Do you want Planet Type DLC

You might not see a problem but you can bet that the forums and social media would be full of people who do see a problem if FDev started creating, say, CGs that involved optional DLC or PP2 things that required it.

Expansions and big DLC usually gatekeep content. For example WoW expansions are required to access new lands (zones), playable races, classes, dungeons, weapons, mounts, quests etc. People can complain, but they still must buy the expansion to gain access. This business model has been used by many games and MMOs.
 
Last edited:
Hi All :)
Just some random thoughts here....
When I'm out exploring and landing on planets I've noticed some planets (surfaces) seem to be more detailed than others I've landed on.
So...is it just a pot luck experience, or the main question is, are Frontier Developers still adding or tweaking on the geology side kinda in the background, and perhaps not actually disclosing what they might be doing in a general sense, (ongoing refinement of planet geology).
Or...is work in this area more or less stagnant currently.

Jack :)
 
Expansions and big DLC usually gatekeep content. For example WoW expansions are required to access new lands (zones), playable races, classes, dungeons, weapons, mounts, quests etc. People can complain about it, but they still must buy the expansion to gain access. This business model has been used by many games and MMOs.

Oh yeah, for sure.

Problem is, due to the "sandbox" nature of ED, it isn't possible to fully integrate DLC into the main activities of the game (without excluding players who don't have the DLC).

For example, although Horizons players probably think engineering is an integral part of the game, base-game players would never even see it.
If FDev created, say, a CG where players had to deliver stuff to Felicity Farseer in order to allow her to upgrade her mod's, base-game players would complain that there was stuff going on they were excluded from.

Sure, there are always going to be times when players with different DLC have different experiences.
For example, a Horizons player arrives at a landable planet and flies down to the surface where a base-game player arrives at the same place and hits a wall in orbit.
That isn't really the issue I have.
My concern is that FDev might come up with some new feature, make it a paid DLC and, as a result, it would never reach it's full potential because FDev don't want to exclude players who don't have that DLC.
 
Last edited:
As long as we players (many, not all of us) want a live service game which gets meaningful updates (= more than just a few CGs or a bit of 'maintenance fixing'), we have to expect to pay. A comapny like FDev cannot produce free content over a long time unless they don't have a way to monetize their work. Service needs to be paid in some way. That's the nature of a company, particularly one which is listed on the stock market.
Of course, there are a couple of ways how to monetize a live service game: I can think of:
  • advertisement or other ugly methods like selling our behavioural and personal data (ewwww)
  • paid add-ons which do not have a 'pay to win' impact like paint jobs, ship kits (that works - for a while and for a respectable but not huge revenue and allows to build smaller extension of a game)
  • paid add-ons which HAVE a 'pay to win' impact like ships which are only unlockable through a paywall (also ewww)
  • paid DLCs which expand the game
 
Of course, there are a couple of ways how to monetize a live service game: I can think of:
  • advertisement or other ugly methods like selling our behavioural and personal data (ewwww)
  • paid add-ons which do not have a 'pay to win' impact like paint jobs, ship kits (that works - for a while and for a respectable but not huge revenue and allows to build smaller extension of a game)
  • paid add-ons which HAVE a 'pay to win' impact like ships which are only unlockable through a paywall (also ewww)
  • paid DLCs which expand the game
And/Or

Sell part by part a DLCs level content with Early Access over a longer period of time, develop each part without big investments upfront, while testing the waters of how good the reception is by the player-base and it's potential to attract new players, supplement extra income with cosmetics, and have an option to switch in case it goes bad without major financial implications.
 
My concern is that FDev might come up with some new feature, make it a paid DLC and, as a result, it would never reach it's full potential because FDev don't want to exclude players who don't have that DLC.
Haven’t Frontier happily excluded console players from the latest features with the Legacy version?

macOS players were excluded from the entire game. Frontier don’t seem to have too much of an issue excluding former customers if it suits their purposes.
 
Haven’t Frontier happily excluded console players from the latest features with the Legacy version?

macOS players were excluded from the entire game. Frontier don’t seem to have too much of an issue excluding former customers if it suits their purposes.

Well, firstly, I'd have to take issue with the word "happily".
I seem to recall, at the time, that FDev repeatedly expressed regret at having to abandon the console versions.

To be a little cynical, it's probably a much easier decision to exclude people who are not going to be "customers" going forward.
Beyond that, I suspect it's simply "the path of least resistance" to stick with narrative content that can be accessed by all players instead of having to develop things specific to various DLCs.

To be clear, my concern is that FDev might come up with something really cool, such as super-detailed planets, but then it wouldn't reach it's full potential because FDev seem to prefer to keep on providing content that only really needs the base-game.

I mean, when Horizons was "the latest thing" we didn't really get any dynamic gameplay specific to Horizons.
We never got to follow another ship down to a surface for any reason.
We did get some random, limited, planetary combat but that got dialled back because NPC ships had a habit of face-planting into the surface.
In all the time we've had Horizons, nobody's ever seen an SRV that wasn't being driven by a CMDR.
Personally, I would have like to see, for example, missions to defend an outpost from attack, where hostile ships would arrive, land and drop SRVs that'd attack the base while other hostile ships engaged in "air" combat - basically, a surface CZ.
Nothing like that ever happened, though, because FDev obviously decided that planet surfaces, with static outposts on them, was enough.

Similar thing with Odyssey.
Everybody wanted "space legs" and what we got was, basically, another SRV the size and shape of a person to drive around in.
We didn't get to walk around inside ships or, perhaps, enter spaceports and take on missions to clear out pirates or aliens.
Sure, we did get some new outposts, with buildings we can enter, but we didn't get any Odyssey-specific environments.
And, now Odyssey is "complete", it's unlikely we're going to get anything more advanced than we already have.

It's great that FDev are still developing new content for ED but it doesn't seem like they ever develop DLCs to their full potential.
That's okay as long as the DLC is specific to some aspect of the game but it'd be a shame if they created something as big as super-detailed planet surfaces and then "MVPed it" because it was "just a DLC".

Personally, I think FDev might be better off developing "niche" DLCs so that players interested in that aspect of the game could immerse themselves in it but there'd be no dilemma about how far to incorporate it into the main game.
For example, FDev could create a "Trade Tycoon" DLC, where players could purchase an "office" in a station, build ships, hire NPC crew, send ships out on trade-routes and accept contracts to supply stuff (with the option to fly a ship yourself if necessary) and players could happily dabble with that without much of an impact on the rest of the game.
 
I don't think that would be possible, technically. What about planetary POIs, exobiology, settlements and so on? If the procedural generation of a planet depends on a DLC, that would surely mess things up. We've already seen those changes with Odyssey. And although Ody was years in development, they have not managed to retain the coordinates of the various locations.
Why wouldn't it be possible?
 
[...] Personally, I think FDev might be better off developing "niche" DLCs so that players interested in that aspect of the game could immerse themselves in it but there'd be no dilemma about how far to incorporate it into the main game.
For example, FDev could create a "Trade Tycoon" DLC, where players could purchase an "office" in a station, build ships, hire NPC crew, send ships out on trade-routes and accept contracts to supply stuff (with the option to fly a ship yourself if necessary) and players could happily dabble with that without much of an impact on the rest of the game.
I agree insofar that a couple of standalon or add-on games may be well received and not ultimately necessary for those who want to focus less on flying ships
  • Space station & planetary settlements manager DLC (including bartender & nightclub manager ;))
  • dock worker DLC: tugboat pilot, station repairs and maintenance
  • station & system police DLC: fly ships and fight crime on stations, identify smugglers, etc.
However, when the DLCs become too niche, it won't be worth developing them. Therefore, 'interesting' DLCs like thick atmosphere planets + more biomes and ship interiors will probably find far more customers.

I think that @Coolgroove 's suggestion above is a safe way to go forward: build the framework for ship interiors and/or basic thicker atmospheres (just water, magma, weather, slightly expanded biomes) at reasonable price and then expand them when they are successful. In parallel, test out 'niche DLCs'.
 
Of course it would be great to be able to land on more types of planets, but
It makes more sense to expand existing odyssey mechanics which not needs a total overhaul
I prefer more on foot content.
new discoveries such as life on planets, plants, artifacts
new areas like abandoned buildings/ wrecks/ ancient ruins /new space station areas and missions for this stuff
for example
go to space Station sector and /steal from/ deliver/ repair etc.
Clean the space station area / xenoruin from pirates, terrorists or xenomorphs
Collect plant/creature, artifact from , or the repair thing. Extinguishing fires with vacuum as in the training mission would be great for space station firefighter missions.
 
Last edited:
Well, firstly, I'd have to take issue with the word "happily".
I seem to recall, at the time, that FDev repeatedly expressed regret at having to abandon the console versions.
They regretted not being able to get Odyssey working on the PS4 (and equivalent XBox), but made no attempt to get Odyssey working on the PS5 (and equivalent XBox). They were so sad about their failure they didn't even try to get it working on the newest consoles.
 
They regretted not being able to get Odyssey working on the PS4 (and equivalent XBox), but made no attempt to get Odyssey working on the PS5 (and equivalent XBox). They were so sad about their failure they didn't even try to get it working on the newest consoles.
you seem to know a lot about FDev's internal decisions and their sadness. Can you reveal more, please?
 
you seem to know a lot about FDev's internal decisions and their sadness. Can you reveal more, please?
I know about the same as the average forum user, but there must be some reason the PS5 (and equivalent XBox) was abandoned before the PS4 (and equivalent XBox).
 
I know about the same as the average forum user, but there must be some reason the PS5 (and equivalent XBox) was abandoned before the PS4 (and equivalent XBox).
I am not sure abandoned is the right term as a specific version for the then next gen consoles was never produced, to the best of my knowledge.
 
I know about the same as the average forum user, but there must be some reason the PS5 (and equivalent XBox) was abandoned before the PS4 (and equivalent XBox).
you mentioned 'failure', 'sadness', 'no attempt'. That sounded like you knew what and why they decided to abandon the consoles. I was referring to these statements you made because I thought you have some evidence. Apparently, it was a speculation, then?
 
Back
Top Bottom