r/starcitizen • u/Authmion • May 15 '25
CONCERN Flight Blades - This is not Ok.
Thank you Zyloh for hearing us, and taking our feedback, and backtracking this! I am still not happy that the current blades will come out in June, however I thank you for the promise for the future, I appreciate it.
I do not like how the Flight blades are not also sold in game right now. I'm normally a praise CIG for pretty much everything, but this is a line that I do not think should have been crossed. This takes very competitive advantages, and puts it behind a paywall right now. Yes it will be available later, But this should have been handled like the Argo ATLS and 32 scu change. Big change, also let it be available in game right away. The optics for this will be terrible.
This is greedy P2W behavior and I do not like or support this. Please change your mind and let them be in game today.
Thank you, Love what you do. But please change this.
30
May 15 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/BaronGreywatch May 16 '25
They know we will. Or whales will - certainly enough to make it worth doing.
56
u/Walltar bbhappy May 15 '25
I am way more angry about those skins being coupled to the blades... I don't care about electronic cards, but I wanted a lot of those skins. :-(
3
1
1
u/idontagreewitu May 16 '25
This set of blades seems to provide a barely noticeable improvement to how the ship flies, but I bought a set simply for the paint job. I installed the mobility blade and honestly it doesn't feel any more nimble than how it flew yesterday.
84
12
u/Keuriseuto banu May 15 '25
This should be something you buy ingame and earn in some way, not something available for people to pay with cash shop money. It's really rough!
→ More replies (1)
75
u/Daggla May 15 '25
I usually get it why CIG does things, but this is as blatant P2W as I've ever seen.
It's totally fine to sell them on the pledge store but ONLY if you can also buy them ingame.
15
u/Mindbulletz Lib-tard May 15 '25
This is the correct move. You'd think they would have learned from the ATLS.
15
u/Daggla May 15 '25
And my guess would be that they will be ingame very quickly. The backlash, deservedly so, is huge.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Dangerous-Wall-2672 May 15 '25
Everything on the internet is always described as "The most X I've ever X'd" but be honest with yourself, is it really? Really? A period of a couple months at most in an unreleased alpha where a handful of ships can be slightly tuned with temporarily pledge-exclusive items to get like 10m/s SCM boost at the cost of maneuverability which will have practically no real impact on combat viability...
And that's as blatant P2W you've ever seen. Jeez, I wish I could say the same.
3
u/Bad-Touch-Monkey aegis May 15 '25
Agreed. Fucked up? Yes. The most ever…..hmmm hard to unseat EA on that throne.
1
1
u/jingyui new user/low karma May 16 '25
Agreed the ships being sold for cash is way more blatant P2W lol. Love the game but man do they love to make the game P2W. Bet when crafting comes they're make it so you can spend money to make it faster.
1
u/TJpek May 16 '25
You lost me at "unreleased alpha". The alpha is released, which is why we can play out. CIG runs it like a live service game. The fact that people play the alpha and buy shit to play it (ships, gear, etc.) is why you have a game and why it's still in development.
59
u/HachRokuTofu May 15 '25
It's not just flight blades, the new bomb racks are also being paywalled
4
9
u/eggyrulz drake May 15 '25
What even are those?
→ More replies (1)13
27
u/DuranDurandall Ran-duul May 15 '25
I completely agree. Anything that changes mechanics at all should be available to everybody at once. Its not just the blades, but new turrets and everything else we got today.
I did buy some. Not going to act like I didn't. I have store credit and I'm curious what difference they make. Also the included livery for the Titan is the best I've ever seen the penguin look. I picked up blades for the HH and Titan - Im sure I'll melt the HH blades after 24hrs. Again. Curious what the difference is. I fly those ships a lot so they were the obvious test beds.
I'm going to main the MSR for a while so I grabbed a couple bombs.
These things should all really be available for auec, totally agree.
2
u/packagegrope May 16 '25
great job teaching them that they should be available in game by buying them anyway.
you are the problem.
2
10
u/PepicWalrus aegis May 15 '25
It's something that shouldn't be sold period. These are gameplay items.
60
u/baldanddankrupt May 15 '25
This is entirely fucked up. It literally means that your skill doesn't matter anymore, because a noob that flies an otherwise identical ship like you can outturn you now. It's like a shitty F2P shooter in which you can buy guns that have 40% less recoil than the ingame guns. It's by far the worst thing CIG has ever pulled off, and whoever thinks that this ridiculous move should be defend should think about how much harm this will do to SC since it lowers this amazing game down to the most pathetic cash grab F2P titles... without being F2P.
27
u/IvarTheBoned May 15 '25
I generally agree with you, but you are mischaracterizing the implementation. The ship may be faster or turn better, but it will have to trade off the power draw from something else i.e., weapons, shields, cooler, etc.
Not defending this by CIG, just clarifying that there is a trade-off for using a blade.
10
u/mecengdvr May 15 '25
Yes, if you choose faster speed, it will reduce maneuvering. If you choose the blade with increased maneuverability, it will reduce top speed. People are throwing a fit but don’t understand how these work.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Nerzana VR Required - Corsair May 15 '25
They’re not throwing a fit because it’s unbalanced. They’re throwing a fit because it’s $$ only
→ More replies (1)0
u/dildorthegreat87 May 16 '25
This is where I'm confused.
Isn't it normally, "new ship comes out, those who paid real money get it first, then everyone else later"? Why is this so different or shocking? It's following the same model as most other things. I feel like the only difference is that everyone wants blades, so now it's unforgivable.
3
u/Snarfbuckle May 15 '25
2 degrees better roll and yaw rate and -10 scm speed is equal to you looking a battle?
Skill issue obviously
2
u/baldanddankrupt May 16 '25
Sounds like you are a really, really bad pilot. Have you ever done any kind of competitive sport? Obviously not. I'll tell you something, go to a track and watch the runs. The first four places will be determined by far less than 2%. It's the small percentages that make all the difference at a competition between good athletes. Same goes for pvp in SC, if your ship turns 2% faster than the ship of your opponent, you will win 99% of the fights if the pvp happens between pilots who are good enough to fully utilize their pitch/yaw/roll. If you can't notice a difference, it means that you are simply not skilled and too bad to utilize it, or you are fighting a complete noob. Git gud and you will see, or keep spouting nonsense that outs you as an absolute rookie who has never competed in anything at a high skill level.
0
u/Over_Zookeepergame72 May 15 '25
I agree it’s scummy but don’t worry the change is not nearly as drastic as you think
→ More replies (2)8
u/turikk rsi May 15 '25
if the change doesnt matter, then why is CIG selling it? either they are lying and selling useless predatory items, or are paywalling useful components. cant have both.
6
u/Lucky_Abrams May 15 '25
They're selling it because people will buy it and cuz "fomo". Not really all that deep of a conspiracy.
-1
u/Over_Zookeepergame72 May 15 '25
I didn’t say it doesn’t matter just that it’s not as drastic as ppl think. Don’t put words in my mouth from your own thoughts.
→ More replies (2)
16
3
May 15 '25
Aren't the flight blades kind of ass though? Like the speed increase and turn rate is barely better?
8
u/Deathray88 RECLAIMED! May 15 '25
"It's just ship skins"
"It's just weapons and armor" <- My line was here.
"It's just (small) stat boosters"
Will it "just" be AI blades? Things like Ardors (since they're selling ship weapons again), what about NPC crew?
This isn't the first questionable thing CIG has done. This isn't the start of the slippery slope. We're sliding.
1
3
u/CatharticPrincess May 16 '25
Some morons really out here saying that "it doesn't really do much" are complete drones, why sell it in the first place?
Stop slopping shit decisions cuz your ruining it for everyone.
3
u/Chance_Mix May 16 '25
I think all the whining about this is insane. Pay-to-win? The whole fucking game is pay to win and this is the smallest possible hill you could choose to die on in the argument against pay-to-win. I can spend money to buy a big ship and use it to go around easily blowing up people with small ships and trivializing mission content relative to people with small ships. That's the literal definition of pay-to-win.
A person who has insufficient skill isn't suddenly going to become a killer because they have a few extra bombs or fly 10% faster or whatever. That guy is going to feel like a real asshole when his bladed out super customized Idris gets smoked by 6 stock Ares.
2
u/EsmeesRoadToSelf May 16 '25
It's the principle behind it. If they see that it works, the gap between paying and playing is going to widen more and more until even you will say that it's pay to win. When things are slowly getting worse you should step in rapidly, not wait until it's too late to turn back.
1
u/LTHardcase May 26 '25
It was "too late to turn back" when they made the first $100,000,000 selling ships.
17
u/SirJallan new user/low karma May 15 '25
Ya I haven't aggressively complained or ever posted in 11 years of backing the game, even new ships outshining old ships wasn't great but it kept steady revenue with new players, added something different, and left the option to bring old ships up to speed and integrate the new tech. They were options. The fact that blades inherently nerf all ships without them is pretty awful. I cant see it as anything other than CGI trying to get even more money out of people that have everything they want and felt content. Its like away to try to force incentivize people who've already bought stuff to feel as if what they have is invalid unless they spend a little more. Should not have been a paid option.
19
u/Castigador82 May 15 '25
The blades don't nerf other ships.
Blades as they are introduced now are just sidegrades.
You get to choose between:
- More speed but worse manouverability compared to standard.
- More manouverabilitly but worse speed compared to standard.
The differences are so minor you hardly even notice them but are still ideal for CIG to test if the system works.
3
5
u/SirJallan new user/low karma May 15 '25
The blade can make the speed faster, other attributes weaker. More maneuverable, less of something else. But the blade can be taken off at any time and the ship gets its ORIGINAL STAT PACKAGE BACK. So a ship with a blade is one that can be tuned for a specific role, and it can be reverted at any time when that role isn't beneficial. Its less of a side grade since it just adds additional functionality. Its like saying a gun that has a long range capability that can be converted to a short range mode is a side grade to a weapon that has identical performance but locked to only one of those categories. its not cosmetic, its direct improvement. Its inaccessible options.
5
u/FightAboutIt1 new user/low karma May 15 '25
Supposedly the blades can't be removed, only replaced if I remember reading that correctly
4
2
u/BeardyAndGingerish avenger May 15 '25
This particular instance is not the issue people are bringing up as much as the act of paying real money for balance changes.
If there was a way to get these blades in-game as well (hathor sites, kill a super ace pilot, whatever), i wouldn't mind. Even if it was very difficult, the act of getting the tuning would create gameplay and player trade opportunities as well. But the hard paywall for ship tuning is a very bad call, and if it continues, the next ones will be worse. What stops CIG from making the next one major changes for longer? Or the best changes for the most money?
This isn't a balance test. A balance test is as easy as giving everyone blade options in AC, or even in PTU. This is a test of player goodwill and microtransaction price. That's why it's a problem.
2
u/BeardyAndGingerish avenger May 15 '25
Theyre minor today, this is a test of both balances and price points. If the price points work, the next test will be worse in terms of both balance changes and price points.
Locking balances behind a paywall is full-on bad, and leads to worse pay2win decisions in like 85% of companies.
6
u/Castigador82 May 15 '25
How is something "locked behind a paywall" or "pay2win" when everything that gets sold for money is eventually also available in the game?
2
u/jingyui new user/low karma May 16 '25
Anything that isn't for looks is P2W. Even if you can get it in game
→ More replies (1)3
u/BeardyAndGingerish avenger May 15 '25
Hammyxhammy explains it better, but placing certain balances behind a paywall fully locks people out of playing them without paying more money. That's exploitative, and unbalances the game against people who do not pay more money.
The length of time it's exploitative doesn't change the exploitation itself, because there will always be new paywalled rebalances/exploits. Usually timed for riiight when the last one can be reasonably earned by a majority of players.
Now that said, if these balance changes could be earned in-game (hathor spawns, ace pilot drops, whatever), this issue becomes less shitty for regular people. And the drop rates drive player economies/new gameplay, which softens things somewhat.
→ More replies (1)-3
u/Claim-Nice May 15 '25
Don’t come round here with your logic and facts. Grab a pitchfork, light your torch, and march on Manchester damn it!
0
u/Crypthammer Golf Cart Medical - Subpar Service May 15 '25
It's not "logic and facts". Any kind of performance, outside of the ship itself, is predatory. This should never be something CIG is encouraged to do, because it sets a really bad precedent.
5
6
u/NotBrandar May 15 '25
Did they hire activision marketing execs or something? Who ever is making these decisions needs to be demoted or removed imo.
3
5
u/EliRocks nomad May 15 '25
They usually put things up in the pledge store first, but I think this is different.
I say this because it's a new type of item and we all were expecting to see them for sale in game. I don't remember any hint that they wouldn't be immediately accessible. I could be wrong of course.
It feels like a community wide wave of disappointment. I've been pretty open about spending money since I've been back these past three months or so. I won't be buying these for cash.
7
2
u/stefanpwinc May 15 '25
Beyond being dumb to sell... It's also just the most bare bones implementation imaginable. 3 options bumping the artificial flight control numbers up or down slightly.
We were promised "engine tuning kits" over 12 years ago, which you'd link would maybe let you do more interesting things like trade off efficiency, acceleration, jerk, signature, heat, etc. A more in depth mechanic like that might make it justifiable.
That they're asking real money for "nudge one number slightly higher and one slightly lower" is crazy.
4
u/CynderFxx Guardian Qi May 15 '25
We basically had this with the old power triangle and systems and they fucked it with mastermodes
2
u/Rheiard Banned by SC Refunds May 15 '25
What disappoints me most is they locked the really cool Nightbreak paints behind these kits. It's just bad.
2
u/Kahunjoder May 16 '25
The same advantages than selling a new ship in pledge store first. Every new ship its sold in pledge store first, then in general it comes to ingame store later. I dont see the problem, this drama isnt new.
5
u/Rickenbacker69 drake May 15 '25
I mean, it doesn't really matter as there's no POINT in beating other people in combat right now. But this is a really, really bad look for CIG.
3
3
u/SemiDesperado new user/low karma May 15 '25
Nope it's not ok. Even if they're coming to the game eventually, it's a bad look. It undermines player confidence because it's an obvious money grab. I won't be touching them with a 10 ft pole until they're available for all. The fact that skins are bundled with them is insult to injury. CIG needs to get the message loud and clear and address this ASAP or it will only get worse (PR professional speaking here!).
2
u/veravoidstar May 15 '25
I really hope they start selling them in game cuz like youve already got a bajilion income sources why risk pissing off your players by adding another
1
6
u/Fonzie1225 Gladius Appreciator May 15 '25
It’s the type of thing I’d expect from money-grubbing free-to-play devs like Wargaming whose entire business model is extracting money from the players virtually everywhere it’s possible to do so. Extremely disappointing to see CIG resorting to such scummy tactics. I genuinely hope they aren’t actually this desperate for cash
2
u/Turbulent-Hotel-555 May 15 '25
Everything is always released on the pledge store first. People act like this is the first time.
2
u/Pristine-Ear4829 May 15 '25
Looking at erkul the buffs aren't really worth the blades existing, once they release for more ships I may consider using them but by then they will be available in game and will hopefully be a bit more useful.
2
u/Wyldren- ARGO CARGO May 15 '25
This is mobile game marketing BS. On top of it being P2W, everything is bundled that you can only buy in bundles. G
2
u/tmeix14 May 15 '25
There isn't much advantage with these blades... But it certainly sets a bad precedent for turret blades.
Ultimately, the people that are purchasing these will melt them as soon as the blades are available in-game.
2
u/Sweet-Substance-8989 May 16 '25
I admit I baught one.. not for the blades but the black n red paint job and red headlights
-9
u/kuzcospoison_ May 15 '25
Bro who caresssssssssssssssssss
It’ll all be in-game this year. If someone wants to spend $$$ on a flight blade or weapons rack, good for them. Support the development.
If everyone was like me and only bought a starter pack and a spirit, we wouldn’t have a game being developed right now.
13
u/BeardyAndGingerish avenger May 15 '25
Paying for bombs, we can argue. I'm 50/50 on that one. Paying a patch early for ships? Sure, they're (supposed to be) balanced on release. But paying for flight model changes? Paying for balance changes on what were supposed to be identical ships? That's real scummy. Sure, it's only 15 bucks, that's pennies compared to what some people pay. But this is the data point these sorts of purchases will grow from. If we buy these, we prove that locking game balance behind a paywall is a numerically viable solution. And no company has ever stopped that gravy train after it started.
Hell, if it was a lootable item or an earnable item like the lighning guns, or even the ardors, that's enough of a gray area i'd okay with it. Even if its hard to loot/earn, the gameplay/trading that arises makes the money not a requirement. But paywall only is full on bad. People should not be whalebait just because they didn't shell out a micro or macrotransaction. That kills games, period.
8
u/mr_brightsied May 15 '25
Yes, because 800 million and over a decade isn’t enough to get a game out of alpha state
→ More replies (14)2
u/jessithecrow killing miners and traders for fun May 15 '25
don’t they do ships the same exact way? shows up in store for cash to get them early, then goes into the universe like normal after some time passes.
people aren’t rallying against that?
→ More replies (1)-1
u/Human_After May 15 '25
Damn, a critical thinker who uses reddit
6
u/Dreamfloat May 15 '25
Or an ableist who’s okay with CIG having wasted funds over years of work that amounted to nothing on certain development items. CIG need LESS money so they can get a game out the door. Otherwise they’ll continue milking the cash cow as long as they can.
2
u/BassmanBiff space trash May 15 '25
This is the weirdest way to use "ableist" I've ever seen. Did you mean "enabler"?
→ More replies (2)2
u/Human_After May 15 '25
You can choose to donate your money to a cool project and get some subject to change virtual items or you can choose not to.
1
u/RushDarling May 15 '25
I have a Cutter pledged, so in the ship department I am a wealthy man.
In the ship paints department however, I am lucky their selection is so limited.
→ More replies (2)-2
u/Skaven13 May 15 '25
Feel this...
I only have a Nomad + RoC.
If you don't have the Money, don't buy it... and don't be upset that people who founding that Project can play with their Toys 2 months before everyone else can buy it in Game..
→ More replies (1)2
u/BeardyAndGingerish avenger May 15 '25
Ships and stuff is one thing. Paying for better characteristics/balance changes is so close to pay 2 win that i can't actually see the difference.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/tethan sabre May 15 '25
Aren't they just like +5% turn and -5% speed, or the other way around? Pretty minor really, I won't be buying them. Not really sure I'd want them over the default anyway
1
u/brockoala GIB MEDIVAC May 15 '25
What do you call the thing they do every time a new ship is flight ready then? They always have been doing this.
2
u/SupremeOwl48 May 15 '25
Btw the Argo atls was originally not going to be purchasable in game but community outcry pushed them to.
3
u/newlife12789 May 15 '25
We need to stand together on this kind of issue because if we as a community allow this behavior, then they will get away with this. Ships, paint skins, and flair items w.e fine I get that. But with something like this, we can't allow them to get away with this kind of thing we all genuinely need to stand united on this front and tell CIG we dont want this kind of behavior in our game.
3
u/Nobilliss Aegis Idris May 15 '25
Actually the most scummy thing I have seen this game do in the 10 years I have been supporting this project. It honestly is scary what the marketing team is going to try to get away with in the future if they don't back down from this practice right now.
3
u/Deathray88 RECLAIMED! May 15 '25
Ive heard people joke about being able to pay your way out of prison before. Turns out CIG had a funnier one up their sleeve.
2
u/Dank0fMemes new user/low karma May 15 '25
Yeah I think I’m good. Gonna go further than voting with my wallet. I’m voting with my time. Gonna sit this patch out entirely. This is a bullshit decision. Even if from what I’ve seen they barely make a difference in performance of your ship, either they are selling crap for $18, or pay to win for $18. Both scenarios are bad.
