As someone in PG with a Plipper could out deliver both...
BOYCOTT the Panther Clipper to avoid future "Updates"
- Thread starter Armaant27
- Start date
While I agree with the general theme of what your saying FDEV are still asking for what is a tiny, minuscule amount of money compared to many space games out there.
Star Citizen as you point out can ask users from anything from $100 to $75,000, Star Trek Fleet Command will set you back anything from $2,000 to $25,000 every time they release a new ship, which is about once every 3 months if you want to remain competitive. So $15 extra on a ship which will be completely FTP by September is a very small ask.
Star Citizen as you point out can ask users from anything from $100 to $75,000, Star Trek Fleet Command will set you back anything from $2,000 to $25,000 every time they release a new ship, which is about once every 3 months if you want to remain competitive. So $15 extra on a ship which will be completely FTP by September is a very small ask.
I mean, if people really need to use extreme examples (let alone within the space game genre) to justify/rationalise Frontier's pricing model, well by all means knock yourselves out - but please don't then also conveniently ignore the fact that there are plenty of other space games out there that don't require 4 (or even just 3) digit level spending.
X4, NMS, Everspace 1 & 2, Space Engineers, Kerbal Space Program, Stationeers, Space Engine (maybe not a game, but certainly a space sim), and others I'm not even aware of I'm sure are all reasonably priced, don't rely on predatory marketing tricks, and appear to survive despite that.
Last edited:
Pay-to-skip is commonly agreed to be on the PTW spectrum, so you kind of contradicted yourself there. OTOH, everybody has a different level of PTW acceptance, and if pay-to-skip is yours, I'm totally in your boat.
What I don't understand is the dance around the term. There is nothing inherently bad about Elite being P2W. It should be embraced as a functioning way of funding the game. FDEV demonstrated that they use it wisely and only carefully shift the slider every now and then in order to fuel the company, so why bother? Even that Yamiks guy had to acknowledge that P2W for Elite was no total failure, as many predicted it to be.
I can only applaud everybody buying ARX to spend on ships or cosmetics, and thus contribute to keeping the game I love up and running. Plus I get new content to enjoy for free, even if only delayed a bit.
Heres a thought. CG for the new Panther Clipper. Rares Delivery. Make Bagging Great Again!
Frontier weren't going to have microtranactions for anything but cosmetics .... until they did.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
or shock horror I know but playing for fun and not necessarily to min max. it takes all sorts
Aside from the "extreme examples", many other space games - including most of the games you mentioned- are not live service games so they don't need to fund continued development either.
it seems to be fairly general practice to continue developing for games after release, live service or not. Perhaps Frontier should go down the 'Remastered' route. Seems to work for Bethesda.
rootsrat
Volunteer Moderator
I would p(l)ay the hell outta FE2 and FFE remasters!
Oooh... OOOHHH!!!
Now you've got me pining for something that won't exist...
Me too, if there was a macOS version
rootsrat
Volunteer Moderator
What about consoles tho? /runsMe too, if there was a macOS version
Only if it wasn't released for the latest generation, cos that would be ridiculous eh?
Last edited:
A bit over the top don't you think? I am not sure you understand what predatory marketing actually is. Because this isn't it.
This game has a solid base of unconditional supporters, that's one of the reasons why it is lasting for almost half a century now, since the original version was released
If anyone wants to suggest any boycott, then better wait a couple of decades, until next generation of players, and I guess not even then
If anyone wants to suggest any boycott, then better wait a couple of decades, until next generation of players, and I guess not even then
They're being clever because the Arx store not displaying the real world value in local currency and the FOMO aspects for cosmetics are things that have been called out in UK and EU reviews. The CPC Network and BEUC have been pushing for legislation to be enforced and its a good thing for consumers. Like anything to do with regulation it will take time to adjust and I'm sure FDev will comply with any requirements. However, to try and paint FDev as some predatory corporation is like trying to portray Pandas as killer bears.
I have over 9000 hours invested in X4 so can be considered quite the fan. I do think, and have suggested, that FDev take a leaf out of their book with more dlcs. Fdev's issue is they've been quite the opposite of predatory and have not extracted enough money to allow them to deliver regular fresh content, finish the content they've managed to release and resolve long standing bugs. X4 Foundations has had Split Vendetta, Cradle of Humanity, Tides of Avarice, Kingdom End, Timelines and the latest Hyperion Pack dlc since the initial release in 2018. This has allowed them to keep money flowing in for a single player game where they don't have to support a live service. I don't know about the other games but X4 certainly does make you pay and pay more often than ED if you want to get the full experience.
Expansions have been a thing in PC gaming as far back as I can remember singleplayer or not. Those games don't have running costs and because of this there is more money to invest into producing those larger expansions every couple of years and they don't really need to keep pumping out smaller content packs at regular intervals (though some may anyway). But my point was If we're comparing funding models, we really should be comparing like for like; live service to live service and aside from maybe NMS, I can't think of a game with a fairer one than Elite
Last edited: