Looks like the buyers for ship NFTs might be cooling off a little bit.
Star Atlas tries to sell $30k ship NFT. Nobody buys it.
- Thread starter Montoya
- Start date
So, no game exists, a single ship may cost 105,000 USD (the second half of the video), but they call Star Citizen a scam... 
As an investment opportunity which as far as I can see is the point of NFTs, the downward trajectory of the coin is indicative of the risk which is probably stifling that segments interest...
As a crowdfunding prospect the sheer cost of the asset puts it beyond the scope of most players disposable incomes, and even those with a disposable income that high might look at the cost of the item verses the fact the game is not yet guaranteed to be completed and said asset come in to actual being and think twice... their $30k (30k connection error what a reference!) ship may never actually be...
As an investment other than the high price, the open market may actually be a hindrance on this one. Look at the SC model of Concept = lowest price, whitebox= price increase, flyable = price increase, any additional mechanics appear in the game = price increase. That is a predictable path which ensures if you jump on at concept your pledge is only ever going to become more valuable, if investment or even just savvy consumerism is your aim in that game, with LTI added as a form of security on the initial jumping on point all signs point to Concept being the best time to dive in... there is incentive to buy early, and it is controlled by the project, not a market the project has no control over... On an open NFT market, for Atlas at least, your purchase appears to be like buying a brand new car - drive it off the lot and you have lost a third of the value right there... if that is sustained it could end up strangling the project...
I think the Star Atlas NFT market needs demand in new player turnover but for that it needs to give players something to play... Hype videos of what is to come can only do so much when the open market shows their coin value is a fraction compared to what it was and current sales values are near half what new purchase values are. Another issue in the long run may well turn out to be player turnover, too... we see articles about new games regularly criticising player bases starting HUGE at launch and dying back to the regulars after a couple of months and sometimes just a couple of weeks, happens with almost every game to some degree ... Star Atlas may have a pay-day on launch selling new ships to new players, but then have an over-saturation of low to mid value ships on the second hand market once their user base scales to regulars...
Yes, you can try to live off expensive steak sales, but making ends meet is called "Putting bread on the table" for a reason. Even charging a percentage on second hand sales is not going to cover the take at the till they could have had with a closed garden that is what a game environment is and controlling the price of assets to users. Unless of course they are not planning to have the NFTs fund the game in the long run and they will still charge Retail etc, at which point I'm still left asking what exactly is the point of NFT asset generation if it is inferior to what exists for the project making them? If NFTs eventually kill off the project due to diminished returns even if it does come to fruition and they have a game to host the assets in they just seem to be a hindrance... I'm failing to see the sense of them?
Publishers always hated Second Hand game shops because it was a sale they didn't get a return on which they might have made a new sale from. Direct to player download sales helped hamper that but didn't kill it off. Incorporating NFT's into game always felt to my like an effort to get a percentage of that second hand sale, if they couldn't make a fresh sale, they could charge royalties on a second hand sale... but building a funding model off NFT's feels like an exercise in diminishing returns...
I wish them all the best but I'm still struggling to see the value of NFT's in games. I hope they can be the example which finally makes me see that value but so far i'm only seeing more questions and no answers yet...
As a crowdfunding prospect the sheer cost of the asset puts it beyond the scope of most players disposable incomes, and even those with a disposable income that high might look at the cost of the item verses the fact the game is not yet guaranteed to be completed and said asset come in to actual being and think twice... their $30k (30k connection error what a reference!) ship may never actually be...
As an investment other than the high price, the open market may actually be a hindrance on this one. Look at the SC model of Concept = lowest price, whitebox= price increase, flyable = price increase, any additional mechanics appear in the game = price increase. That is a predictable path which ensures if you jump on at concept your pledge is only ever going to become more valuable, if investment or even just savvy consumerism is your aim in that game, with LTI added as a form of security on the initial jumping on point all signs point to Concept being the best time to dive in... there is incentive to buy early, and it is controlled by the project, not a market the project has no control over... On an open NFT market, for Atlas at least, your purchase appears to be like buying a brand new car - drive it off the lot and you have lost a third of the value right there... if that is sustained it could end up strangling the project...
