Let me buy the Cobra MK IV please.

[Hell Razor5543]

What makes you say that Frontier would lose the trust of a lot of players if they made the MKIV available to all after five years of exclusivity?

Have you considered the greater positive impact it would have for the majority of the player base, and measured that against the minor negative impact for the fraction of the diminishing minority of Horizons early adopters who inexplicably defend the exclusivity today?

Would you rather trust Frontier to make decisions that have a greater positive impact for the majority of their customers, or to fail to do so because of something they stated years ago?

Please read the WHOLE of a post before commenting on the bits that you think relate to you, and make sure of your facts first (The Cobra MkIV has NOT been available for five years as the Game is not yet five years old; it was released mid December 2014 and the Cobra MkIV did not become available for at least another year from then).

There are several items that are exclusive to certain Players in the Game. Some of these are for Kickstarters, and others are for other Backers. If FDev were to rescind the exclusivity of the Cobra MkIV how long do you think it would be before People would DEMAND that other exclusive things were made available to all? (here is a clue; less time than it takes for a photon of light to travel 1mm).

The reason I believe that FDev would lose the trust of Players is a historic fact. Whenever an organisation promises one thing, and then later changes/breaks that promise people stop believing them. It actually happened to FDev; they said (in pre-launch days) that Backers would get TWO extra ships; the Eagle and one other when it came out. Later they said that the Eagle was that extra ship, and the Forum got a bit heated over this. Eventually FDev acknowledged they had got it wrong, and (so long as you did not then Clear Save after you received it) those who were eligible got a free Viper MkIV. They also said there was going to be an off-line mode available, but later (for technical reasons; their Galaxy Model is HUGE, taking up tens of terabytes of storage) they had to kill that off-line mode off; there are still Players who are sore about that (I don't know of any PERSON who has at least 100TB storage available on their home PCs!).

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

We're talking about Frontier reneging on prior statements/commitments and exhausting more of a very finite supply of credibility.

While I am as for an egalitarian a gaming experience as possible, I do not see how it would be practical for Frontier to remove one of the promised incentives of certain product tiers they have sold without significantly damaging their ability to monitize such incentives in the future.

It’s not difficult. It only involves time-limiting the exclusivity of any such offers in the future, if there were any such plans, which the trends since then don’t appear to indicate.

That they’ve kept it exclusive for this long is a sufficient guarantor for any future offers in any case, particularly given that the shelf life of any game past this point is holds no guarantee of longevity.

 

[Old Duck]

My answer to the exclusivity is to put all player-owned CMIVs on my KOS list.

Oh wait, I'm on PS4 - there are no player-owned CMIVs to KOS!!! :O

You PC CMDRs will have to carry the torch for me, LOL.

 

[Morbad]

That they’ve kept it exclusive for this long is a sufficient guarantor for any future offers in any case

Not if they aren't explicitly time-limited when sold, it's not.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

I think exclusivity is a highly negative thing and I know removing that exclusivity would further erode my trust in Frontier's ability to keep to their agreements.



I trust Frontier about as far as I can throw the collective biomass of their employees, but failing to adhere to an agreement, even one I though was silly to offer in the first place, is not the way to improve my perception of their willingness and ability to deliver.

The degree of positive impact for going back on prior exclusivity is highly uncertain and largely subjective. The description of the products originally solid are not.



Equal opportunity for all players, as much as is practical to achive, is why, were I developing a multi-player game, never offer exclusives, or any sort of in-game advantage or difference based on when an account/license was obtained.

However, had I already screwed up and done so, I'd adhere to whatever agreements I made, both on principle, and also a Machiavellian desire to be perceived as trustworthy, for the sake of my business reputation, of course.

Would it prevent you from purchasing one of their games in future if you thought you’d enjoy playing it? Do you think it would have that effect on enough of their potential customers to have a significant impact on their sales? Do you think the positive impact of granting access to a ship to the majority of their player base would be overshadowed by the associated breach of trust that would immediately negatively impact comparatively very few?

In my assessment, I see the positive as far outweighing the negative, which is why I advocate for the removal of the restriction.

 

[Misty_Dark]

It’s not difficult. It only involves time-limiting the exclusivity of any such offers in the future, if there were any such plans, which the trends since then don’t appear to indicate.

That they’ve kept it exclusive for this long is a sufficient guarantor for any future offers in any case, particularly given that the shelf life of any game past this point is holds no guarantee of longevity.

And yet, they did not put a time limit on this exclusivity. What they do in the future with any potential exclusivities is a different story...


There are even older games that are still relevant today, and getting new content etc, etc,
Grand Theft Auto V, released 2013...
World of Warcraft, 2004
Elder Scrolls Online, 2014
EVE Online, 2003
Warframe, 2013

So that puts a big dent in your it have passed several years, as several of these games are older that Elite Dangerous., and there are more games like this still online, developed and have an active community etc. etc.

 

[Rampant]

Would you rather trust Frontier to make decisions that have a greater positive impact for the majority of their customers, or to fail to do so because of something they stated years ago?

I'd rather "trust" a person or organisation if they remained true to what they originally promised. End of. (Going back on something you've said renders an individual or organisation less likely to be trusted in future, don't you think?)

If, on the other hand, you'd prefer a business to sell out it's word and to trade trust for profit, then that is a different question altogether...


Personally, I'm ambivalent about other players gaining access to content that was said to be locked to a specific user group. It isn't that others getting stuff that they weren't supposed to that bothers me, it's the trust issue that would be the direct consequence of doing so that bothers me. Integrity and credibility important. (At least to me, they are! other's opinion may vary.)

 

[Morbad]

Would it prevent you from purchasing one of their games in future if you thought you’d enjoy playing it?

Yes.

Do you think it would have that effect on enough of their potential customers to have a significant impact on their sales?

Probably not.

Do you think the positive impact of granting access to a ship to the majority of their player base would be overshadowed by the associated breach of trust that would immediately negatively impact comparatively very few?

Absolutely not.

In my assessment, I see the positive as far outweighing the negative, which is why I advocate for the removal of the restriction.

I also advocate for removing the restriction, I just think Frontier would have to be insane to do so.

 

[Nihila Vex]

I think you are totally missing the point here.. if you would have bothered reading my previous posts, then you should now that I do not really care about the exclusitivity of this ship

Aw come on. Please don't be silly. If you didn't care about this you wouldn't be here arguing the point. I don't think less of you for caring about it, by the way. It's okay to have an opinion and think you're right. I think I'm right, too.

... there are actually people, that value that it was anounced as an excusive ship....

That may well be the case, but I would still argue that after five years (and I note the post earlier picking at the fact that it's not quite five years, but it's as near as makes no odds), the exclusivity has paid out a lot of value. But things depreciate in value over time. I don't see any reason why we can't draw a line here and say, "Well, we've had this special ship of our own for (nearly) five years - we can afford to let it go now."

Because I can't see why someone wouldn't be able to let it go at this stage.

And that argumunet yoyu tried to make also goes both ways, why can't you get over that you do not have access to that ship? I mean, if you play the get over it, it several years old, so why can't you suck it up that you are not getting this ship?

I do have that ship.

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

Perhaps we should be allowed to 'gift in game' so those with Cobra MK IV could give em' away to those obsessed with not being able to get the thing, I wonder what will happen if/when we get legs and hijack/steal ships... are ED going to create a black list of ships behind rank and exclusivity deals or will it all go out of the window while David goes walkabout in some Jurassic park?

 

[Hell Razor5543]

Originally posted by FRONTIER:
"The Cobra Mk IV will be available in the game only to players who joined us in the first year – forever. It’s our ‘thank you’ for your faith in the game.

The Cobra MkIV is available for in-game credits to anyone who has individually purchased both Elite Dangerous and Elite Dangerous: Horizons before the 5th of Feb 2016 on PC. This also includes Lifetime Expansion pass holders."

As it was a 'Thank You' for the faith Players had in the Game (up to 5th Feb 2016) WHY do you think YOU are entitled to that 'Thank You'? In order to RECEIVE Thanks you have to EARN Thanks.

 

[Hell Razor5543]

Redacted, as duplicated

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

Originally posted by FRONTIER:
"The Cobra Mk IV will be available in the game only to players who joined us in the first year – forever. It’s our ‘thank you’ for your faith in the game.

The Cobra MkIV is available for in-game credits to anyone who has individually purchased both Elite Dangerous and Elite Dangerous: Horizons before the 5th of Feb 2016 on PC. This also includes Lifetime Expansion pass holders."

As has been stated a billion times

 

[Nihila Vex]

...because of something they stated years ago?

It wouldn't actually change my view in this if they had, but... did they actually promise the exclusivity would be permanent/forever?

Edit: Oh, yeah. They did. Still, like I said, doesn't change my view. I don't think that's a reasonable thing to pin this much investment on this long after the game's release.

 

[Nihila Vex]

...at least 100TB storage available on their home PCs!).

Citation Really Badly Needed

This is the company that made themselves famous for fitting an entire galaxy on a single 1.4Mb floppy. I struggle to believe they're now so inefficient that the beautiful but largely empty and reasonably repetitive ED galaxy takes 100Tb.

 

[Hell Razor5543]

The original Elite had 8 (imaginary) Galaxies with 256 star systems per Galaxy, each with only one planet and one space station. According to my maths that is only 6144 objects. Elite: Dangerous is working with a (real) Galaxy model estimated to have 400 Billion star systems, with a highly variable number of objects per star system (I have seen systems with only a star, and systems with (including asteroid belt items) over 100 objects. It also has numerous Nebulae, interstellar dust, and (way off in the distances) other Galaxies. I shall let YOU try to work out the amounts of storage required.

 

[Rampant]

Citation Really Badly Needed

This is the company that made themselves famous for fitting an entire galaxy on a single 1.4Mb floppy. I struggle to believe they're now so inefficient that the beautiful but largely empty and reasonably repetitive ED galaxy takes 100Tb.

My original Acorn version was inside 32kb.

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

My original Acorn version was inside 32kb.

YUP! my Amiga Frontier was on One (edit: FLOPPY) disc

 

[Hell Razor5543]

My Spectrum 48 had a tape drive.

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

... (I don't know of any PERSON who has at least 100TB storage available on their home PCs!).

Really, I cant see you'd need anywhere near that, for a start you'd only need the ones you visit... that's YOU visit, everything else gets made when it's needed... ProcGen, off line that would be a few gig at the most with all the gubbins and history thrown in.