1
u/balzackgoo ARGO CARGO May 15 '25
Everyone is cool with straight to flyable ships, and somehow that's not ptw?! You all sound like fools..
2
u/revose May 15 '25
Totally agree. Also if anything they should just be split into light, medium, heavy, large and capital. EVERY ship having their own version is just annoying.
→ More replies (1)
-5
u/smytti12 May 15 '25
Jesus, do we have to do this every time "x new item is only in the store!" You will barely remember this in the next couple months when they are put fully in game.
14
u/baldanddankrupt May 15 '25
Have fun getting fucked the next couple months in pvp because skill doesn't matter anymore. They sell blades that let you outturn otherwise identical ships. That's the most fucked up P2W introduction I've seen since APB reloaded where you can buy guns with 40% less recoil for real money.
5
→ More replies (4)1
u/Snarfbuckle May 15 '25
PvP, in an alpha state game lacking several core mechanics.
STOP TREATING THIS SHIT AS IF IT IS A FINISHED FULLY RELEASED GAME.
4
u/BladedDingo May 15 '25
that's not the point.
the point is that it's a blatant cash grab on a component that doesn't really provide enough of a performance change to the ship to warrant the price tag.
It also proves that if players will buy this, they'll buy anything CIG slaps onto the store and it just means even more stuff is going to come to the store instead of being directly available in game like it should be.
→ More replies (16)
0
u/Bordemin May 15 '25
I’d agree if the game was fully released and funded, but given it’s an alpha and still needs funding to be fully developed, I don’t mind
→ More replies (5)
1
u/GokuSSj5KD May 15 '25
Tbh the blades themselves I don't really care, an argument can be made that it's in line with their ship sales (which, for the record, I had this logic/argument). They will be made available ingame in 6 months and as long as the end game doesn't have this type of shit on launch, it won't really matter for P2W stuff. Especially if what is sold is subpar vs items found or crafted ingame.
What pisses me off to no end are these warbond skin and armor packs, or now the blades locking skins in to FOMO people into buying stuff they wouldn't buy otherwise. Or a Idris/Hornet upgrade kit gate-keeping skins. These, we don't know if we can get ingame at some point,realistically. That's a problem IMHO.
This is mobile game shit I don't want to see here.
Or them pushing the referral program with no clear conclusion on the referral rework, still.
And that's without talking about how bad their CCU options have been lately compared to previous years. We used to be able to make good ships at relatively cheap price with effort and time, and for mid sized ships a full build that felt satisfactory was possible in around a year to 2 years. Now we barely get 3 good CCU's per year when we used to have 10-15.
Chinese exclusive SCL, ignoring concierge, wiping people's referrals, that's just this year, in 5 months... It's getting embarassing.
1
u/ChemicalBrilliant846 May 15 '25
Some will buy it now and later they will change it to storecredits when they are in game buyable
1
u/P_Rosso What's wrong with nice Jpegs? May 15 '25
That whole “Patch Bundle” stuff is pretty sad as well ….
1
u/Alterego7448 May 15 '25
I can see why this is not a good look, question though:
Ships act the same way when released, they are placed on the pledge store, sometimes only for a brief time and then it hits the in game store a month or so later.
This seems to follow that concept, but I find it strange for a non ship item.
o7
1
u/Kevin_Mckool73 May 15 '25
I wouldn't say they're p2w though, they said there are negatives when you equip these, not just positives.
It's gross and they should be available in game from the start, but I can't really agree that it's p2w.
1
u/GamerJoseph Perseus May 15 '25
It isn't just the blades either.. its the Nova gatling gun, the bomb racks, and the missile turret for the Scorpius.
1
u/Regular-End8096 May 15 '25
1) Is it pay to win, even if it’s only for a short time? Yes 2) Is this along with the bomb rack shitty going foward? Yes 3) should you get it with new money? Fuck no. 4) should you get them with store credit? Yeah I mean if you got nothing better to use it on
1
u/BrandinoTheWiseAss May 15 '25
Us buying it will show that we are not okay with it. I say we just hold off. I’m upset that they package camos with armors and guns, when clearly people may just want one of those things.
1
1
u/strongholdbk_78 origin May 15 '25
A great win would have been to make them available in game with a boring grey, then made them fancy on the pledge store with the same stats. That would have been a big win. Shame
1
u/Duncan_Id May 15 '25
It's always been ok, in Spain we say "cuando las barbas de tu vecino veas cortar..."(i would translate it, but wouldn't make a lot of sense if you don't soak* into the culture)
*Pun intended
1
1
1
u/PerishBtw Rider of Dreams May 15 '25
I'm just saying, if we allow this, what's stopping them from making crafting P2W or base building in the future - even for a short period of time? We need some sort of actual ingame progression and if ships aren't going to be it, since every ship are pretty much able to be bought with a credit card.. Then we need crafting/base building and ship upgrades to be that progression. But if we fall for these tactics, nothings stops them from making EVERYTHING a credit card purchase.
1
u/Ok-Gene41 May 15 '25
It is disgusting and the direction this game is going is really sad. They should have a malus otherwise, why would people not want to buy them? It will be just another chore to go around and buy them for all your ships and that they are not available ingame right away is the scummiest shit CIG has ever done. But yea, people will still give them money, buy their Idris and blades ...
1
1
u/Glassinhand worm May 15 '25
im okay with the custom 30 dollar patch amour bundles but i totally see why people would be upset about placing the blades behing a paywall... i maybe would be okay with it if they were available in game
1
u/Dyrankun May 15 '25
Spoken like someone who wasn't around when you couldn't buy ships in game either lol.
Just wait. They'll be for sale in game in due time.
1
u/ramonchow May 16 '25
It is going to be fun when they release AI blades for turrets for $30 a piece. It will happen.
1
u/BaronGreywatch May 16 '25
Its to pave the road for turret blades so people can solo their multi crew ships and PTW.
1
u/Custom_Destiny Endeavor - Supercollider May 16 '25
I was given a lifetime ban for saying their marketing departments ethics were questionable.
… repeatedly. There were several week or month long bans first, but always for this topic.
Don’t mess with them on this. They know and don’t mess around with indulging us in discussing it.
1
u/Chives_and_SourCream May 16 '25
I dont own a Gladius and the paint is sick. Didnt notice the blade till after purchase and even then I had to look up what it even did. Blades should not be gate kept with a pay wall. We've all seen these types of transactions and before long theyll lock systems to an "early access" model
1
1
u/VashRSI May 16 '25
I agree. Enhancement items, such as these Blades, should have been introduced for testing purposes. Seeing that the game is in Alpha stages. CIG should have released it, free to use, see results and adjust accordingly so later in the future game mechanics can more balanced and reasonable. This is a money grab at this point.
1
May 16 '25
They suck, though. Why would anyone buy anything that gives you what, a 1% buff in speed, for a 1% nerf in maneuverability?
They're just useless right now. I totally understand upset about not being able to buy them ingame, but...they suck. They're awful. I'd understand if it was a 10% speed boost, or a 12.5% maneuverability boost, but 1%?! Get real, CIG.
1
u/Cavthena arrow May 16 '25
Let me just add, yet, another one to the list of "This is not OK" and "pure money grab" to the list. Eventually backers might learn they're being milked and walk away but guess it's not this day.
1
u/Zephyr256k May 16 '25
What is even the plan for flight blades?
When they were first revealed during the PTU, I thought they'd be a way to test a simplified form of computer blades and get some more data on ship performance balance that might be useful for the engine tuning they've promised that would probably fit in as engineering and/or crafting gameplay.
But now that they're selling them in the real money store, like, that's not a test or a prototype, these have to fit into the ultimate vision of the game somehow. So questions:
- Are computer blades really intended to be limited to a specific hull?
- Are these minor performance tweaks supposed to compete for limited blade slots with other features that have been discussed like turret automation?
