Star Citizen Dev Responds To Angry Backlash Over Pay-To-Win Ship Upgrades

star citizen play to win hero
Star Citizen has defied the odds, remaining in an alpha release state for over a decade without losing support from its community, while managing to raise several hundreds of millions of dollars in that time. While the game is no stranger to controversial moments, the latest decision from developer Cloud Imperium Games has started a backlash that might not be going away as easily as those from the past.

The uproar in the community stems from CIG’s decision for how players can acquire ship upgrades called Flight Blades, which can affect a ship’s speed or maneuverability. Typically, these kinds of upgrades have been available for purchase using either real world money or in-game currency called aUEC. However, Flight Blades were only going to be available for those willing to pay with real world cash.

star citizen play to win body

The backlash has been so fierce that CIG posted a statement on its forums informing players that it was reversing course because of the feedback it received from the community. Flight Blades will be available for purchase using aUEC with a patch coming in June. In the future, “smaller components like Flight Blades or bomb racks, should be available in-game at the same time they appear on the store.”

However, the change in direction hasn’t exactly calmed the community. One of the most popular replies is from a user named SaltEMike, who posted that “this is a bandaid to calm people down, but the root issue here is that you continue to sell more and more items in the game that have a wider impact on what a player would do day to day.“ They would add that moves like this undermine the experience of player progression when someone can just buy upgrades like Flight Blades from the game’s store.

If Star Citizen is ever going to finally make it to a 1.0 release, CIG will be wise to take this situation seriously and work hard to make amends with its community. Especially with the community showing that there is a limit to the monetization practices it’s willing to tolerate.