I love that you mentioned this. The descriptions of the game in the Play Station Store have changed as well. Where the vanilla game is now considered DEMO, and the DLC is now called the Full-Game-Unlock. Which might be true, if the price wasn't doubled for the unlock key... lol. The Vanilla is still the same price as it was before the DLC.
Back from popular BAN! "Reverand's Rant"
- Thread starter RevCaoticFox
- Start date
On #1: When seen by itself, as possible player to player transaction, it would make absolute sense. Without even needing the artificial limitations to it. Just like it doesn't make any sense from an in-world point of view, to not be able to buy materials with credits, etc.
Once you look at the complete game design, things change. Right from the start FD blocked credit transactions. You can transfer goods, but thanks to how fast you can scoop or collect with limpets and capacity limits of instances, it's slow and cumbersome and thus not being used too much.
Then credits lost their value as currency. Be honest: anybody who still cares for credits is an absolute beginner without much knowledge of the game yet. Once you learned your way around, credits are just something you have. The actual currency are materials. That's not unique to ED, either. Just look around at many games out there. Each new content has it's own trinkets and stuff to collect, which you then can trade for rewards.
The prime example would be GW2, where each new mini-zone comes with it's own "currency", be it petrified wood, frost berries, pearls or whatever else. As they are not transferable, it means no matter how much a veteran somebody is, he actually has to play the content instead of just dropping a few thousand gold on it and be done for.
So while the player to player trade would make absolute sense from an in-game point of view and it's absence is against all in-world logic, it makes perfect sense from a game design point of view to not allow this transfer.
The question really is what you consider more valuable. The logic of the simulated world, or gameplay design.
On #2 I also throw in a hard NO!
Up to now ARX is just cosmetics. I could not discuss that I liked the old shop more, as prices were more evident.
I know that the old shop didn't work for consoles and I do understand that they wanted to unify and streamline the system, instead of having to support two completely different shopping infrastructures. Yet I an also say that I have bought several things in the old shop, and not a single thing since ARX is around. Merely due to not being immediately able to see how much something now costs and not caring enough to do the calculation. I just don't buy instead.
With that out of the way (sorry, I just had to write it once again.... ), I still want all microtransactions to only be cosmetical, with no technical advantages. Selling engineering materials for actual money might be one of the few moves, which could actually annoy me enough to quit the game.
Add one.
Once you look at the complete game design, things change. Right from the start FD blocked credit transactions. You can transfer goods, but thanks to how fast you can scoop or collect with limpets and capacity limits of instances, it's slow and cumbersome and thus not being used too much.
Then credits lost their value as currency. Be honest: anybody who still cares for credits is an absolute beginner without much knowledge of the game yet. Once you learned your way around, credits are just something you have. The actual currency are materials. That's not unique to ED, either. Just look around at many games out there. Each new content has it's own trinkets and stuff to collect, which you then can trade for rewards.
The prime example would be GW2, where each new mini-zone comes with it's own "currency", be it petrified wood, frost berries, pearls or whatever else. As they are not transferable, it means no matter how much a veteran somebody is, he actually has to play the content instead of just dropping a few thousand gold on it and be done for.
So while the player to player trade would make absolute sense from an in-game point of view and it's absence is against all in-world logic, it makes perfect sense from a game design point of view to not allow this transfer.
The question really is what you consider more valuable. The logic of the simulated world, or gameplay design.
On #2 I also throw in a hard NO!
Up to now ARX is just cosmetics. I could not discuss that I liked the old shop more, as prices were more evident.
I know that the old shop didn't work for consoles and I do understand that they wanted to unify and streamline the system, instead of having to support two completely different shopping infrastructures. Yet I an also say that I have bought several things in the old shop, and not a single thing since ARX is around. Merely due to not being immediately able to see how much something now costs and not caring enough to do the calculation. I just don't buy instead.
With that out of the way (sorry, I just had to write it once again.... ), I still want all microtransactions to only be cosmetical, with no technical advantages. Selling engineering materials for actual money might be one of the few moves, which could actually annoy me enough to quit the game.
Add one.
Last edited:
I could get behind this idea.
Every Cmdr is their own mat trader BUT for predefined amounts of mats....that could be cool - best idea in this thread if you ask me!
Most of the other ideas I suspect would run the risk of killing off gameplay (even if you don't like said gameplay, some probably do!) or lead directly to 'gold farming'.
Careful what you wish for - it may have unintended consequences
Wow, some one asking for pay to win again... I never understand this kind of mentality, there's always someone who want to buy progress using real money instead of earning it...
It is a terrible idea that'll never fit ED, but its not all bad. I crashed my uninsured anaconda and lost everything threads tend to be very amusing.
In all honesty, I don't have much of a problem with it. Whether you pay with money or time made a different for me in the past. But the older I get the more valuable time becomes for me, and the less I seem to have it, in contrary to money. One can never buy experience, so it will never be more pay to win than it already is, in my opinion.Wow, some one asking for pay to win again... I never understand this kind of mentality, there's always someone who want to buy progress using real money instead of earning it...
That about the 2nd idea, the first one sucked and failed to make sense, but that's prolly me as well...
Think about it.
1. Yeah let's make engineering even more lacluster then it already is.
2. NO!
2. NO!
You clearly have no idea what P2W means. Is it also unfair that people who don't own the game have a disadvantage in the game? Or that people on consoles who don't pay for the multiplayer services? Or people will inferior internet connections? People who don't have a good control setup? Smaller monitor? I could spend time doing dishes instead of engineering my ships, would a dishwasher be P2W?
Confusing Pay2Play with Pay2Win.
One-time cost to get a game expansion is clearly not Pay2Win.
Unless you are making up your own definitions, in which case yes you must initially pay for the game to win.
It's almost always against the TOS and involves such dirty tricks as bot farming and gold laundering.
And...?
Lol sure.
Even as a longer time player, the meta progression of the Egnineers and the like is not something I look forward to when playing the game. It's just a means to an end. It'd be nice if it were better incorporated contextually in the game and didn't undermine player play styles to the extent that it does, but that seems to be asking for too much. Apparently we're all supposed to play as mindless, treasonous drone Commanders selling ourselves to the highest bidder to stockpile our own personal arms races.
It's cool if some people want to play that way, but I often have better things to do, or at the very least, wish I did.
Last edited:
That's really cool, but I've seen what Chinese gold farmer bots look like in games like Elder Scrolls Online, and I really have no interest of having them in ED.
I appreciate your differing opinion, I simply don't agree with it and I believe they are also against ED TOS (which basically makes any "secondary market" by definition a "black market" - and 3rd party is obviously true here also).
Last edited:
This "secondary market" usually employs automation to simulate player activity to create resources in-game to trade for real money against the TOS. Such purchases being completed through a third party.
So selling of ill-gained goods through a third party is pretty accurately described as a "third party black market".
You're muddying up the context of exactly what I said with what you're saying you do in an entirely different context. I'm not interested in whatever justification you have for your bots in some other context.
Are you basically telling us that you want to make money with ED?