulation nicht nur um das Raumschiff, das man fliegt, und dessen Ausrüstung geht, sondern auch in hohem Maße um die Erfahrung und das Können des jeweiligen Spielers. Wer also mit seinem teuer erkauften Raumjäger denkt er würde den Weltraum beherschen, der wird sehr schnell merken, dass es weit wichtiger ist, das Ding auch gescheit fliegen zu können.
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.
Chris Roberts ist der Meinung, dass mit diesen vier einfachen Regeln ein guter Kompromis für die meisten Spieler gefunden würde. Auf dem Papier hört sich das alles gut an. Wirklich sehen werden wir aber erst in der Beta und nach dem Release, ob das Ganze funktioniert. Es kann schnell gehen, dass ein eigentlich harmloses Item in den Shop gestellt wird, das dann plötzlich unverzichtbar für den Weltraumkampf wird und In-Game nur sehr aufwendig beschafft werden kann. In solchen Fällen müssen die Entwickler schnell reagieren, um dann letztlich nicht doch als Pay2Win gebrandtmarkt zu werden. Denn ist der Ruf erstmal im Keller, dann ist das für die meisten MMOs tödlich.
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
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.
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)
For the record here are my simple rules for what I'm aiming for with Star Citizen (and personal play preference)
1) NO grind - basic gameplay should be fun.
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!)
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.
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!)
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!)
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.
-Chris
- Weitere Themen zur Entwicklung
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
