There is a problem if you need to compare it to one of the biggest scams in the gaming industry in order to prove that it's relatively cheap, all things considered
Cobra Mk V in-game availability?
- Thread starter cmdr jonnimew
- Start date
You know what? I'm starting to have doubts on whether the current model for ships is all that great, because it appears to be less transparent than it could be. I'd almost prefer them selling ships outright as opposed to the current "when will they release the ship?" will-they-or-won't-they confusion, where they don't make it clear when the ships will be available without Arx (yet another FOMO tactic I was alluring to earlier).
I'd be pretty miffed to spend a chunky amount of money on a ship that will release for free a week later. I did buy the Cobra 5 back in January because I had a feeling they'd drag their heels. But I wouldn't recommend to anyone who hasn't already bought it to get it now because the risk of feeling like a mug increases on a daily basis.
My disposition towards ARX looks a bit like an inverse bell-shaped curve over the years.
Initially I didn't like it as it did come, of course, with price changes. But they were minor, and Frontier thankfully added the ability to buy items individually, and gave us the weekly Arx. So I got on board. Spent a total of well over 500 Euros (and change) pre- and post-Arx on this game by the way. Just some context, to make you re-evaluate that second sentence in your response to me.
But then came Odyssey, which not only wrecked most of my purchased items (making them either broken or looking considerably different in the new 4.0 engine compared to 3.8 and even the actual thumbnails in the shop), which were either not fixed at all, or only after several years. On top of that, they sold the Odyssey stuff at much inflated prices compared to what we were used to for ships (funnily enough, 6k for a weapon skin sounds like a bargain now, funny how this goes). Both were a big turn off for me to ever spend money on this game again.
The big Arx inflation of 2024 sealed my resolve* so here is a player who was pretty liberal with their credit card in the past and now I'm not anymore due to Frontier's decisions. Bold move Cotton etc.
*The Cobra 5 was the exception, it's a nice enough ship with its own cockpit so no rush job, am happy to pay for that kinda content. I did feel dirty spending 10k Arx on a MNB skin though, because I was (and still am) no fan of the OG paint -- which applies to pretty much all ships though.
I think there's a happy medium where customers are happy to spend while not feeling ripped off, and the company making sufficient earnings. Plenty of devs prove that this is achievable. The above line just strikes me as "well don't play it then!" which is also a common bite reflex I see on this forum, and I think it's uncalled for. We should be able to criticise pricing of these items regardless of whether they're optional or not. If nothing else it's free feedback to Frontier if they cared about this stuff.Again, you don’t have to buy anything beyond the game.
In a nutshell was what I was trying to say.There is a problem if you need to compare it to one of the biggest scams in the gaming industry in order to prove that it's relatively cheap, all things considered
Last edited:
I haven't found any positives in SC in the years since I wasted money on it... YMMV, naturally.
As someone who missed out on the Chrome/Gold skins early on (and spent an unholy amount on the inferior Chromed/Golden skins instead), either of those 2 will be the next skin for my C5. Determined to use accumulated Arx though - 10k is a lot for a simple paintjob like those... need another 1,700 or so, but I swear the Arx earning rate seems to have slowed in direct correlation to my Arx balance increasing... I'm sure it's just my imagination though. I do miss the old days of being able to spend my free Arx on a cheaper item every few weeks I have to say.
Elite Dangerous: It could be a lot worse! That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Of course Frontier can decide for themselves how they want to go about monetizing the game, but again a bit more communication would help.
I do however still think that LEP holders who are a bit miffed about that "early access" are not unreasonable. The last time I tried to ask people where they would draw the line about how long of a delay would be acceptable, I got not one single honest reply. Probably because for some of them the answer to "what would you still be okay with" would be "whatever Frontier decides to do".
It's generally a coping mechanism but yeah I wouldn't put that on any marketing campaignElite Dangerous: It could be a lot worse! That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
I'm no LEP'er, but to me lifetime means content is paid for for the lifetime of the product (any upfront disclaimers on exceptions notwithstanding). Seems pretty straightforward to me, though I've been bitten by this elsewhere (Forza games) so now I no longer buy those premium packs and just spend as I go along, even if that might result in a worse deal for me in the end.
What I find amusing is how Frontier have pushed themselves into a corner with regards to communicating the end of the 'early access' period for ships - it's not in their interest to be transparent about it because people, once they know the date, will likely hold off purchases.
edited for clarity
Although I bought some of the new ships (and lots of paintjobs and ship kits) in the past, I get the impression that the release model (ARX for preview) will come to an end much sooner than FDev anticipates and wants unless they don't come up with really spectacular designs (I wrote 'spectacular', not 'absurd' ) or features because what else do we players want to pay for after the main roles (combat, exploration, transport and multi-role) have been released? A few big ships (Cutter MkII, Anaconda MkII)? Probably. A medium size passenger liner? Also probable. But there's not that much variation and novelty left, unless new game loops or features (SCO) are being created.
I am thinking of:
) or features because what else do we players want to pay for after the main roles (combat, exploration, transport and multi-role) have been released? A few big ships (Cutter MkII, Anaconda MkII)? Probably. A medium size passenger liner? Also probable. But there's not that much variation and novelty left, unless new game loops or features (SCO) are being created. I am thinking of:
- ships which can be equipped with SRV bays for huge vehicles or different kind of fighters --> more ground combat, transport, exploration
- ships for other extreme environments / corrosion resistant ships --> open permit locked zones to fight Thargoids or dive in ocean worlds or gas giants
- non-hyperdrive capable ships which serve as fast cargo transporters between a carrier and a station
Used to be you'd get a few threads on here about how Star Citizen is the perfect game and ED should be like that. Takes people a little while to adjust to the change in narrative.It's generally a coping mechanism but yeah I wouldn't put that on any marketing campaign
I'd also say that opening early access ships to LEP holders would not hurt FDev's P&L significantly. I mean, how many LEP holders are still around and playing vs. the rest of the players?
