What is your standard for "similarity?"
Because as far as I know there is no game 'extremely' similar to Starmade in both format & scope. Demanding an apples-to-apples comparison of 1) game format, 2) game scope, and 3) approach to monetization seems... unrealistic.
Particularly when the game I referenced was meant to show an effective implementation of a marketplace approach to distributed monetization that demonstrates the principle is not a game similar enough (by an unknown standard) to Starmade.
It was never my intent to demonstrate an exact model to emulate here by directing you to Roblox. Only to show the general concept because people started criticizing DLCs and paywalls in response to my suggestion - clearly not understanding even the basic concept behind my suggestion.
I don't think I need to give an exact replica in example to demonstrate the general concept and clarify that I'm not talking about DLC drips and paywalls.
I also don't feel like the lack of an extremely similar example stands up well as a "proof" that the concept is not sound. Voxel-based engines have been developed to successfully develop games that are very little like the first successful voxel platforms (Minecraft, etc) in both scope and style. By the logic of "it hasn't been done exactly like this before so it cannot be done like this ever" Schema should never have attempted to develop Starmade in the first place.
Different form and scope simply demand adaptation, they don't somehow indicate incompatibility.
The suggestion is to incentivize player-led development in Starmade by opening up a real-world, free market system based on user-generated content.
Market systems are fairly well proven. Currency incentives are extremely well proven.
It's fine to emphasize that Starmade is a bit of a "special snowflake," but to insist that user-generated content could "never" effectively be incentivized through market rewards seems to be taking the "specialness" a bit far, IMO.
Every platform, product & service is unique in some way. Every successful one, anyway. Being generaly unique doesn't make Starmade unmarketable. Anything can be incentivized, it's merely a matter of finding the right path. Money is usually an extremely good bet in terms of what might be an effective incentive.
The proposed goal is incentivizing user-development and user-generated-content.
Is more development and content not something people want for Starmade? Is a larger, more engaged player base not something people want?
There's a way to accomplish any goal.
The proposed means of achieving the goal is a free-market system offering the potential for real world currency rewards to the best designers and developers that play this game. What's the meta? Let the market decide...
Are we to believe that market systems and currency rewards simply "don't work?" Or is it that Starmade is just so insanely special that it's the one thing in the human experience that simply cannot be monetized?
And if it's your opinion that Starmade can never benefit from monetization of player development and player content, that's fine, but personally I don't think Starmade defies gravity or shits roses. I think it's a game, and one that relies in large part on user-generated mods and assets. It's a game with a massive potential if ever released in a stable condition (hell, the power 1.0 version could have been a pretty big hit itself had it ever been made fully stable even with no new features added). I think that the user assets can be monetized to the benefit of each individual contributor in a way that trickles-up to Schine as well, and I think that effective monetization would drive content creation, growth of player base, and further development at the top (i.e. Schine).
That's my opinion.
