I have no problem with this, nor would I have issue with paying a subscription. As long as the subscription offers value i.e. skins, bobble-heads, personal space stations
I'm good with it. 
Question for the devs:everything purchasable with ingame Credits?
- Thread starter Ervig
- Start date
I have no problem with this, nor would I have issue with paying a subscription. As long as the subscription offers value i.e. skins, bobble-heads, personal space stations
I'm good with it. I don't really have strong feelings about cash for credits or cosmetics. However, I do think that if Frontier have made a commitment or promise in the past, such as 'everything in the game will be available for in game credits' and you later decide not to uphold this commitment, then there should be a formal announcement of such in the newsletter, or on the website, along with the reasons for doing so. We are all fans here, and if the reasons are good then most of us will go along with it.
For these important changes to be revealed with the odd throwaway forum post is I think a little discourteous and leads to a lot of confusion. Without official announcements these questions come up time and time again on the forum, and the people who don't visit this forum (the majority of players?) are completely in the dark - the Kickstarter page is still up today making this promise, after all!
Another example of this poor communication was the 'early release of all builds to Alpha backers'. A clear promise which was made with the express intention of selling more Alpha upgrades, which was quietly dropped further down the line. The only explanation of which was one or two forum posts from you.
For me, I'm not so bothered about these unfulfilled promises, as I am concerned about what other commitments will be quietly changed in the future. With the current lack of transparency, how could I feel otherwise?
Anyway, hey ho. Same old story. The game seems like it's going to be absolutely superb. The public engagement leaves an awful lot to be desired, in my opinion.
Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with the selling of cosmetic items, is it really just a choice between two absolute options, i.e. 'we sell cosmetics' or 'we sell credits for cash', in order to avoid the subscription route?
Also, it still doesn't answer whether cosmetic improvements will be in game, but available with in-game credits, even if those cosmetic improvements are different than those sold in store.
Finally, it also doesn't alter the fact that the current skin prices are not what *I* personally would define as microtransactions, to support development, more maximisation of a revenue stream on an unfinished product. Again, whilst personally I find that slightly unappealing, it is Capitalism in action, and I don't blame Frontier for trying it.
They said that in response to a kickstarter FAQ question "Will the game be free to play after initial purchase?"
As long as the only things that affect gameplay are purchasable with in game credits and not real money they have stuck to that answer.
Some people will choose what information to read, and what to conveniently ignore, purely to make a point out of some sense of entitlement. If they don't like the price, don't buy it!
I'm personally just building a list of players to blast on-sight in-game
Here's to an awesome game being created day by day!
My view on this is if we can get cool cosmetic stuff like this via playing the game, and there is a balance between the two* I can see that being a fair compromise between what was stated during KS and how things have developed.
*So I understand cosmetics in the store are available only via MT, but we should also have stuff thats only obtainable via playing the game, i.e. getting a really high rank with a faction, completing a difficult mission, elite status etc..
That would generally be acceptable to me, and if thats the case, I'll more than likely buy a few cosmetics from the store myself, whereas I would never have bought any in game currency.. Thats just me.. someone who enthusiasticly and heavily backed and supported the project already.
*So I understand cosmetics in the store are available only via MT, but we should also have stuff thats only obtainable via playing the game, i.e. getting a really high rank with a faction, completing a difficult mission, elite status etc..
That would generally be acceptable to me, and if thats the case, I'll more than likely buy a few cosmetics from the store myself, whereas I would never have bought any in game currency.. Thats just me.. someone who enthusiasticly and heavily backed and supported the project already.
Last edited:
Well, you could drop some gold canisters and receive real money for it can't you?
My guess to this is that they have yet to settle on a definitive answer, one way or the other.
While some may feel a little uncomfortable with microtransactions and/or the availability of such items in-game, it has to be stressed these items do not impact on gameplay or progress - they are just pretty things we may or may not want to buy..
I would suggest a degree of compromise has to be observed, and this form of funding is, in my humble opinion, the best option. Things could be ALOT different..
This is a much preferable route over purchasing credits in game in my opinion. However, I would be much more likely to spend additional money in game if there were a greater range of cosmetics rather than expensive one offs. My first real excursion into the store for extras caused me storm out in a huff muttering about the price (of one item in particular).
