Vapourware Scam Citizen - Only people with too much money can become StarCitizens! WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE?

[hiver]

It's a piss-poor attitude, and even hiver can see that. -

- obviously, youve taken on some second handed brainfart as advice when thinking about me. Therefore your as stupid and blatantly cheap as morons who have nothing else left, but to pathetically invent some sort of consolation for themselves, in third person.

Or people like hiver that seem to be able to write pages of fan fiction of what they are going to be doing in a game come launch based on the 20 minutes of put together staged Gameplay videos made with the help of Crytek that exist and the ideas of a washed-up Hollywood movie producer with some past game credits that has $$$ in his eyes.

Moron... i just wrote a few lines about what is reasonably expected from this kind of a game, based on info they released. Its just a sort of gameplay this kind of game is supposed to have.
I leave your mother to write fan fiction. Usually.


I dont need to pledge or give any money for anything before i see for myself how everything will work.
And then ill play it or wont. Its very simple.

You people are just so fucking delusional about this game (as if it's the first MMO that has promised rainbows and unicorns laced with coke and failed to deliver), it's just damn sad.

Aint you a nice little samaritan, toiling so harshly to bring THE WORD to the masses?

Only youre not. All of your schtick is nothing more then masturbating your cheap ego by putting yourself into the "I Told you so, see - i was smart - and you people were stooopid" role.
Thats all you are actually saying and i find it just pathetically laughable.

 

[Blaine]

- obviously, youve taken on some second handed brainfart as advice when thinking about me. Therefore your as stupid and blatantly cheap as morons who have nothing else left, but to pathetically invent some sort of consolation for themselves, in third person.

Figured something like this was coming since I phrased it as "even hiver" et cetera.

But that's the point. These are not well-founded arguments, but speculations stated as facts in an arrogant way. Blaine explained that as we know now, these real-money stuff only give a short term adventage to players, and in the long term player skill and ingame money will probably balance out this adventage.

Piloting skill (gained through practice), knowledge of the game mechanics and environment (gained through time spent playing), connections (who you know, what squadron you belong to, your out-of-game online community, etc.), and even such intangibles as a person's charisma, motivation, and cleverness will in my opinion ultimately be far more important than a tiny fraction of people starting off with a large bag of ships.

The idea that bigger ships are flat-out better in every way and that having one on launch day is pay-to-win is just ludicrous to me. By that logic you should never start playing any online game more than a week or two after its launch, because by then people will be ahead of you! Oh no! I agree there are concerns, and certainly if earning new ships is grindy and annoying I'll be incredibly pissed off, but claiming that a gross injustice is being perpetrated and that the game will be ruined by rampant pay-to-win is purely speculative at this juncture.

Chris Roberts' personal estimate (as per an offhand comment in some interview) is that it'll take 60 hours to earn a Constellation, which is likely to cost 300,000 credits as per the tentative pledge-cost-to-credits conversion. That indicates 5,000cr earned per hour for an "average" (?) player, but I suspect he's thinking in terms of someone using an Aurora and flying solo during the first week when no one knows anything.

I believe the average player earning 10,000cr per hour (and far more in some cases—God forbid you be expected to excel to become successful, though) is likely as the game begins to mature, within a matter of weeks. 30 hours of Privateer-style gameplay to earn a permanent Millennium Falcon-type blockade runner is completely reasonable, in my view. The single-pilot ships are even more affordable. A Hornet would take half that time to earn (30 hours at 5,000cr per hour, 15 at 10,000cr per hour).

 

[hiver]

Figured something like this was coming since I phrased it as "even hiver" et cetera.

C&C.

 

[Grunker]

Blaine:


I wrote a hugeass, 2-page reply that got swallowed when my laptop ran out of power, so you'll have to make do with "I disagree, nyah!" and J_C will have to make do with "you're speculating more than we are, nyah!"

 

[Dexter]

I'm not taking this seriously because at this point I got the feeling that I might as well have a discussion with some scientologists as to how Xenu’s scriptures aren't the absolute truth and it was actually a money-making scheme all along, since the chance of success will likely be about the same.
Blaine and several others are repeating PR spiel and regurgitating the word of the prophet meant to calm all the straying flock instead of looking at the ludicrous actual facts of them selling ~$1000 ships, increasing said amounts regularly to see how far they can push it before it breaks and their general attitude and intent displayed towards micro- and macro transactions and similar in the game as they've already said so far and using some goddamn common sense to extrapolate from other Pay2Win games.

