Yay, Ty, i think you see what i'm on about
not some core change to the game... not forcing anyone to pay up. Just an option for a smother multiplayer experience, for them willing to pay for it.
Time to trial it? (Subscription users)
- Thread starter Sooden
- Start date
Yay, Ty, i think you see what i'm on about
not some core change to the game... not forcing anyone to pay up. Just an option for a smother multiplayer experience, for them willing to pay for it.
No, I don't pay Subs for any game.
As far as Elite goes atm, definitely not. The game isn't developed enough, there's still 'supposedly' things to be added in-game....we think!
Atmospheric Landings, Space Legs to name just a couple.....we think!!
Not to mention the raft of bugs still in the game & connection issues that aren't going away - the game is far from complete.
Frontier's secrecy policy, of not revealing a word about anything until the last seconds before release, would definitely be an off-putter to anyone thinking of long term subscriptions.
We're now into the 2nd month of the year & don't know what to expect as far as developments go for this year!!!
As far as Elite goes atm, definitely not. The game isn't developed enough, there's still 'supposedly' things to be added in-game....we think!
Atmospheric Landings, Space Legs to name just a couple.....we think!!
Not to mention the raft of bugs still in the game & connection issues that aren't going away - the game is far from complete.
Frontier's secrecy policy, of not revealing a word about anything until the last seconds before release, would definitely be an off-putter to anyone thinking of long term subscriptions.
We're now into the 2nd month of the year & don't know what to expect as far as developments go for this year!!!
I might be persuaded to pay a subscription for the right space game, but only a small subscription (Netflix-ish pricing, £6-8 pcm) and not for this game in this state. Much as I love ED, paying a fee for better stability in a game that has problems way beyond its networking issues would be sending the wrong message. But then I'm not a particularly social gamer; maybe if interaction was more important to me than stability and quality I might have to reconsider. Interaction would have to be really important, though, to overcome the other issues.
Exactly. It'd be like paying your ISP for extra bandwidth and guaranteed uptime, but sticking a Pentium II with 512MB RAM on the end of it. The connection might be more stable, but the experience won't be improved unless the most important thing is knowing it's stable.
BTW fair play at trying to pre-empt all the negativity with spoilered disclaimers and so steer the conversation in a more productive direction. I tried starting a thread like that once. It went about as well as this one is going. Eventually the thread might reach the point where it's attracting people who only read the OP then immediately hit Reply without gaining any further context, so you might need to add a TL;DR to the OP outlining some of the points already raised. That won't help either, but it's good practice for concise writing.
well, good thing that not really what the topics about. sure the title could give the impression its about a subscription based model, but back in my day, we read more than the headlines.
To clear up where we should should be up to now. As i have addressed a few things, but no one seems to check all the posts.
---
It more like a service, offering a more stable multi player experience, for them willing to pay for it. Not a forced payment to play the game... Not an advantage for paying a subscription. More like upgrading your connection to the game.
The game would be as it is, if (big if / unlikely if ) such a thing was introduced. and if it worked or failed, anyone that didn't want to partake in the server hosted instance mode... well they would be none the wiser... apart from maybe you would end up with a split between the standard P2P and Server hosted connection types... if people took up the option, in a trial. <something one poster brought up, as a fair point to talk about, but the topic when in reverse
And this is about an Open only open, as it about allowing Multi players to have a smoother experience... I know a few that have chimed in are rarely, if at all in open (but all input with valid, as long as your reading the thread as well ).
Last edited:
well, good thing that not really what the topics about. sure the title could give the impression its about a subscription based model, but back in my day, we read more than the headlines.
To clear where up where should should be up to now. As i have addressed a few things, but no one seems to check all the posts.
---
It more like a service, offering a more stable multi player experience, for them willing to pay for it. Not a forced payment to play the game... Not an advantage for paying a subscription. More like upgrading your connection to the game.
The game would be as it is, if (big if / unlikely if ) such a thing was introduced. and if it worked or failed, anyone that didn't want to partake in the server hosted instance mode... well they would be none the wiser... apart from maybe you would end up with a split between the standard P2P and Server hosted connection types... if people took up the option, in a trial. <something one poster brought up, as a fair point to talk about, but the topic when in reverse
And this is about an Open only open, as it about allowing Multi players to have a smoother experience... I know a few that have chimed in are rarely, if at all in open (but all input with valid, as long as your reading the thread as well ).
