We're talking about skin-packs, which change the appearance of your coasters or guests, etc.
If you don't have the dlc, you will just see the default skins. - This wouldn't affect the gameplay/workshop.
Question about Paid Add-On Content and Workshop Downloads
- Thread starter breezerHOG1
- Start date
If you don't have the dlc, you will just see the default skins. - This wouldn't affect the gameplay/workshop.
Having more props/animatronics to existing themes could work. i.e Big Bad Wolf or 3 Little Pigs, or Aliens/Space Creatures. No matter what Frontier do, people will moan. The question is how many people will buy skin packs, as that sort of thing doesn't really interest me whatsoever.
I play through games on the default character settings, I have no interest dressing up a virtual doll.
I play through games on the default character settings, I have no interest dressing up a virtual doll.
In terms of blueprints I can see this working very similarly to how TS4 works. You can still download everything, but for the packs you dont have that stuff maybe just ripped out. In most cases its not a big deal. In some cases odd large segments are just missing of buildings. Kinda funny to look at.
... Annnnnnnnd, here we are ...
Since PlanetCoaster is a theme park simulation game, which mean that one of the main goal of the game is to build a theme park using themed content, It would be absolutely discriminating to charge in-game cosmetic objects/theme/skins, since this is the basis of the gameplay. The same way it would be discriminating to charge a better weapon in a competitive FPS, or to charge a faster vehicle in a racing game. (Some studios do it anyway, but they pay the price, with a degraded image, disrespect of their community, criticism in the press, or unscrupulously massive piracy of their productions, denuvo or not)
The gameplay of thIs game is entirely based on two concepts : the "management" in one hand, and the "building" on the other hand, which mean "using cosmetic content".
No element can be "sold separately" in either of these two aspects without creating financial discrimination between the players.
The one and only thing that would counterbalance a disgusting practice like that, would be to offer the possibility for all players to import their own content. In this case, players who can not afford "official" content could, at least, download free UGC. (It would not bleach Frontier of course, but it would help to sweeten the pill, at least a little)
... but IF the "cosmetic optional purchases" (yes, "microtransactions", call a cat a cat) are applied to elements that does not enter in direct interaction with the gameplay, for example everything that is considered as a "skin" not related to the gameplay, like the skins for our 3D avatar (haircuts, clothes, hats, beards and whiskers, disguises, etc ...) or the skin of the interface (themes, icons, additional colors and textures for the UI, etc.), or skins for the mascots (like the actual "gold mascot", but warning, not new mascots which is related to the gameplay), or anything like that, that does not create differences of what players can create/build/drop or not in the game, according to their wallet, then ... it's 100% fine !
The same way that I have nothing against the paying cosmetic chests sold by Blizzard on Overwatch for example, since it changes absolutely nothing to the gameplay of the game itself, and also generates a regular income for the studio allowing us to have free update with new content and game mechanics regularly in exchange.
To summarize, 3 solutions :
- The worst solution is to sell new rides, new shops, rides and shops skins, themed scenery objects, animatronics, mascots etc...
- The "little less worse" solution is to sell that, but offer a strong UGC tool in exchange, to reduce the weight of the injustice caused by your stupid and venal decision.
- The fair play solution is to sell only elements that does not affect the gameplay (because yes, I repeat, in this game "the cosmetic aspect" of buildings and rides is an integral part of the gameplay) like "avatar/mascots/guests skins", while explaining that the free updates will continue in return.
The future will say if you want to sell your soul to the devil or if the balance between the profit of your company and the player's respect will remain fair, and if you are the gentle or the villain of the story.
Since PlanetCoaster is a theme park simulation game, which mean that one of the main goal of the game is to build a theme park using themed content, It would be absolutely discriminating to charge in-game cosmetic objects/theme/skins, since this is the basis of the gameplay. The same way it would be discriminating to charge a better weapon in a competitive FPS, or to charge a faster vehicle in a racing game. (Some studios do it anyway, but they pay the price, with a degraded image, disrespect of their community, criticism in the press, or unscrupulously massive piracy of their productions, denuvo or not)
The gameplay of thIs game is entirely based on two concepts : the "management" in one hand, and the "building" on the other hand, which mean "using cosmetic content".
No element can be "sold separately" in either of these two aspects without creating financial discrimination between the players.
The one and only thing that would counterbalance a disgusting practice like that, would be to offer the possibility for all players to import their own content. In this case, players who can not afford "official" content could, at least, download free UGC. (It would not bleach Frontier of course, but it would help to sweeten the pill, at least a little)
... but IF the "cosmetic optional purchases" (yes, "microtransactions", call a cat a cat) are applied to elements that does not enter in direct interaction with the gameplay, for example everything that is considered as a "skin" not related to the gameplay, like the skins for our 3D avatar (haircuts, clothes, hats, beards and whiskers, disguises, etc ...) or the skin of the interface (themes, icons, additional colors and textures for the UI, etc.), or skins for the mascots (like the actual "gold mascot", but warning, not new mascots which is related to the gameplay), or anything like that, that does not create differences of what players can create/build/drop or not in the game, according to their wallet, then ... it's 100% fine !
The same way that I have nothing against the paying cosmetic chests sold by Blizzard on Overwatch for example, since it changes absolutely nothing to the gameplay of the game itself, and also generates a regular income for the studio allowing us to have free update with new content and game mechanics regularly in exchange.
To summarize, 3 solutions :
- The worst solution is to sell new rides, new shops, rides and shops skins, themed scenery objects, animatronics, mascots etc...
- The "little less worse" solution is to sell that, but offer a strong UGC tool in exchange, to reduce the weight of the injustice caused by your stupid and venal decision.
- The fair play solution is to sell only elements that does not affect the gameplay (because yes, I repeat, in this game "the cosmetic aspect" of buildings and rides is an integral part of the gameplay) like "avatar/mascots/guests skins", while explaining that the free updates will continue in return.
The future will say if you want to sell your soul to the devil or if the balance between the profit of your company and the player's respect will remain fair, and if you are the gentle or the villain of the story.
WingardiumLevicoaster
Volunteer Moderator
The avatars visit your parks, and with potential notifications in the works as mentioned by AndyC, it may be worth something to someone. Certainly worth something to people with VIP passes. [happy]
Last edited:
If this is going to be like Elite Dangerous, get ready to pay $5 for flat ride skins.
[down]
[down]
Avatar items are not really a concern to me, if they want to charge for them so be it, but I think there should also be some we can unlock for free from playing the game too. However, I do think the VIP Group and Staff pass were a bit over priced, and I'm not sure how many people actually would want to pay more to add a hat on them [tongue] you can't change a Staff outfit, anyway.
Wasn't the guest editor included free with RCT3? Everybody should be able to have a group guest if they wanted... I don't understand why it was a limited time pre-order thing
Last edited:
You're basically claiming that any game with a creative component can't sell anything from expansion packs to microtransactions without violating some compact with the players.
This is a single player game which means that selling power isn't even a concern. They could sell a flat ride with 20 excitement and 0 fear and 0 nausea that every ticket sells for $50 and it wouldn't matter because it's still just a single player game.
Just because a game isnt "competitive" doesnt mean it should allow money to buy easier ways of completing objectives. Games like that lose their value quickly. But, I don't think that is what the devs are doing so that should not be a concern.
I do think it would be cool if PC had a leader board of some sort, like how classic RCT scenarios kept a record of your high score.
We need more fence types, not just fences on paths, but fences to place anywhere including for the border of our parks, like chain link fences, iron and aluminum fences, wood fences, etc. Also, a large boat flume ride like those shoot the chute rides with a large capacity rectangular boat, and a wide channel like the rapids but the ability to make steep drops.
Not "Can't" but "Should not" ... But yes, absolutly, this is the idea, and this should be a rule of common sense, just for respect for the consumer ! I'm surprised that this is not your case as well.
Also, "Paying DLC" or "Microtransactions" are (almost) always based on cosmetic content (and in a game like this one, this just a big nope, just because of the genre itself) but "Expansions Packs" are a little bit different, because they add a new game mechanic, and not just cosmetic content. To take a random example, there is no discrimination in "Planet Coaster", if a player create a Zoo in the expansion pack named "Planet Coaster - Safari" (just an example), just as there is no discrimination for the player of "Red Dead Redemption" if he kills zombies in "Red Dead Redemption - Undead Nightmare", because the expansion pack is perceived as a second independent game/adventure/story but based on the first game (which justifies the smaller price than the base game). Which mean, it is not "content which is accessible for the richest, and not available to the poorest, in the game" but another "game in the game" that you can buy or not, according to your means.
This is two very different things, and the nuance is enormous.
I have always been in favor of the "Expansions Packs" economic model (just like RCT3 by the way).
