Oh yes that's always going to be an issue, but what I could see is more planets as landables and better bios and environments as a DLC, with the old version of Horizons rolled into Odyssey, that way the Horizons players get an upgrade to the Odyssey landable content and legs, the keen players get a new DLC with new planets and bio but the player base isn't further fractured. So the point here is to not fracture the player base further. Rather than an interiors DLC fracturing the player base into 3, "Horizons", "Odyssey", "Odyssey with Interiors," keep the 2 we have now, Odyssey (with all the old Horizons payers) and "Odyssey with Interiors." That's how they did it with Odyssey, rolled the old original base game into Horizons, so we only had Horizons and Odyssey rather than the Original base game, Horizons and Odyssey.
ship interiors - will they happen
- Thread starter Woakes
- Start date
Oh yes that's always going to be an issue, but what I could see is more planets as landables and better bios and environments as a DLC, with the old version of Horizons rolled into Odyssey, that way the Horizons players get an upgrade to the Odyssey landable content and legs, the keen players get a new DLC with new planets and bio but the player base isn't further fractured. So the point here is to not fracture the player base further. Rather than an interiors DLC fracturing the player base into 3, "Horizons", "Odyssey", "Odyssey with Interiors," keep the 2 we have now, Odyssey (with all the old Horizons payers) and "Odyssey with Interiors." That's how they did it with Odyssey, rolled the old original base game into Horizons, so we only had Horizons and Odyssey rather than the Original base game, Horizons and Odyssey.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
I agree that rolling ody into base game would be the best for most of the players however horizons is still gonna have to be available to all due to the age rating difference . horizons is 7+ where as ody is 16.
The separation of the community is a mistake Frontier makes that always catches my attention. Frontier was the birthplace of the idea of creating an incredible space game, and at the same time, it had the understandable strategy of separating the community... For example, other MMORPGs when they release an expansion don't separate the community; some aspects of it are available to all players, while only a few are exclusive to those who bought the expansion. For example, being able to walk through the stations should be available to all players, while on-foot combat and on-foot exploration of the moons shouldn't. In any case, I don't see any impediment to making a couple of changes.
At present though community separation is mostly self inflicted, unless you're one of the abandoned console players. This is still baffling to this day. I would have expected Odyssey being released on the then new, now current gen consoles and we'd be having crossplay by now. I still hope FDEV look at that again in the future, there's money to be made. If you are on PC though and playing live, you are already running the Odyssey client. And the Odyssey feature unlock is regularly being sold at huge discount, even the base price has come down a lot.
When it comes to Ship Interiors, the question of how they would be introduced into Elite form a Buisness-PoV is indeed a very legitimate one.
It comes down to the following options:
1. It is a free update for everyone.
(The simplest solution with the largest potential customerbase for Interior Cosmetics, this however would mean that the Ship Interiors would likely be relatively minimalistic)
2. It is a free update for all Odyssey owners.
(This would likely still mean comparatively less fleshed out Ship Interiors, but it would have to act as an incent to buy Odyssey so it would have to offer at least SOME more)
3. It is a standalone Steam-DLC that functions idependently from Odyssey.
(A completely straightforward possibility, it is basically the median here but it does beg the VERY serious question of how it would affect current Odyssey-profits ...)
4. It becomes a Steam-DLC that requires Odyssey to be owned previously.
(This however would then be a "DLC for a DLC" and that is NEVER a smart buisness move, so while not impossible, I highly doubt FDevs execs will ever greenlight this route)
5. Odyssey is given away freely just like Horizons once was and Ship Interiors becomes the "third true expansion".
(This would then have to have VERY fleshed out Ship Interiors in order to attract enough customers to justify giving Odyssey away freely, and thus is relatively unlikely)
6. Ship Interiors are sold individually for Arx. {You could further branch this of into "Only for Odyssey owners" or "Everyone can buy them" but that really is not so important}
(First of all, this would undeniably be a rather "dirty" form of introduction, but in a twisted way, still an elegant one, as it does avoid the "DLC for a DLC" issue. This however would beg the question of how fleshed out any individual Ship Interior would be. E.g. I buy the Interior for say, the Imperial Eagle, it would likely be a fairly compact machine-room and nothing more, and then compare it to smth like the Panther XD + So how would you price them? 5$ for Small, 10$ for Medium & 15$ per Large XD?)
