First wrong has to be defined in the context of its use, surely?
Are others actually unable to decline something they don't want? It can't just be me alone, can it?
It is an interesting debate, though... I'll give it that.
Pay2Win made it to Elite
- Thread starter Einar Donarsson
- Start date
Are others actually unable to decline something they don't want? It can't just be me alone, can it?
It is an interesting debate, though... I'll give it that.
Anyone can refuse to buy or spend Arx, but no one can (nor should be able to) prevent anyone else from doing so, and thus cannot opt out of whatever the game becomes as monetization takes off (which it will, if it's financially sound, which it seems to be), by refusing to participate in the changes that will apply to them.
The goal, of course, is to make non-participation less appealing than the alternative. Frontier is going to gain many more paying customers than they'll lose, even if virtually none of those customers want to be paying for what's being sold. As long as the value gained exceeds the cost, subjective to the individual interpretations of those things, people will pay rather than do without.
Personally, I will never buy Arx. I'm convinced this new approach to monetization will lead to the end of my participation in this game as the disadvantage it puts my character at, for entirely non-contextual reasons, grows. It's not going to take many more nails before what's left of my enjoyment is ready to be lowered into the ground.
Some players treat this as a single-player game, finding it easy to avoid others and ignore their contributions to the setting. Frankly, I never would have looked at Elite: Dangerous if I were looking for a sequel to the prior games, at least not after the offline mode was canceled. I consider the existence of online single player games to be repugnant in the extreme; they are overt scams that remove player control and ownership over their experience for no other reason that monetization. If it's single-player and I need an internet connection, I'm not going to touch it with a ten foot pole.
I went into Elite: Dangerous looking for the MMO it's always implicitly been; what other people do matters and if it didn't I wouldn't be here. So, when they start repeating past mistakes and allow, even encourage, players to skew their contribution to the game based on how much they're willing to spend, in areas Frontier has full control over, this is an enormous demerit from my perspective. No matter what I do, I lose a very fundamental aspect of contextuality that underpins my enjoyment of the game. It's not a choice between paying or not, that the option even exists means the damage is done.
I'm an original backer of the Elite Dangerous project and this recent change in direction and monetisation on a pay to win basis has me seriously considering deleting my account. The Elite series of games have always been hard and demanded a fair time investment to progress, this was a standout in the modern era of instant gratification. It also taught you that you could lose. This was applicable across the board, whether you were playing Elite Dangerous on a top of the range PC in a multi-million pound mansion, or playing on a potato in your childdhood bedroom, the playing field was level. Pay to win creates a 2 tier experience. I fully agree with the post above that the damage is already done.
Indeed, this is a very late participation in what appears to be a common practise - have players give money for a service or asset they are prepared to pay for.
Good business practice? Who knows, perhaps this crazy move will bring new life to a game that has so often been accused of being dead, or at least dying rapidly, time will certainly tell.
Of course it is, it is a business strategy - one that some will abhor, others tolerate to an extent, and the remainder accept as current gaming practise.
The idea of selling the first new ship for 5 years or so was inspired (individuals may interpret that inspiration as they wish) as it appears to have had a reasonable number of players open their wallet to try it.
Time will tell if any further monetisation strategy is successful or not.
I treat it as a game where I can play, with friends, and enjoy that time - or even wander off and do my own thing by myself.
Others sculpt the BGS as gameplay, they will do it regardless if I am actively working toward a target, and my even actively work against me, where greater numbers will almost always prevail - it took quite a while in Carcosa, granted
I wasn't too interested in the alleged MMO aspect of ED when I bought it, but did consider that playing with a group of others with similar interests might prove entertaining, and it has.
For you, the game may be in decline because your own requirements are being eroded, which is understandable for an original backer, the "new kids on the block" like me, who bought a game that looked fun, may have an entirely different perspective on what the game might be.
Agreed. But nobody can agree on what that definition is. I define wrong in this context as predatory monetization, and this is the second time that Frontier has crossed that line. The first was Horizons, but they managed to sneak that under the radar by delaying the predatory aspect of making the base game more difficult to play without it.
There are indeed people who have difficulty controlling their spending, and other behaviors like time spent playing, when it comes to video games. Video games stimulate the same neural pathways that gambling and recreational drugs do.
They’re definitely not in the majority, but there’s enough of them that the industry has a term for them: Whales.
It is, and it’s limited to video games. But that’s skirting too close to politics for this board…
Hm. The Python 2 in its stock state flies like a brick, and to make it take off, you need tons of engineering (it comes with absolutely none and all E modules except the outdated class C SCO FSD). It's not so that having access to it in advance 3 months earlier is something giving you an edge beyond any reasoning. The grind is still there, and maybe too much of a grind still (I know, the grind is only in my head). Btw I went through all of it during 5k hours ingame and don't like shortcuts too.
O7,
O7,
Pfft! There's been a 2 tier experience since they gave systems to people with PMFs.
Seeing as how effective the P2 makes as a ganking machine I might save some and start doing that for giggles in the starting areas. I wouldn't even have to shoot any sideys, just ram them to death!
I've had the modules to completely outfit (well, aside from bulkheads, obviously) a competitive G5 Python Mk II since the week 3.0 dropped six years ago and I converted about 150 of my less impressive legacy modules over to the new system.
If I had access to the Python Mk II I'd have a much better understanding of the ship's capabilities than I do, which would put me in a much better position to fight them. I can't even find a full set of specifications on the ship because I'm the last semi-active player that I know of that would even do half the tests I'm looking for results for.
As annoying as having PMFs plastered all over the map is, the same things can be done by adopting extant factions.
And the two-tier experience has been around longer than PMFs...but I don't consider having two fingers in the door any excuse to allow more in.
Deleting the A/c seems an over-reaction .
Maybe give it another sleep before you push the button eh?
I'm not sold on the p2w argument at all.
Yes, there may some isolated scenarios where owning a bought python2 carries a clear advantage.
But the arguments made simply don't add up much past emotional bruising really.
This will all be water under the bridge in the very short term (replaced by some new terrible thing no doubt ) and so on and on we'll go.
Solo and Private hardly have anything to contribute to this discussion as they are mostly walled off.
In Open, where any real impact can be truly felt (forgive the obviously opportunity MrNetz), surely the experience of challenge and achievement has not diminished for you as a player. If it has, how has it?
Is it any different to someone with a faster hamster and better graphics card in their PC, thus better screen performance, engaging you in a dog fight?
I do see a lot of "What if" and "This could" and other 'slippery slope' type comments feeding this discussion and at this point, it seems to have all been said.
If you must hit the delete account button, well, what more can I say ....other than good luck!
S!
Well, on the plus side: if you really give in to the knee-jerk reaction of deleting the account loudly out of moral issues, the starter packages certainly got you covered if it so happens that you reconsider and return silently. I am pretty sure FDev will build on the concept and offer all kinds of skipping opportunities.
Maybe it would be a bit strange for an original backer to quit the game, because someone new gets a chance to pay for a similar advantage as the original backers got..
Which advantage are we talking about? The only one that would apply is the one everyong keeps insisting is wholly irrelevant because exobiology credits or something of that nature.Maybe it would be a bit strange for an original backer to quit the game, because someone new gets a chance to pay for a similar advantage as the original backers got..
Didn't some of the original backers get things like the Cobra mk4, reduced rebuy costs, etc?
Reduced rebuy doesn't matter according to most of this thread. Rebuy costs are apparently irrelevant due to CR earnings being so high.
The CM4 the rest of us aren't ever getting apparently whether we buy into the PM2 or not so this changes nothing there.
So, you agree that P2W was in the game from the moment the backers donated their money? (CM4, reduced rebuy, instant access to Jameson etc.)
Glad to have that sorted...
Even if everything "promised" arrived on release, it is the nature of the business model that changes are introduced, for better or worse. Often what may be released may not be we end up with, for a time. Whether we like it or not. There are many posts harkening back to the golden days pre engineering.
Steve
Correct, and they’re all examples of pay-to-win. I never took advantage of the starting Cobra myself, nor have I died enough times to make a dent in the reduced rebuy. I do, however, still roll on the Pilots Eject table on death, and have had three ships totaled, one of which was engineered. I also didn’t bother too much with my early access permit to Shinrarta Dezhra, reserving it for Buckyball Racing until I unlocked it properly.
Most us managed to convince ourselves to ignore this, after Frontier assured us it would be a one-time thing, this latest move by Frontier was bold enough that some of us cannot ignore the elephant in the room any longer.
Last edited:
For a limited group of people that could not be expanded and through natural attrition would decrease over time, yes. Now that we're all on the same page with this being P2W it should be obvious how that once limited in scope issue probably shouldn't be repeated and exasperated.
Last edited:
I believe all veteran players share this sentiment when we've put the time in playing the game and developing a better knowledge base on how to reach certain goals in game easier than our initial days in the Sidewinder. Friends recruited me into Elite Dangerous, and they helped "feed" me credits to transition into a better ship. I do remember the first time my buddy and me spent the 2-hours economy jumping out to the system for the guardian blueprint for the FSD booster, upon successfully landing on the planet we got into SRV for the first time... the driving controls were insanely frustrating... and we spent another hour trying to figure out how to drive the SRV without it rocketing off in a random direction because of the default control settings. The ending of this story was us abandoning the attempt because we could not control our SRVs well enough then to even attempt the puzzle for the blueprint. So, I fully understand, Elite Dangerous being one where playing the game is the journey.
[FDev should have the Drive Assist turned OFF, implement AWSD hotkeys for steering and throttle control, and incremental acceleration as the default for k/b mouse]
In context to the pre-built ships, they're not really giving anyone an advantage or skipping the journey. These players would still end up learning, as they go along their journey playing the game. However, we both know that buying a ship needs a road map idea on what role it's going to fulfill in our fleet or what activity it's going to serve. And, this means, we have mind-mapped how we'll engineer the modules, which modules we'll need installed, and whether we'll need hardpoints or not, and which ones. Another story about this involves my buddy and me who recruited a couple players into Elite Dangerous to Wing up for combat missions: those recruits were friends with each other and my buddy and me were going to help them out. After a few sessions, both of these players had gained over 360 million, and enough to pretty much buy anything they fancy.
One wanted the Federal Corvette and the other the Imperial Cutter, so both went online to learn where and how to grind up their faction rank to unlock those ships. Afterwards, both achieved their desired goal to own those ships; However, those stock ships ... A-rated out ... carried them so far, in CZ and Hazardous combat zones, and both were having trouble tackling Wings, or multiple ships, or running into the consequences when both sides turn hostile when you shoot allies in CZ. My buddy and me warned them that those two ships truly shine with engineering, and can become an expensive rebuy on ship destruction, so we encouraged them to chase down the engineers. Our advice then was, just because you got the biggest, best ship does not mean it'll perform, as shown in YouTube clips, as stock models. They still needed to do the due diligence and unlock engineers and go through the same hoops, as we all do, to improve modules with engineering blueprints.
This example is comparable to the pre-built ship offerings, in context to players may be able to jumpstart into an upgraded ship but it does not mean they have skipped any of the grind, or chasing the prerequisites, to build capable ships to fulfill ship roles for specific activities related to simply playing the game and doing mission types. For example, there are several ships that require engineering to bring out their potential, including most ship's modules, and that involves playing the game.
The pre-built ships have limited to non-existent engineering. This is my view on the topic: FDev should limit the pre-built to an upgraded stock ships builds. This translates into someone spending ARX for credits e.g. the comparable cost to buy and upgrade the ship's modules. Some people may claim this is a "pay to win," but honestly, you can earn credits very easily, and quickly by playing the game, that they're not gaining any type of advantage over me. Plus, those modules are locked to that particular ship, and cannot be stored, and that is very limiting in itself since module swapping saves time and credits upgrading into the next ship up. Instead, they have to rebuy the module and re-engineer the module, which circles back to your initial comment about the journey is about playing the game.
Last edited:
The pre-built Python MkII has no engineering and "A" rated modules where needed...
The Vanilla P2 is a stock ship, which will be available, just for credits, in-game come August.
It seems to my (apparently non-gamer brain) reckoning that the only objections being raised is that FD have had the temerity to offer ships for ARX, and hysteria over the sky falling as everything will be offered for ARX from tomorrow...
Let's be blunt about it, if it was considered OK to give backers of the game an advantage over others as they spent their money in different tiers, why consider a similar move (but open to everyone and their dog (but not Legacy players)) predatory?