And that's why I then went on to say why Elite still isn't developed enough or stable enough to merit any subscription in the future.
Thanks for your input
nice to know that what i'm saying can be understood. I don't need people to agree with it, but it helps when we are all talking about the same thing. Im not here to fight (thats what open's for ) but to challenge my own ideas, by putting them in-front of others. I welcome the challenge and feedback, as long as it's about the topic. And its okay, i knew this would happen. I find it interesting, and learning a lot about the best ways to post in the future.
No thank you.
Elite is not an MMO to me. Just a single-coop updated version of the classic games.
I would pay more right now to see some of the ropey design decisions removed or rolled back. With more of the DDA items that I liked added instead. But that happening is as likely as me paying a sub for this game!
Elite is not an MMO to me. Just a single-coop updated version of the classic games.
I would pay more right now to see some of the ropey design decisions removed or rolled back. With more of the DDA items that I liked added instead. But that happening is as likely as me paying a sub for this game!
But you would not be paying for a sub to this game... what a strange things to say
Maybe, if so inclined, a sub to a service that provides a more stable connection (optional)... would be cool for larger player battles and events.You know, how we hear some of the PvP crowed say there needs to be development in the PvP area... well i would say the connection issue is a big one... and no matter how much we wish, the P2P connection type will never be that good, unless all computer in the P2P network are running Sweeet and have a super connection and pings.
I personally wouldnt pay for a sub to play this game, it would have to have all its bugs fixed first, and i don't see that happening any time soon.
You mentioned it these servers i am subbing for would be open only, so i would basically be paying a sub for the privilege of getting ganked but on a much better connection, no thanks.
I think there may be some legal reasons as to why it can't be done, it was a specific thing in the kickstarter campaign and the overwhelming majority did not want a subscription based game, so to make it subscription based, even as an added extra option i think there may be some legal issues, though do not know what exactly.
I subscription where you connect to these better servers would also split the playerbase, are you intending these servers to implement a different BGS shared only with these servers?
Already there is a lot of discussions on the different game modes affecting the BGS, adding another "mode" which is basically what this is, only a subscribed one, would cause outrage.
In terms of the coding, I'm a programmer not on any projects as massive as this, i can tell you for a fact that implementing this on a large codebase such as ED would be a nightmare, for everything you change, it has a ripple effect on everything else, otherwise known as bugs, the game would have to be rewritten, If there was a subscription model it would have to be done on a new game, not this current episode of the ED franchise.
All in all i think it's way too late in the day to implement such a system, and if it was implemented i wouldn't pay for it.
You mentioned it these servers i am subbing for would be open only, so i would basically be paying a sub for the privilege of getting ganked but on a much better connection, no thanks.
I think there may be some legal reasons as to why it can't be done, it was a specific thing in the kickstarter campaign and the overwhelming majority did not want a subscription based game, so to make it subscription based, even as an added extra option i think there may be some legal issues, though do not know what exactly.
I subscription where you connect to these better servers would also split the playerbase, are you intending these servers to implement a different BGS shared only with these servers?
Already there is a lot of discussions on the different game modes affecting the BGS, adding another "mode" which is basically what this is, only a subscribed one, would cause outrage.
In terms of the coding, I'm a programmer not on any projects as massive as this, i can tell you for a fact that implementing this on a large codebase such as ED would be a nightmare, for everything you change, it has a ripple effect on everything else, otherwise known as bugs, the game would have to be rewritten, If there was a subscription model it would have to be done on a new game, not this current episode of the ED franchise.
All in all i think it's way too late in the day to implement such a system, and if it was implemented i wouldn't pay for it.
I see this a lot on this topic, and I wonder if you realize the irony of it. A successful subscription model would take care of both of these issues.
Riôt
Just to prove to the OP that I did read their proposal: The concept is that FD charge a subscription so those that want to play in groups have a more stable connection. Did I get it right and pass the test
Have you looked at who your intended market is? Well it wouldn't be anyone who plays primarily in Solo because they are already happy by themselves and will never see another player. So they are happy with the current system. Next is PG's - I suspect a small quantity might want a better connection but again, I suspect the vast majority probably don't interact with other players anyway. That leaves Open. But how many of those are like me, play 90% of my time in open but have never, and will never, wing up or interact with another player. I play Open because well it 'feels right', no one can accuse me of hiding (lol) and I do like the added perceived danger of Open. So again, your target market is only those that either PvP or find the game is more enjoyable playing with friends (more often than not to PvP as a Wing).
