Pay2Win made it to Elite

[Rat Catcher]

So who is the perceived market?

Good question.

Perhaps anyone who doesn't take offense at spending less than the cost of a fast-food burger meal for some game content they are interested in?

It isn't going to appeal to everyone, but as long as it appeals to enough 'someone', their idea will work. If it doesn't, who knows what is next?

 

[Morbad]

That's your choice and prerogative I guess. I'm amazed you find anything to play these days as the vast majority of games have expansions, large or small. By what I'm reading about P2W philosophies even back in 2003 things like Tribunal and Bloodmoon for Morrowind weren't morally acceptable as they allow access to gear that makes other parts of the base game easier as they're more powerful to handle the scaled up expansion content.

Morrowind was an offline single-player game. There is no P2W in offline single-player games for the same reasons one cannot cheat in a single player game. I can turn Morrowind inside out and upside-down without anyone's permission. I can play whatever character I want with whatever rules I want and never interfere with, or detract from, anyone elses' experience in any way, shape, or form.

Maybe I'm brainwashed by modern sensibilities because I don't think asking to be paid for work done after the fact is such a terrible thing.

My objections have nothing to do with creating a revenue stream after the initial purchase. Subscriptions are fine, pure cosmetics are fine...putting areas, assets, progression, or gameplay mechanisms behind a pay wall, in a multiplayer game...no so much.

I simply don't like it when multiplayer games, especially persistent world games, create multiple classes of players who play by fundamentally different sets of rules. If people can play together, directly or indirectly, the same underlying set of rules and mechanisms should apply; all the same basic options should be accessible, with no way to access areas, assets, or a superior set of rules, by paying extra.

Most modern multiplayer games violate my principles, which ends any chance of me making any purchase. I've tried gobs of modern free-to-play games, but the free vs. pay dichotomy inevitably offends me into leaving, rather than paying, sooner or later.

Elite: Dangerous was an upfront purchase, and the only game of it's kind (a first-person space flight MMO) in ten years, so I compromised in a few minor areas, for a while. I largely dismissed the minor pre-order benefits and things like paints with some gameplay utility. Then Horizons showed up and paywalled relevant content, but this didn't cross any critical lines for me until the Cobra Mk IV and Guardian content made Horizons mandatory for certain space-based assets. Odyssey probably would have crossed the line from the start, but I was already disgruntled with the direction the game had been taking for a few years at this point and had already sworn off paying any more. 'Gifting' everyone Horizons was a good move, but ultimately, I don't think the model the game has is compatible with my gaming philosophy, and putting access to specific vessels behind a paywall is flatly offensive to my sensibilities, when it comes to multiplayer games.

 

[CMDR Daiyus]

Morrowind was an offline single-player game. There is no P2W in offline single-player games for the same reasons one cannot cheat in a single player game. I can turn Morrowind inside out and upside-down without anyone's permission. I can play whatever character I want with whatever rules I want and never interfere with, or detract from, anyone elses' experience in any way, shape, or form.

Now this, I completely agree with you on. However, there have been arguments made that P2W applies to single player games as well, which I clearly don't agree with, and neither do you. Glad we're on the same page here, although I won't condemn anyone who does think that P2W applies in those scenarios.

My objections have nothing to do with creating a revenue stream after the initial purchase. Subscriptions are fine, pure cosmetics are fine...putting areas, assets, progression, or gameplay mechanisms behind a pay wall, in a multiplayer game...no so much.

I simply don't like it when multiplayer games, especially persistent world games, create multiple classes of players who play by fundamentally different sets of rules. If people can play together, directly or indirectly, the same underlying set of rules and mechanisms should apply; all the same basic options should be accessible, with no way to access areas, assets, or a superior set of rules, by paying extra.

Most modern multiplayer games violate my principles, which ends any chance of me making any purchase. I've tried gobs of modern free-to-play games, but the free vs. pay dichotomy inevitably offends me into leaving, rather than paying, sooner or later.

Elite: Dangerous was an upfront purchase, and the only game of it's kind (a first-person space flight MMO) in ten years, so I compromised in a few minor areas, for a while. I largely dismissed the minor pre-order benefits and things like paints with some gameplay utility. Then Horizons showed up and paywalled relevant content, but this didn't cross any critical lines for me until the Cobra Mk IV and Guardian content made Horizons mandatory for certain space-based assets. Odyssey probably would have crossed the line from the start, but I was already disgruntled with the direction the game had been taking for a few years at this point and had already sworn off paying any more. 'Gifting' everyone Horizons was a good move, but ultimately, I don't think the model the game has is compatible with my gaming philosophy, and putting access to specific vessels behind a paywall is flatly offensive to my sensibilities, when it comes to multiplayer games.

