As someone who missed out on the Chrome/Gold skins early on (and spent an unholy amount on the inferior Chromed/Golden skins instead), either of those 2 will be the next skin for my C5. Determined to use accumulated Arx though - 10k is a lot for a simple paintjob like those... need another 1,700 or so, but I swear the Arx earning rate seems to have slowed in direct correlation to my Arx balance increasing... I'm sure it's just my imagination though. I do miss the old days of being able to spend my free Arx on a cheaper item every few weeks I have to say.
Cobra Mk V in-game availability?
- Thread starter cmdr jonnimew
- Start date
Elite Dangerous: It could be a lot worse! That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Of course Frontier can decide for themselves how they want to go about monetizing the game, but again a bit more communication would help.
I do however still think that LEP holders who are a bit miffed about that "early access" are not unreasonable. The last time I tried to ask people where they would draw the line about how long of a delay would be acceptable, I got not one single honest reply. Probably because for some of them the answer to "what would you still be okay with" would be "whatever Frontier decides to do".
It's generally a coping mechanism but yeah I wouldn't put that on any marketing campaignElite Dangerous: It could be a lot worse! That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
I'm no LEP'er, but to me lifetime means content is paid for for the lifetime of the product (any upfront disclaimers on exceptions notwithstanding). Seems pretty straightforward to me, though I've been bitten by this elsewhere (Forza games) so now I no longer buy those premium packs and just spend as I go along, even if that might result in a worse deal for me in the end.
What I find amusing is how Frontier have pushed themselves into a corner with regards to communicating the end of the 'early access' period for ships - it's not in their interest to be transparent about it because people, once they know the date, will likely hold off purchases.
edited for clarity
Although I bought some of the new ships (and lots of paintjobs and ship kits) in the past, I get the impression that the release model (ARX for preview) will come to an end much sooner than FDev anticipates and wants unless they don't come up with really spectacular designs (I wrote 'spectacular', not 'absurd' ) or features because what else do we players want to pay for after the main roles (combat, exploration, transport and multi-role) have been released? A few big ships (Cutter MkII, Anaconda MkII)? Probably. A medium size passenger liner? Also probable. But there's not that much variation and novelty left, unless new game loops or features (SCO) are being created.
I am thinking of:
) or features because what else do we players want to pay for after the main roles (combat, exploration, transport and multi-role) have been released? A few big ships (Cutter MkII, Anaconda MkII)? Probably. A medium size passenger liner? Also probable. But there's not that much variation and novelty left, unless new game loops or features (SCO) are being created. I am thinking of:
- ships which can be equipped with SRV bays for huge vehicles or different kind of fighters --> more ground combat, transport, exploration
- ships for other extreme environments / corrosion resistant ships --> open permit locked zones to fight Thargoids or dive in ocean worlds or gas giants
- non-hyperdrive capable ships which serve as fast cargo transporters between a carrier and a station
Used to be you'd get a few threads on here about how Star Citizen is the perfect game and ED should be like that. Takes people a little while to adjust to the change in narrative.It's generally a coping mechanism but yeah I wouldn't put that on any marketing campaign
I'd also say that opening early access ships to LEP holders would not hurt FDev's P&L significantly. I mean, how many LEP holders are still around and playing vs. the rest of the players?
EDIT: No, I don't have a LEP!
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
personally if they are gonna do it i thought 3 months was reasonable...... but what ever time limit it is, the worst thing about it is the lack of communitcation (what, FD, lack of comms ... well i never!
)But not giving players a date means they cannot work out any value proposition when buying a ship.
You're not thinking of new ships as such, you're thinking of completely new game mechanics. Different vehicles, new environments, etc, those would be significant new development features with ships for those mechanics an afterthought.Although I bought some of the new ships (and lots of paintjobs and ship kits) in the past, I get the impression that the release model (ARX for preview) will come to an end much sooner than FDev anticipates and wants unless they don't come up with really spectacular designs (I wrote 'spectacular', not 'absurd'
I am thinking of:
Any other ideas?
- ships which can be equipped with SRV bays for huge vehicles or different kind of fighters --> more ground combat, transport, exploration
- ships for other extreme environments / corrosion resistant ships --> open permit locked zones to fight Thargoids or dive in ocean worlds or gas giants
- non-hyperdrive capable ships which serve as fast cargo transporters between a carrier and a station
it needent be the case.... not if FD for the last month lets say, reduced the price of the ship by a certain amount each week, at the end of it the buyers still have a ship skin and some free upgrades and life time insurance.
Full disclosure, I never tried SC even though I'm well aware of it. I do scratch my head over the (imo) over-obsession of it on these forums... looking at that thread and how many posts/views that accumulated over the years... undeserved but I don't have to understand it I guess.
I don't like SC's op model, I don't like the way the game is structured, I don't like the oversell/underdeliver approach (though at least that reminds me of Elite).
Which is why I don't use it in any of my arguments - both NMS and X4 are far better "mainstream" examples of what the competition is doing. Yes I know they're not 100% comparable with Elite for several reasons, but they do compete for my time (NMS less successfully, X4 much more so).
Apparently I wrote that. Please read again. My TL;DR point is that unless new mechanics will be created, constant release of new ships will come to an end because no one will buy them.
If they package exclusive skins etc., sure - but the standard version (which I bought) doesn't have that and honestly the insurance discount is a misfire imo - it feels like P2W lite, without actually winning anything because it's also so neglegible once you outfit your ship it may as well not be a thing at all.
oh yeah i forgot about that version..... then again, a 25% price cut per week in the last month before release, its down to the player to decide then.
i agree on the free replacment its a small enough amount on the base ship that it does not offer that much, whilst still being frustrating to those who just worry about thin end of the wedge (which isnt always a false slippery slope analogy.... i remember some claiming that 3 months was only the start of it and if the P2 made FD enough money they would extend the gap longer........... they seem to have been on the money!)
also... free rebuys even on a base ship is just daft from a "sensible game" point of view.
sure there is the sidewinder......... because there does have to be a safety net so people are not locked out from the game without account wiping, but leave it at that imo...... (actually to be fair dont even need that now we have oddy)
What I meant was people use these responses to shut down any criticism without considering context and nuances.
"I don't like Colonisation because ABC, but add XYZ and I'd love it" gets responses like "don't play it then" in the context of Colonisation being the new shiny gameplay, of course people will want to play and engage with it.
"I don't like the stuff they sell at the prices they sell them at" gets responses like "don't buy them then" in the context of the individual actually wanting to spend some money on Frontier's product.
That's why I think they're unnecessary - because things don't improve if nobody complains about them. All of course provided that arguments are made in good faith and are reasonable, but that should go without saying. I see those responses regardless of that though.
It could work, or they could at least trial it and see - I have a feeling though they already got their data from the P2 rollout and didn't like the sales curve
I like things being communicated clearly and concisely, and then stick to it consistently. Anything else comes across as... a bit iffy but that's just me.
You know what's hilarious - since I bought the C5 four months ago, it's become my primary combat ship (in Open), engaging in PP2.0 and other activities, and I've yet to see the rebuy screen. So the C5 is definitely a ship that really doesn't need any claims discount (which is already very low anyways due to the size of the ship).
Personally I just want to pick up a game and start playing it. ED does that for me right now, X4 likely would as well (although I can never seem to get into it. NMS- absolute waste of money for me). I'm not exactly over the moon about price increases, basically since the amount I had to spend to buy the Arx for the Corsair came to more than I spent on the base game and Odyssey combined. Although I don't begrudge it too much because I'm spending far less on Arx since the increase so it actually balances in my favour.
These things are supply and demand though, and there are always people with more money and less sense than me around.
Only way things will change is if the revenue drops as a result of a decision and since revenue and player numbers has gone up since 2023, I'm not expecting a change in tack. The data says keep going.
That's the way they want to run their business, that's their perogative of course. They also tried to drop support for their F1 game mere months post-release. It does seem that the beanies are in charge and have been for a long time now. Unfortunately, it shows.
On the other end of the spectrum then.... using Hello Games as the benchmark is perhaps a little unrealistic given the sheer number of free updates, but I look at Egosoft (X4) and SCS (ETS/ATS games) and how they run their businesses, and I much prefer it - their sales models, how they engage with players, the regular free & paid content updates, proper advance communication, all very nice stuff - and for games that are getting pretty long in the tooth in both cases.
Likewise, I was buying Arx for cosmetics over 4 accounts regularly, now it is just paying out cash for Arx on the main account - so I'm spending less and still getting to play with new ships on day 1.
Funny that in another thread, when I responded to "how long we should wait", it wasn't considered 'honest' as it didn't agree with the thread's agenda...
ETA: Being blunt, FD could elect to make the "Early Access" as long as they wish, to me it makes sense to raise revenue that way, rather than having to pay a subscription each month, but then, that may be coloured by enjoying 4 accounts!
Last edited:
6
Or it could be like it was and a lot better.
Yeah I'm not trying to convince anyone to pick up those games, but the way a number of posters act like SC is the one and only other spacegame out there is grinding my gears.
Agree - I find it interesting (and perhaps a little depressing) how quickly these prices have apparently been normalised by the players. I see the new ships with all sorts of skins and kits flying around a lot from the beginning of the P2 release, so it seems they're selling well enough. But I'm not pointing fingers, just making observations. I've been part of the problem in the past to be fair.
And if people really think that 5k to name a single station is good value... well what can I say, maybe I'm out of touch. It also means we see more (and bolder) derivations along those lines in the future.
