Give it a week, maybe two, before we see another one....
We've had Polls .... Open Letters .... Kickstarter proposals ..... I wonder what will be next ?
oooohhh, haven't seen an open letter for a while.
Extra Kickstarter question
- Thread starter EdzUp
- Start date
Give it a week, maybe two, before we see another one....
oooohhh, haven't seen an open letter for a while.
I wouldn't kickstart this. I don't care much about new ships, I'd rather have new gameplay.
Thats actually a great idea that would provide a justification for convoys hanging around in 'normal space'.
It seems you're a bit angry about something, I've no idea why though.
You're forgetting that a large number of people currently playing were not involved in the original kickstarter, for those people they are seeing the game as it is at retail, and looking to what it can be.
Exploring possibilities, ways of talking about, thinking about and discussing things we'd like to see implemented is core to any sort of intelligent debate and development. It's never a waste of time and it's not wrong to have a conversation about a new way to do something. Sure, you might feel like it's a waste of your personal time, or not something you're personally interested in, but the simple solution is that you don't have to get involved. Participation in a forum like this is opt-in, it's not a requirement.
Plans change in any business development, not least in ongoing long-term game development, priorities shift and what seemed like a great idea in 2012 when you're making a kickstarter video may not actually still be a good idea in 2017, or you may find out that a throwaway comment about a possible thing that might happen has been adopted as a touchstone for a large portion of the community you've built up and you may be sitting there thinking "oops, shouldn't have said that".
Eve online is a prime example (and the one I used as my example in my kickstarter post) of a game not entirely dissimilar from Elite where we were all told for many years (since Beta actually) we'd get the ability to walk around outside our ships eventually and we watched for years as that project was developed and ultimately cancelled, and now, 13 years after launch, it's still not happened. Not because they couldn't do it (they actually did it, then scrapped it) but because a vocal group in the playerbase strongly objected to funding being diverted from what they considered to be "the real game" into what they considered to be "a waste of time". The devs of Eve bowed to that pressure and cancelled that aspect of the game. So that's a prime example of where a discussion about alternative funding sources for a side-development might actually have helped (sadly back then kickstarting something wasn't a thing).
Mostly, just relax, it's just a discussion.
Yes! I can't take credit for the idea, another Commander in another thread talked about it and I thought it was brilliant. They also said that's their headcannon for a bunch of the floating wreck fields we find and things like that.
I would like to see that concept solidified into the game since I think it would add a lot of potential gameplay elements and including the older style ships would really bring it to life.
When you read my post, in your head; im guessing it sounded angry, but im not entirely sure how you got that mood from it as i was completely calm when writing it as i am now.
There is a fundamental difference between discussing things you'd like in a game, and putting forward the idea of paying extra for features in a game, you've already bought. Now as you say its an open forum for discussion and opinions and i have stated mine clearly that i cannot fathom why anyone would think that its a good idea.
Pre-funding games is something that should not be taken lightly as Kickstarter was considered a massive success and paved the way for Early Access. Early Access is a cesspool of what can only be described as "legal daylight robbery"...Total shovel ware released barely functional until they milk the most money they can out of it and totally abandon the project. There are many good articles out there on how pre-ordering and early access games are very damaging to the gaming industry for the consumer.
Now this dosent apply to ED, but giving ANY developer the idea that we are willing to buy games, and then pay for content to be added to them is consumer suicide and should, in my opinion, never be brought to the table. Im not worried because i know FD wont do it, if FD even hinted at this most of the community with their faculties about them would hit the E-roof, and rightly so.
Last edited:
Jenner
I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
Well said. I agree 100%.
so do I it's the bug bear of today's games is the free to play model where you have to pay to progress. If Elite ever done that it would like a huge chunk of player's immediately being the way it is gives it a certain charm.
As I said it was a idea and up for discussion I would love to see the old ships back, it's one of the reasons I'm still in a Sidey.
Well that's interesting and all, but it's fundamentally incorrect...
How many of us pay for Season Passes for games? I know I've paid for at least three season passes in the last few years, and two of those didn't even tell me what I was getting, it was just "all the new DLC's for this year". You're paying money up front for updates to a game that you think/hope will be be good, and you like the game enough that you're willing to gamble your money on the DLC's being something you like.
People who don't buy a season pass can still buy each DLC as they come out (typically at an increased price).
Explain to me, since you like doing that, how that's in any way at all different to suggesting a kickstarter for an add-on to a game?
Do you want to talk about pre-ordering expansions based on videos and a list of cool features? Cos that's my next comparison. For example, my partner plays ESO a lot, she pre-ordered the Morrowind expansion based on a cinematic video and a list of features to be included (some of which were not confirmed yet) because she loves ESO and was willing to invest money months in advance on the promise of getting what she hoped for in the expansion that wasn't even finished yet.
Would you like to explain to me how this differs from suggesting a kickstarter for game add-ons to Elite?
I own several EA games that are really, really good. They've been worth every penny and more. I own several retail finished games that are pants and not at all the game I thought I was buying. I own a few EA games that have failed, or are just bad, I own a few retail games that are great, and well worth the money. Pretty sure most games have had the same experience.
Yes, there are EA games that are pretty bad, and/or never happen, there are retail games that are just so awful you wonder how they are ever made. Those things are not unrelated to money, but there's no reason to assume that all EA games are "legal daylight robbery", just as there's no reason to assume all major studio released finished games are "really awesome and totally worth every penny"... I mean, do I need to mention No Mans' Sky as just one example or a full retail game, not kickstarter or EA that failed to live up to expectations set by the developer?
Really, there's plenty of precedent for paying in advance for as-yet undeveloped content. Hence, discussing pre-funded content expansions for Elite should never be a taboo area, it's a valid model used by many developers and there's no reason to suggest otherwise.
I have had this discussion way too often, so i'll just straight up give you the TLDR version:
He wasn't saying that it isn't an established and common practice to have people pay for as yet non-existing content.
He was saying that it's a crap practice, and i thought he explained very well why.
Just because it has become widespread doesn't make it good or desirable.
And luckily FD seem to have come around to share that view, as DB's remarks on the season pass model or ED would indicate.
Last edited:
Jenner
I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
Sure, there's precedence for paying in advance for undeveloped content, but that doesn't make it the best idea in all cases.
What someone does with their money is their own business, but in general I would say you should be very careful with plonking down money for something before its even made. There *are* execptions.... the Elite Dangerous kickstarter was obviously one. Many people (myself included) put down money on this project before anything was available. That was a gamble and it paid off.
There have been many other kickstarter gambles I've made that have not.
Kickstarter is a crowd funding system for getting projects off the ground. As far as gaming goes it makes the most sense for small/indie devs who do not have the capability of getting publishers behind them. However, there *are* risks with it. You as a backer assume financial risk. If that's fine then more power to ya.
The point here is that Kickstarter is not the best platorm *now* with which to develop Elite further. Dale already summed up the reasons why quite succinctly up-thread a bit. Frontier have money now and they have developers and they have a working game already. They don't need Kickstarter to get additions off the ground. They have a game and they have an installed cross-platform userbase.
As for season passes - again the consumer really should think a bit about the value proposition there before plonking down cash. I don't think the modern trend of season passes (and day one DLC and fee-to-play, etc.) have really been all that positive for the gaming industry. They've encouraged many less than moral developers and publishers to really milk their customers and produce sub-par products.
TL;DR By all means do what you want with your money, and support devs you like, but kickstarter is not the way forward *now* for Elite (imho) and season passes as a revenue stream for developers has resulted in some fairly anti-consumer business practices from some parts of the industry.