This is where we start to differ in where our lines are drawn. Yours are very understandable, and do make sense for you and your preferences. However, I don't have any issue with there being some walls in multiplayer content. I grew up with things like Halo, where the map packs cost money; you either bought them and could play on those maps with your mates, or you didn't and you were restricted to the originally shipped maps. In my brain I squared that as "I bought Halo 2 at release, and got that product, they've developed an addition to that product, I need to pay for that addition".

Back then, the idea of paying for customisation options would be laughable; who in their right mind would pay for a different shade of green armour? But gameplay? Now that was worth paying for, and we did. Now things are flipped on their heads, gameplay should be freely expanded so as to not leave anyone behind who won't buy it, and customisation should be monetised. The grumpy old cynic in me just expects everything to be monetised, so any kind of free additional content, whether it's ships, maps, mechanics, whatever, always strikes me as generous. I know I'm nothing but an ATM for these companies, it's just that some do better at pretending I'm not.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

As I get older, and my financial situation becomes stronger though? Well, that slider starts to move a bit. £10 to support a game that I've already had phenomenal value from? That starts looking a bit more tempting. Not saying that's right for everyone, but surely you can see why some people might be happy to pony up some money if they're invested in a product?

Yeah the "support the game" part is an individual delusion which attempts at a more objective measure of value wouldn't cover.

The flipside to this is "I already paid for this and now they want me to pay more".

Having odyssey launch with new ships would've gone a long way to making it actually good and worth the money, getting it years later while they try to milk every credit out of you while releasing the new ships just leaves a bad taste.

I sometimes wish that ED was in a similar position to Frontier CMS games, where chucking out regular PDLCs seems to do the job. Everyone knows where they stand, the ‘rules‘ were set at the beginning and adhered to because it’s in everyone’s interests.

For the CMS games adding new pieces to build with works better than for Elite - yeah people want new ships, but once they get them they will realize there's not much to do with them if they've already completed all the content.

Anything other like mission/story DLCs are less formulaic and less asset driven so they require more effort and resources to develop.

 

[Morbad]

However, I don't have any issue with there being some walls in multiplayer content. I grew up with things like Halo, where the map packs cost money; you either bought them and could play on those maps with your mates, or you didn't and you were restricted to the originally shipped maps. In my brain I squared that as "I bought Halo 2 at release, and got that product, they've developed an addition to that product, I need to pay for that addition".

Halo (the older ones anyway) and the like aren't really comparable as they aren't persistent and their expansions were largely self-contained content. If you didn't have access to a map, you weren't at any disadvantage against anyone you could play against in the maps you did have access to, because the only advantage was being able to play in those maps...you didn't carry any progress or assets from those maps into other maps and playing those new maps didn't make you any better at the old maps than someone who only had the old maps.

I played a crapton of Battlefield 1942 and had both expansion to that game, but each match was self-contained and old maps didn't get any new content. I never played by a different or better set of rules than anyone who had none of the expansions; I either played by the exact same rules they did when I played with them in a map they had, or I didn't play with them at all because they weren't in the matches with maps they didn't have. There were no unlocks or stat tracking either.

The moment those assets can be brought over into settings where there are players who do not have access to them, or when there is some global progress that is influenced by having access to more paid content, that's where I get uncomfortable.

 

[CMDR Daiyus]

Yeah the "support the game" part is an individual delusion which attempts at a more objective measure of value wouldn't cover.

The flipside to this is "I already paid for this and now they want me to pay more".

Having odyssey launch with new ships would've gone a long way to making it actually good and worth the money, getting it years later while they try to milk every credit out of you while releasing the new ships just leaves a bad taste.

I agree that including the ships in Odyssey would've made that package contain more value, and therefore more tempting as a paid proposition. The fact is it didn't though, we weren't ever promised new ships as part of that investment, although we may have assumed as much due to the precedent set with Horizons. Because of that simple fact, I cannot get on-side with the "I already paid for this" mentality, because it was never part of the deal.

I understand the "bad taste" but I still think that's only because of the Horizons precedent. Looking at this new format I'm seeing a company that wants to make money, wants to stop giving away as much free work as it has done, and is trying to find some compromise where that can't be any because people all vary in what is or is not acceptable to them. Having to pay for the ship if you haven't bought Odyssey, for me that's fine. Getting it for free with some patience if you have bought Odyssey, that's a nice touch. Having the option to pay some money for "early access", I get why that rubs some people the wrong way, but there's been a lot of us saying we'd be willing to pay for new ships and now they're calling our bluff. Some will, some won't and ultimately the wallet voting will deliver the decision as to whether it's the right course of action or not.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Yeah the "support the game" part is an individual delusion which attempts at a more objective measure of value wouldn't cover.