The sensible thing to do in any case would be to wait and actually see what you are in for before putting all that money down, but apparently there isn’t a shortage of retarded people and they manage to sell $1250 virtual ships out in a matter of minutes…

To believe that it'll take only a few dozen hours to get something for which they are asking people to pay $250 or even better $1250 for is fucking insane and goes against every other monetization scheme in existence so far, since the price has to be about equal to the effort of getting the stuff in the game.
Especially since the holy prophet has mentioned it himself: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...w-incredible-community-transforms-development

Wargaming's business model also appeals to Roberts. "In World of Tanks if you put the time in you can buy pretty much everything," Roberts pointed out. "If you want to shortcut, because you don't have 40 hours a week to spend gaming but you've got five or six hours on a weekend, then you can buy some credits with some money. My understanding is they're the highest-monetizing of all the free-to-play games on a per-person basis. I'm hoping that combination of things will work well for us. Probably because that style of game is like Privateer or Freelancer, which inherently is all centered around the economy - buying, selling, trading. It's a very natural game to work with that kind of mechanic."

As I said before, there are only two options this could possibly go.
1) This turns out to be true and it's not a "very big deal", at which point most people that put down more than $100 for their special ship will be truly butthurt-devastated not being able to rationalize it and most of the ship-monetization options would be near to worthless and nobody would use them (which is kind of antithetical to the whole point of monetization and making money that way in the first place).
2) The much more likely option that it is a horribly long and boring grind of the easiest way to make credits for those people who "have 40 hours a week to spend gaming" as he calls them over multiple months to a year in which case the monetization-scheme will still work and the people who bought their ships for thousands of dollars will grin triumphantly as they wash over the plebs and this legitimates all the Pay2Win accusations against the game.

I'm using that rare super-power called common sense to call the second option based on what makes sense, what would work best for them in their set goal and intent to fleece people for the most money possible and generally having had the (dis)pleasure of being exposed to a lot of games (and MMOs) with similar monetization models and how they work.

Blaine and some of the other people are regurgitating a few of the assurances and rationalizations/justifications you will find aplenty if you dare visit their forums that likely stem from some of the development team themselves and are meant to shut down any criticism before the game is even out. You will even find similar phrasing over and over again like “It’s not grind, it’s actual gameplay.”, “It’s just about the people who don’t have time to play X hours a week.” and “They’re just optional convenience purchases, what will truly matter will be player skill alone!” and similar which could come directly from the makers of cow clickers.
I’m reminded of the Blizzard/Diablo III fanboys saying that the Auction House will be optional and will have no impact on the gameplay at all in spite of every point of evidence saying otherwise and they could only be convinced by having to submit to the experience themselves.

All of your schtick is nothing more then masturbating your cheap ego by putting yourself into the "I Told you so, see - i was smart - and you people were stooopid" role.

I'm trying to tell people that this will likely be a Pay2Win Microtransaction fest and the stupid hype and "Shut Up and Take My Money" behaviour is just that. If that's all you want to extract from it, feel free. And glorious it will be.

 

[Grunker]

Wargaming's business model also appeals to Roberts. "In World of Tanks if you put the time in you can buy pretty much everything," Roberts pointed out. "If you want to shortcut, because you don't have 40 hours a week to spend gaming but you've got five or six hours on a weekend, then you can buy some credits with some money. My understanding is they're the highest-monetizing of all the free-to-play games on a per-person basis. I'm hoping that combination of things will work well for us. Probably because that style of game is like Privateer or Freelancer, which inherently is all centered around the economy - buying, selling, trading. It's a very natural game to work with that kind of mechanic."

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW

Blaine and J_C, your opinions were just invalidated. I was on the fence before with this game, but I have repeatedly used World of Tanks as one of THE worst examples of Pay 2 Win. That Roberts highlights it as a good example makes sends shivers down my spine.

I will not be pledging to Star Citizen with 100% guarantee as long as that quote stands and it's doubtful I will even play this game.

Using World of Tanks as a positive example basically proves my fears without a shadow of doubt.

 

[Blaine]

In good F2P games, someone can spend a decent amount of time to "catch up to" paying players. This is only possible in games that have a ceiling on what you can achieve. I.e. it's not possible in an open-world MMO.