But selling cosmetic scenery objects/rides and shops skins/mascots/etc... in a game like this one would be a real shame from Frontier, in particular knowing the multitude of possibilities available to them to generate recurring additional income, without creating discrimination between the players.
It would be stupid and counterproductive/against our interests to encourage the sale (and also to participate in the purchase) of "in-game" cosmetic content here.
There are many solutions that make win both Frontier and all the players in the same time. And I hope they will be respectful to his community and smart enough to understand that. (If the #InFrontierWeTrust is still thing)
[happy]
I have no problem with paying for new content, so long as I find value in that content. Cosmetic items, i find no issue with. While yes themeing is a park of making a theme park. If they wanted to charge you to make your ferris wheel pink instead of the standard color. I'd see no issue with it. If you want to make an all pink park. Guess you'll have to just suck it up. (bad example im sure but you get the idea) Im totally ok with the way sims does their work. Sure some of the packs are ridiculous. But you can still play the game without them. You can still succeed. My issue comes like so many free 2 play games. In order to enjoy the game, make any head way you have to buy stuff or spend a ridiculous amount of time playing before you get anything. Even some paid games like call of duty. If what I have from the onset still allows me to have a successful park. You give me lots of content to make my 44 dollars feel worth it. Im good. You add new gameplay like a safari, i need to pay an extra 30 if I want it. I get it. They have to fund themselves somehow to get us new content. If i dont want to pay the 30 i just cant have a zoo. Thats cool. What wouldnt be cool if guests came in and said were not happy unless we get a zoo. And i didnt want to buy the pack. Or my park rating can never go any higher because i dont have the zoo.
We will have to wait and see. Most people have praised the way frontier handles DLC in Elite Dangerous.
We will have to wait and see. Most people have praised the way frontier handles DLC in Elite Dangerous.
I'm really happy with Planet Coaster but I think it's too early to consider paid DLC. At the moment the full game is 3 months old and it's not that I am not satisfied with it I think it's agreed on that it just needs some more standard themes and rides and some more control over the general features of the game. For paid DLC/expansions I would really like something new and big like a pools DLC with alot of water rides, slides, pools and maybe a Safari update with animals and safari stuff and hotels. I would buy that in a heartbeat. But spending money to get the Revolution flat ride or a spooky theme seems a bit steep for me at the moment. And thats said by a happy early bird owner 
Paid DLC in a game like Planet Coaster is definitely going to come with some caveats. For one thing, I can't readily think of any modern or digital-centric "Create/Play/Share"-style games on the PC that have utilized the paid DLC model so far (at least any that I've personally played). RCT3 and its predecessors obviously had disc-based expansions (and all of them were VERY meaty in the content department).
Let's say that Frontier does release a paid expansion or other DLC for PC on Steam. How will the Workshop handle the sharing of rides and scenery that uses components from it; would users who haven't purchased the DLC be locked out? If so, wouldn't that risk killing much of the community there both by splitting the market and creating an even more confusing, unwieldy mess than is already there (seriously, the Steam Workshop for PC needs better organization ASAP; WAY too much "samey"-looking stuff to have to sift through)?
The closest precedent I can think of to PC's DLC situation was actually on the PlayStation 3 with games like LittleBigPlanet and ModNation Racers. As an owner of the latter I recall people being able to download tracks, cars, etc. using components of DLC they hadn't purchased, but they were locked out of being able to modify them or use those parts in the game's garage. In essence it amounted to non-buyers being able to "try out" stuff from the DLC while still requiring them to make a purchase if they wanted the full use of it. This may be a means to make PC's DLC practical for the Steam Workshop; then again I can see a lot of "casual" players skipping buying the DLC themselves and simply downloading other users' content (which obviously wouldn't help Frontier's bottom line), so it's a double-edged sword for Frontier to consider for the future.
Let's say that Frontier does release a paid expansion or other DLC for PC on Steam. How will the Workshop handle the sharing of rides and scenery that uses components from it; would users who haven't purchased the DLC be locked out? If so, wouldn't that risk killing much of the community there both by splitting the market and creating an even more confusing, unwieldy mess than is already there (seriously, the Steam Workshop for PC needs better organization ASAP; WAY too much "samey"-looking stuff to have to sift through)?