My estimations - you would be catering to less than 10% of the current player base and probably 50% of those would maybe take up the offer. The numbers just aren't there. Even for something momentous like DW2. Yes having a stable MP platform would be have been nice at the launch but after that when everyone headed out - they might as well be saving their hard earned by reverting back to Solo or PG.
Now look at the mechanics of your concept. It would be a very large undertaking by FD. Not only rewrite the code for the new system but maintaining it. Every patch would have to be run against both networking systems, and since FD seems to have trouble accomplishing that with one network, one can imagine the problems when they have to do their 'Q&A' on two different systems.
Finally look at the game itself. ED is one of those games nearly everyone takes a break from. They might stop playing for a week, a month or even longer because they know that when that itch returns they can just dust of the HOTAS and jump straight back in with no financial loss. But that can't happen with a subscription game, if you do decide to take a break the first thing you do is cancel your subscription. Then when the itch returns you have to make that decision: do you just play normal ED or start paying extra again?
TL; DR version: I respectfully say No to your proposal.
Have you looked at who your intended market is? Well it wouldn't be anyone who plays primarily in Solo because they are already happy by themselves and will never see another player. So they are happy with the current system. Next is PG's - I suspect a small quantity might want a better connection but again, I suspect the vast majority probably don't interact with other players anyway. That leaves Open. But how many of those are like me, play 90% of my time in open but have never, and will never, wing up or interact with another player. I play Open because well it 'feels right', no one can accuse me of hiding (lol) and I do like the added perceived danger of Open. So again, your target market is only those that either PvP or find the game is more enjoyable playing with friends (more often than not to PvP as a Wing).
My estimations - you would be catering to less than 10% of the current player base and probably 50% of those would maybe take up the offer. The numbers just aren't there. Even for something momentous like DW2. Yes having a stable MP platform would be have been nice at the launch but after that when everyone headed out - they might as well be saving their hard earned by reverting back to Solo or PG.
Now look at the mechanics of your concept. It would be a very large undertaking by FD. Not only rewrite the code for the new system but maintaining it. Every patch would have to be run against both networking systems, and since FD seems to have trouble accomplishing that with one network, one can imagine the problems when they have to do their 'Q&A' on two different systems.
Finally look at the game itself. ED is one of those games nearly everyone takes a break from. They might stop playing for a week, a month or even longer because they know that when that itch returns they can just dust of the HOTAS and jump straight back in with no financial loss. But that can't happen with a subscription game, if you do decide to take a break the first thing you do is cancel your subscription. Then when the itch returns you have to make that decision: do you just play normal ED or start paying extra again?
TL; DR version: I respectfully say No to your proposal.
Last edited:
Just to prove to the OP that I did read their proposal: The concept is that FD charge a subscription so those that want to play in groups have a more stable connection. Did I get it right and pass the test
Have you looked at who your intended market is? Well it wouldn't be anyone who plays primarily in Solo because they are already happy by themselves and will never see another player. So they are happy with the current system. Next is PG's - I suspect a small quantity might want a better connection but again, I suspect the vast majority probably don't interact with other players anyway. That leaves Open. But how many of those are like me, play 90% of my time in open but have never, and will never, wing up or interact with another player. I play Open because well it 'feels right', no one can accuse me of hiding (lol) and I do like the added perceived danger of Open. So again, your target market is only those that either PvP or find the game is more enjoyable playing with friends (more often than not to PvP as a Wing).
My estimations - you would be catering to less than 10% of the current player base and probably 50% of those would maybe take up the offer. The numbers just aren't there. Even for something momentous like DW2. Yes having a stable MP platform would be have been nice at the launch but after that when everyone headed out - they might as well be saving their hard earned by reverting back to Solo or PG.
Now look at the mechanics of your concept. It would be a very large undertaking by FD. Not only rewrite the code for the new system but maintaining it. Every patch would have to be run against both networking systems, and since FD seems to have trouble accomplishing that with one network, one can imagine the problems when they have to do their 'Q&A' on two different systems.
Finally look at the game itself. ED is one of those games nearly everyone takes a break from. They might stop playing for a week, a month or even longer because they know that when that itch returns they can just dust of the HOTAS and jump straight back in with no financial loss. But that can't happen with a subscription game, if you do decide to take a break the first thing you do is cancel your subscription. Then when the itch returns you have to make that decision: do you just play normal ED or start paying extra again?
