Pay2Win made it to Elite

[vanFace]

Dunno about you, but, if I'm having a good interaction with another forum member (and that doesn't mean all smiley & nice) there is no way I'd click that "report" button, as we are as bad as each other.

In later years, I've come to that conclusion as well.

 

[CMDR Ginge]

In later years, I've come to that conclusion as well.

in a game with slavery and drugs as a feature you cant do a little harmless flaming on the forums always bemused me

 

[Cmdr Esteban]

It's the Arxpocalypse. Some are bound to go mad.

Well, a lot of people are certainly arxing up over it. But then Frontier suddenly dropped this monetisation without much notice so maybe they arxed for it? I don’t know; I’ve participated in the debate to a small extent but mostly I can’t be arxed. You say it’s the arxpocalypse but I hardly think we can compare it to an end of the world scenario like Noah and the… ok ok I’ll stop now.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

One of the foundations of the current era monetization schemes is that player retention doesn't really matter. The money comes from new players.

This was true already, though.

One new player is probably somewhere between £5 and £20 income for the game, depending on exactly which package they buy, whether it's on sale, and how much of a cut the distributor takes. Some of them might add Odyssey as well. For the last years we have figures for Frontier was getting around 400,000 new players a year on average ... most of whom, clearly, didn't stick around for very long, but all of whom put in that initial payment.

It's likely that relatively little of their income was coming from established players buying cosmetics to start with - especially since anyone who'd been around a while probably already had cosmetics for all their favourite ships.

If anything I'd read the recent changes the other way around as an attempt to focus more on extracting cash from the retained players:
- reduced standard prices for base game and (especially) Odyssey
- increased effort on getting people over the early barriers (both with chargeable things like the prebuilds and non-chargeable things like their plans to streamline engineering) to try to improve the retention rates
- increased price of ship kits and paints to really get plenty of money out of the people with big fleets; effective reduction in the value of gameplay-earned ARX to make it harder for people to just save that up
- short-term early access payments on new ships which are far more likely to be paid by established players; also new ships so that in the longer-term people have bigger fleets and buy more expensive cosmetics

 

[Rat Catcher]

It's likely that relatively little of their income was coming from established players buying cosmetics to start with - especially since anyone who'd been around a while probably already had cosmetics for all their favourite ships.

I bought Arx ready for the Christmas extravaganza on PJs, ended up with just one of the 'new black' ones as by the time I decided I liked it... Same as the Iridescent colours, which I'd hoped would end up in the store last Christmas, try one, like it, missed the window.

Oh well, they went a good way to getting a Stellar...

New PJs as I add to my fleet (assuming the other 3 new ships are SCO native) may be a bit slower coming, it is hard to justify effectively £3 for each PJ...

 

[aRJay]

in a game with slavery and drugs as a feature you cant do a little harmless flaming on the forums always bemused me

Because the forums aren't in the game they are a 'real' life thing and some people don't consider flaming to be harmless.

 

[CMDR Ginge]

Because the forums aren't in the game they are a 'real' life thing and some people don't consider flaming to be harmless.

I wouldn't even consider it flaming, bunch of wussies on here, and no that's not a typo for an insult. people just too soft go crying. we're all adults

 

[Greasetrap42]

This was true already, though.

...

If anything I'd read the recent changes the other way around as an attempt to focus more on extracting cash from the retained players:

Same with the Odessey DLC. Speculation on my part, but I would think initial Odessey sales was targeted overwhelmingly to existing and returning players. It is a much easier sale: sell to 95% of current active players plus their alts and maybe 50%(?) of all past active players that would easily return given new gameplay. It is a much easier pool of people to market a product towards than a bunch of randoms that have never been interested in the game before.

Over the years I have seen very little directly from FDev to attract new players to purchase the game. Price discounts is the only obvious thing that comes to mind. Some small other stuff, little videos that probably don't get much viewing outside the existing community. Game reviews and youtube 'influencers', but that's not directly from FDev. It seams Obsidian Ant has done more to advertise the game over the years than FDev.

 

[aRJay]

I wouldn't even consider it flaming, bunch of wussies on here, and no that's not a typo for an insult.

No it isn’t a typo but it could be considered an insult.

people just too soft go crying. we're all adults

Keeping in mind the age ratings of the game I wouldn’t bet on that.

 

[CMDR Ginge]

That actually explains a lot

 

[Alaska Sædelære]

Talking about insults... calling others "intellectually dishonest" when they rationalise this differently is an insult, too. Ultimately the crowd votes with their wallets and those who don't like it are powerless to change that. Human nature as usual...

 

[vanFace]

Who speaks the truth needs a fast horse. Never changed. In such discussions, you always know that you are spot on if people switch to whining mode and cry for authority.
Sure you can work to get the messenger censored, but it won't stop the message. Now feel free to click that report button

 

[Alaska Sædelære]

Who speaks the truth needs a fast horse. Never changed.

Everybody has their own truth in such matters, that's the thing. And dismisses anybody else who differs. This ain't math, it's pure opinion.

 

[vanFace]

Everybody has their own truth in such matters, that's the thing. And dismisses anybody else who differs. This ain't math, it's pure opinion.

Some things are neither math nor pure opinion. And yes, people hold "alternative facts", that's true.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Who speaks the truth needs a fast horse.

It depends on the "truth" doesn't it?
Such a definition is certainly one of interpretation, there is only one "Universal Truth", and as we are here making comments, the second part of the phrase is yet to happen.

Never changed.

Never will.

 

[Alaska Sædelære]

Some things are neither math nor pure opinion. And yes, people hold "alternative facts", that's true.

Many don't know how to tell fact from opinion, nor do they know objective methods of proof, and least of all will they admit lack of such competence. And expecting one's own version to be held as authoritative by everyone is called hubris. All of this is in human nature.

 

[vanFace]

And expecting one's own version to be held as authoritative by everyone is called hubris.

Yeah, authoritatively declaring opinions as insults can be seen as hubris, that's true. But I'd say it is just only a tiny bit of hubris, really.

 

[Alaska Sædelære]

Yeah, authoritatively declaring opinions as insults can be seen as hubris, that's true. But I'd say it is just only a tiny bit of hubris, really.

The insult referred to above consists in someone calling someone else intellectually dishonest for holding an opinion which cannot be proven right or wrong. It contains no judgement of the opinion itself. For further erudition one may consult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris .

 

[vanFace]

The insult referred to above consists in someone calling someone else intellectually dishonest for holding an opinion which cannot be proven right or wrong.

Which is an opinion all on its own. It is a version of the truth, yet it is presented like it is expected to be hold authoritative by everybody else, which is - in your definition - called hubris. Speaking of, you presented your version of the definition of hubris also in a way that you expected everybody else to hold it authoritative. But yeah, that's becoming recursive now.

But I completely agree with you: all of this is human nature. I also completely agree with your previous statement of the crowd ultimately voting with their wallets. Let's hope that Pay2Win not only made it to Elite (to get back to the topic), but also will make it great again. I think it will.

 

[CMDR Daiyus]

Ideally everything would be free, but I don't believe that this interpretation follows my statements.

A more accurate summation of my position would be, 'All players, in a multiplayer game, should be playing by the same set of rules, as far as is possible'.

Pay-to-win isn't bad because of the 'pay', it's bad because of the differences in access to gameplay implied between those who pay and those who do not. The scale of these differences may thus far be small, but I consider any difference, in this regard, a problem.

There are plenty of ways to charge any arbitrary amount for a game, or even introduce microtransactions, without creating different sets of rules for players in the process. Frontier has repeatedly declined to do this, instead leveraging mechanical advantages as incentives to sell product. That's pay-to-win and it's incompatible with my ideal multiplayer experience.

If they wanted to depreciate the current game to legacy status and open up a new subscription based game, I'd seriously consider paying for it.

If they had some sort of group buy for new features, with a monetary goal that had to be reached, upon which it would be developed and released to everyone, I'd have been happily have contribute to those features I think would enhance the game. I like new ships and if they said they needed x amount of dollars for the Python Mk II, I may have gladly parted with a few hundred and reasonably expect enough others to do the same and meet the fundraising goal. I would much, much, rather subsidize a pile of freeloaders than feel compelled to play by a better set of rules than them.

I'm sure there are plenty of other possible funding avenues that I'd find palatable. I'm also fairly sure they wouldn't be as profitable, so I'm acutely aware of why Frontier is doing what they're doing, and they can do it without a single additional red cent from me.

I don't mind paying for newly developed things, but everyone I'm playing with has to have access to the same, whether they are willing or able to pay or not. If they don't have the same opportunity, then that thing I'm being sold can have no value to me and I'd be better off if the game didn't feature it. I do not gain any enjoyment from my fantasy characters having non-contextual advantages, nor disadvantages, most certainly not ones baked in the game through distasteful monetization schemes.

See, these are the types of conversations that needs to surround Pay2Win, and for this to happen there needs to be a more open interpretation of what Pay2Win actually means beyond the "paying for an in-game advantage" idiom. You make excellent points regarding the differences in opportunities granted to those who pay, and those who don't. In an ideal world the game would be consistent for everyone to help support that "one galaxy" feeling, and it's a goal I can certainly get behind as a theory. I grew up with single-player RPG's where expansions were buy or don't play, and only get into online shared worlds comparatively recently, so maybe I'm just coming at these things from a different mindset and being used to having to pay for expanded gameplay opportunities in this manner? The concept of effectively "kickstarting" expansions is an interesting one, and I'd agree, I'd likely support such a venture.

I agree with everything you wrote apart from this bit:


I would definitely go against anything available for money that isn't in the game or just early access. That doesn't apply (though it's shaving close to be fair) to the CMK4 though, that was a free limited edition perk to promote the Horizons expansion, and I missed out on it myself for full disclosure. I think cool limited edition things for active players are neat.

This is great, we all have our own lines, and I'm glad to hear where others are willing to go and not. I'd like to expand my original comment by saying that of course I'd rather not have to pay for things like new weapon sets, but I am stating I'd look at the implementation and decide that balance of whether it's within my parameters or not.

And in my opinion, that whole chain of logic sounds ludicrous. But I can certainly follow the logic, even if it requires some leaps to get there.

The typical strategy of most “Free-to-Play” games is to give the base game away for free, give those new players “free” bonuses just long enough to get past the learning phase of the game, and then hit them with the pay-to-win aspects once they’ve gotten hooked.

For many of us older gamers, the way we bought games was: you paid X dollars for a game, and that was it. MMOs required a subscription, but nobody got anything special for that. But there was always the problem of unequal access to equipment and broadband. Someone with a high-end PC and broadband would crush a low-end PC or dialup, thanks overwhelming advantage they data volume and minimal response times.

So the game developers of the day took steps to make games more fair by artificially bottlenecking incoming and outgoing bandwidth, and adding delays to player actions. No more being able to spam five move combos in the time it took a dialup user to make one move. Sure, the wealthier player might have a massive 17” monitor, but that wasn’t nearly as big advantage as broadband access + a fast PC was. But at least the game developers themselves were doing the best they could to keep the games fair.

That isn’t the case with Pay-To-Win. Those with money get to play with one rule set, those without get to play with another one, and there’s plenty of perverse incentives for companies to make the latter rule set as unfair as possible.

I’m an amateur golfer. For the longest time, I used second-hand clubs and “bargain bin” balls to save money. I’ve finally reached a point financially that I feel comfortable enough to buy a new set of clubs, and brand new balls. I’m now hitting balls on average 10 yards further, and saving about three strokes from my game. This is a form of pay to win, but it’s inevitable unless a golf tournament insists on everyone using the exact same set of equipment.

The Pay-To-Win equivalent in golf would be a tournament where those who paid more get use winter rules, 4 mulligans, and four free drops.

Agreed, it's a deliberately extended logical development to point out the deficiencies in arguing based on the "official" definition of Pay2Win. Pay2Win is a scale, and in order to have meaningful discussions as a community I feel we should be discussing where those lines are, and how they're different for individuals, not just whether it simply meets the definition of Pay2Win and assigning acceptable/unacceptable based solely on that.

You clearly played more MMO's back in the day than I did. I was still very much offline, single player focused back then, so it's an interesting point trying to balance the difference in hardware. Coming from a gaming background where I'm not focused on what other people are doing, I think I still don't worry about what other people can or can't do when I'm online. The way I play Elite is very much with my friends, cooperating, or off on my own, doing my own thing. Due to that, the tiering doesn't bother me, but I can understand why it bothers other people. Using your golf analogy, If I were out playing golf, I wouldn't care what other people were doing, as long as I felt I was playing my best game with the rules/equipment I invested in to play at.

What I will say, as I've said previously, it doesn't mean I'm willing to accept any price for any feature. I'll still judge whether the feature offers me value, and balance against what else in the game is also a factor. I wouldn't want to be buying obviously better stuff that negates base game content, I like stuff that builds upon and works alongside.

This only follows if you make the assertion that the people who do not play a game need to be kept in parity with those who do within that game. But those who don't play the game aren't affected within the game by content in the game being denied to them so it's a non issue.

Quite, and it was deliberate in it's over-extension of the logic. I think most of us recognise there are practices that are technically Pay2Win by definition, such is single-player expansions is RPG's, that we wouldn't consider "predatory" or "aggressive". These are what I'd consider "acceptable levels" of Pay2Win from a community majority standpoint. What I'm interested in is how the community agrees and disagrees with that acceptance level as different practices along that Pay2Win scale are used.