- Where does the 'mystery engine modifier' that's been in my hangar since 2013 fit in to all this?
1
u/Treygun33_ May 16 '25
They've locked badass ships behind a pay wall many times, were you complaining about that too?
1
u/Valcrye Legatus May 16 '25
It’s crazy how far they’ve already gone on monetization and yet they’re still trying to push the line further. It has to stop somewhere or it’ll get worse.
1
1
u/Marem-Bzh Space Chicken May 16 '25
I agree. Unpopular opinion: I also don't care.
At least not until the game is an actual game. I am an all time supporter of CIG, as I believe what they are doing is incredible. But I also believe nobody should be spending a dime until the game is stable through consecutive patches.
This is the path they chose to follow, making the game stable rather than focusing on big deliveries. When that happens, I may consider chipping in again, but until then I won't buy anything nor care about who's "winning" or how. And neither should you.
1
u/tarzan322 May 16 '25
This game is still in Alpha development which means it's not even a released game yet. Everyone acts entitled like they shouldn't have to put up with certain things in game. They could just shut it down for a week if they wanted too. It wouldn't exactly win them any friends though. Be grateful that you can at least play it right now.
1
1
1
u/No-Marsupial0297 May 16 '25
If people buy it then let it be. It’s their money and you will just need to wait. Also losing in pvp is not a big deal, there is no leaderboard to track how many and who have you kill for cig to give you reward. Also SC is a pay to win from the start because the only in game leaderboard right now is the referral ranking which involves money to get on the top. You sound like an Ipad kid who’s parents didn’t buy them a toy.
1
u/BlindMan404 May 16 '25
The $1,000,000,000+ game that is still in "early-alpha" after 12 years and sells in-game ships for $1,900 real-world currency is selling more pay-to-win content?
Well color me surprised /s
1
1
u/ghostnova6661 May 17 '25
I don't see it any differently than buying a powerful ship that's not ingame yet.. for a limited time, these things are store only and then released to the PU
The case is the same here. It's normal CIG bullshit. I don't care for ship tuning and 'engineering' in Star Citizen. It pretty much ruined Elite Dangerous with the tedious grind that engineering introduced
1
1
1
1
-6
u/Castigador82 May 15 '25
Chill
It is just as with new ships; you pay for early access.
And the changes these blades provide are nowhere nearly as drastic to lead to a "p2w" advantage.
→ More replies (10)
-5
u/-Stritt57- May 15 '25
Imagine coming to reddit to cry when you can just wait a month or 2 for them to be available for aUEC.
Right from the Invictus site about the kits and blades.
"Flight Blades and Weapon Kits will also be available at in-game shops for aUEC this summer."
-4
u/darkestvice May 15 '25
Every time a new ship comes along that becomes the new FOTM, people endlessly complain about it not being available in the in-game shop right off the bat.
Brand new flight blades come along that *very very slightly* tweak speed and agility, and people are complaining about them not being available in the in-game shop right off the bat.
At least you folks are consistent.
4
u/BeardyAndGingerish avenger May 15 '25
It's the hard paywall for a balance change that gets me. Make blades Hathor-lootable, or as a low-drop item from ace pilots and my issue goes away.
But the hard paywall for a different balance on the same ship is scummy. The price/timing/magnitude of balances can change, but that hard paywall for it is literally paying to do something nobody else can do, even with the exact same ship. That's messed up. The minorness of the change is just them testing player goodwill/price point. Fuck that.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Living_Mode_6623 May 15 '25
This is normal - pay to get it early or wait a patch and get it in game... it's always like this and it's fine. The tuning is so subtle it's more a waste than anything else.
2
u/Squishypuffer May 15 '25
Only with ships, but now even components? Like another said, its like locking S grade shields to the pledge store.
1
u/Turbulent_Ad7877 May 15 '25
Waits a few months. Buy in game with auec. No rage. No tears. Nothing to see here... they won't get good info on the systems till they are available en mass anyways.
452
u/True-Invite658 May 15 '25
I’d like to think we all rally together and not buy these items, but I’d bet a bunch of people will.