I think the Star Atlas NFT market needs demand in new player turnover but for that it needs to give players something to play... Hype videos of what is to come can only do so much when the open market shows their coin value is a fraction compared to what it was and current sales values are near half what new purchase values are. Another issue in the long run may well turn out to be player turnover, too... we see articles about new games regularly criticising player bases starting HUGE at launch and dying back to the regulars after a couple of months and sometimes just a couple of weeks, happens with almost every game to some degree ... Star Atlas may have a pay-day on launch selling new ships to new players, but then have an over-saturation of low to mid value ships on the second hand market once their user base scales to regulars...
Yes, you can try to live off expensive steak sales, but making ends meet is called "Putting bread on the table" for a reason. Even charging a percentage on second hand sales is not going to cover the take at the till they could have had with a closed garden that is what a game environment is and controlling the price of assets to users. Unless of course they are not planning to have the NFTs fund the game in the long run and they will still charge Retail etc, at which point I'm still left asking what exactly is the point of NFT asset generation if it is inferior to what exists for the project making them? If NFTs eventually kill off the project due to diminished returns even if it does come to fruition and they have a game to host the assets in they just seem to be a hindrance... I'm failing to see the sense of them?
Publishers always hated Second Hand game shops because it was a sale they didn't get a return on which they might have made a new sale from. Direct to player download sales helped hamper that but didn't kill it off. Incorporating NFT's into game always felt to my like an effort to get a percentage of that second hand sale, if they couldn't make a fresh sale, they could charge royalties on a second hand sale... but building a funding model off NFT's feels like an exercise in diminishing returns...
I wish them all the best but I'm still struggling to see the value of NFT's in games. I hope they can be the example which finally makes me see that value but so far i'm only seeing more questions and no answers yet...
Last edited:
I think of the old 'in for a penny, in for a pound' phenomenon. From a sales perspective, it would seem a wiser strategy for Star Atlas to build customer volume through much smaller transactions for a longer period of time, getting the audience hooked on the product more than they have before swinging for the fences.
Beyond that, I can't help but think that Star Atlas is good for Star Citizen. First, it helps put Star Citizens funding model in a little different (better) perspective. Second, a little next-gen space sim competition can't hurt (thinking beyond Elite) to get C.R. thinking that he needs to meet a schedule before a competitor does. Third, given Star Citizen's current customer volume (people already in for a pound), CIG might be in a good position to actually lower ship prices (or put out less expensive ships for a while) to look even more highly attractive versus Star Atlas. Fourth, from the Star Atlas web site, its unclear that they are 'building community' like Star Citizen did. When Star Atlas fails as a .jpg simulator, Star Citizen will be looking even more like 'the real deal.'
Beyond that, I can't help but think that Star Atlas is good for Star Citizen. First, it helps put Star Citizens funding model in a little different (better) perspective. Second, a little next-gen space sim competition can't hurt (thinking beyond Elite) to get C.R. thinking that he needs to meet a schedule before a competitor does. Third, given Star Citizen's current customer volume (people already in for a pound), CIG might be in a good position to actually lower ship prices (or put out less expensive ships for a while) to look even more highly attractive versus Star Atlas. Fourth, from the Star Atlas web site, its unclear that they are 'building community' like Star Citizen did. When Star Atlas fails as a .jpg simulator, Star Citizen will be looking even more like 'the real deal.'
Last edited:
makute
Space Marshal
Genuinely curious: in which way do you see Star Atlas as a competitor of SC? And, what do you think SA offers that may push CIG into making SC "more attractive" than the former?
Han Burgundy
Space Marshal
A fool and his money are soon parted...But even a fool can detect the faint scent of bullshit wafting off this whole project.
You always find a few of those in the comment section, so I need to explain it a bit better in my videos maybe.
@Sky Captain , If I give you $100M tomorrow, can you make me a game to compete with Star Citizen?
That is essentially what happened here. Wagner, the CEO sold some NFTs, got $40M (not sure what the total raised is), then hired former Star Citizen ship devs to make some ships, does this mean his game now competes with Star Citizen?
All of us here have seen the struggle that is game development. Star Atlas has a difficult road ahead if they want to even attempt a AAA space game.
For $100M? Hmm. Well, Chris Roberts seemingly thought so when he started his project. But I'd have to say no, I don't believe it. I don't believe Star Atlas will succeed if that is all it raises.
