[QUESTION] Should game updates be paid for?

[Cmdr Travers]

WHEN RESPONDING TO THIS PLEASE SET ASIDE ANY FEELINGS ABOUT CURRENT BUGS IN 2.3

---

Frontier announced a nice increase in profits this week, and congratulations to them for it. It's also brilliant that, aside from Seasons (of which we've only had one anyway) there's so much new free content in the game.

There's been so many new features in 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 (bugs aside) that it does leave me wondering if we shouldn't be, at least able, to pay a contribution to what could be reasonably considered new seasons in themselves.

I say this because we all want the game to press ahead and develop. This takes money. As a lifetime expansion pass owner the only way I have to contribute is through buying items from the store, which many of you do as well. If I want to contribute to future development and help us get atmospheric landings, space legs, outpost ownership etc. I've simply no way of doing it. For all of you who had to pay for Horizons, Frontier did in my own opinion charge considerably less than any other games company would for the same thing.

So what are your thoughts? Is £10 or £20 or perhaps more for each expansion as they come through reasonable? Should there be another way to contribute to game development? Or do you believe the game is already expensive enough?

 

[Straha Yeagar]

Well, given what I like to do in the game, I would have absolutely bought 2.0 planetary landings, maybe engineers, but nothing else. I think moving forward, the consideration to move away from Seasons is good as long as the various updates, DLC's can be mixed and matched with no forced upgrades. I am absolutely not going to buy anything on faith ever again. It has to be content I actually want, and I will buy it after it has been proven stable.

 

[Monk]

I could not justifiably call any of the 2.x updates content worthy of individual seasons. All together, yeah, of course that's a season's worth of content or as I prefer to call seasons, Slowly Released Expansion.

To me a season should be equivalent to what used to be called an Expansion. Think of Skyrim's Dragonborn, it added new areas, new functionality and new content, all at once.

Though, it probably doesn't matter as it appears Frontier is going to a DLC model where you pay for each feature release. Hopefully bug fixes and fill-in content are free.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

I think the problem of paying-per-version is that you start to get an increasingly fragmented player base. As it stands we've effectively got two player bases (Horizons and non-Horizons).

I'd personally not object to paying what would amount to a once-a-year subscription (of, say, £50 - a pound a week) that grants you all versions automatically, but I'm sure plenty of other players would object to that.

 

[JonLuis69]

Well, you could buy the game for friends. The word should in your title implies obligation...for updates, not expansions but updates.

So I don't think we should.

 

[lenna]

As an LEP owner also, we have already paid our way.

For non-LEP owners, only in the current Seasons sense.

Each season should include exclusive features that are only available to those that have paid for them.

TO BE 100% CLEAR - No, I believe adding a subscription or other supplemental cost for updates over and above the Seasons/LEP approach is neither necessary nor a good idea.

 

[Shadowdancer]

Why are people so keen on paying more for the game itself when apparently Frontier are doing well financially?

If you want to give them money, head on over to the store or mail them a cheque, address is on their contact page

 

[Cmdr Travers]

Well, you could buy the game for friends. The word should in your title implies obligation...for updates, not expansions but updates.

So I don't think we should.

That's semantics really. By "update" I mean a non-season expansion

 

[Shadowdancer]

That's semantics really. By "update" I mean a non-season expansion

Whatever's coming after Horizons may well be that.

 

[Rob At Work]

We should pay FDev for forum access - I think.

 

[Mengy]

I’d love to spend more of my money supporting Frontier’s development of the game, but to do that I would first need a plan by them for what I am supporting. A roadmap, a development schedule, a list of items they want to implement and some assurance that the core mechanics of the game will not be forever neglected but instead will also be developed and improved upon. I want to know what I’m buying into, as I do not give money freely to people who keep secrets as to what my money is buying me. I don’t need precise dates and I of course understand that plans can change in development, but there has to be communication which inspires confidence that my money is being used for something I will enjoy.

I’m willing, my wallet is ready, but this secret roadmap crap has to be dragged out into the street and shot and buried. And I hate to say it but you only need look at their competition, and yes I mean that “other” space sim, to see a great example of what I am talking about.

 

[Kayweg]

That's semantics really. By "update" I mean a non-season expansion

Just trying to get this right here, couldn't really make that out from the OP.
You are talking about the base game updates/additions which are not season specific ?
Or a possible future content DLC strategy, as a replacement or addition to the current season model ?

 

[Cmdr Travers]

We should pay FDev for forum access - I think.

With a big of luck that would keep the complainers and idiots out

As an LEP owner also, we have already paid our way.

For non-LEP owners, only in the current Seasons sense.

Each season should include exclusive features that are only available to those that have paid for them.

TO BE 100% CLEAR - No, I do believe adding a subscription or other supplemental cost for updates over and above the Seasons/LEP approach is neither necessary nor a good idea.

I'll admit that this makes my question moot, as it would be extremely difficult, nay impossible for Frontier to change their business model for the game now when it comes to Lifetime Expansion Pass owners. For everybody else though... perhaps 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 could have cost £10 each.

Though now I'm saying "I'd get it free and you should all have to pay for it" I probably sound like a di**. That's not my intention

 

[JonLuis69]

That's semantics really. By "update" I mean a non-season expansion

Lol ok, call it semantics if you like or...use the right word, because the two are not the same thing at all.

I don't understand what you mean then, are you calling for just the LEP holders to pay? Because as far as I know the rest already do pay for expansions.

 

[Demascus]

I am curious, what is all this "free" content you speak of. I do believe the current price for seasons is appropriate. FD is doing fine financially and I imagine they will continue to ride this cosmetic train for as long as they can. Which is fine.

 

[Vasco Sapien]

I think the problem of paying-per-version is that you start to get an increasingly fragmented player base. As it stands we've effectively got two player bases (Horizons and non-Horizons).

Agreed. And the game would be even more buggy for it, as the devs try to reconcile functions across all the different versions and accesses.


---


This thread has happened before and i still cannot understand the mind set that in one thought says Fdev are making money hand over fist, and then in the next argues that we should pay more money to help development!?!?!
Obviously they are making money and that the games is in profit. Yet despite this increase in profitability the development of ED is still slow and riddled with bugs, So what does throwing more money at it achieve.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

this secret roadmap crap has to be dragged out into the street and shot and buried.

Honest question: does any other games company publish their roadmaps?

 

[-=VampyrE=-]

It is ok the way it is, i think
Only 60 for a Season. No Abo! Great!

 

[Cmdr Travers]

This thread has happened before and i still cannot understand the mind set that in one thought says Fdev are making money hand over fist, and then in the next argues that we should pay more money to help development!?!?!
Obviously they are making money and that the games is in profit. Yet despite this increase in profitability the development of ED is still slow and riddled with bugs, So what does throwing more money at it achieve.

I'm just throwing this out there because we all want more features and expansion in the game, but those cost money. They need developers, and so the more available cash the company has, the more developers they can hire... and so on.

So the theory goes anyway

 

[PiLhEaD]

I think FDev should try as hard as they can to keep to the lowest number of variants of ED available as is possible. I'd suggest <current highest> and <current highest - 1>.

I've worked on complex real-time system with ever diverging customisations per client, and it become an absolute nightmare to maintain and test.

So people being able to opt in and out of updates as they arrive, sounds like a recipe for more problems. (I appreciate this isn't what the OP is driving at.)

As for choosing how much we pay per update, no. Price them sensibly, and let those who want to spend more do so through the store.