The closest precedent I can think of to PC's DLC situation was actually on the PlayStation 3 with games like LittleBigPlanet and ModNation Racers. As an owner of the latter I recall people being able to download tracks, cars, etc. using components of DLC they hadn't purchased, but they were locked out of being able to modify them or use those parts in the game's garage. In essence it amounted to non-buyers being able to "try out" stuff from the DLC while still requiring them to make a purchase if they wanted the full use of it. This may be a means to make PC's DLC practical for the Steam Workshop; then again I can see a lot of "casual" players skipping buying the DLC themselves and simply downloading other users' content (which obviously wouldn't help Frontier's bottom line), so it's a double-edged sword for Frontier to consider for the future.
Heck if they are going to do the same way they did for RCT3 Soaked and Wild, Maybe we can build underground with out having to rise the ground around it to make an underground section. Also I would like to see a Soaked update, adding more water rides would be killer (cause there is only so much the rapids, log flume can do for water rides) I would think that more kinds of flat rides, I feel the coaster selection is great, but lacking in the flat ride department.
I mostly agree with Angelis.
Happy to pay for more game in the sense of a whole new game mechanic, like safari or pools or hotels or fireworks or parades or staff-only functionality. More for bigger, less for smaller.
Themes, and base game content, I'd get very frustrated paying for. Unless it was like $10 for 10 themes with lots of stuff per theme.
But the dlc and workshop would need to detect which content sources were used. We cannot trust players with that nor just tag everything with all sources the player had - just those actually used in the upload. So a player with multiple paid dlc packs can still upload a vanilla blueprint, if only vanilla parts were used.
Happy to pay for more game in the sense of a whole new game mechanic, like safari or pools or hotels or fireworks or parades or staff-only functionality. More for bigger, less for smaller.
Themes, and base game content, I'd get very frustrated paying for. Unless it was like $10 for 10 themes with lots of stuff per theme.
But the dlc and workshop would need to detect which content sources were used. We cannot trust players with that nor just tag everything with all sources the player had - just those actually used in the upload. So a player with multiple paid dlc packs can still upload a vanilla blueprint, if only vanilla parts were used.
I also don't have any problem to pay for expansion that change gameplay, add stuff, etc. (like Soaked or Wild expansion). If Frontier goes with DLC for new rides, themes, etc., it could becomes a crazy number of DLC and will limit people that don't buy it. It's a game of creativity, so it will be strange if it limit access to workshop...
I dont really like the idea of paid cosmetics in Planet Coaster. The game is all about creative freedom and limiting the number of assets one can use behind a paywall goes against this. Also, what would happen when someone uploads a creation that contains some 'DLC-scenery' items? It would probaby also mean we wont be seeing official mod support any time soon. Why sell paid cosmetic items when you could just make your own free version instead?
I'd rather see them sell things like ride-packages that contain some rides/coasters. The best solution would be if Frontier sold expansions similar to how Cities Skylines does it. You pay mostly for new mechanics and everyone gets most cosmetic additions for free.
I'd rather see them sell things like ride-packages that contain some rides/coasters. The best solution would be if Frontier sold expansions similar to how Cities Skylines does it. You pay mostly for new mechanics and everyone gets most cosmetic additions for free.
Both ways will split the community. Sandbox gamer's want the cosmetic items and themes, Where more management types want more management mechanics and scenario's. Major updates like Security or Deeper Mangement should be free.
Let's say they do a Horror/Dinosaur Pack, you get 1 or 2 free rides with the base amount of props and a couple of scenarios's as a free update/patch, you have to pay for the deluxe content. ie more of everything.
I paid for the Cities Skylines expansions just to support the developers. I couldn't really tell you want was free/paid as I bought them regardless. Where I will not buy a Season Pass upfront, as usually I have finished the game before the first DLC comes out.
You must encourage none DLC players to continue to play your game and then buy whatever DLC they fancy. Lets see what Frontier has got planned for the April update, as its crucial for future of the game.
Let's say they do a Horror/Dinosaur Pack, you get 1 or 2 free rides with the base amount of props and a couple of scenarios's as a free update/patch, you have to pay for the deluxe content. ie more of everything.
I paid for the Cities Skylines expansions just to support the developers. I couldn't really tell you want was free/paid as I bought them regardless. Where I will not buy a Season Pass upfront, as usually I have finished the game before the first DLC comes out.
You must encourage none DLC players to continue to play your game and then buy whatever DLC they fancy. Lets see what Frontier has got planned for the April update, as its crucial for future of the game.
Last edited: