Does that make it "more" or "less" desirable that they stick to at least some of their promises, or simply let go and just say, what the heck, and break all of them?
I'm truly being curious what you think, not having a go at you.
Let me buy the Cobra MK IV please.
- Thread starter CMDR Jowley
- Start date
Does that make it "more" or "less" desirable that they stick to at least some of their promises, or simply let go and just say, what the heck, and break all of them?
I'm truly being curious what you think, not having a go at you.
Unreasonable. Lol
How about a compromise that would please everyone: everyone gets access to the CM4, and in return beta backers get access to all new ships 6 months before everyone else?
Backers are happy as they get to preview ships, latecomers are happy as they get the CM4, which as everyone knows is indispensable and far better than any later ship could ever be. Simples
Backers are happy as they get to preview ships, latecomers are happy as they get the CM4, which as everyone knows is indispensable and far better than any later ship could ever be. Simples
Good for you, matey. I should've bought myself it when it was on the table.
I think you're right. I pledged at £40 tier, so I got to "name an NPC" as one of the perks (at least, submit a name that would apparently be added to the list of names that NPC's names get chosen from when they spawn, but I doubt I'll ever see that name!). That £40 tier of perks didn't gain the LEP, though, I think it was a lot more than I pledged back in early 2013, wow, such a long time ago...
Well, seems like the question has been answered (with explanation) countless times now, but some people still keep shouting "BUT I WANNA!".
I disagree, the question clearly hasn't been answered to a reasonable level which is why this posts keep popping up.
The other reason is because of the clear disregard you and some other hold towards other people's opinions. Not a single comment has anyone wrote in all caps or even demanded anything. I see comments with reasons to why the ship should be unlocked, I'm reading that others are writing about the OG cobra. I see people giving reasons to why the ship should stay locked.
Then I see your comments. You haven't said anything really. Just barking on the bandwagon.
I'm not demanding anything. I'm asking for the opportunity to fly a ship. In a video game I bought. Twice.
Here, this is all I want. https://s.orbis.zone/3-ce
Stop getting personal and catty with people. We are only talking about a ship. A ship which I dont think should be locked anymore.
Horizons is over man.
... and others keep shouting... I don't care... have it, I can have one and I don't want it.... I don't care!
I would happily give fdev... say... £3 for the ship. If that changes things
Rampart, take a look at this thread which has been pretty successful in locating NPC's with our chosen names (mainly due to great effort by metatheurgist).
I am not allowed to enter this thread
"
Permissions Error: You do not have permission to perform said action or to view said content.
It's possible the page or content that you are attempting to view requires elevated privileges or does not exist any more.
"
lordy lordy!
Not a reasonable level, I'm not saying anything, just barking. Sure. It's hard to explain something when the other side keeps the ears closed and pretends to not hear anything.
What exactly do you want me to explain?
"Elite Dangerous: Horizons will be available to pre-order on our store today, and I’m very happy to announce all existing Elite Dangerous players will receive a £10 loyalty discount off the Horizons retail price. Existing players will also unlock the exclusive Cobra Mk IV ship in Elite Dangerous: Horizons. 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, and you’ll see more of the Cobra Mk IV in Friday’s Peek Of The Week. "
End of discussion.
It's not just one side of that argument that gets catty and answering the same questions for the thousandth time gets a bit tiresome after a while.
Why thank you, most gracious, I'll feel free.
For me it's about what does the most good for the most people. Now what's good is obviously subjective, but we'll look at some of the effects I'd consider so you can see my reasoning.
Let's start with an assumption that, all other things being equal, a promise or undertaking should normally be kept. If, as in this case, it was an open-ended undertaking, that would mean the terms need to be continually met in perpetuity. So, as far as that goes, in this case, that should mean the Cobra Mark IV should remain locked to everyone except those who met the conditions at the right time.
If we're taking a simplistic and inflexible approach, we can stop the discussion there. The promise was made: it must be kept.
So let's look at the effects of that decision. Let's posit three distinct groups of players involved in this. The majority of players - an increasing majority as new players join us, and perhaps as older players fall away from the game, are people who do not have access to the Cobra Mark IV. For whatever reason, they weren't in the market for ED when the qualifying conditions for the Mark IV were first set. Just for fun, let's call them group NC4, for No Cobra 4.
