By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Star Citizen Introduces $27,000 Legatus Pack

mjk45 said:
HollyGamer said:

Well not for the consumers, rich company like EA for example create billion of dollars  only for them self 

That's pretty easy seeing we live in a capitalist society , it accrues the same benefits for society as most other industries   be it in terms of employment or the general economy .

The problem with the $27000 is not so much the figure more that it is construed as a cash grab with very little in the way of value  for money when you compare it historically to  other special offers from the gaming industry and this coming  from an already  successfully funded game, so It's not about the people buying it, rather the necessity of having it when you have plenty of tiered plans anyway.

 

Yeah , i don't mind on Games in general, DLC in general . But spending money that exceed a value of games is ridiculous crazy for my way of thinking. 



Around the Network
HollyGamer said:
Chazore said: 

You're now arguing digital goods, which is something you're will win against

Fixed for you.  Also don't compare everything with digital goods, my tweeter account is more productive then 2700  dollars imaginary ships. LMAO 

Please, do tell me how you're going to win against multiple industries, that have legal ties and are perfectly valid in selling their digital goods both online and offline. I would love to see that court case go down.

Twitter has nothing to do with this conversation. 



HollyGamer said:

Or maybe it's time to not defend shady business , like i know for PC elitist like u will defend this games like heaven and hell. 

You mean like how we've been seeing console ones defending the likes of EA, Activision, Ubisoft, MS and more over the past few decades?.

I've seen it on both sides mate. Only difference is, this is one company vs other multi million dollar companies.



Chazore said:
HollyGamer said:

Fixed for you.  Also don't compare everything with digital goods, my tweeter account is more productive then 2700  dollars imaginary ships. LMAO 

Please, do tell me how you're going to win against multiple industries, that have legal ties and are perfectly valid in selling their digital goods both online and offline. I would love to see that court case go down.

Twitter has nothing to do with this conversation. 

The problem  is  you compare 27000 imaginary ship with digital goodies. and is not even a goodies and not have any value in real world what so ever.  You cannot use your 27000 ships in real world. 

Listen, i don't mind gaming in general, i don't mind DLC, or space games, but asking you to pay 27000 for a ships and unfinished games on top of that is freaking crazy. 



Chazore said:
HollyGamer said:

Or maybe it's time to not defend shady business , like i know for PC elitist like u will defend this games like heaven and hell. 

You mean like how we've been seeing console ones defending the likes of EA, Activision, Ubisoft, MS and more over the past few decades?.

I've seen it on both sides mate. Only difference is, this is one company vs other multi million dollar companies.

The difference is EA, Activision , Konami or Microsoft finish their games. And Star Citizen is not even Alpha.  And on top of that it's more the a thousand dollar 

So EA , Activision and Konami are evil but they are a company that have legal business with and people who invest in their company invest money to make money on it. While backers on Star Citizen will not even enjoy their investment accept a couple of good games. 



Around the Network
HollyGamer said:

The problem  is  you compare 27000 imaginary ship with digital goodies. and is not even a goodies and not have any value in real world what so ever.  You cannot use your 27000 ships in real world. 

Listen, i don't mind gaming in general, i don't mind DLC, or space games, but asking you to pay 27000 for a ships and unfinished games on top of that is freaking crazy. 

No, the problem ehre is that you're basically challenging digital goodss and claiming them as objectively worthless. if you stopped at admitting you were being subjective, then it could have easily been written off, but no, you're heavily insisting that all digital goods are worthless and a waste of money.


You're basically crapping all over artists, musicians, novelists, and anyone else that sells their goods digitally.

You will not win that war. You will never win a shred of it, because everyone will tear you a new one, and rightfully so.

 

People spend their hard earned money on what they want. It is not your decision to make, to tell people what they should spend their money on.

 

I think some rich folk are insane for spending so much money on fancy food, but guess what?, I don't care in the end because it's not my money, and even then their money goes towards the company they bought from, which in turn gets cycled around the world via purchases and payments to make.

 

Also, people rent movies on netflix, millions of people do this, despite knowing full well that they do not own said media, but are merely renting it. The same way I know that our games are not legally mine, due to the fact that I am paying to make use of the license, to play said game. I do not own the code, nor will I ever. 



John2290 said:
Iif it wasn't a scam before, it is now.

It was always a scam in the eyes of those who didn't understand nor wanted to when it was first announced. 

 

No amount of transparency is going to get the vitriol folk to ever listen. This is an actual fact at this point.



Chazore said:

No, the problem ehre is that you're basically challenging digital goodss and claiming them as objectively worthless. if you stopped at admitting you were being subjective, then it could have easily been written off, but no, you're heavily insisting that all digital goods are worthless and a waste of money.

The problem is the backers and people behind  the idea of 27000 USD for imaginary ships, I don't mind with digital goods  at all in fact i love digital goods, but digital goods that you defend is not even worth to defend 


You're basically crapping all over artists, musicians, novelists, and anyone else that sells their goods digitally.

You will not win that war. You will never win a shred of it, because everyone will tear you a new one, and rightfully so.

See, you are trying to make me look like I hate the artist that sell their music for 10 bucks, while in reality,  you the one who defend a shady artist that sell their product more than what they should have deserve.  Buddy  you defending the wrong artist , you have been scammed

People spend their hard earned money on what they want. It is not your decision to make, to tell people what they should spend their money on.

LOL, i am just commenting , I am not even care, how long have you been in Internet. "It called Forums " 

I think some rich folk are insane for spending so much money on fancy food, but guess what?, I don't care in the end because it's not my money, and even then their money goes towards the company they bought from, which in turn gets cycled around the world via purchases and payments to make.

That's great at least you admitted , but the problem is you seems defending the company

Also, people rent movies on netflix, millions of people do this, despite knowing full well that they do not own said media, but are merely renting it. The same way I know that our games are not legally mine, due to the fact that I am paying to make use of the license, to play said game. I do not own the code, nor will I ever. 

Yeah but not for 27000 USD 



HollyGamer said:

 

The problem is the backers and people behind  the idea of 27000 USD for imaginary ships, I don't mind with digital goods  at all in fact i love digital goods, but digital goods that you defend is not even worth to defend 

They paid for those digital goods out of their own choice. They chose what they wanted to choose. It is not your choice to make at the end of the day.

You are specifically trying to dismantle what people can/cannot buy and that is honestly not a battle worth fighting. 

 

See, you are trying to make me look like I hate the artist that sell their music for 10 bucks, while in reality,  you the one who defend a shady artist that sell their product more than what they should have deserve.  Buddy  you defending the wrong artist , you have been scammed

You were just arguing against digital goods in general being a "waste", then you moved the goal post, and now you've moved it again.

You're now even calling the very artists who spent hours and weeks worth of their time to work on the game as "shady". Do you have any idea how asinine and ignorant that sounds?.

"defending the wrong artist". No I'm pointing out how ignorant you're being about all of this and now you're going on a hostile rebound because you've been caught out on it. 

 

LOL, i am just commenting , I am not even care, how long have you been in Internet. "It called Forums " 

If you didn't care this much, you wouldn't be here debating so very hard with me. If you didn't care, you wouldn't even be talking in this very thread, but you do.

 

That's great at least you admitted , but the problem is you seems defending the company

Nah, it's called letting people do what they want with their money and not belittling and telling them how to spend it within "society". Big difference.

 

Yeah but not for 27000 USD 

We're on about the core concept here, not the goal shifting price.



With $180m I could have paid Ubisoft or EA to develop two AAA games for me. Or multiple titles from a smaller and more needy developer such as Crytek. I could develop four and a half sequels to Mass Effect Andromeda, or Shenmue IV to IX. Or filmed a better Star Wars VIII, or another season of Game of Thrones.

I doubt I could live to the HYPE of some internet nerds with a lot of money to spare but little common sense though.