EDIT: No, I don't have a LEP!
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
personally if they are gonna do it i thought 3 months was reasonable...... but what ever time limit it is, the worst thing about it is the lack of communitcation (what, FD, lack of comms ... well i never!
)But not giving players a date means they cannot work out any value proposition when buying a ship.
You're not thinking of new ships as such, you're thinking of completely new game mechanics. Different vehicles, new environments, etc, those would be significant new development features with ships for those mechanics an afterthought.Although I bought some of the new ships (and lots of paintjobs and ship kits) in the past, I get the impression that the release model (ARX for preview) will come to an end much sooner than FDev anticipates and wants unless they don't come up with really spectacular designs (I wrote 'spectacular', not 'absurd'
I am thinking of:
Any other ideas?
- ships which can be equipped with SRV bays for huge vehicles or different kind of fighters --> more ground combat, transport, exploration
- ships for other extreme environments / corrosion resistant ships --> open permit locked zones to fight Thargoids or dive in ocean worlds or gas giants
- non-hyperdrive capable ships which serve as fast cargo transporters between a carrier and a station
it needent be the case.... not if FD for the last month lets say, reduced the price of the ship by a certain amount each week, at the end of it the buyers still have a ship skin and some free upgrades and life time insurance.
Full disclosure, I never tried SC even though I'm well aware of it. I do scratch my head over the (imo) over-obsession of it on these forums... looking at that thread and how many posts/views that accumulated over the years... undeserved but I don't have to understand it I guess.
I don't like SC's op model, I don't like the way the game is structured, I don't like the oversell/underdeliver approach (though at least that reminds me of Elite).
Which is why I don't use it in any of my arguments - both NMS and X4 are far better "mainstream" examples of what the competition is doing. Yes I know they're not 100% comparable with Elite for several reasons, but they do compete for my time (NMS less successfully, X4 much more so).
Apparently I wrote that. Please read again. My TL;DR point is that unless new mechanics will be created, constant release of new ships will come to an end because no one will buy them.
Elite Dangerous: It could be a lot worse! That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
I have added my voice to the general disappointment at the degree of the price hike already. I can’t really give them a ringing endorsement
I mean, there are genuine reasons to be disgruntled about LEP, but I don’t agree that Early Access is one of them. - that doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t have been a nice gesture for FDev to give them early access given the lack of expansions.
There a big difference between “don’t pay” and “don’t play”.
Not paying for skins because you don’t think it’s good value doesn’t stop you playing the game in any way.
If you don’t think a Rolex is worth £40k, you simply don’t pay it.
personally if they are gonna do it i thought 3 months was reasonable...... but what ever time limit it is, the worst thing about it is the lack of communitcation (what, FD, lack of comms ... well i never!
But not giving players a date means they cannot work out any value proposition when buying a ship.
Definitely agree with this. But this is FDev…
If they package exclusive skins etc., sure - but the standard version (which I bought) doesn't have that and honestly the insurance discount is a misfire imo - it feels like P2W lite, without actually winning anything because it's also so neglegible once you outfit your ship it may as well not be a thing at all.
oh yeah i forgot about that version..... then again, a 25% price cut per week in the last month before release, its down to the player to decide then.
i agree on the free replacment its a small enough amount on the base ship that it does not offer that much, whilst still being frustrating to those who just worry about thin end of the wedge (which isnt always a false slippery slope analogy.... i remember some claiming that 3 months was only the start of it and if the P2 made FD enough money they would extend the gap longer........... they seem to have been on the money!)
also... free rebuys even on a base ship is just daft from a "sensible game" point of view.
sure there is the sidewinder......... because there does have to be a safety net so people are not locked out from the game without account wiping, but leave it at that imo...... (actually to be fair dont even need that now we have oddy)
What I meant was people use these responses to shut down any criticism without considering context and nuances.
"I don't like Colonisation because ABC, but add XYZ and I'd love it" gets responses like "don't play it then" in the context of Colonisation being the new shiny gameplay, of course people will want to play and engage with it.
"I don't like the stuff they sell at the prices they sell them at" gets responses like "don't buy them then" in the context of the individual actually wanting to spend some money on Frontier's product.
That's why I think they're unnecessary - because things don't improve if nobody complains about them. All of course provided that arguments are made in good faith and are reasonable, but that should go without saying. I see those responses regardless of that though.
It could work, or they could at least trial it and see - I have a feeling though they already got their data from the P2 rollout and didn't like the sales curve
I like things being communicated clearly and concisely, and then stick to it consistently. Anything else comes across as... a bit iffy but that's just me.
You know what's hilarious - since I bought the C5 four months ago, it's become my primary combat ship (in Open), engaging in PP2.0 and other activities, and I've yet to see the rebuy screen. So the C5 is definitely a ship that really doesn't need any claims discount (which is already very low anyways due to the size of the ship).
FDev are a business. I’ve not worked for any company who really listens to its customers, but they do pay attention when people vote with their feet.
Unfortunately, they’re beholden to their shareholders, not to the players. Odyssey highlighted that perfectly.