Yep, any decision is that of the individual... Unless they prefer to be sheep-like and be led by opinions other than their own.

Me? I'm not looking at "support the game" (as at no point has FD mentioned that proceeds from the Arx sales are going directly into the game, so I don't assume they are) but getting a new toy when I want it, because I play any game for pleasure, doesn't everyone?

 

[amigacooke]

Because of that simple fact, I cannot get on-side with the "I already paid for this" mentality, because it was never part of the deal.

But I have already paid for it apparently because I get it without additional cost in August (because I have Odyssey). Those without Odyssey have to pay.

What’s new is Frontier is trying to get commanders to pay for what they already have for 3 months exclusive use.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

Some will, some won't and ultimately the wallet voting will deliver the decision as to whether it's the right course of action or not.

It's not a fair vote, not everyone gets to vote and there only options are yes/abstain. If you go down too far down that route everyone should either pay up or shut up. The vote also in its essence could be boiled down to what matters more: (FDev) making money or a good game (that makes some money). Yeah in reality you need a compromise, but this is an obvious strong shift into just making money over substance.

It's not going to work long term once the hardcore fans (the main target audience for the early access ships) realize they have nothing new to do with their new ship if they've already done most of what there is to do in the game.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

But I have already paid for it apparently because I get it without additional cost in August (because I have Odyssey). Those without Odyssey have to pay.

What’s new is Frontier is trying to get commanders to pay for what they already have for 3 months exclusive use.

Yeah and that's a nasty trick imo.

 

[Rat Catcher]

It's not a fair vote, not everyone gets to vote and there only options are yes/abstain.

Oh, I thought it was just a plain "Yes, I'm buying" or "No, I'm not buying" - as fair as can be, surely?

It's not going to work long term once the hardcore fans (the main target audience for the early access ships) realize they have nothing new to do with their new ship if they've already done most of what there is to do in the game.

I guess I should never buy another Courier, or any other ship, as they are all the same so not worth the effort, then?

After all, following 7 years of playing I must have "been there, done that" for all of the content in the game, so may as well go and play something else until I've consumed its content once, then another, ad nauseum...

Why give a flying fig about what other folk may or may not do? You should do precisely as you wish, have a nice warm glow knowing you have done the "right thing for you" and not be concerned what I, or other long-term players, might do, that isn't your decision, is it?

 

[CMDR Daiyus]

Halo (the older ones anyway) and the like aren't really comparable as they aren't persistent and their expansions were largely self-contained content. If you didn't have access to a map, you weren't at any disadvantage against anyone you could play against in the maps you did have access to, because the only advantage was being able to play in those maps...you didn't carry any progress or assets from those maps into other maps and playing those new maps didn't make you any better at the old maps than someone who only had the old maps.

I played a crapton of Battlefield 1942 and had both expansion to that game, but each match was self-contained and old maps didn't get any new content. I never played by a different or better set of rules than anyone who had none of the expansions; I either played by the exact same rules they did when I played with them in a map they had, or I didn't play with them at all because they weren't in the matches with maps they didn't have. There were no unlocks or stat tracking either.

The moment those assets can be brought over into settings where there are players who do not have access to them, or when there is some global progress that is influenced by having access to more paid content, that's where I get uncomfortable.

I respect that position, I really do, but I just don't share the view that making it a persistent space changes the fact that the work should be paid for. Taking Elite in its current form there's an argument that those with Odyssey being able to walk around on planets and do on-foot content is unfair on those that haven't bought the DLC. My view is that if you want access to that mechanic that had to be paid for to make, then you have to buy it. If my mate buys the DLC and I don't it's perfectly fair that he can go off and get things I can't.

It's not a fair vote, not everyone gets to vote and there only options are yes/abstain. If you go down too far down that route everyone should either pay up or shut up. The vote also in its essence could be boiled down to what matters more: (FDev) making money or a good game (that makes some money). Yeah in reality you need a compromise, but this is an obvious strong shift into just making money over substance.

It's not going to work long term once the hardcore fans (the main target audience for the early access ships) realize they have nothing new to do with their new ship if they've already done most of what there is to do in the game.

You're not wrong, it's a somewhat weighted situation, but that is unfortunately how the open market works. Your choice for any product has always been buy or abstain, or find/create an alternate product that does what you want. Everything else is is down to personal preference; if I want to pay £10 to use a Python Mk.II to do exactly the same things I've been doing for the past few years, and I don't want to wait three months to do it, then that's for me to justify to myself, nobody else.