However, $100M is not chump change. If Star Atlas gets that amount of cash under it wings, it will appear to CIG to be a Star Citizen competitor. CIG's business concern may not be that Star Atlas will achieve equal quality, merely that it will cause some Star Citizen backers tired a decade long wait to switch and fund another game, causing CIG to 'feel' competition for wallets because they now have what appears, to the public, as a very close-looking competitor (on paper) siphoning off a portion of their available backer pool. Business competition is not only about level of product quality, its also about competing for market share. Someone at CIG is taking notice that funds that otherwise may have been available to them are being siphoned to another very similar looking project created by some of its own artists. What remains to be seen is if that happens, if CIG cares (how secure do they really feel), and if they do, what internal changes occur because of such perceived competition.
Ultimately the three-year revenue trends of both companies will begin to tell the tale.
However, $100M is not chump change. If Star Atlas gets that amount of cash under it wings, it will appear to CIG to be a Star Citizen competitor. CIG's business concern may not be that Star Atlas will achieve equal quality, merely that it will cause some Star Citizen backers tired a decade long wait to switch and fund another game, causing CIG to 'feel' competition for wallets because they now have what appears, to the public, as a very close-looking competitor (on paper) siphoning off a portion of their available backer pool. Business competition is not only about level of product quality, its also about competing for market share. Someone at CIG is taking notice that funds that otherwise may have been available to them are being siphoned to another very similar looking project created by some of its own artists. What remains to be seen is if that happens, if CIG cares (how secure do they really feel), and if they do, what internal changes occur because of such perceived competition.
Ultimately the three-year revenue trends of both companies will begin to tell the tale.
Last edited:
Why can't you personally make a game to compete with Star Citizen?
I am giving you $100M, go make a game!
The guy making Star Atlas as the same amount of game dev experience as you.
If you gave me $100M I'd probably go build a resort or something more concrete... pun intended.I am giving you $100M, go make a game!
I mean NFT's are like an even more scammy version of crypto currency and millions of people in crypto have been promised the world and lost it all.
I feel sorry for those who have sent real life money on these NFT game hybrid garbage things. :(
Anyway back to buying Chris Robert's's Jpegs for £1000 each.
I feel sorry for those who have sent real life money on these NFT game hybrid garbage things. :(
Anyway back to buying Chris Robert's's Jpegs for £1000 each.
That's okay Chris, I don't mind being used as the example I have zero expirince of any kind, let alone game dev expiriance.
The guy making Star Atlas has as much game Dev expiriance as NaffNaffBobFace.
Last edited:
If someone else gets the money that you could have gotten by doing something that looks similar enough to cater to the same audience, then yes it is competition regardless of the fact that the other project will never go anywhere.
So the game dev experience, or total lack there of, of SA doesn't matter.
The real question is, are the customers the same for both projects? I'd think not, I think it's a very different kind of person who "invests" into an NFT scam rather then into a game asset.
BTW if you gave me a 100m to build a game like SC I'd put half of the money into some real investment so I can live off of the interest, buy a "studio" house in the canaries along with a yacht and some nice cars, and leave about 5-10mil for development and then announce bankruptcy within a year. That's the smart option. The other is doing what CR did, but I don't want to deal with that shit...
So the game dev experience, or total lack there of, of SA doesn't matter.
The real question is, are the customers the same for both projects? I'd think not, I think it's a very different kind of person who "invests" into an NFT scam rather then into a game asset.
BTW if you gave me a 100m to build a game like SC I'd put half of the money into some real investment so I can live off of the interest, buy a "studio" house in the canaries along with a yacht and some nice cars, and leave about 5-10mil for development and then announce bankruptcy within a year. That's the smart option. The other is doing what CR did, but I don't want to deal with that shit...
makute
Space Marshal
So, is a marina artist a direct competitor of a shipbuilder? The final product looks similar and they cater to a similar audience...
I assume a marina artist is a painter? If so, then how's the customer base similar? One want's to buy a ship, the other wants to buy a painting. I'd think it's safe to assume that the subset of customers who wants to buy both And can actually afford both is negligible?
makute
Space Marshal
My bad, these are Marina paintings.
Do we agree then, than even if both can cater to similar audiences (people who likes ships, value craftmanship, and have money to spend), they do not compete with each other?
The only thing Star Citizen and Star Atlas have in common is their first name. Their very nature and goals are as different as an egg and a chestnut.
Do we agree then, than even if both can cater to similar audiences (people who likes ships, value craftmanship, and have money to spend), they do not compete with each other?
The only thing Star Citizen and Star Atlas have in common is their first name. Their very nature and goals are as different as an egg and a chestnut.
Yep, the thing I was trying to say is that SA and SC do Not cater to the same audience so despite the fact that they look like they could be competitors (cos both sell ship jpegs), they are not.