Let me buy the Cobra MK IV please.

[sewerratuk]

You've only looked at the cons.

With argument b, you cannot speak for everyone. I don't think very many people would actually care, or would look at it with the same perspective.
Some will say "it was exclusive for long enough". Some will say "it's a better decision for the player base overall, and therefore the game".

It's also not a net loss if one or a few people lose this ephemeral trust in Frontier. If the result is that the decision impacts their active player numbers or sales positively, or at least not negatively, then it's not a loss for their business. How and why people go around deciding whether or not to trust a games development company is beyond me though.

As far as the pros go, people who play Elite love spaceships, and consider no amount of spaceships to be enough spaceships. Giving them access to the MKIV would give them something else to try out in the game, which is a positive even if they don't end up liking it or finding a use for it.

On the flip side, how many people will lose trust and quit playing if they don’t get access?

And if trying out a new ship is the only thing keeping them playing why should FD care, because they will try it and get bored and quit anyway

 

[Phongsalt]

I don't understand all the banging on about this credibility like it actually means something, or has some measurable material value. They're a games developer. They will create games, and if people like them, they will buy them, or subscribe to them, and they won't care if Frontier made something exclusive years ago, and then made it available to everyone. That's assuming that many of their customers outside this forum would even know about it.

The only people who are actually going to exhibit some unit of caring are from the diminishing minority of early adopters, and only that fraction of them still actively playing, and who oppose the ship losing its exclusivity. Given those early adopters won't lose access to the ship when everyone else gains it, it should be a no-brainer for Frontier to give precedent to the majority of their player base when considering this change request. Every change made will disappoint some and please some. When a developer can guarantee that a change will please the majority, it will be a better decision than many others they've made for their software.

But there is nothing to change. Exclusive seems pretty clear.Time-limited even more so.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

So we're advocating stealing from old ladies in the streets and traumatising them, just to maintain the consistency of the flawed principle that "a promise should be kept"?

How about saying promises should be kept as long as the overall benefit of keeping them outweighs the overall benefit of breaking them. I'm not talking about personal benefit here, but rather an assessment of positive and negative impacts weighed against each other. For example, if a game developer made a foolish promise that a spaceship in one of their games would be forever exclusive to early adopters who would inevitably diminish in number as active players, particularly as compared to the growing majority of later adopters, then breaking the promise would have a much higher positive than negative impact, whereas keeping the promise results in increasingly more of this negativity.

You're the one threatening to steal from old ladies because you can't fly a pretend ship in a computer game, not me.

Your argument boils down to "Waaah! It's not fair! I WANT IT!", which isn't particularly compelling.

 

[Snowymonk]

Multi crew with someone who has one.

Siobhan, I would love to. I am on PS4. What time are you on?

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

But there is nothing to change. Exclusive seems pretty clear.Time-limited even more so.

Ummm... their customers have been asking for a change, on a fairly regular basis. The specific change they're asking for is that what has been exclusive for years now be made available to all. I've made an argument on the basis of how a software development company should consider a change request, which I'm quite familiar with since I'm a technical lead in a software development company, and I review change requests from customers.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

You're the one threatening to steal from old ladies because you can't fly a pretend ship in a computer game, not me.

Your argument boils down to "Waaah! It's not fair! I WANT IT!", which isn't particularly compelling.

Is that what I did? Because I thought I was making an obvious example to demonstrate how "a promise should be kept" is not an unconditionally applicable principle.
It was you who then advocated the keeping of that illustrative promise.

You comprehension of my argument boils down to "Waaah! It's not fair! I WANT IT!", which isn't particularly accurate, or, at all.

Your argument seems invariably to degrade back to NEENER NEENER.

 

[Arry]

Ummm... their customers have been asking for a change, on a fairly regular basis. The specific change they're asking for is that what has been exclusive for years now be made available to all. I've made an argument on the basis of how a software development company should consider a change request, which I'm quite familiar with since I'm a technical lead in a software development company, and I review change requests from customers.

The requests, with well argued and thought out proposals, have been made. Time and time again; to the point, sometimes, they have become demands. I say sometimes, mind. But, it would seem that F.D., continues to say no.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

The requests, with well argued and thought out proposals, have been made. Time and time again; to the point, sometimes, they have become demands. I say sometimes, mind. But, it would seem that F.D., continues to say no.

Well, to be fair, we don't even know that it's a no. It could very well be a "have not considered/reviewed", which is effectively similar to a "no", except that it holds the potential to become a "yes" if a review is conducted. Also, a no today is not necessarily a no tomorrow.

I think that's why these threads are fairly frequent, and will continue to be. I don't see it as outside the realm of possibilities that Frontier will eventually acquiesce. It may involve some form of placation to early adopters, possibly in Arx currency, but it might happen.

 

[Arry]

Is that what I did? Because I thought I was making an obvious example to demonstrate how "a promise should be kept" is not an unconditionally applicable principle.
It was you who then advocated the keeping of that illustrative promise.

You comprehension of my argument boils down to "Waaah! It's not fair! I WANT IT!", which isn't particularly accurate, or, at all.

Your argument seems invariably to degrade back to NEENER NEENER.

The argument that: If I promise to mug old ladies, I therefore have keep that promise; is the same as a written legally binding contract. Makes one wonder, if you are of legal age to play the game in the first place.

Comparing the actions of other game developers, with F.D. is, on the other hand, is good example, to offer. It helps us all understand, the moral virtues of said developers.

 

[Arry]

Well, to be fair, we don't even know that it's a no. It could very well be a "have not considered/reviewed", which is effectively similar to a "no", except that it holds the potential to become a "yes" if a review is conducted. Also, a no today is not necessarily a no tomorrow.

I think that's why these threads are fairly frequent, and will continue to be. I don't see it as outside the realm of possibilities that Frontier will eventually acquiesce. It may involve some form of placation to early adopters, possibly in Arx currency, but it might happen.

....and then, the chances are just as equal, that they will allow things to continue, as they have been to-date.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

The argument that: If I promise to mug old ladies, I therefore have keep that promise; is the same as a written legally binding contract. Makes one wonder, if you are of legal age to play the game in the first place.

Comparing the actions of other game developers, with F.D. is, on the other hand, is good example, to offer. It helps us all understand, the moral virtues of said developers.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you meant to say "is not the same as a written legally binding contract".

Firstly, I wasn't responding to an argument that a legal obligation should be fulfilled. I was responding to an argument of the general principle that a promise should be kept, so I wasn't equating a promise to mug old ladies with a legally binding contract.

As for Braben's promise being a legally binding contract, I don't have the expertise to make that assessment, and as far as I'm aware, no one qualified to do so has made any definitive statement either that it's legally binding, or that there's no legal abrogation for it.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

....and then, the chances are just as equal, that they will allow things to continue, as they have been to-date.

Precisely. The keyword here being "chances". As long as there is a perceived chance, the requests and the threads containing them will almost certainly continue.

 

[Arry]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you meant to say "is not the same as a written legally binding contract".

Firstly, I wasn't responding to an argument that a legal obligation should be fulfilled. I was responding to an argument of the general principle that a promise should be kept, so I wasn't equating a promise to mug old ladies with a legally binding contract.

As for Braben's promise being a legally binding contract, I don't have the expertise to make that assessment, and as far as I'm aware, no one qualified to do so has made any definitive statement either that it's legally binding, or that there's no legal abrogation for it.

1st part: Someone stated that said 'promise' (the MK4 exclusive) was as silly as someone being obligated, if they promised to mug old ladies. Was that you, or were you just backing that argument?

2nd part: The offer of the cobra exclusive, is legally binding. It was posted on-line and written as a part of a contract.

 

[Arry]

Precisely. The keyword here being "chances". As long as there is a perceived chance, the requests and the threads containing them will almost certainly continue.

Even if F.D. carved it in stone and then posted it in every form of media on the planet; that the Cobra IV will never be given to others. There will still be people, asking again and again; just in case, there is a chance, of them changing their minds. That is the way, humans are and always will be.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

1st part: Someone stated that said 'promise' (the MK4 exclusive) was as silly as someone being obligated, if they promised to mug old ladies. Was that you, or were you just backing that argument?

2nd part: The offer of the cobra exclusive, is legally binding. It was posted on-line and written as a part of a contract.

Here is a link to the post I originally responded to. As support for their view, the poster merely stated that "a promise is meant to be kept".

As for the offer being legally binding, sorry but I'm not convinced that there is a legal obligation for the ship to remain exclusive until the end of time, particularly since there are precedents of exclusives in other games later being made available to all. I'm also not convinced that it couldn't be legally abrogated. Again, I'd have to see some definitive statement from a person qualified to make one.

Barring that, I don't think anyone would bother taking Frontier to court over it, or that Frontier would have any issue with paying that person's or few persons' terrible losses if they did bother.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Because you, a single person, represent everyone? Even if it's only one person who loses trust in them, then it's a net loss.

No, because I, a single person, represent Somebody, which is greater than Nobody.

Plenty of people have "lost trust" in them - just ask the LEPers, the DDF members who never saw their perfect ideas materialize, after spending what, $300 for access to a forum that wasn't even archived?

So sure, it's a net loss - of the least common denominator. What is better known as "Acceptable Losses".

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Game companies mug old ladies?

Need to check my meds.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

Game companies mug old ladies?

Need to check my meds.

This is like the a really bad game of Chinese Whispers, to use the politically incorrect term.

Next iteration: Mugs owned by old ladies stolen by game companies.

 

[CMDR Karrde Sun]

I think that's why these threads are fairly frequent, and will continue to be. I don't see it as outside the realm of possibilities that Frontier will eventually acquiesce. It may involve some form of placation to early adopters, possibly in Arx currency, but it might happen.

Careful what you wish for on that one. It took 7-900 pages for the fss to get a non generous / unloved response saying no please shut up now. In hindsight from all that, from a players perspective its so shocking that they remained stone cold silent on every issue during the beta period (everything was raised then too) to that point.

It says a lot about how they truly position all aspects of elite internally, there's no possible white knight waving around the truth. Frontier are just not that type of developer (well maybe if you're friends and live in the uk etc) as far as their game product and community management goes. From other communities they act more like single player game developers... anyway.

... they didn't explain why no with the fss, or acknowledge that they had even read and disagreed / agreed with any of the many issues... just said no.

 

[Captain Willard]

It was an exclusive release.
How hard can that be to understand?
Evidently it's to hard for some to figure it out or look it up in a dictionary.