Perhaps it wouldn't hurt to look at the pricing of cosmetics in other games to compare with, bearing in mind that you don't have to purchase the game in advance with a lot of these games.
I'm not sure gold sellers will have a negative impact.
If user A wants to pay real money to get a bigger ship/gun and user B wants to make real money helping him, what's the impact on other players?
User B is probably a trader - a few extra traders in the game is no bad thing.
User A may not have the piloting skills to be a significant threat to other players even with the bigger ship/gun.
Ships are all rock/paper/scissors anyway, so what's the problem here?
If user A wants to pay real money to get a bigger ship/gun and user B wants to make real money helping him, what's the impact on other players?
User B is probably a trader - a few extra traders in the game is no bad thing.
User A may not have the piloting skills to be a significant threat to other players even with the bigger ship/gun.
Ships are all rock/paper/scissors anyway, so what's the problem here?
Some people will choose what information to read, and what to conveniently ignore, purely to make a point out of some sense of entitlement. If they don't like the price, don't buy it!
I'm personally just building a list of players to blast on-sight in-game
Here's to an awesome game being created day by day!
About that list... PM me a copy please
Another idea would be shop credits for in-game credits, sure this sounds like buying credits directly but it is governed by the players and allows those who, like me, can't afford to splurge out on skins but wouldn't mind having a few and the system would shove another pretty thick stick into gold seller plans as it puts pricing of in-game credits at the whims of the players not the farmer so that they cannot turn tidy profits as easily.
And before anyone says it: Trading between players directly will likely get into the game at one point so gold sellers could work that way but having a way to earn cash shop stuff (and I will never support anything but cosmetics in the shop proper) with in-game is pretty much their death knell.
And before anyone says it: Trading between players directly will likely get into the game at one point so gold sellers could work that way but having a way to earn cash shop stuff (and I will never support anything but cosmetics in the shop proper) with in-game is pretty much their death knell.
That's the lamest answer/argument I've seen from you, Micheal, so far. It would have been so much better to explain the reasoning behind this don't you think? Something like "we need the cash" or "we want money" or "in order to provide the best possible game it requires money" or whatever the real answer is. Anything would be better than "we originally planned to slap you in the face, instead we kicked you in the butt. Would you prefer a pop on the head?"
See what I'm trying to say?
If Frontier needs money for development, then say so. If it's to maintain servers, overhead or what ever, then say so. If it's just to generate profit, then say so. Whatever the real "answer" is has to be better than what was provided.
I realize I just opened a huge can of flame but, that's ok because this, in my personal experience, has to be the worst dev response I personally have ever seen. Almost as bad as saying nothing.
Speaking for myself, I really hope they don't go the Pay to Win route because then I will feel cheated after paying 150Euro.
I have no problems with skins costing money, and preferably, it should be possible to buy them with in game money as well.
But I believe Frontier won't add pay to win mechanic but will add skins that cost money.
I have no problems with skins costing money, and preferably, it should be possible to buy them with in game money as well.
But I believe Frontier won't add pay to win mechanic but will add skins that cost money.
Michael Brookes
Game Director
It was merely an observation. We're a business and to be honest, I like getting paid each month, so of course we will explore avenues of income.
Cosmetic add-ons have been floated for a while and seemed like a reasonable path to follow.
Michael
Total agreement with this. Vanity items are much more preferable to a subscription or even pay to win items. Also I find in game advertising to be acceptable and that should be explored too in my opinion.
Much better answer. Thank you.
Hi Michael, you might have missed my question posted below here (and the reason for this thread
):(or do I have to use Sanderson's strategy to get you to reply
)
Last edited:
To be honest. Your reasoning is pretty "lame" too.
Of course they need money as a company to stay in business and hopefully to generate profit on top of that. Why would they even need to explain this to you or anyone else?
BTW, could you give a link to where they said:
"we originally planned to slap you in the face, instead we kicked you in the butt. Would you prefer a pop on the head?"
If not, then please stop using hyperbole...it doesn't help your argument.