Of the players who do have access to the Mark IV, there would seem to be two sub-groups: those, like me, who don't care whether the ship remains exclusive (we'll call them group 4Y - Yes to releasing the ship); and those who believe it should remain exclusive (4N - No to releasing the ship).
Taking our simplistic approach - a promise once made must never be revised or revisited - we can consider the effects on each group in terms of overall good.
Group NC4 did not have access to the ship, and they still don't. We can view that in one of two ways, and this is where some subjectivity comes in. We could say that NC4 have lost nothing: they didn't have something, they still don't have it. Nothing has really changed. And we can always justify this by reference to the initial qualifying conditions for access to this content: you have to have bought ED and Horizons before a certain date. If you didn't, you don't get the ship. Some members of NC4 accept this; others consider it unfair since they don't feel they ever had the opportunity to qualify. But, on the whole, the effect on NC4 of our decision to maintain the promise is overall neutral. Nothing changes - though the status quo may not be objectively good for that group.
Of course the other groups are also unaffected: 4Y still have their Mark IVs, and so do 4N. There are no positive or negative effects on either of these groups from maintaining the promise.
So, maintaining the promise does no bad, but equally does no good - and arguably maintains a negative status quo for group NC4.
Just for interest's sake, though, let's suppose we revisit the promise. We can justify this on the grounds that a given amount of time has passed; that the proportion of players who qualified for this content is shrinking; that other, newer, better ships are now available that weren't around when the Mark IV offer was made... There are several reasons I can think of why we might choose to look at the promise again. We could argue over when the right time was or is or will be to do that, but we are here now, so let's run through it and see what happens.
We consider revising the initial deal, and making the Mark IV available to everyone. What would be the effects?
Group NC4 now have access to this particular not-all-that-good ship. For them, this decision is a good. That's not to address how many of them will choose to take advantage - the point is they all now have an opportunity they didn't have before. It might also be that some members of NC4 disagree the Mark IV should be released and think it should remain exclusive - but it's unlikely that they will feel personally aggrieved, or feel that their experience of the game has been diminished, by the change.
So, group NC4 are in a better position than they were, because they have an opportunity they didn't previously have. Since they are very likely the majority of players (we can argue that but it seems likely given the data on usage of the Mark IV as cited earlier), we immediately see that this change has been a good for the majority of players (again, even if it's one they don't choose to take up).
Group 4Y will not care about the change. Some may in fact be happy about it, but their game experience has not diminished and they have no sense of personal grievance from the fact that others now have access to the Mark IV. Group 4Y do not particularly value the exclusivity of the Mark IV sufficiently to resent the change. For 4Y, then, the change is a neutral. It has no good effect, no bad effect.
Group 4N, on the other hand, feel aggrieved that the ship they held as their exclusive privilege has now been made available to everyone. They have lost a sense of specialness and may feel aggrieved that they are no longer being thanked by the devs for their initial compliance with the qualifying conditions. They were promised a permanent sign of gratitude from the developer and feel betrayed that, after just half a decade (in this case), this has been withdrawn. For them, this move is a categorically bad thing - although (edit here) this is only in terms of how they feel about it. They haven't actually lost any content or opportunities within the game.
Let's weigh up those effects. The good affects probably at least half the players. Again, they may not take advantage of it, but we can say they have benefited because they have that opportunity they didn't previously have. The neutral affects a percentage of probably at most half the players. While the bad affects the remaining percentage of probably at most half the players. Clearly, excluding the neutral, the impact of the good outweighs the impact of the bad. The majority feel better, part of the minority don't care, and the remainder of the minority feel aggrieved.
So, from a purely utilitarian viewpoint, revising the initial promise would seem to be the preferable option because it produces the greater potential good for the greatest number of people, so (and I'm using really simplified proportions here, for lack of more accurate data, but as an illustration of the general conclusion I think it holds):
█ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █
Yes, like I said, there are debates that could be had about 'why now' and 'what proportion of people are needed to trigger this', as you touched on in your post. I don't have a firm answer to give you on either, apart from that the above reasoning could have been applied at any point, and whenever the likely impact of the good outweighed the likely impact of the bad, I'd say the change would have been justified at that point. It certainly seems justified now. But again, this requires an acceptance that agreements, even those made in good faith without specific time constraints, don't need to be forever. Because things change: demographics change; majority opinions change; external conditions change. You can agree to a thing on one occasion and it might be perfectly reasonable to look at it again a few years later if it seems as though the context has changed or more information has come to light. Or, you can insist that regardless of any change in circumstances, what was agreed on that previous occasion must remain sacrosanct forever and can never be reviewed - but while this enables us to talk loftily about 'integrity' and so on, it doesn't actually necessarily represent the choice that's most beneficial for the greater whole.
I hope this has given you some understanding of my reasoning on this.
Last edited:
Look, I've read and understand what your saying. Forever. Okay. It doesn't change the fact I want the ship.
Let me ask a question,
Would you care?
So eggy? I am not the one pushing others to go back on their words... I have said numerous times, that I think FDev messed up big time here, and there is not really any way forward or backwards for FDev at this moment, as if they doi what you suggests, many players will loose trust on believing what FDev says in the future, regardless if they want to to use the ship or not, and if they go back on this one, they can also go back on every perk given to their backers, becuase there a few players who missed out on those... And then we have limited availability of paint jobs/decals etc.
So it is not about the Cobra Mk IV, it is a trust issue, and you are obviously not giving a second thought about that.
But its just a ship.
We are going around the cul-de-sac here aren't we
I do get what your saying and I get where you are coming from. A promise is a promise but, on this occasion, I think its time to open it up.
How about a paid DLC for the ship. Supports the game and it's still exclusive then
You still missing the point, it is not about the ship, it about public reception on how trustworthy FDev is. And if we cannot trust what they say, then what is the point for FDev ever saying anything in the future? i f they are just going todo whatever they want, but then again, if they are going todo whaterver they want, why would they bother listen to us in the forums in the first place? it is not like we can request our money back for a game we have played for a couple of years now...
Honestly if I haven't explained my reasoning on this well enough by now I'm never going to be able to.
Nah; I mean, if we were to really follow that then we'd have cause to complain about nearly every game released on 8-bit machines or 16-bits... anything Psygnosis made.. advertising is just that. Hell, in the car world companies such as Audi will use a model not even for sale in the country the advertisement is being shown (yes, it does say that in text you can't read, but even so).
The advertising world is a world filled with lies - take Marvel and the Avengers films. They purposely lied to decieve film goers! It's not something I'd really want to lean on given the emotional state the Mk IV seems to enlist in people.
I do wonder if Frontier read this stuff. It's had so many threads over the years; all the same, all with the exact same arguments, the same capacity for people to get really snarky, hurt and generally argumentative about something they, from the years of threads would suggest, can't affect in any meaningful way.
It's nice the game elicits such passion in players, I guess....
Thanks for the indulgence, I can se a fair amount of thought went in to that, even if we can't agree on the precise details.
However, the one additional thing that you didn't consider here is what, in my opinion, is the overriding factor in all of this.
It is a factor that I believe to be an important omission in your calculations and equations.
If FDev chose to renege on their word: the overall integrity rating of the organisation FDev would be diminished. Arguably, FDev would be considered as less trustworthy than before this decision was made. (Regardless of how any individual currently views FDev's integrity or trustworthiness - it still goes to a reduced level fro that single individual compared to how they view it right now. Everybody should agree, by definition, that an organisation going against their own word reduces it's trustworthiness to agree by it's own word in future).
Simply speaking the trustworthiness of FDev would take a demonstrable negative hit and be diminished to some degree.
This factor affects ALL of the 3 groups you mention. It also affects a fourth group: those who do not currently own the game, and may or may not be considering it as a purchase...
How would you balance this negative aspect of the loss of trustworthiness against what you argue to be a net utilitarian positive?
As I suggested, it is an interesting thought experiment.
Some people clearly don't give 2 hoots about the concept of integrity and trustworthiness. That is, until it affects something tangible that they care about. If there is one lesson that I would evangelise in life, it was best written by Shakespeare in the character of Polonius (iirc) - "Above all else, to thine own self be true."
Ultimately, I suggest that trustworthiness does need to be factored into your calculations. Once a liar, always a liar, and all that. That negative aspect affects even those that really want the C4 - and even if they do get the C4, they will always have knowledge that the organisation buckled in the face of pressure and broke their freely given word as a direct consequence, so what else will they break their word on? And will it affect me in a negative way in future?