6.1. They go this route of "5$ per size".
(Yet if we would have to pay such prices, the Ship Interiors would have to be EXTREMELY fleshed out as well in order to justify that, therefore this is also rather unlikely.)
6.2. The only remaining alternative would then be to make the ENTIRE Ship Interiors basically nothing but another "cosmetic item", essentially entirely unneeded which {except for maybe Powerplant-Repair :/} would then make these prices appear in an entirely different light. Just like someone buying the insanely overpriced legendary skins for games like LeagueOfLeagends etc. but obviously, this would drastically reduce the potential customer-base and while I guarantee you, it would still be an absoulte gold-mine, there might actually be much more to be had with another option)
To conclude,
there is no "Golden Path" here. Every avenue here has its downsides and upsides.
IMO: Option 1, 2, 3 and 6.2 are all equally the most likely.
But I would personally go for option 2 and that's also where I'd bet my money on. As it would be relatively risk-free while also the most healthy balance between reaching a potential customerbase for the subsequent Interior Cosmetics, while simultaneously still incentivising at least some potential new customers to pay a for a DLC, as in here Odyssey, which would also come with the very neat bonus of (finally) seeing an actual big influx of positive reviews for it.
Yet really, I wouldn't complain about either of these and if I could choose my dream option: It would likely be option 6.1 XD But I know that FDev is likely unwilling to make such an investement.
But all-in-all, whatever way they choose, unless they completely remove their brains while doing so,
the $-profit will be MASSIVE!
It comes down to the following options:
1. It is a free update for everyone.
(The simplest solution with the largest potential customerbase for Interior Cosmetics, this however would mean that the Ship Interiors would likely be relatively minimalistic)
2. It is a free update for all Odyssey owners.
(This would likely still mean comparatively less fleshed out Ship Interiors, but it would have to act as an incent to buy Odyssey so it would have to offer at least SOME more)
3. It is a standalone Steam-DLC that functions idependently from Odyssey.
(A completely straightforward possibility, it is basically the median here but it does beg the VERY serious question of how it would affect current Odyssey-profits ...)
4. It becomes a Steam-DLC that requires Odyssey to be owned previously.
(This however would then be a "DLC for a DLC" and that is NEVER a smart buisness move, so while not impossible, I highly doubt FDevs execs will ever greenlight this route)
5. Odyssey is given away freely just like Horizons once was and Ship Interiors becomes the "third true expansion".
(This would then have to have VERY fleshed out Ship Interiors in order to attract enough customers to justify giving Odyssey away freely, and thus is relatively unlikely)
6. Ship Interiors are sold individually for Arx. {You could further branch this of into "Only for Odyssey owners" or "Everyone can buy them" but that really is not so important}
(First of all, this would undeniably be a rather "dirty" form of introduction, but in a twisted way, still an elegant one, as it does avoid the "DLC for a DLC" issue. This however would beg the question of how fleshed out any individual Ship Interior would be. E.g. I buy the Interior for say, the Imperial Eagle, it would likely be a fairly compact machine-room and nothing more, and then compare it to smth like the Panther XD + So how would you price them? 5$ for Small, 10$ for Medium & 15$ per Large XD?)
6.1. They go this route of "5$ per size".
(Yet if we would have to pay such prices, the Ship Interiors would have to be EXTREMELY fleshed out as well in order to justify that, therefore this is also rather unlikely.)
6.2. The only remaining alternative would then be to make the ENTIRE Ship Interiors basically nothing but another "cosmetic item", essentially entirely unneeded which {except for maybe Powerplant-Repair :/} would then make these prices appear in an entirely different light. Just like someone buying the insanely overpriced legendary skins for games like LeagueOfLeagends etc. but obviously, this would drastically reduce the potential customer-base and while I guarantee you, it would still be an absoulte gold-mine, there might actually be much more to be had with another option)
To conclude,
there is no "Golden Path" here. Every avenue here has its downsides and upsides.
IMO: Option 1, 2, 3 and 6.2 are all equally the most likely.
But I would personally go for option 2 and that's also where I'd bet my money on. As it would be relatively risk-free while also the most healthy balance between reaching a potential customerbase for the subsequent Interior Cosmetics, while simultaneously still incentivising at least some potential new customers to pay a for a DLC, as in here Odyssey, which would also come with the very neat bonus of (finally) seeing an actual big influx of positive reviews for it.
