Interesting how many don't seem to have an issue with paying a successful PLC to be a game tester for them.
Some might be doing that but I'm not. I'm paying extra to get early access to the new content, which I'm excited about.
I will help them to test where I can but this is all about me and what I want.
Glorified demo access basically.
Nothing glorified about it. That's exactly what it is. Early access. It's an extremely commonplace practice these days, too. And it harms no one. It's literally a win win so I fail to understand the need to question it.
I also don't get the "supporting Frontier" argument these days.
It's not a difficult concept to get, though. The more money they make the more likely they can put it back into the game. Just because my additional £10 won't go far doesn't alter that fact whatsoever.
The fact is, preorder and early access are a well-adopted business model in the industry. The benefits to the developer should be blatantly obvious (if they're not then perhaps some basic economics might help) and the benefits to the consumer definitely require a little perspective but aren't precisely obfuscated if you apply some thought to it.
What's particularly baffling is the burning desire to question the motivation of these practices when the answers given are dismissed. Obviously, you're going to need a little motivation beyond "I don't see the point in getting early access" and "I don't get supporting fdev" to agree that premium preorder options have value and there are a host of reasons to
not preorder. But prefacing every statement of opinion with the rhetoric claiming a lack of understanding just comes across as though you're asking people to argue against your preference, which is pointless.
It's easy to understand why someone wouldn't want to do it; even without the repeated statements of people here giving those reasons. Why is it difficult to grasp that someone
would?