Let me buy the Cobra MK IV please.

Nihila Vex

Nihila Vex
Rampant said:
If FDev chose to renege on their word
Click to expand...
The wording we choose to use has an impact here. You've chosen 'renege'; we might just as easily choose 'reconsider', 'revisit' or 'review' - words which would describe the same act by FDev but do not have the negative spin of 'renege'.

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.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it would be all that demonstrable; nor all that negative. As I said in my last section earlier, we can choose one of two viewpoints: that an agreement once reached is eternally binding and cannot be altered even if the parties to it see reason to do so; or that an agreement reached between reasonable people can at any time be reviewed and, if it it agreeable to all involved, changed.

If FDev choose to review this particular decision, then I would expect them to explain their reasons for doing so - but my earlier explanation I think would suffice to settle a lot of potential concerns. Again, it's fine to present 'trustworthiness' as some impervious platonic ideal - but it's equally possible to view blinkered inflexibility in the face of changing circumstances as untrustworthy. How can we trust a company that will not consider a way to benefit large proportion of its players because it made an agreement with a small proportion of players years before?

In short I think true trustworthiness demands that we undertake to keep the lines of communication open and act in good faith - even if doing so means we change a position we once held.
 

Hell Razor5543

H
The word "forever" was in the statement I found earlier. I think that covers it sufficiently clearly.

"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."
 
Last edited:

IndigoWyrd

IndigoWyrd
Rampant said:
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?
Click to expand...

Corporate Integrity, Truthful Advertising, Honest Politicians, Santa Claus... Name four things that don’t exist.

I’ll go so far as to guarantee Star Citizen will be finished and released before anyone who missed the C4 deadline buys one.

Let me ask this - to those of you whose lives are just not going to be complete without this 3rd rate ship, explain why.
 

Northpin

Northpin
Hell Razor5543 said:
The word "forever" was in the statement I found earlier. I think that covers it sufficiently clearly.
Click to expand...

And that Statement should had been part or the Cobra mk IV description in the Ship Catalog on the ED official site. While it is not.
Imagine my frustration, as a noob, searching eddb for C4 then going from station to station and not finding it anywhere.
Then finding out why it is not available, not from the official site, but from a search on google

Please find that statement here: https://www.elitedangerous.com/ships/
or here https://www.elitedangerous.com/ships/cobra-mk-iv/
 

Skip Rockbounder

Skip Rockbounder
Hell Razor5543 said:
The word "forever" was in the statement I found earlier. I think that covers it sufficiently clearly.

"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."
Click to expand...
Wait, it will be available for you forever... of it will be exclusive forever?
you can read a lot into that statement... other players might get it for a briefer period... thus being not forever!
This isn't about what's right it's about wanting to be special.
 

xzanfr

xzanfr
Skip Rockbounder said:
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!
Click to expand...
You've not got access yet?
You need to deliver exactly 42 tons of hutton mugs to the secret dark wheel base in Shinrata. You'll then get a mission which gives you the password that you need to put in your forum sig.
 

Siobhan

Siobhan
If FDev make the Cobra IV available, then you can guarantee that by tomorrow they'll be demanding Black Friday and Chrome skins for it too...
 

Cmdr. Numa

Cmdr. Numa
Rampant said:
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.
Click to expand...
That has to be viewed and weighted on a case by case evaluation. In the specific case of the Cobra IV it has been a mistake to set that exclusivity, FD themselves have said so. In this case it has to be made possible that they can correct that mistake. For a few that would mark them as untrustworthy. For me it would renew the faith in FD to do what's ultimately best for the game immensely. Let's not forget that the Cobra IV is the only exclusive asset in the game that effectively removes a large part of the playerbase from some actual gameplay. Everything else is pure cosmetics, not impacting actual gameplay. Arguably there's also the reduced insurance for backers. That one is well deserved and has near zero gameplay impact.

Oh, and no offense was taken :)
 

CMDR_A1R

CMDR_A1R
just play the game, stop crying about a ship you missed the boat in obtaining when other commanders were lucky enough to purchase horizons at the right time. I want I want thing right there. Ive missed things in the game too but not gonna demand the game changes just for me. Cobra Mk 4 not that good by the way.
 

Snowymonk

Snowymonk
Rampant said:
One could argue that the Cobra Mk IV ought not to have been made an exclusive.
But since it was made to be an exclusive - one could also argue that it ought not to be opened up. Simply as a matter of credibility and trustworthiness.

The question I have for anyone who really think this exclusivity promise should be broken in some way is this:
If an individual or organisation "promises" to make something as an exclusive, and then goes against their word, would you trust their integrity from that moment forward?
(The follow-on question then begs itself: Does integrity even matter to you?)

(Be wary of answering that second question, because your answer might provide valid insight into your own character and integrity!)

Yours Aye
Mark H
Click to expand...

Very easy to answer and if it provides an insight into my character and integrity so be it:

1) If an individual or organisation "promises" to make something as an exclusive, and then goes against their word, would you trust their integrity from that moment forward?
Yes, I would trust them if what they are doing can be shown to make sound business sense. i.e. What makes the most financial business sense to do?

Exclusivity drives a certain group of individuals to clamour for something, driving up demand, generating a target that people can aim for. If exclusivity was a regular feature of Elite Dangerous, in the same way that some mobile games drive you to repeatedly log in to avoid missing something, then it would be just one of things and fully understandable. But it isn't. It is the only thing, that was made exclusive, for a short period of time, more than three years ago. It is not the norm for the game. In my opinion, it is introducing unnecessary complexity into the game and restricting future revenue generation.

2) Does integrity matter to you?
Yes, the integrity of an individual or organisation to blindly stick to a path despite (in my opinion) a consensus to change that position actually undermines my trust in that individual or organisation. Their behaviour then comes across as not listening to the community that supports the ongoing funding of their project.


Thought experiment:
Would you open up the Cobra MkIV to all if it meant that you would guarantee additional revenue to develop additional Elite features but would have to take the PR hit for going back on a statement made in 2016.

That is probably a better question to answer.
If only we could do polls on this forum...
 

Arry

Arry
Snowymonk said:
1) revenue generated from Ship kits and Paintjobs for the Cobra MkIV will mean that more developement will be forthcoming to the game - a.k.a. grreater good.

It might be a very small revenue stream but it is a very easy stream to tap into.
Click to expand...
Errr... There are 3 paint jobs for the Cobra IV. That is an example of how much love, F.D. has for its Cobra Exclusive owners.
 

Snowymonk

Snowymonk
Misty_Dark said:
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...
Click to expand...

Play out your argument - FDev can't be trusted for a decision they made three years ago.
An awful lot of games will have been and gone in those three years. Things change and previous decisions can be revised. Three years ago, Frontier only had one game in it's portfolio, they potentially needed money to stay afloat and didn't have a killer reason for people move from the base game to the Horizons add-on. They needed a reason and the Cobra MkIV provided that reason.
Three years on, Frontier now has Planet Coaster, Jurrasic World Evolution and Planet Zoo generating revenue. They also have, by their admission two further IPs in development. Elite is now on three platforms and midway through it's expected lifecycle. We are past the Horizons AND Beyond releases to the game.
Decisions made three years ago are contextually different to decisions now.

Frontier could present a much stronger 'we are listening to our community' stand-point and deflect the majority of negative noise that the change of decision would generate.
 

Arry

Arry
CMDR Jowley said:
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.
Click to expand...
Err.... Like some other ships on that web-site. The requirements for ownership, is written at the top of the page: Just after the name itself. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom