General Free to Play Economies Belong in Free to Play Games

[DemiserofD]

Please trust me when I say I am very familiar with the gaming space and its way of handling these types of subjects. I don't think the game needs a subscription based model, I never said that. And frankly I'd prefer to just buy a content complete game with no microtransactions and buy subsequent DLC like Odyssey for an upfront cost. But I'm trying to meet people halfway. I'm okay with microtransactions in a game if it is at least sold at a reduced price. But gameplay effecting microtransactions of any kind just push the bar too far for me.

As someone who doesn't own the game, you are probably not as aware of the precise impact these things actually have.

I'm one of the longer term players around here, and while this move has had me watchful, I have not been overly concerned thus far.

The thing about this game is that, after a relatively short period of time, money really stops mattering. The blessing and curse of this game is that skill is the single largest factor. Even if players could just buy fully engineered ships, the worst case scenario, it still would put them no closer to being able to kill a thargoid.

Is it ideal that there is an early access time on these new ships? No, but you have to remember, before this, we had no new ships at all. On the whole, I would say it's been more of a good thing than a bad thing.

And honestly, this might be the only method that really could work for fdev. They have a troubling but seemingly unavoidable tendency to release updates which are significantly broken, and then slowly fix them over time. The release of Odyssey just about killed the game, and I'm pretty sure they don't want to make that mistake again. These sorts of smaller incremental updates keep the money flowing and allow them to control negative feedback.

Of course, it also comes at the cost of not drawing in as many new players, So eventually they probably will need to do another big update. But in order for that to financially justify itself, the game has to cash flow in the short term.

I guess my point is, it's complicated. You're not wrong, but just because you're not wrong doesn't mean you're right.

 

[pvaljann]

What is the actual worry, that someday maybe in 5 years time, ED will become a game of premium-only access to game-changing ships?

Well, no-one can give that guarantee. If Tencent came along with a good buy offer, and board plus majority of shareholders said "yes," then Frontier would change hands. It would still take years, and after that, yes, things might change.

Most likely it is price rises making shareholders more "profit-y," and Frontier know that tune, and so do something to make a bit more money...like cosmetics, and now optional early access to new ships. Since ED is probably the most traffic and compute intensive game Frontier run, I can appreciate that changes, e.g. AWS pricing or major currency fluctuations do bite, but not as hard and often as shareholders who want more profits.

I'm happy enjoying the galaxy as it stands, for the one-off cost of the game+expansion, with a cursory amount of ARX every year for paintjobs on top of the 20+k ARX I earn a year by playing, because I just like my ships pretty.

Until SagA sucks us all in, and all this time Thargoids were throwing us a party (free beer and hats,) whilst saving us from the collapsing galaxy, but humans were so far up themselves they couldn't work out they were invited to it, o7

 

[TurkeyApple]

I certainly agree that if, rather than selling the Corsair early access for 16,500 ARX they'd instead sold it for the equivalent £9.99 as "Early Access Corsair Pack" (with a £20 "Deluxe" version including some cosmetics) a substantial proportion of the people currently objecting to it would have found it perfectly fine. To which I can only say "Frontier are not always the best at marketing/branding their products" and leave it at that.

I don't personally get that myself: the practical difference between it being £9.99 in direct cash and £9.99 via an intermediate virtual currency to gain an in-game advantage is so marginal [1] that I don't understand why so many people appear to think one is absolutely fine and even praiseworthy ("shows that they're still developing the game", "obviously serious players would be expected to buy all the DLC", etc) and the other is scum-of-the-earth predatoriness, pay-to-win slippery slopes, and all the rest.

But given that it is what it is, selling them instead as regular "early access" DLCs for real currencies was possibly a missed marketing opportunity and might have got them slightly more sales overall.

[1] There's a bit of a distinction in terms of refunds. But the vast majority of customers for the early access ships are established players who aren't going to refund it anyway and certainly not within whatever very short window Steam allows.

Needing to buy microtransactions through a seperate purchased currency is a tactic many companies use to obscure the true cost of the items you buy. It's a manipulation tactic, hence why people have a disdain for such things. I don't think there is much difference anyway in selling such a pack for real or fake money, such a pack inherently doesn't need to exist and would function as a form of micro purchase anyway that really just serves to devalue the gameplay and needlessly entice inexperienced players. We all want Frontier to keep developing the game, we just want to make sure they fund that development in a player friendly way. And as we so often see in this industry, once a company realizes it can charge for gameplay effecting items, they almost always expand on that. And whether the game is seen as a more competitive or cooperative experience, making sure players can't buy their way to greater power or status, or that new players don't have to worry about being frustrated or causing frustration to players they want to help or hinder, is very important for a healthy playerbase.

 

[TurkeyApple]

As someone who doesn't own the game, you are probably not as aware of the precise impact these things actually have.

I'm one of the longer term players around here, and while this move has had me watchful, I have not been overly concerned thus far.

The thing about this game is that, after a relatively short period of time, money really stops mattering. The blessing and curse of this game is that skill is the single largest factor. Even if players could just buy fully engineered ships, the worst case scenario, it still would put them no closer to being able to kill a thargoid.

Is it ideal that there is an early access time on these new ships? No, but you have to remember, before this, we had no new ships at all. On the whole, I would say it's been more of a good thing than a bad thing.

And honestly, this might be the only method that really could work for fdev. They have a troubling but seemingly unavoidable tendency to release updates which are significantly broken, and then slowly fix them over time. The release of Odyssey just about killed the game, and I'm pretty sure they don't want to make that mistake again. These sorts of smaller incremental updates keep the money flowing and allow them to control negative feedback.

Of course, it also comes at the cost of not drawing in as many new players, So eventually they probably will need to do another big update. But in order for that to financially justify itself, the game has to cash flow in the short term.

I guess my point is, it's complicated. You're not wrong, but just because you're not wrong doesn't mean you're right.

Frontier have the capacity to change this game in whatever ways they see fit to create a healthier and more fun product. If something is not ideal or even necessary, then it doesn't have to continue being in the game. If money doesn't end up mattering much by the end, they should remove the ship microtransactions. Other games fund their development just fine through base game sales. Which according to other users here, make up the majority of sales anyway. I don't think how they handled the launch of Odyssey was well executed, but the alternative can be better more polished DLC, not gameplay effecting microtransactions that don't seem to exist for a reason outside of enticing unwitting players anyway according to much of what I've heard so far. I really appreciate you understanding where I'm coming from, and I don't think there is a perfect answer, but I have seen better methods of monetization than what we are seeing in ED.

 

[DemiserofD]

Frontier have the capacity to change this game in whatever ways they see fit to create a healthier and more fun product. If something is not ideal or even necessary, then it doesn't have to continue being in the game. If money doesn't end up mattering much by the end, they should remove the ship microtransactions. Other games fund their development just fine through base game sales. Which according to other users here, make up the majority of sales anyway. I don't think how they handled the launch of Odyssey was well executed, but the alternative can be better more polished DLC, not gameplay effecting microtransactions that don't seem to exist for a reason outside of enticing unwitting players anyway according to much of what I've heard so far. I really appreciate you understanding where I'm coming from, and I don't think there is a perfect answer, but I have seen better methods of monetization than what we are seeing in ED.

Please go back and read what I said again, because I believe it addresses this, as well. In essence, I am suggesting that this is both not too bad, and also potentially the only method by which they can meaningfully fund the game successfully.

 

[TurkeyApple]

Please go back and read what I said again, because I believe it addresses this, as well. In essence, I am suggesting that this is both not too bad, and also potentially the only method by which they can meaningfully fund the game successfully.

And I disagree with your opinions, but I appreciate you taking the time to respond and provide your thoughts. I think what we have now could be handled better, and I am certain better alternatives exist for funding development.

 

[SlickPBW]

So, OP is going to hold himself hostage and prevent himself from buying the game until the game company meets his demands.


Yeah, that’s gonna work. Good luck, buddy.

 

[TurkeyApple]

So, OP is going to hold himself hostage and prevent himself from buying the game until the game company meets his demands.


Yeah, that’s gonna work. Good luck, buddy.

Nah nothing like that, just voicing my concerns for a game I'd love to support but have issues with. But thank you for the good luck wishes!

 

[Ian Doncaster]

And as we so often see in this industry, once a company realizes it can charge for gameplay effecting items, they almost always expand on that.

Noting that you don't draw a distinction between whether the purchase was directly for real money or via intermediate virtual currency, that's not the "slippery slope" Frontier has been on, the ultimate direction of which is very unclear.

2012-2014 (pre release): you can buy access to system permits, quickstart ships, and rebuy discounts
2014-2015: you can't buy anything advantageous
2015-2016: you can pre-order the Horizons DLC for exclusive Cobra Mk IV access (it's generally not regarded as a top tier ship by a long way, sure, but it has its niche uses)
2015-2020: you can buy the Horizons DLC which lets you double your ship power with engineering, gives access to a range of new and better ships and modules, is the only way you can obtain anti-Thargoid equipment (which you're going to be in serious trouble in certain scenarios without), and provides a few other advantages.
2020-2021: you can't buy anything advantageous, as Horizons is merged into the base game offer
2021-2024: you can buy the Odyssey DLC which lets you do various forms of on-foot gameplay, which are pretty isolated in terms of advantage from the existing game.
2023-2024: certain time-limited Odyssey scenarios become an exceptional powerful credit earning method
2024-2025: that plus you can buy rolling early access to ships, but if you don't, then the Odyssey DLC gives you them anyway after a delay (base game doesn't get them)
2024-2025: that plus you get access to additional Powerplay methods and Colonisation options with the Odyssey DLC

The Horizons era was by far the most extreme for "you can buy access to gameplay-affecting items". The current ships/Odyssey advantages are a lot more mild.

We all want Frontier to keep developing the game

So long as you don't buy the game it surely doesn't matter to you whether Frontier keep developing it or not, unless you're hoping for some positivity effect where the (qualified) success of ED leads to a wider variety of other multiplayer space games being produced that might be closer to your tastes (hasn't yet).

With a thirteen year history of having some sort of "pay for advantage" either available for purchase or inherited by previous purchasers, they're never going to change it to the purely "initial purchase" model you want.

(As I said: you do need to play the game a bit before you decide whether Frontier continuing to develop it would actually be a good idea. Many people who like the idea have come to the opposite conclusion having actually played it. Assume you would do that if it makes you feel better about not buying it.)

 

[Darrack]

When games like No Man's Sky exist

You cant compare the two, NMS is not even in the same league as ED, the ships are terrible, basic and customisation is a joke.
All you pay for in ED is early access.
ED has tons of free extra content.

You have been playing since yesterday?

Good luck in your travels

O7

 

[Feitochan]

I've been interested in Elite Dangerous for a very long time, but have only recently built a gaming PC to actually play it for myself. So you can imagine my disappointment when I discovered that the microtransactions (for a game that already has an upfront cost to play) have only gotten more agregious over time. What used to be simple cosmetic options for your ships has ballooned into premium currency, and even entire ships if the reviews on Steam are accurate.

I've yet to purchase Elite Dangerous, even during a Steam sale that brought the game down to $5, purely because I don't approve of how Frontier are choosing to handle this game's monetization. If they want a free to play market, then the game needs to be free to play. Or if they want to sell the game for a discounted upfront cost, then they at least need to make sure the microtransactions they offer do not effect gameplay or employ scummy fake currencies meant to hide the real cost of items.

When games like No Man's Sky exist that offers such a wide breadth of content for a single upfront cost, how Frontier are choosing to monetize this game is not okay. I just wanted to provide feedback and ask Frontier to reconsider how they are choosing to sell Elite Dangerous content. I would much prefer buying the game and its DLC for a rduced upfront cost, and having simple cosmetic bundles as microtransactions, or if the game is going to start selling substantial content like ships as part of its microtransactions, then the game needs to be free to play.

The thing is that MMO games like ED can't be run on farts and good intentions because of the costs required for servers internet and building rents to house said servers (or just the rental costs for the servers if they're using another companies data centre) and will require finances to keep these services running and the only ways to fund these is to either have a monthly subscription, constantly have people pay for every bit of new content, or have some kind of microtransactions and FDev opted for the latter.

Stating that FDev should be giving everything away for free isn't financially viable and would mean that the game would eventually be shut down due to a lack of finances.

Also, these ships aren't permanently locked behind ARX and are eventually released to onto the general market if they just want a basic version of the ship, plus there has only been two expansions that required paying for along with content that has been added for free.

 

[TurkeyApple]

Noting that you don't draw a distinction between whether the purchase was directly for real money or via intermediate virtual currency, that's not the "slippery slope" Frontier has been on, the ultimate direction of which is very unclear.

2012-2014 (pre release): you can buy access to system permits, quickstart ships, and rebuy discounts
2014-2015: you can't buy anything advantageous
2015-2016: you can pre-order the Horizons DLC for exclusive Cobra Mk IV access (it's generally not regarded as a top tier ship by a long way, sure, but it has its niche uses)
2015-2020: you can buy the Horizons DLC which lets you double your ship power with engineering, gives access to a range of new and better ships and modules, is the only way you can obtain anti-Thargoid equipment (which you're going to be in serious trouble in certain scenarios without), and provides a few other advantages.
2020-2021: you can't buy anything advantageous, as Horizons is merged into the base game offer
2021-2024: you can buy the Odyssey DLC which lets you do various forms of on-foot gameplay, which are pretty isolated in terms of advantage from the existing game.
2023-2024: certain time-limited Odyssey scenarios become an exceptional powerful credit earning method
2024-2025: that plus you can buy rolling early access to ships, but if you don't, then the Odyssey DLC gives you them anyway after a delay (base game doesn't get them)
2024-2025: that plus you get access to additional Powerplay methods and Colonisation options with the Odyssey DLC

The Horizons era was by far the most extreme for "you can buy access to gameplay-affecting items". The current ships/Odyssey advantages are a lot more mild.


So long as you don't buy the game it surely doesn't matter to you whether Frontier keep developing it or not, unless you're hoping for some positivity effect where the (qualified) success of ED leads to a wider variety of other multiplayer space games being produced that might be closer to your tastes (hasn't yet).

With a thirteen year history of having some sort of "pay for advantage" either available for purchase or inherited by previous purchasers, they're never going to change it to the purely "initial purchase" model you want.

(As I said: you do need to play the game a bit before you decide whether Frontier continuing to develop it would actually be a good idea. Many people who like the idea have come to the opposite conclusion having actually played it. Assume you would do that if it makes you feel better about not buying it.)

So what I'm hearing is that the game has a history of allowing DLC items to disproportionately empower some players over others, so my question to that would be why we allow such practices to continue? Because we feel it's the only way Frontier can keep making money? Other games prove that you can release DLC expansions for free to all players, and still have a profitable game. That said, we naturally expect some content to differ between DLC expansions. Why not make ships and tech available across all players, but have certain locations, missions, stories, parts of the rewarding gameplay experience tied to the DLC? That way all players have access to the same tools, but DLC still provides a compelling set of new gameplay or narrative experiences to those who want the DLC? Powerplay is a great example to provide, so thank you for that.

I don't need to own the game to have an interest in it, and I feel we should encourage development and monetization choices that encourage more players to be willing to give ED a try. Regardless of if the game is for me or not, I still want everyone who does enjoy ED (including potentially me) to be able to enjoy the game without a sense of uncertainty in regards to what the game will try to monetize next.

Your experience is very noted, but as an existing very dedicated fan, I feel my fresh perspective as someone looking at its issues from the outside could be helpful. Especially for inviting more players into the ED universe.

 

[Greasetrap42]

Then why lock ships behind the microtransactions at all?

What ships are locked behind microtransactions?

There are two ships that are "pre-released" for micro-transaction, which will be available ingame normally in a couple months. If you are a new player this really has no relevance to this discussion, as all the other ships are available in-game. And the two "pre-release" ships will be available. And especially for a new player are inconsequential.

I have been playing ED since 2017. I have a fleet of 40 ships on my main account and a bunch on my alt. I have never purchased a ship from the store. I have never had the need and I don't ever plan to.

Edit:
While I don't agree with the selling of ships in the Frontier store, I don't believe it puts me in a game-play disadvantage by not purchasing them. It is certainly not a reason for me to quit playing the game.

 

[TurkeyApple]

You cant compare the two, NMS is not even in the same league as ED, the ships are terrible, basic and customisation is a joke.
All you pay for in ED is early access.
ED has tons of free extra content.

You have been playing since yesterday?

Good luck in your travels

O7

I feel the comparison is fair and warrented, regardless of the gameplay differences, the monetization aspect is what concerns me most here. And I don't feel microtransactions that give players early access or any access to gameplay effecting items is fair. Regardless of how optional they are or how much existing content is already free. I think the game can be supported without using MTXs that undermine gameplay and put players on unequal footing.

But thank you for the good luck wishes, and all the same to you!

 

[TurkeyApple]

The thing is that MMO games like ED can't be run on farts and good intentions because of the costs required for servers internet and building rents to house said servers (or just the rental costs for the servers if they're using another companies data centre) and will require finances to keep these services running and the only ways to fund these is to either have a monthly subscription, constantly have people pay for every bit of new content, or have some kind of microtransactions and FDev opted for the latter.

Stating that FDev should be giving everything away for free isn't financially viable and would mean that the game would eventually be shut down due to a lack of finances.

Also, these ships aren't permanently locked behind ARX and are eventually released to onto the general market if they just want a basic version of the ship, plus there has only been two expansions that required paying for along with content that has been added for free.

I certainly am not asking for all the content for free, and I've already provided many alternatives in other responses to other users. I'm just asking for the way they handle monetization to be more player friendly. And giving players a headstart with new ships just because they paid extra isn't healthy for maintaining a fair gameplay environment. They can make ships available through in-game currency at the same time for all players, and have new locations, progression options and faction activities become available through paid expansions. Or simply remove gameplay effecting microtransactions and lean more into cosmetics. And if they want to choose one path or the other, that would be even better.

 

[anShpan]

But gameplay effecting microtransactions of any kind just push the bar too far for me.

Then better not to spend 5$ to by ED(O) nor any other flight/space sim. Because that is just a beginning of "gameplay effecting microtransactions": Soon one will start wanting a decent HOTAS/HOSAS. Then second (third) monitor. Then Rudders, perhaps. Then to mount that on a dedicated chair... and so on.

Actually, to play i.e. chess we need a set of chess and board. To play football we need a ball...
Probably Rock Paper Scissors is the only (age-unrestricted) game for which we don't need additional gear(s) and which I can quickly recall.

 

[Greasetrap42]

I feel the comparison is fair and warrented, regardless of the gameplay differences, the monetization aspect is what concerns me most here. And I don't feel microtransactions that give players early access or any access to gameplay effecting items is fair.

It is quite clear from this thread that you believe ED is engaged in unfair game practices. No amount of explanation is changing your opinion. Which is completely okay. You can have your opinion

You have been given a fair amount of clarification.

You still don't like it. I suggest you move on and don't play the game.

 

[oblivionmanman 2476]

you have no need to spend anymore then the cost of the game ,the ships for sale will eventualy be available in game,as greasetrap 42 just said You still don't like it. I suggest you move on and don't play the game.

 

[TurkeyApple]

Then better not to spend 5$ to by ED(O) nor any other flight/space sim. Because that is just a beginning of "gameplay effecting microtransactions": Soon one will start wanting a decent HOTAS/HOSAS. Then second (third) monitor. Then Rudders, perhaps. Then to mount that on a dedicated chair... and so on.

Actually, to play i.e. chess we need a set of chess and board. To play football we need a ball...
Probably Rock Paper Scissors is the only (age-unrestricted) game for which we don't need additional gear(s). Which I can quickly recall.

I don't feel the need to buy all those extra pieces of equipment, it's possible to aclimate to any way of playing, but ships provide objective advantages to players of even equal skill levels and that can have a negative effect on the fairness of the game in both PVP, PVE, and general play. I don't feel just telling people not to get the game is healthy long-term for ED. But creating a monetization system that encourages more players to give ED a try and be treated fairly most certainly can be. If I can purchase No Man's Sky, for a single upfront cost and that game can release consistent substantial content updates for free, or play Halo MCC multiplayer without guns being locked behind microtransactions, I don't see why ED can't accomplish the same, if they wanted to. Different genres perhaps, but the core point stands in my opinion.

 

[Koma Pahu]

Starting to doubt how genuine this discussion is. I see good points being made and ignored or twisted.

To the OP, if you don’t want to buy the game for ethical reasons, don’t.