Frontier Needs Money (new Dev Update from Michael).

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
With ED, the timing is always wrong with people on the forums, sadly. FD could give gold bars to everyone and you would get people complaining they are too heavy.

FD has made mistakes and will continue to do so, but the level of hysteria, vitriol and rabid jawbone flapping is alarming when you consider what people complain about.
 
I would pay a nominal fee for an app that could change my UI colour

I know it can be done easily myself, but a nice simple gui (accessible in game & instant) would be great.

I would pay to plot routes longer than 1000 ly as well :p

Custom paint jobs would be good... as well as paying for a 'permit' to build my own space pad.

and I would like the opportunity to name them Earth like planets I have discovered (You could maybe block buy 20 vouchers to name the planet & then name it in game, etc)
 
I agree with the above that people are always finding something to complain about. Oh well, that's just the culture that developed here. I'm not terribly concerned and neither should FDev be I think, but they need to acknowledge this and tell us to shut up every now and then (repair rates, fuel rates, and vulture price)

I think ED could have done well with a subscription model, or with a hybrid. I really hate the stigma around subscription games. If it was a buy in for alpha/beta/mercenary, then $10/mo for everyone else for 6 months, then free for that user from then on, I think they would have had more people playing. I'm sure people looked at the $60 price tag at release and said "naw I'll wait for it to be $45", then bought it at $45, or forgot. I'm sure those same people would have contributed $60 by now.
 
Last edited:
I don't mind Frontier bringing in revenue form other platforms at all, if it eventually gets us the missing features. I actually wouldn't mind a subscription fee, and I've changed my stance on 'cash for credits' or 'microtransactions' to 'meh, ok, whatever' if it keeps the game going and we see continued development on features 'we' (read I) actually want.

As per the above, I think that trying to impose a subscription onto people who bought a 'pay once play for life' offer would be such a PR disaster that it could destroy the company.

I have also moved on the 'pay to win' debate, if not quite as far as you. It seems rather silly to complain about 'pay to win' when we have players flying about with all sorts of ill-gotten gains through exploits, stupidities like not resetting the gamma, poorly calculated bonuses (the first player to Sag A* got something like 300 Million for it ...), badly balanced game play (spamming 'seeking luxuries' anyone?) and so on.

- - - Updated - - -

PP was 1.3, we haven't had the disappointing 1.4 yet. ;)
We will, we will.
 
Last edited:
As per the above, I think that trying to impose a subscription onto people who bought a 'pay once play for life' offer would be such a PR disaster that it could destroy the company.

I have also moved on the 'pay to win' debate, if not quite as far as you. It seems rather silly to complain about 'pay to win' when we have players flying about with all sorts of ill-gotten gains through exploits, stupidities like not resetting the gamma, poorly calculated bonuses (the first player to Sag A* got something like 300 Million for it ...), badly balanced game play (spamming 'seeking luxuries' anyone?) and so on.

- - - Updated - - -

We will, we will.


Destiny is pay once no sub game on the consoles & have sold approx 10m copies of the game.
If Frontier could have the same success, then subscription would probably not be needed.
 
Well one thing, not going sub base. means the paid add-on's need to be dam good. or Elite D will be over after the first one
 
Y'all will only get it when it happens.
Don't say I didn't warn you.
It's not like it'll detract from my enjoyment of the game but there are those who'll spit the dummy.
Just saying.
Gimme something to buy beyond generic paint jobs.
Something I can relate to in "my" playstyle.
Maybe incorporate my Cmdr name in that so it's individual...then choices where I want that, if even.
Think like a B-17 Flying Fortress...most had logo's.
That kinda thing....but allow moving / resizing it.
Basic customization.
 
Last edited:
For me I don't think it's a question of mistaken development, as such. It's more a question of mistaken timing. If they're trying to attract new players and are running out of resources, features like PP, which DB himself confessed in an interview with ARS that he explicitly doesn't think new players should try, seem a strange thing to choose to spend time on. Perhaps their logic was that PP was some end-game material for the long-timers, before work starts on more stuff for new players. Given the DDF, and the lack of much of it in the live game, and given the vocal calls for things like better gameplay and more content, this feels like a miss-step at this moment in time. In other words, I have nothing against the PP concept, I just think it's like trying to decorate a cake before you've baked it. As an aside, it seems pretty clear to me that new content also works for new players too. To be frank, I'm sceptical of how well ED in its current form (even with cqc) will be received on consoles. I'm not trying to patronise console gamers in saying that - it's not because they're dumb or lazy. It's because games on consoles are much more consumer oriented than it is on PC. Games are products, and they have to be slick and entertaining. There is less patience for clunkyness, less patience with the "you're not trying hard enough to have fun" mentality. The attitude is far more that these things exist for our convenience and entertainment.

This just demonstrates the risks in trying to mix and match financing models and game development models. MMOs are continually in development and are often financed in such a way as to provide a continuous revenue stream provided they're successful. People are prepared to forgive them shortcomings at first, and stick with them to see how they develop. Conventional games, on the other hand, are released in a finished state (at least, feature-complete) and so investment to complete them is up-front, but you know that you're making a one-off payment for a product which already exists - you know what you're buying. The problem with financing a game this way, but not releasing it in a finished state, would seem to be that there might not be enough money raised from that up-front investment to eventually finish the game. Thus, they need continual new sales just to add the features which people who originally backed, or who purchased at the beginning, thought they would eventually get. The implication would seem to be that, if the game had been financed more conventionally, it would have either been released as a finished article as it is right now (and it might have flopped) or it would have been released with much more content and perhaps it wouldn't have recouped its investment (or perhaps it would have been wildly more successful, we'll never know).

If you take the view that we wouldn't have had a new Elite game any other way, then this is probably a price worth paying. I'm not sure it's a good deal for the consumer in the long-run though. It puts more of the risk on us. We're asked to pay the price of a conventional AAA game, for a game which is currently just an "empty house", in the hope that one day all those missing features will be added. Incidentally, this is part of the reason why a lot of people aren't keen on kickstarter and its ilk.
 
So Michael explicitly says in the new update here:

The most obvious benefit comes from the income. We have chosen not to go down the route of subscriptions or 'pay to win', but we do need income to support the game, and so far most of that is coming from adding new customers, so it is in all our interests to get more people playing.

You know what? That's absolutely fine with me. I welcome CQC, I welcome the XBox guys. The more money there is for development the better for everyone. (Speaking of which, you really should make decals and paint jobs in the store a priority).

This week was a bad coincidence for me. I contributed to some of the negativity in the forum, but for a completely different reason. I wanted PC NEWS from E3, I wanted news about the paid expansions (First Expansion Coming Xmas 2015!) or something.

But I was not, have not and shall not be upset about Frontier broadening their revenue stream and welcome their attempts to do so. Thanks for not going 'pay to win'!

Just my two euro-cent.

Personally I don't mind that Elite Dangerous is on console because I know that money is the core of all businesses. But I what I'm asking from FD is for them not to be a sold out and treat PC gamers as second class citizen, and by that I mean that consoles get amazing exclusive while PC gets to watch console players enjoy it. If it wasn't for PC gamers funding Elite Dangerous on Kickstarter then the game might never even exist. So I guess what I'm really asking is for FD to treat everyone equally because more often than not I see developers turning their backs on PC gamers and switch to console gamers instead. But if FD wanna give backers a little something special as a thank you in the future for supporting them then that's fine too.
 
Last edited:
Custom paint jobs would be good...
I still say Frontier should do this.
Release a template for each ship that can be opened in an image editor
People design the paintjob and save it to a specified format
They send the paintjob to Frontier who check it for copyright and legal issues
(let's say there's no more work to be done on it at this point other than making it work for that ship) They then put it in their store

Benefits:
*More paintjobs for different ships - saves Frontier the work of designing the paintjobs
*Community feels invovled
*Frontier make money from selling them

I'd say win-win all around. I may not be up to Mobius' standards, but I have made content in this ^^^ way for a game
 
Last edited:
Personally I don't mind that Elite Dangerous is on console because I know that money is the core of all businesses. But I what I'm asking from FD is for them not to be a sold out and treat PC gamers as second class citizen, and by that I mean that consoles get amazing exclusive while PC gets to watch console players enjoy it. If it wasn't for PC gamers funding Elite Dangerous on Kickstarter then the game might never even exist. So I guess what I'm really asking is for FD to treat everyone equally because more often than not I see developers turning their backs on PC gamers and switch to console gamers instead. But if FD wanna give backers a little something special as a thank you in the future for supporting them then that's fine too.

So, if the choice was a 6 month exclusive for the XBox with the feature coming to PC/Mac after that, together with FD getting a wheelbarrow-full of cash against no wheelbarrow, and the content is on all platforms at the same time, you would prefer the empty wheelbarrow?

I am pretty sure I would have wanted the wheelbarrow full, even if I wanted the thing that was exclusive. Given that I have no interest in CQC, the wheelbarrow wins, even if it is only partly full.
 
I still say Frontier should do this.
Release a template for each ship that can be opened in an image editor
People design the paintjob and save it to a specified format
They send the paintjob to Frontier who check it for copyright and legal issues
(let's say there's no more work to be done on it at this point other than making it work for that ship) They then put it in their store

Benefits:
*More paintjobs for different ships - saves Frontier the work of designing the paintjobs
*Community feels invovled
*Frontier make money from selling them

I'd say win-win all around. I may not be up to Mobius' standards, but I have made content in this ^^^ way for a game (Myst Online Uru Live), and you can go play it right now and use my content.

The board game website I frequent allows all sorts of user content to be added. Obviously the owners cannot check it all for copyright, inappropriate pictures, etc. But they built a little 'moderation' system where other users get to see the proposed content and vote on it. Only content with enough positives, and with a high enough positive to negative ratio gets through. FD could implement a similar system so that most of the onus of validation is on us, not them.
 
When the XB1 version gets launched, patches on PC will have to go through Console certification first, 2 weeks generally.
That'll be the major drawback of bringing the game to console.
Patches won't be so quick bar hotfixes.

I remember reading somewhere they didn't know yet whether we would play together, console update being one of the reason. Besides, MS and FD already have previous experiences together, and with and more game like ED or MMO on XBO, maybe we could expect some positive changes regarding certification?
I say wait and see.
 
Reminds me I always wanted to buy a mug, but last Christmas's attempt to buy a T-shirt was rather fraught.
Good T's BTW .. it was just eventually.
Paint pack bought for Asp was good, might buy another choice for the sidewinders and smaller ships I periodically buy to use as cheap shuttles to collect the bigger ships into one area.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom