Will lack of subscription kill Elite?
- Thread starter CMNDRMK
- Start date
- Status
Edit: deleted as OT.
Last edited:
Rofl, did you just compare single player campaign missions to the online of CoD and BF. Excuse me while I laugh my ass off here. And as for DayZ, if you want to count somrone going playing on an empty server with the chance of someone actually logging in and find them again, bad example. There is not one company out there who would be stupid enough to use this model, except for FD and they are going to shoot themselves in the foot because of it. Single players does not make a game grow.
*Worst case?!* I'd love to see that happen
That is not an answer to my question but to reply why should there be another game that uses the same model ? Innovation breaks things, it goes outside of what makes you comfy. I think this is a good example of that and needs to be tested instead of instantly detested.
Yeah we all know how badly that Skyrim game tanked... and those Dragon Age games, real shame about their poor earnings and longevity, oh dont forget the Bioshock games, real travesty there.
I guess we should have learned our lessons from those failures of single player games that they just don't succeed anymore.
Edward I am sure that regardless of what you post, some people will want to doomsay and make anything that FD say suit their own narrative, it would seem sadly that some people just get more out of in many cases speculation on what if buts and maybe. The internet is wonderful thing that gives everyone a voice however not every voice is reflective, or thoughtful.
They have incentive to develop the game this year for a console release in 9-11 months time. Judging by the PC release response, they can expect much monies in return on console.
And probably a fair return on expansions.
Server bandwidth must cost them something right now, but would reduce in relative terms over the years, perhaps to negligible levels. The have said they would release the code should they want to end their support/company goes bust, for others to run. Could the server(s) end up like ghost towns like Freelancer? Depends how good the game ends up being I guess.
What I don't quite understand is who will want to pay long term for 'ticket' answering. There will have to be an end to that sooner or later.
You can laugh all you want old bean but the fact remains that you asked for examples that used a model where assets earned off line could be brought in to, and used on line. I gave you said examples, campaign missions or not (cod4 allowed ranking unlocks to be done in a LAN environment). DayZ, in my opinion is valid as its a sandbox where you could disappear off into empty servers and gather equipment, or simply disappear into a corner and do the same thing (ring any bells?)
Just because it makes you laugh, doesnt make it not true!
Last edited:
If you live in the modern world there are tons of things you pay for by the hour, it might not be superficially described that way, but in effect that is what you are doing.
So much feels and emosh around this issue.
I refuse to pay a reasonable amount for a great product if it done X way instead of Y way.
Any way lock up the thread. Looks like there is no need to worry.
Not when it has multiplayer, herp derp. Yes, because CoD and BF thrived off their single player campaigns, right? RoflYeah we all know how badly that Skyrim game tanked... and those Dragon Age games, real shame about their poor earnings and longevity, oh dont forget the Bioshock games, real travesty there.
Last edited:
So games that offer more options are bad, and single player games can't succeed, and no other games use this model except for the other games that use this model, but they don't count, because you don't want them to.
Gotcha!
Frontier could make a subscription model work, even now.
1) Release the game (no more online only). Solo = solo, no internet connection needed.
2) Open play is MMO/server play. Not this P2P network crap.
So, basically, you could buy the game outright, and play by yourself. Or, you could pay a monthly sub, and subscribe to the "MMO" version. Of course, they would need the content to entice people and give them reasons to play on the server side; but yea. It could work.
1) Release the game (no more online only). Solo = solo, no internet connection needed.
2) Open play is MMO/server play. Not this P2P network crap.
So, basically, you could buy the game outright, and play by yourself. Or, you could pay a monthly sub, and subscribe to the "MMO" version. Of course, they would need the content to entice people and give them reasons to play on the server side; but yea. It could work.
Im not sure implementing a client / server system now would be in anyway feasible, in would constitute a vast financial and time investment. That ship sailed many many months ago.
No, having a single player mode is good. A solo play where you can take said solo character and bring it into multiplayer is not good And why is it a bad model?? Here is all the examples:
"I switch to solo play when I feel threatened by another player"
"I switch to solo play when I want to trade so I don't get killed by another player"
"I switch to solo play because I saw another player"
So when do the examples of why its bad start? Are you writing another post? You are very confusing.
You apprently do not know how to read. It's ok, ignorance is bliss.
- Status