 

[metatheurgist]

Yeah and that's a nasty trick imo.

It's just free market capitalism. You put out a product and see if anyone will pay for it. If people are dumb enough to buy it, congrats!

Remember this all started with Horse Armor. Most of us scoffed at it at the time. Now it's normal. Capitalists are very good at training their marks.

 

[[VR] DDM_Reaper20]

It's just free market capitalism. You put out a product and see if anyone will pay for it. If people are dumb enough to buy it, congrats!

Remember this all started with Horse Armor. Most of us scoffed at it at the time. Now it's normal. Capitalists are very good at training their marks.

View attachment 391233

That's a (very minor) problem of capitalism, and easily solved by self restraint.
Personally, I am REALLY glad I live in a society where capitalism reigns the markets. The people of Venezuela, Cuba and Argentinia (until recently) can sing a very bitter song of woe about the opposite ideology...

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

Oh, I thought it was just a plain "Yes, I'm buying" or "No, I'm not buying" - as fair as can be, surely?

Only people with enough disposable income can vote, the rest default to no, the vote can pass even if the majority votes no (making it an abstain vote that doesn't matter).

I guess I should never buy another Courier, or any other ship, as they are all the same so not worth the effort, then?

There's diminishing returns.

Personally, I am REALLY glad I live in a society where capitalism reigns the markets. The people of Venezuela, Cuba and Argentinia (until recently) can sing a very bitter song of woe about the opposite ideology...

It's not the ideology, it's the lack of corruption and authoritarian regimes that make most of the difference.

That's a (very minor) problem of capitalism, and easily solved by self restraint.

But it's a "vote" and if enough people vote yes it will have ramifications for others (in both this Elite related scenario and other more real life things).

 

[Dragsham]

What gets on my goat, is the fact that like SC, elite isn't polished. I'd even argue its not finished. That the oddity rollout was half cooked unfinished. And we paid for it! Just like that other game. And now we're about to embark upon paying for ships, again just like that other game.
It's a pattern all too familiar.
If the game was polished and optimised and supported VR, mac, consoles etc it wouldn't be so bad.
Yeah elite is stable. It runs Ok . Unlike that other game. True.
But there's so many issues well documented that to date are still buggy or just downright broken.
Peer 2 peer needs to go. Instancing etc.
If they want us to support this game financially by purchasing ingame items like ships and whatever else is in the pipeline, at least give us a slick finished up to date product !
Then yeah I'd be happy to subscribe/pay to win/play.
This games VR is unique. Truly.
Why not run with it and get this game to where it could be at?
As it stands I don't feel confident they will fix it. Just add more content that will no doubt also be broke right out of the box.
Much like that other game.!

 

[Rainbro]

Maybe I'm brainwashed by modern sensibilities because I don't think asking to be paid for work done after the fact is such a terrible thing. I make x, charge y for it. I then make z to complement x, but I'm not allowed to charge for it, and have to give it away for free? That doesn't sound right. If you bought x, then you have x. If you want z too, then you need to pay for it, surely?

It's not that simple, though, or else we'd be paying an extra £x for every update, the Titans, Fleet Carriers, PP 2.0, whatever. The thing with upfront payment is that you have already paid - part of the money you paid goes towards future updates, which themselves attract more players and make more money for Frontier. The question of when that payment happens ultimately doesn't matter - £30 upfront, £10 every year for three years, across an entire playerbase it equals the same constant revenue stream. I think that's the bit that is ununtuitive, our brains are bad at handling time and really bad at understanding that just because I haven't paid since I bought the game, that its not the same for everyone and Frontier hasn't been running a charity on my behalf. The model works. It's worked for Elite for years and No Man's Sky is another really good example of it.

This isn't about the timing of payment. It's about increasing the amount we pay - companies have realised they can charge upfront and charge extra. For major expansions, it's much more understandable, those can have development costs on the scale of the original game. But the Python Mk2? It's just a ship. Those used to be normal, we used to get multiple brand new ships "for free" (in the game we already paid for), because new updates and more features means more players. The concept itself isn't terrible, sure, but I think that's about the best that could have been said for it (if it wasn't priced as much as Odyssey). It's also not an improvement, it's a direct downgrade. I'm not inclined to cheer for paying more for less, even if Frontier think they can get away with it. Maybe they can, attitudes on this do seem to have shifted. Still sucks.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Only people with enough disposable income can vote, the rest default to no, the vote can pass even if the majority votes no (making it an abstain vote that doesn't matter).

Isn't that the same with all games that introduces add-on product? Those with disposable income may elect to purchase, those without have no choice - until the product is given for free (Remember every player who had not purchased Horizons was given it around the launch of the Odyssey expansion).
At least FD are not asking for hundreds or thousands of a local currency for a picture of an asset that doesn't exist, well, not yet!
It is the same for any product or service, if one cannot afford it, it isn't purchased - but at least a ship or 2 in a video game not being in ones fleet does not have the same impact as being unable to pay for energy for heating, lighting or cooking, or even food... First World problems?

 

[Rat Catcher]

I'm not inclined to cheer for paying more for less

Isn't the absolutely correct response "then don't!"?
If sufficient people do exactly that, the scheme will fail before it really gets off the ground.

Somehow, the cynic in me believes it is going to be very successful, but I won't be too upset if it falls flat, as long as it waits until after 7th May to fail

 

[CMDR Daiyus]

It's not that simple, though, or else we'd be paying an extra £x for every update, the Titans, Fleet Carriers, PP 2.0, whatever. The thing with upfront payment is that you have already paid - part of the money you paid goes towards future updates, which themselves attract more players and make more money for Frontier. The question of when that payment happens ultimately doesn't matter - £30 upfront, £10 every year for three years, across an entire playerbase it equals the same constant revenue stream. I think that's the bit that is ununtuitive, our brains are bad at handling time and really bad at understanding that just because I haven't paid since I bought the game, that its not the same for everyone and Frontier hasn't been running a charity on my behalf. The model works. It's worked for Elite for years and No Man's Sky is another really good example of it.

This isn't about the timing of payment. It's about increasing the amount we pay - companies have realised they can charge upfront and charge extra. For major expansions, it's much more understandable, those can have development costs on the scale of the original game. But the Python Mk2? It's just a ship. Those used to be normal, we used to get multiple brand new ships "for free" (in the game we already paid for), because new updates and more features means more players. The concept itself isn't terrible, sure, but I think that's about the best that could have been said for it (if it wasn't priced as much as Odyssey). It's also not an improvement, it's a direct downgrade. I'm not inclined to cheer for paying more for less, even if Frontier think they can get away with it. Maybe they can, attitudes on this do seem to have shifted. Still sucks.

This is a good post, so thank you for the perspective. You're absolutely right, and it's not limited to gaming, everything is now angled to get as much money out of everyone as it can. What you're describing here is an arrangement that I didn't have growing up. The idea of "I pay, then you update" didn't happen. You bought a product, that was that. There were no updates, no patches, no support as we'd see it today. I still see things that way sometimes. I don't buy anything expecting future support unless the agreement says so (warranty, insurance, etc).

Of course I recognise that the world has moved on, there are elements of implied support, particularly for live service games. If Frontier break something with an update I expect them to fix it. If they decide to overhaul a previously paid for function, expect the new version to work, hopefully better. That distinction between "existing" and "new" is very clear to me. Elite Dangerous + Horizons = 37 ships? Something in that ballpark? These are what I've paid for. I expect Frontier to support those 37 ships, and for them to continuously work as designed whatever else they do to the game. The Python Mk.II is a new ship, it's new content, it's not part of any previous package I paid for. I don't immediately assume it's "free" because I've paid for Odyssey, or we've been gifted ships before. I have Odyssey, I have the features I paid for for when I bought it. The money I spent on that should ideally be spent on the next thing they develop, but then I need to pay for that so they have the money to develop the next thing and so on.

What I don't necessarily do is work out exactly what each individual feature out of that cost is worth. For £30 I got Elite Dangerous, with a 1:1 scale representation of the galaxy, the initial gamut of ships, etc, etc. I don't know what each ship equates to in cash vs the galaxy, or the asteroid gameplay, or the ability to interdict another ship. In fact, almost every expansion ever made for any game is likely not fairly priced if it were to be broken down in that manner. So while I absolutely understand the argument that £10 for one ship isn't good value, for me it's not just what that specific £10 gets me. It's what my total investment so far, including that £10 gets me. If I said I'd paid £140 over my years and 1000's of hours in Elite (base game, Horizons, Odyssey & ARX), I'd say that was good value vs. going to the cinema, or bowling, or gigs. I'd say £150 is also good value given the same criteria, plus one more ship. Not quite as good, but still very good overall. There will come a time where that investment to perceived value ratio starts to tip unfavourably, and that's when I'll stop buying. For many, we're already at that point, and they're free to do what they feel they must to make themselves heard.