If sales are staying strong, I don't imagine they will turn off the spigot.
Cobra Mk V
- Thread starter nanothargon
- Start date
So they really going for p2w? I mean, the MkV is clearly an OP ship... If they really do keep it as ARX only I think that might kinda put FDev on my list of dev studios to avoid
rootsrat
Volunteer Moderator
They won't keep it arx exclusive, but it's anyone's guess when will the ea end.So they really going for p2w? I mean, the MkV is clearly an OP ship... If they really do keep it as ARX only I think that might kinda put FDev on my list of dev studios to avoid
Tough crowd. No good deed goes unpunished.I usually deprecate them even further...
P2
C5
I am known to be incredibly lazy though!
It's not really pay to win when they give you free arx. You've been around for long enough that the free arx you had should be enough to get all the pre-release ships. Does that make it play-to-win rather than pay-to win? I got all mine with free arx. I get around 400arx every week, so that's 40 weeks to get a Cobra 5. If you've signed up to a PP that gives free rebuys. You get 6 arx for each self-destruct you do, so 66.6 times gets you your full quota for the week. In 40 weeks time, you get the free pre-release Panther Clipper.So they really going for p2w? I mean, the MkV is clearly an OP ship... If they really do keep it as ARX only I think that might kinda put FDev on my list of dev studios to avoid
I wasn’t trying to suggest that, but with no stated timeline to adhere to and being in the first round of selling ships for Arx, it would be neglect if they weren’t testing the boundaries. Sales numbers by week per ship for their respective exclusive window would be interesting to see, then of course having the next new ship in line for release would also be an important factor on when it would be most profitable to send something off for general release.So they really going for p2w? I mean, the MkV is clearly an OP ship... If they really do keep it as ARX only I think that might kinda put FDev on my list of dev studios to avoid
I would expect that the more weeks that go by the less these ships would sell as everyone starts expecting it to go for credits “any day now”.
It's medium. No, wait, it's small. But medium. I guess it joins the "FDEV didn't think my dimensions through very deeply" club. That's good news for the Clipper, who was feeling out of place hanging out with the Keelback, Type 6, and Type 7. (The Anaconda isn't welcome because no one wants to hear it gripe about how much faster it should boost in vacuum when the truth is that it should just weigh more).
If you play in both Odyssey and Horizons you can earn up to 400 in each.
"Pay-to-win" refers primarily to PvP gameplay. It might also be used to refer to single-player gameplay if by paying real-world money you can get easier fights or even bypass them completely (but AFAIK that's a less common usage of that term).
The Cobra Mk V is not the best PvP ship in the game, and thus there is no advantage in purchasing it in that regard. There's nothing to "win".
This is quite purely "pay-for-early-access", not "pay-to-win". I think it's much more comparable to paid DLC than pay-to-win.
People becoming upset about having to pay for early access only confirm that early access is a desirable, and therefore marketable, commodity. Want it early? Pay. Dont want to pay? Wait. No one's winning or losing anything.
Oh come now, it's hardly anywhere close to being like "that other game (perpetual broken glitchy no-physics alpha tech demo with absurd bait-and-switch scammy macro-transactions)" that we must not mention by name under any circumstances.So they really going for p2w? I mean, the MkV is clearly an OP ship... If they really do keep it as ARX only I think that might kinda put FDev on my list of dev studios to avoid
At least for the Type-8 - the only other ship to be released for credits yet (link goes to 18:05):
That should say if you play in Live and Legacy, there are two versions of Horizons.
rootsrat
Volunteer Moderator
Thanks! I was looking for a source of this forever.
Wrong. We all lose. It's a business practice that shows that Frontier don't care about the players except when they are spending their money. Once the money has been spent, Frontier stop caring. It's the same attitude companies like EA (Electronic Arts), Ubisoft, Bethesda, Blizzard and Epic Games take. It's greed, pure and simple, and I for one don't like a company I have supported for more than sixteen years (yes, really) go down this road. I expected better from Frontier. It also really disappoints me that so many in this community just shrug their shoulders and show they have no moral standards.
It's quite simple; I love this game, so much so that in the last ten years, I have played it for over three thousand hours (not much compared to others who played since release, I know, but for my personal gaming habits, it's huge). I would like to keep playing the game for as long as possible and in order for that to happen, I accept that without a monthly subscription, there needs to be an alternative source of revenue. Morals are great and all, but they don't keep the lights on, they don't keep the servers running and they don't allow the developers to earn a living. That said, I don't think FDEVs business practices are particularly immoral, they're certainly a far cry from the loot boxes, etcetera of EA et al.
Ok, maybe instead: low moral standards, and I do mean really low.Possibly a bit overstated?
Well, unless Frontier literally publish all the costs involved, you and I can't speculate on what it takes to "keep the servers running". The most we know is Frontier are making a profit. What I don't like is how that profit is made. Where is Frontier's line of what is acceptable? Because I get the impression it's shifted lower and lower over the years.