Yet really, I wouldn't complain about either of these and if I could choose my dream option: It would likely be option 6.1 XD But I know that FDev is likely unwilling to make such an investement.
But all-in-all, whatever way they choose, unless they completely remove their brains while doing so,
the $-profit will be MASSIVE!
Last edited:
Fracturing your player base was never a good idea, but maybe they thought it necessary due to the increased demands of the game, forcing someone to upgrade to a version that wouldn't run properly on their existing hardware versus allowing them to continue playing on their old hardware on the old version. A choice maybe of losing players whatever they did but this way they lost fewer players, and those old players would possibly hang around long enough to buy new hardware and eventually upgrade to the latest version. I mean who knows what the thought process was, but I am sure there was some thought in it.
Ummm...
You do know that steam is not the only platform that launches ED/O?
... maybe not...
Well I use Steam as baseline, because Steam is THE Lord of PC-Gaming.
Yet even if it wasn't, this is completely irrelevant for the topic of Ship Interiors at hand -.-
As wether the DLC is distributed over Steam or over their Website, amounts to 100% the exact same concerns.
Now, of course I know that FDev (just like any dev) would LOVE not to have to pay Steam 30%,
but ... you do know that there is a very good reason as to why Gamerkind stands behind our Steam with unflinching resolve?
... Maybe not ;D
Last edited:
I would like to see lootable and potentially salvageable derelicts. Whereby, having located a vessel, you get up from your seat, get to the airlock, EVA across, enter the derelict to explore and investigate, and do what you can.
If you can get the ship running, you can take the contents of the hold and connect a tether to tow the vessel to the closest starport to claim it or just sell it.
I'd pre-order this DLC.
Honestly no, I don't. Whilst it is the preeminent platform of its kind and the reviews are usually helpful, I'm not aware of a particular reason for any unflinching resolve, and I happily use GOG and other proprietary platforms such as UbiSoft.
Do tell!
Happy to [But I will only reply to this once as I do not want to change this forums topic
]:Because Steam is on the customers' side.
Steam acts as a protector against the worst kinds of developer-"abuse" so to speak.
It is essentially an insurance. It allows for DIRECT reviews displayed RIGHT next to the product, and even DIRECT refunds, to name just a few of its perks.
OFC other platfroms offer similar benefits but NONE are as honest and clearly customer-sided as Steam.
NOW DON'T MISSUNDERSTAND ME!
Steam isn't perfect, and neither is Steam beyond the approach of other forces, (Such as Paymer-Service-Providers :/)
but all in all:
Steam is Gamerkinds best friend by FAR in the vast Internet.
And to close it off:
What are the alternatives?
EA? EPIC? Blizzard?
There were many that tried to "subvert" Steam, even Microsoft tried once with their EXTREMELY horrible Windows-Live system back in the day XD
All failed, and that for a very simple reason: They put the developers monetary intrests first before the end customer (us).
Which begs the question: Why the hell do we need this third-party in the first place?
We could then instead just as well trust every Devs shady website individually with our money each time anew.
Only Steam shone through the mist.
Last edited:
Thanks for taking the time, much appreciated. I won't reply, for the reasons you state.Happy to [But I will only reply to this once as I do not want to change this forums topic
...
Ah, a bit like interiors then?
Yep, they just removed thousands of titles to protect the gamers from themselves.
As I said:
You can thank these exact forces for that, Mastercard and so on.
They don't want pornographic stuff etc. to be associated with them over these channels.
Think of that what you will.
BUT HEY
This is a free world!
You can continue to trust sites like "AwEsOME_Games_XXX_2000 _Gold!!!" instead if you wish
And about that:
Ship Interiors are the baseline of this entire forum yes.
And people want them
Fascinating isn't it
?oh dear lord. that is one way to totally torpedoing your credibility
. (just pulling your leg)it does trigger me a bit however how valve can do no wrong .. despite them being the company who really were the 1st to push the whole forcibly installing 3rd party bloat to play a game combined with selling games as a service not as a product.
it all started with half life 2. At least back in the day valve made games rather than just taking 30% off everyone who does make games.
Last edited:
Look, I get you were trying to be on the light side with this post & this is hoepfully the last time I will even spend words on this specific topic;oh dear lord. that is one way to totally torpedoing your credibility
it does trigger me a bit however how valve can do no wrong ..
But I do feel that it is important to say this:
A. As I replied before, I specifically said that:
B. Nevertheless I fully and absolutely stand behind Steam for reasons given in the very same post, and if stating so "torpedos my credibility
" (even if just as a joke),then I honestly don't care all too much for whatever potential credibility I lost with people that would rather see the market dominated by the likes of EPIC etc.
and
C.
THIS is the post that matters XD
If you must, pretend that instead of "Steam-DLC" it sais "Hugabuga-DLC", it is essentially 100% irrelevant for the topic at hand XD²
I was actually looking forward to debating ppl on this, but not on Steam itself XD³
This is not the place for that.
Last edited:
I do see a lot of those types of adult games all over the place on steam. I really don't get it but I guess that's because I'm 73 now soon to turn 74. And that sort of thing just doesn't appeal to me.
But even if MasterCard were to say no to this kind of stuff I do have a bunch of money in my steam wallet that's already there.
Good! -A long standing wishlist item, and a standalone item to boot; One that could conceivably be built by a separate team.
From the existence of the tutorials, It is evident that FDev has facilites in place to spin off a specialised solo- (...and maybe group, too?) -instance, and to script events and callbacks; What we do not know, is how finicky those are to work with, nor just how difficult it is for the director to avoid sequence-breaking states in a game with as much player freedom as Elite.
How much reduction of complexity and involvement do you think they could get away with, though, balanced against potential audience size? -Sooner or later their tools are bound to limit what they can do, and cutscenes (FMV or non-interrupting in-game events) are expensive to produce, especially if they involve voice acting and/or performance capture...
How about such a fold-in of Odyssey, with the replacing "current active expansion" being the addition of EVA and entering all kinds of structures in space for numerous new gameplay mode/scenario reasons, with regular walking, 0g, and magnetic attachment all present and seamlessly intertransitioning? ...because something like that is what I for one have in mind with interiors, with moving around inside one's own ship as a prerequisite/side-benefit part of that. (Maybe more in-depth NPC interaction, whilst they're at it -- both procedural and scripted)...
With current practices, I fear this would probably, and unfortunately, involve a whole new set of locations, separate from existing ones, just like with Odyssey settlements and points of interest, again in order to separate the haves and the haves not...
Keep the thoughts coming, anybody who has them, because I for one am genuinely curious whether after these decades of online gaming, somebody could still come up with a new monetisation model, or new modification of existing model, which would let FDev make a neat profit, whilst giving customers at large a feeling they get a fair deal, without splitting the playerbase. (Obviously, with a subscription model everybody would usually be on the same build (there are always exceptions, of course), but on the other hand, it is my belief that one major selling point of ED, is that there are no regularly recurring expenses.)
On a more intemediary note; What sort of non-paid value-add updates to Odyssey do people feel could get the greater part (...not just: "me and my immediate friends") of those players who gave it a pass, and maybe left the game altogether, to reconsider their decision? (The "ship interior" crowd has already made their thoughts on the matter quite clear, I think. :7)
I keep wondering how Yannis Varoufakis may feel about having been part of setting the modern videogame monetisation snowball rolling...oh dear lord. that is one way to totally torpedoing your credibility
it does trigger me a bit however how valve can do no wrong .. despite them being the company who really push the whole forcibly installing 3rd party bloat to play a game combined with selling games as a service not as a product.
it all started with half life 2. At least back in the day valve made games rather than just taking 30% off everyone who does make games.
Last edited:
Frontier's current attempt seems to be converting it into a ship pack. Only they know if it's working, of course, but it seems a pretty good choice in general:
- Odyssey sold very well on pre-orders and pre-release hype to the "walking around" fans, which wasn't enough, so broadening it rather than hoping that there's a huge number of people who were into "walking around but not like that" is probably a better idea
- unlike a lot of potential features, ships don't require other players to be using them for you to also get value from them, and don't split the playerbase as such by including them
- they can be added incrementally and on a fairly non-specific schedule without delays really being a problem
- they can add 4 new ships a year every year for the next decade if they want to and not run out of potential ships
- a ship which ends up not being popular just gets ignored (and can potentially be tweaked a little), whereas a headline feature which ends up not being popular is a much bigger failed investment of time and harder to fix.
I play ED:O on Frontier's platform. I don't see a reason to change it to Steam atm. I have no idea what the split is for ED on Steam or Frontier. There's probably a lot of old timers (like me) who don't launch it from Steam.
GL HF