TL; DR version: I respectfully say No to your proposal.
Paying a subscription wouldn't just be for stable servers, it would be to ensure that FD keeps permanent staff on ED's development and bugfixing instead of just having them come in on the weekends.
Aside from the fact that I'll never pay a sub for a game, nor would I ever endorse P2W, but server based games have their own problems.
Where would the server be based? If it's in the UK, US and Aussie players are going to have 3 digit pings. Cue the endless forum threads about how unfair that is.
Where would the server be based? If it's in the UK, US and Aussie players are going to have 3 digit pings. Cue the endless forum threads about how unfair that is.
Does it? You are basically assuming that beyond covering costs and recouping any investment in this scheme that you have enough to pay extra people. Even if that was the case, as long as FD provided the contacted paid for service (which probably wouldn't include a commitment to keeping staff working on ED) any surplus is theirs to spend as they wish, whether that be on another project or buying DBOBE a fancy yacht. Of course if you weren't happy, you could start threatening to cancel your sub, which is one of the reasons the OP's suggestion is almost certainly a non starter anyway.
lets brake this down :
'-so i would basically be paying a sub for the privilege of getting ganked'
Yes, that's exactly what i'm saying. Note: That this is to offer the people that already use open, to interact with players, the option to have a smother experience. I know that's what it looks like i wrote, but your right... I really meant, i want people to pay for a open only service, in-witch they must partake in and get ganked (Now before you saying i'm being rude, white knights - common be fair
i'm being tormented here)See, look, i said you would be ''...these servers i am subbing for'..'
i know where i wrote ''I’m not saying force a subscription service'' it really says '' basically be paying a sub for the privilege of getting ganked''. how could i be so blind!
-''majority did not want a subscription based game''
Yes, i know, if only i had explained its not a subscription service to play the game. If i had explained, maybe 3 times now, how its more of a connection upgrade...if only >< but thank for bringing it up again.
-''I subscription where you connect to these better servers would also split the playerbase, are you intending these servers to implement a different BGS shared only with these servers?''
That ones interesting because it's almost as if you half understood what i was talking about, so a reasonable question... No, would be the same BGS, don't see why it would not. maybe you can tell me how my idea would impact the BGS (Not saying it wont, i just cant see how, and i'm asking you)
-"In terms of the coding, I'm a programmer " cool, so i'm i been doing it since i was 7, few years of 40 now
- as a coder i hope you can appreciate my thoughts on an emulated player as the host of an instance.. maybe that will put your worries of a huge game rewrite at bay.. i'm sure you read that bit... right?''All in all i think it's way too late in the day to implement such a system'' : it its already here in the form of P2p, Just modified version.. that emulated player i was taking about...
and this
''Already there is a lot of discussions on the different game modes affecting the BGS, adding another "mode" which is basically what this is, only a subscribed one, would cause outrage''
Outrage
yeah, people get outrage way to easy these days, made me smile 
I see a few problems...
Those paying the suggested subscription, would use server hosted instances. So no P2P for them.
Those opting out of the subscription, would still use the P2P model.
Now lets mix in friends, and player groups etc.
Take Elsa, she thinks it is worth paying a subscription, so she get the server hosted instance glory.
Elsa persuades her sister Anna to try the game, and Anna is not confident that it is worth paying a for a subscriptions.
How would Elsa play with Anna? Would they ever be able to instance together? How would this work? Would Anna be added to the server instance? or would Elsa be doing P2P?
And if players get upgrade to server hosted instances anyway, why pay?
If subscribers are forced to use P2P for playing with their friends, then what is the benefit of paying the subscription, as they would still have to deal with all the issues P2P brings.
I do not see how this would solve anything, and instead it would split the player base even more. As Open would now in practice be two different versions of the same Open.
Those paying the suggested subscription, would use server hosted instances. So no P2P for them.
Those opting out of the subscription, would still use the P2P model.
Now lets mix in friends, and player groups etc.
Take Elsa, she thinks it is worth paying a subscription, so she get the server hosted instance glory.
Elsa persuades her sister Anna to try the game, and Anna is not confident that it is worth paying a for a subscriptions.
How would Elsa play with Anna? Would they ever be able to instance together? How would this work? Would Anna be added to the server instance? or would Elsa be doing P2P?
And if players get upgrade to server hosted instances anyway, why pay?
If subscribers are forced to use P2P for playing with their friends, then what is the benefit of paying the subscription, as they would still have to deal with all the issues P2P brings.
I do not see how this would solve anything, and instead it would split the player base even more. As Open would now in practice be two different versions of the same Open.
Last edited:
Just to prove to the OP that I did read their proposal: The concept is that FD charge a subscription so those that want to play in groups have a more stable connection. Did I get it right and pass the test
Have you looked at who your intended market is? Well it wouldn't be anyone who plays primarily in Solo because they are already happy by themselves and will never see another player. So they are happy with the current system. Next is PG's - I suspect a small quantity might want a better connection but again, I suspect the vast majority probably don't interact with other players anyway. That leaves Open. But how many of those are like me, play 90% of my time in open but have never, and will never, wing up or interact with another player. I play Open because well it 'feels right', no one can accuse me of hiding (lol) and I do like the added perceived danger of Open. So again, your target market is only those that either PvP or find the game is more enjoyable playing with friends (more often than not to PvP as a Wing).
My estimations - you would be catering to less than 10% of the current player base and probably 50% of those would maybe take up the offer. The numbers just aren't there. Even for something momentous like DW2. Yes having a stable MP platform would be have been nice at the launch but after that when everyone headed out - they might as well be saving their hard earned by reverting back to Solo or PG.
Now look at the mechanics of your concept. It would be a very large undertaking by FD. Not only rewrite the code for the new system but maintaining it. Every patch would have to be run against both networking systems, and since FD seems to have trouble accomplishing that with one network, one can imagine the problems when they have to do their 'Q&A' on two different systems.
Finally look at the game itself. ED is one of those games nearly everyone takes a break from. They might stop playing for a week, a month or even longer because they know that when that itch returns they can just dust of the HOTAS and jump straight back in with no financial loss. But that can't happen with a subscription game, if you do decide to take a break the first thing you do is cancel your subscription. Then when the itch returns you have to make that decision: do you just play normal ED or start paying extra again?
TL; DR version: I respectfully say No to your proposal.
You pass
"The concept is that FD charge a subscription so those that want to play in groups have a more stable connection", close but not groups, just an open mode like we have now (not a replacement). reasons for open, that's where people go that want to interact, so where a more stable system would be best placed, to allow larger people in instances, and instancing of player around the world (Wish can and has been an issue)
''Have you looked at who your intended market is'', nope that not by job and its a lot of work
but i have seen the issue some player have that are streaming (not all, a lot of them are solo). At this stage, just putting the idea out there. Don't even know if there is a need for it (that's a different subject, stage 2 lol - get the idea correct first, before seeing if anyone is interested)''But how many of those are like me, play 90% of my time in open but have never, and will never, wing up or interact with another player'', yeah, i hardly see anyone one on my 100% open account. still nice to see the random player (risk) after all, i'm in open. I don't know what you would get from it, and the standard open option would be there, so no need to pay for a better connection if your not looking for larger groups. this is one point that is interesting... the player base split (but don't know if we really got to talking about that yet, mentioned but not much more)
''your target market is only those that either PvP or find the game is more enjoyable playing with friends'': yup 100% agree, at this point, i don't know if there is a call for it. if it viable, any of the details. I like to take one step at a time (and i cant know, only FDev could generate them projections). but what you say is correct. This is why it would have (from what i can see) little effect of the BGS over the current open...
as, if you go into a CZ with larger than a wing, it overkill. Thargoid hunting seem the same... and people can -with effort- , get 2 wings into an instance. Its about allowing lager gathering of wings and player in one instance, and they will probably just be killing each-other
as for ''My estimations'' i try not to estimate on numbers i don't have, not saying you don't have some numbers, maybe your right. and thanks, for a good post
somewhere over the rainbow
That would be for fdev to work out, and how many (emulated players) needed, and how to mesh them... and how much it would cost, and if it viable, along with, if there is enough of a call for such an option. I can't say where Fdev would place such server but with interpolation (kinda like filling in the missing data) on a server, we could see larger pings working out a lot better... and maybe get rid of that horrid jerky movement we see in current instances.
interesting. i could see it being a problem if the trial past, and an optional service was provided for a smoother instance... and if players stop paying... that could cause issue. But i cant see how that would swing much power over Fdeve.. apart from its an embarrassment if it fails
I would guess if it was implemented, they would try and recoup setup cost with 2 years if not less (a guess) and if no one is using it , just cutting the service is an option (hehe, like when people call to remove CQC, but its still here..i don't get it
)
Last edited: