Or you get only one possible character? I want to split the cost with a friend, and maybe play on the same account (not in the same time of course). But I want to know how that works first...
Can you share your account with someone?
- Thread starter dreamer1986
- Start date
Rumoured to have 3 commanders - yet to be implemented.
Right now you have 1 - clear the save and you start over but the previous commander is gone forever. (No local save)
I am also not sure if it authorizes a machine, so that installing it on two machines would require de-authorizing one to enable the other - if so, that would require phone calls or other contact between the two of you, to agree "Are you going on? I want to authorize my machine to be the one it's active on."
Some people are probably going to want to shoot me for saying this, but the extra commander slots sounds like something they should implement as a micro-transaction. Say $5 a slot. I know I'd buy at least one.
FD gets some additional funding for continued development, and players an additional feature they desire. win-win.
FD gets some additional funding for continued development, and players an additional feature they desire. win-win.
3 commanders? that would be so awesome . But the authorization stuff sounds like a pain. Maybe they can implement a system like Family Sharing in Steam. You authorize a system once by logging in, and that's it.
. But the authorization stuff sounds like a pain. Maybe they can implement a system like Family Sharing in Steam. You authorize a system once by logging in, and that's it.
It's a log-in, so I don't know as there'd be a need to authorize/deauthorize the machine. Probably can only be logged in on one machine at a time, though.
Some people are probably going to want to shoot me for saying this, but the extra commander slots sounds like something they should implement as a micro-transaction. Say $5 a slot. I know I'd buy at least one.
FD gets some additional funding for continued development, and players an additional feature they desire. win-win.
I'm not going to shoot you for saying that though I do disagree. Micro-transactions should never be implemented into games. All it serves is to give Developers an excuse to charge people for services that would otherwise be free.
Public voice is a powerful thing, if enough people want something then it may be added or a compromise may be made. This in turn provides more reason to make people want to buy the game in the first place. The game company gets extra money for selling more games and the players get more and more features for free. That to me is a win-win.
Last edited:
Each payment model has its plusses and minuses. We just have to accept this is the model this game is going to have and move on.
As it is log-in based, and your save is in 'the cloud', your purchase of the game is essentially a license for one account.
It would be very nice if one could have two or three save slots per account. Think families with multiple teenage kids who want to play. I don't think they would want to share the same save, and being a father I would not want to pay $50 x number of children for a single game. In this day and age, you have to be a 1%'er to afford that sort of lifestyle.
Now, as for how to deal with teenage kids fighting over who plays... that is a different issue haha.
As for the pay-for save slot idea. Ok. That might work. But there should be at least two, possibly 'free' saves by default. The DLC concept (downloadable content) or pay-for methodology for developers needs to be handled very carefully. If the customer base feels they are being nickel and dimed, it will hurt not help the product. I'm tired of so many trimmed down software packages that essentially are engineered to force you to buy and download the next pack. One ingenious indie game developer made a game called DLC-quest in mock of this methodology. You don't even get core game functions until you get the appropriate DLC through the game with in-game money. The point of the game is to quest in order to earn cash to buy yourself components to give yourself a functional game. The tell-tale sign of this behavior is when a developer releases a game, then suddenly a month later releases a slew of DLC to populate the sparse game they released in the first place. $15 horse armor. $20 graphics update. $25 sound pack. All after paying some $60 for a very sparse core product. I refuse to buy into such games out of principle no matter how 'popular' they are.
My perspective (from being a senior employee at a very large software engineering firm myself), it should be ok to install on multiple systems. However a single given account should only be allowed to log in from one system at a given time. A provision to allow two logins with a single account would be technically possible, but only if they had some way to register two or more licenses per login account. Anyway, I'm digressing into territory that Frontier probably isn't considering.
Back to the point. Yes, Elite needs to have multiple saves for a single account. Maybe I want to play a hardcore evil pirate type in one game, and a Federation pirate hunter in the next.
P.S.
Does anyone else hate referring to Elite Dangerous as E.D. as I do? I keep thinking that I'm talking about erectile dysfunction LOL.
It would be very nice if one could have two or three save slots per account. Think families with multiple teenage kids who want to play. I don't think they would want to share the same save, and being a father I would not want to pay $50 x number of children for a single game. In this day and age, you have to be a 1%'er to afford that sort of lifestyle.
Now, as for how to deal with teenage kids fighting over who plays... that is a different issue haha.
As for the pay-for save slot idea. Ok. That might work. But there should be at least two, possibly 'free' saves by default. The DLC concept (downloadable content) or pay-for methodology for developers needs to be handled very carefully. If the customer base feels they are being nickel and dimed, it will hurt not help the product. I'm tired of so many trimmed down software packages that essentially are engineered to force you to buy and download the next pack. One ingenious indie game developer made a game called DLC-quest in mock of this methodology. You don't even get core game functions until you get the appropriate DLC through the game with in-game money. The point of the game is to quest in order to earn cash to buy yourself components to give yourself a functional game. The tell-tale sign of this behavior is when a developer releases a game, then suddenly a month later releases a slew of DLC to populate the sparse game they released in the first place. $15 horse armor. $20 graphics update. $25 sound pack. All after paying some $60 for a very sparse core product. I refuse to buy into such games out of principle no matter how 'popular' they are.
My perspective (from being a senior employee at a very large software engineering firm myself), it should be ok to install on multiple systems. However a single given account should only be allowed to log in from one system at a given time. A provision to allow two logins with a single account would be technically possible, but only if they had some way to register two or more licenses per login account. Anyway, I'm digressing into territory that Frontier probably isn't considering.
Back to the point. Yes, Elite needs to have multiple saves for a single account. Maybe I want to play a hardcore evil pirate type in one game, and a Federation pirate hunter in the next.
P.S.
Does anyone else hate referring to Elite Dangerous as E.D. as I do? I keep thinking that I'm talking about erectile dysfunction LOL.
I understand what you're saying, and I'm not going to say that I like microtransactions, but it's a model that's been proven to work.
My guess is that they would make a lot more selling extra commander slots to existing customers than they would make from additional game sales based solely on the fact that they included that extra feature with the game.
...oh, and sorry to the OP for taking the thread a little off-topic. oh well.
Going to have? Have I missed an announcement that ED is having micro-transactions? I had assumed from Andovar's post that he wanted to implement a Micro-transaction model rather than one being planned already.
Though that is true ED is a game that I don't see any need for Micro-Transactions.
I know what you are getting at and I agree FD could make much more money using Micro-Transactions but I feel it just gives companies and excuse to squeeze every penny from players for features that should/could be free.
...oh, and sorry to the OP for taking the thread a little off-topic. oh well.
I agree. Sorry OP.
Last edited:
3 commanders? that would be so awesome
Naa, there is no DRM. Just your account which is linked to the license for the game.
They probably won't let you log in to the same account more than once though. But I think it would be a nice feature if they allowed 2 people to play off the same login, to encourage group/social play. No other online game has tried that yet, maybe ED could set a new trend
Last edited:
...oh, and sorry to the OP for taking the thread a little off-topic. oh well.
It's okay, I don't mind
. And I agree that multiple saves would help a lot in my situation