This is demonstrably false. If Player A begins the game with a Hornet, a Constellation, and a Starfarer (costs $535 to pledge for, worth approx. 600,000 credits), but plays only 20 hours per week while Player B (who only started off with an Aurora [I've already deducted its value from Player A's credit total]) plays 40 hours per week, then assuming that 1 hour spent = 10,000 credits earned, Player B will "catch up to" Player A in three weeks. In addition, Player B will have had twice as much practice actually flying ships, and twice as much experience with the universe and game mechanics.

The fallacy of your logic—namely that "I own X credits worth of ships and they're this big" is the yardstick for "catching up"—is that players can only fly one ship at a time, that larger ships require multiple crewmen (who could each be flying an accessible fighter instead), and that practice flying and experience with the game are much more valuable than simply having a large bag of ships.

 

[Grunker]

^ I was talking about Cash for Credits, silly, not irrelevant starter-ships (which I have stated before that I don't care about). And I was writing a much longer reply that got swallowed, so I deleted the little post I wrote. Anyway, the whole discussion was just turned into a moot point. Your deva has highlighted World of Tanks - the absolute no. 1 worst example of Pay 2 Win - as a positive example. I dare you one more time to say we're speculating on the nautre of Roberts' benign intentions with the P2W-model (see the post above your own).

 

[J_C]

Wargaming's business model also appeals to Roberts. "In World of Tanks if you put the time in you can buy pretty much everything," Roberts pointed out. "If you want to shortcut, because you don't have 40 hours a week to spend gaming but you've got five or six hours on a weekend, then you can buy some credits with some money. My understanding is they're the highest-monetizing of all the free-to-play games on a per-person basis. I'm hoping that combination of things will work well for us. Probably because that style of game is like Privateer or Freelancer, which inherently is all centered around the economy - buying, selling, trading. It's a very natural game to work with that kind of mechanic."

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW

Blaine and J_C, your opinions were just invalidated. I was on the fence before with this game, but I have repeatedly used World of Tanks as one of THE worst examples of Pay 2 Win. That Roberts highlights it as a good example makes sends shivers down my spine.

I will not be pledging to Star Citizen with 100% guarantee as long as that quote stands and it's doubtful I will even play this game.

Using World of Tanks as a positive example basically proves my fears without a shadow of doubt.

But think about how much money these stuff cost! Do you really think that gamers will buy the better ships all the time for several hundred dollars? It will happen maybe once at the start.

 

[Blaine]

^ I was talking about Cash for Credits, silly, not irrelevant starter-ships (which I have stated before that I don't care about). And I was writing a much longer reply that got swallowed, so I deleted the little post I wrote. Anyway, the whole discussion was just turned into a moot point. Your deva has highlighted World of Tanks - the absolute no. 1 worst example of Pay 2 Win - as a positive example. I dare you one more time to say we're speculating on the nautre of Roberts' benign intentions with the P2W-model (see the post above your own).

Edit 2: Moved the edit to a new post because Grunks is still in a posting frenzy and has the scent of blood

Edit: Jesus Christ, the Asperger's in this thread is palpable. In that gamesindustry article, he's referring to absolutely nothing more than the credits shop that you've known about for months. His idea is that busy people can pay for additional credits, while those with more time to play will earn more that way. We've known about this for pretty much forever; nothing's changed. Fantastic overreaction, though.

I too am concerned about grind. Not sure why you think "my opinion is invalidated."

Remember, OTHER people who are NOT you are worried about the ships, not just the credits shop. I've been addressing them, too.

 

[Grunker]

^ Fuck you. He is flat-out stating World of Tanks as a good F2P model. World of Tanks as a good business-model. If you're not put off by that, if you're not nervous that he points at one of the all-time worst businessmodels in gaming history and says "that shit looks tight", then you truly are blind as motherfucking bats. Keep praising his holyness.

Is there a chance the model will be decent? Sure. Did that chance just drop significantly? Hell motherfucking yeah.

But think about how much money these stuff cost! Do you really think that gamers will buy the better ships all the time for several hundred dollars? It will happen maybe once at the start.

NIGGER YOU CAN BUY CREDITS FOR CASH IN GAME

What is it you have difficulty comprehending? Besides, of course the cash store will have prices that turn a profit, that shit goes without saying. Are you a middle-schooler or something?

 

[Blaine]

^ Fuck you. He is flat-out stating World of Tanks as a good F2P model. If you're not put off by that, then you truly are blind as motherfucking bats. Keep praising his holyness.

I'm fairly sure Chris Roberts has never personally played World of Tanks. He's using it as a basis for comparison to Star Citizen because he's familiar with the essentials of its revenue model—said essentials being that players with little time to play can pay more to keep up. For that matter, I've never played World of Tanks either, although last I heard it "wasn't that bad" (if the grind is horrible or something, please explain/link, as I enjoy reading about that kind of thing).

The disconnect here is that he may have no idea how grindy World of Tanks is or isn't. He probably just knows players with less time can pay to "skip" some grinding. Prove me wrong.

 

[Grunker]

please explain/link.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...f-tanks-i-play-it-heres-some-criticism.70320/

Also, you must have been living under a rock: Wargaming just changed (on June 6) the Pay 2 Win model of World of Tanks because of their reputation as a game only the rich could afford to play, where you as a player was constantly matched against stronger, payed for tanks.

This has been big internet news for months, and I dare-say that if Chris Roberts didn't know the basics of that it's even worse than if he just had a shitty P2W philosophy, because then he would be talking out of his ass and making baseless comparisons.

Either way, I lost a lot of faith in Star Citizen with that comment.

 

[J_C]

But think about how much money these stuff cost! Do you really think that gamers will buy the better ships all the time for several hundred dollars? It will happen maybe once at the start.

NIGGER YOU CAN BUY CREDITS FOR CASH IN GAME

What is it you have difficulty comprehending? Besides, of course the cash store will have prices that turn a profit, that shit goes without saying. Are you a middle-schooler or something?

No need to act high and mighty. If you have read my comment, I was talking about buying new ships for 1000 dollars all the time, which will never happen.

 

[Dexter]

This is demonstrably false. If Player A begins the game with a Hornet, a Constellation, and a Starfarer (costs $535 to pledge for, worth approx. 600,000 credits), but plays only 20 hours per week while Player B (who only started off with an Aurora [I've already deducted its value from Player A's credit total]) plays 40 hours per week, then assuming that 1 hour spent = 10,000 credits earned, Player B will "catch up to" Player A in three weeks. In addition, Player B will have had twice as much practice actually flying ships, and twice as much experience with the universe and game mechanics.

You are doing that thing again where you pretend like the game already exists and you've played it and have a deep knowledge of how things work and the basic game systems when in fact there has only been bits and pieces of gameplay videos and devs throwing around some non-binding ideas for a game that isn't going to launch proper before 2015/2016.

I think their shown intent at this stage is a lot more important than any specific "game mechanic" they might have thrown around any numbers for.

One thing that I've learned upon observing dozens of MMOs being developed and even changing a lot within their Alpha and Beta stages is this: Talk is cheap.

 

[Grunker]

But think about how much money these stuff cost! Do you really think that gamers will buy the better ships all the time for several hundred dollars? It will happen maybe once at the start.

NIGGER YOU CAN BUY CREDITS FOR CASH IN GAME

What is it you have difficulty comprehending? Besides, of course the cash store will have prices that turn a profit, that shit goes without saying. Are you a middle-schooler or something?

If you have read my comment, I was talking about buying new ships for 1000 dollars all the time, which will never happen.

Jesus Christ, are you for real? I realize that you were talking about buying 1000 dollar ships, I was informing you that discussion isn't relevant at all when discussion the P2W of this games. You outright replied to my worries at Roberts' support of World of Tanks by pointing to completely irrelevant and expensive ships.

Question: are you or are you not sceptical of this game based on what we've seen so far?

If you are entirely unsceptical just like Blaine then my comment stands:

He is flat-out stating World of Tanks as a good F2P model. World of Tanks as a good business-model. If you're not put off by that, if you're not nervous that he points at one of the all-time worst businessmodels in gaming history and says "that shit looks tight", then you truly are blind as motherfucking bats. Keep praising his holyness.

 

[Blaine]

Also, you must have been living under a rock: Wargaming just changed (on June 6) the Pay 2 Win model of World of Tanks because of their reputation as a game only the rich could afford to play, where you as a player was constantly matched against stronger, payed for tanks.

I did catch wind of that, yes, but didn't particularly care since I don't give a shit about World of Tanks.

The thing is, Star Citizen's gameplay isn't even remotely similar to World of Tanks. You won't get dropped into matches "cleverly" weighted to induce you to pay more money—it's an open-world game. Furthermore, within the same ship class, there aren't flat-out superior ships, nor will there ever be. CR has stated this emphatically from day one. The Hornet is more heavily armored and has more versatile weapons than the Scythe, for example, while the Scythe is faster and more maneuverable and has unusually powerful (but all fixed) forward cannons. Unlike World of Tanks (according to what I've now read), roles will be fairly important in Star Citizen.

Once again, you're operating under the foolish notion that buying the largest ship possible and equipping it with all the most expensive gear (which can't be insured in the most lucrative areas of space, incidentally) is important. It's really not, and well-equipped single-seat ships will be very accessible to all individuals within a short period of time. The latter isn't speculation.

This has been big internet news for months, and I dare-say that if Chris Roberts didn't know the basics of that it's even worse than if he just had a shitty P2W philosophy, because then he would be talking out of his ass and making baseless comparisons.

Damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't, eh? We're still back at the drawing board, except that you're pissing and moaning more loudly than ever.

 

[Blaine]

You are doing that thing again....

And you're doing that thing where you're not addressing what I've actually said, instead shifting the goalposts and falling back on "Well, you can't know yet"—which hasn't stopped you from leaping to PAY 2 WIN! conclusions, I note. I also know much more than you do about the game as it's planned, since I've read and watched a great deal more material than you have and had far more interaction (through the chatroll/forums) with the developers.

Address what I've actually said directly or I'll be disregarding your posts from this point forward, as there's no sense bashing up against an immovable rant.

 

[Grunker]

Damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't, eh?

Oh please. He was the one making the comparison to World of Tanks. He dug his own grave on that one.

We're still back at the drawing board, except that you're pissing and moaning more loudly than ever.

I was pretty convinced that although you had faith in this project, you had kept your ability to think critically. Yet even faced with a comment such as this, your only response is apologetic bullshit like "Star Citizen isn't like World of Tanks, so the comparison makes no sense!" completely ignoring the fact that Roberts was the one to make the fucking comparison.

And you're doing that thing where you're not addressing what I've actually said, instead shifting the goalposts and falling back on "Well, you can't know yet"—which hasn't stopped you from leaping to PAY 2 WIN! conclusions, I note.

What bullshit.

1) You yourself stated we couldn't know shit, yet you're the one constantly making claims like "it won't be Pay 2 Win!" while

2) Me and other critical voices are simply stating there is reason to be concerned. We're not the ones here jumping to conclusions. In fact I just had a post that said:

Is there a chance the model will be decent? Sure.

So don't give me that shit. We're both speculating here, yet you're constantly falling back on some bullshit claim that you're "strictly sticking to facts" while everyone else is speculating.

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

This discussion seems like a gigantic Catch 22.

 

[Liston]

Once again, you're operating under the foolish notion that buying the largest ship possible and equipping it with all the most expensive gear (which can't be insured in the most lucrative areas of space, incidentally) is important. It's really not, and well-equipped single-seat ships will be very accessible to all individuals within a short period of time. The latter isn't speculation.

I'm sure that you are aware that cash shop isn't limited to buying ships. So are you claiming that (in game) money in the game is irrelevant? Do you really think that having more money isn't going to give you advantage? If this is true what is the purpose of the economy in the game?

 

[Grunker]

^ Don't worry. You can spend 16 hours a day for half a year and infiltrate large groups, making 10 billion credits in the process. So it's all okay

 

[J_C]

But think about how much money these stuff cost! Do you really think that gamers will buy the better ships all the time for several hundred dollars? It will happen maybe once at the start.

NIGGER YOU CAN BUY CREDITS FOR CASH IN GAME

What is it you have difficulty comprehending? Besides, of course the cash store will have prices that turn a profit, that shit goes without saying. Are you a middle-schooler or something?

If you have read my comment, I was talking about buying new ships for 1000 dollars all the time, which will never happen.

Jesus Christ, are you for real? I realize that you were talking about buying 1000 dollar ships, I was informing you that discussion isn't relevant at all when discussion the P2W of this games. You outright replied to my worries at Roberts' support of World of Tanks by pointing to completely irrelevant and expensive ships.

Question: are you or are you not sceptical of this game based on what we've seen so far?

If you are entirely unsceptical just like Blaine then my comment stands:

He is flat-out stating World of Tanks as a good F2P model. World of Tanks as a good business-model. If you're not put off by that, if you're not nervous that he points at one of the all-time worst businessmodels in gaming history and says "that shit looks tight", then you truly are blind as motherfucking bats. Keep praising his holyness.

I'm not skeptical because bringing up WoT as an example doesn't mean that this game will be a carbon copy of WoT's system. And as WoT being the worst P2W game, although I've never played it, being the most successfull free to play MMO maybe ever, I don't think it is that bad as you say.

 

[Blaine]

I'm sure that you are aware that cash shop isn't limited to buying ships. So are you claiming that (in game) money in the game is irrelevant? Do you really think that having more money isn't going to give you advantage? If this is true what is the purpose of the economy in the game?

You can't buy ships in the cash shop at all once the game goes live, only credits, with a monthly per-player limitation.

Of course in-game credits will confer an advantage, and I too am concerned about 1.) how many credits each player will be allowed to buy from the shop, and 2.) how long it will take for the average player to earn X credits. I'm not unconcerned.

Grunker knows this, but what Grunker wants me to do is switch from "somewhat concerned" to "pretty fucking sure Chris Roberts is a fink and the game will be blatantly pay-to-win," which I will not do.

I was pretty convinced that although you had faith in this project, you had kept your ability to think critically. Yet even faced with a comment such as this, your only response is apologetic bullshit like "Star Citizen isn't like World of Tanks, so the comparison makes no sense!" completely ignoring the fact that Roberts was the one to make the fucking comparison.

I don't share your opinion that the comparison was horribly damning, no. If you don't like that, then tough.

What bullshit.

1) You yourself stated we couldn't know shit, yet you're the one constantly making claims while

2) Me and other critical voices are simply stating there is reason to be concerned. We're not the ones here jumping to conclusions. In fact I just had a post that said:

Listen: When both sides are speculating (meaning I'm speculating and so is Dexter), one side trying to discredit the other on the basis that they are speculating IS ABSOLUTELY RETARDED.

You don't get to triumph with your own speculation by discrediting the other side of the argument as speculation. Is that hard to understand?

 

[Dexter]

And you're doing that thing where you're not addressing what I've actually said, instead shifting the goalposts and falling back on "Well, you can't know yet"—which hasn't stopped you from leaping to PAY 2 WIN! conclusions, I note. I also know much more than you do about the game as it's planned, since I've read and watched a great deal more material than you have and had far more interaction (through the chatroll/forums) with the developers.

Address what I've actually said directly or I'll be disregarding your posts from this point forward, as there's no sense bashing up against an immovable rant.

There is no way to “address what you are saying” since you are being delirious, even in that short bit of text you are making half a dozen of assumptions because the game you are talking about doesn’t exist yet and is in the early concept stages:
Statements like:
- “Worth approx.. 600.000 credits”
- "1 hour played = 10.000 credits earned"
- "Twice as much experience flying ships will trump better ships"
have no meaning and can’t be discussed to any extent before there is some actual gameplay to compare.
Similarly with the “bigger ships will have no advantage over smaller ships” which might as well be saying “6 players manning a bigger ship with shitloads of weapons have no advantage over a smaller ship”. There isn’t anything to discuss at this point, it just sounds very damn unlikely.

For instance take the “Star Trek Online” game, at one point in time it was being developed by Perpetual and was supposed to have looked like this:

It was also supposed to have an entirely different gameplay focus and feature-set: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Online_(Perpetual_Entertainment) but they changed and in the case of this game extremely sharply since it changed development studios mid-development and all previous work was thrown away.
Even between the Beta stage and the final game there can often be severe balance changes if they find out that specific features don't work as intended.

Something can’t be “demonstrably false” since at this point you are just hallucinating shit up that they might have mentioned at some point and imagining it in game.
I can't address your imaginary game features since I would be talking out of my ass like you.

What can be discussed and what I can extrapolate from is the fact that they are selling virtual ships for $250 and $1250 (and this is probably not the end yet) right now and that they’ve announced cash for credits and a cash shop for the game already which would make the game very much Pay2Win.

Talking about broader strokes and already announced major features (like ships, factions and whatnot) makes sense, talking about specific gameplay mechanics like how much credits a ship will presumably cost, how much credits someone could make in an hour or what exactly the balance of the ships will be in broad detail at this point doesn't and seems like a waste of time, since they probably don't even know themselves.

You can't buy ships in the cash shop at all once the game goes live, only credits, with a monthly per-player limitation.

And there you go again... one could presume that you have a direct brain-connection with the prophet himself.
Also what do you call buying credits for dollars and buying a ship with credits then, which was already confirmed?