Hopes and fears for the new not-a-season business​ model

[LKx]

Recently Mr. Braben basically confirmed that they are dropping the seasonal business​ model, because they don't like having customers to pay that much in advance for uncertain content.

We don't know if the new business model will be based on full fledged expansion packs, or smaller, "mayor update"-like, paid dlcs.

I personally hope it will be the first case, because for the second, they would need too much "headline" features to sell, and we all know how it's going with headline features... In addition it would bring much confusion with too many paywalls here and there.

What i hope than is fewer, full fledged expansion packs, with fewer, solid, headline features, and much more "minor" focus improvements, possibly with "minor" patches in between to improve even more the core structure of the game and the expansion itself.

The line between them might be thin, what do you think?

 

[ries]

my guess they will go the Paradox route of selling small DLC's every 3 months or so

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

My guess is that there will be major paid for expansions like 2.0 for things like space legs and other planetary types, and smaller paid for DLC's like 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3.

We shall see.

 

[Watcher]

The season model makes some sense in that it gives them a chunk of cash for a chunk of development. Things can be sectioned off in a fairly okay way. This obviously has problems with people not knowing what they are getting though it sounds like FD aren't sure what they are getting either - more of having a general sort of idea and seeing how things pan out. That might be more than a little unfair but if they were really pretty certain they ought to be able to resolve the problem by 'simply' providing a clearer road map of features for each season.

I fear that moving to a smaller paid update model will lead to a significantly more fractured community, lots of odd barriers everywhere and, not to be underestimated, a much tougher time testing the game in its various configurations.

So be interesting to see how they approach this.
Perhaps you pay once to buy in to the game and then everything is financed with paint jobs? I think that is more than a shade unlikely...

 

[{SAS}Stalker]

I really hate small and fragmented paid for DLC simply because what it does is fragment the playing community into small groups each with various configurations of haves and have-nots. I much prefer a season where you know that everyone buying it is getting access to everything, I cant really believe FDev have moved away from this model to be honest.

 

[CapuchinSeven]

I really hate small and fragmented paid for DLC simply because what it does is fragment the playing community into small groups each with various configurations of haves and have-nots. I much prefer a season where you know that everyone buying it is getting access to everything, I cant really believe FDev have moved away from this model to be honest.

I have to admit, I don't blame them because it seems like people were moaning, but I hate it as well. The fact that I actually saw people online moaning because Horizons was something you had to pay for just made me wonder how some people manage to live in the real world. How do they think ongoing infrastructure and development costs get paid for in a free to play game? Fairy dust?

 

[h347h]

I have to admit, I don't blame them because it seems like people were moaning, but I hate it as well. The fact that I actually saw people online moaning because Horizons was something you had to pay for just made me wonder how some people manage to live in the real world. How do they think ongoing infrastructure and development costs get paid for in a free to play game? Fairy dust?

Have to agree with Stalker here. I don't know how smaller bits and chunks are going to work out. I think this could be messy and see FD having to switch back or having to go to something else.

 

[RamirezKurita]

I think the smaller DLCs have the potential to bring in more money than larger expansions/seasons, simply because players are much more likely to be happy to spend a few pounds on an extra feature often rather than being intimidated by a large up-front sum. It's staggering how much money developers can raise by chipping away at the players' wallets gradually. It also has the benefit of a more gradual stream of revenue rather than run the risks of running low on funding towards the end of a long season; there's the bonus of more relaxed time constraints too as things won't have to be released in a certain order so they can just be released when ready, rather than being shoehorned into some season roadmap and potentially being rushed and/or delaying other features. The increased disconnect between additional DLCs and core gameplay updates would also allow for a more streamlined approach to patching, as not every patch would have to wait for a new headline feature - they could throw out regular patches for every month or so without worrying about a lack of new shiny things, the DLCs would march to the beat of the regular updates rather than the other way around.

Of course, this would require every single headline feature they release to actually be worth paying for by a majority of players, meaning that they can't get away with placeholders or underdeveloped mechanics unless they are willing to sell them for a pittance. For example, I personally would be more than happy to put £7 for planetary landings, plus another £7 for engineers, but spending the same amount on Multicrew+HoloMe?

A fractured community isn't that likely due to the shared galaxy preventing DLCs from veering too far off the beaten trail, players are likely to be able to travel around and play with each other as the DLCs are more likely to restrict methods for particular activities rather than the activities themselves. Plus, communities provide a nice source of peer pressure for additional sales, particularly close-knit multiplayer groups that want each of their members to have every tool available at their disposal.

 

[Mr_sukebe]

Strikes me as a good thing. All the moaners who spend their time ing about pointless features in the next release can simply avoid paying for and downloading the specific DLC. Those that understand it's value and care, can pay. Simplifies things enormously. Good call FD.

 

[Lucius-Darcia]

Wait.....i've seen that before

Free to Play:
Just like the game is at now, but you have to pay
-for a second fire group
-for cosmetics
-for Permits
-for credits

In addition the monthly-fee based premium account where you get
-everything where free to plays have to do micro transactions
-paying for cosmetics

If it is going this way......i think i'll quit to play. This "Free" to play concept has ruined many many games and the experience in those games.
I like the actual way how it works. Buy an expansion and cosmetics micro transactions. It works and it isn't too expensive. I like Frontier for that. Many claim that they don't get what was promised but i think, all what season 2 brought to us, is already at least worth the money i have spend. It could be better but i don't regret it! I would do it again!

 

[Strangepork]

Recently Mr. Braben basically confirmed that they are dropping the seasonal business​ model, because they don't like having customers to pay that much in advance for uncertain content.

We don't know if the new business model will be based on full fledged expansion packs, or smaller, "mayor update"-like, paid dlcs.

I personally hope it will be the first case, because for the second, they would need too much "headline" features to sell, and we all know how it's going with headline features... In addition it would bring much confusion with too many paywalls here and there.

What i hope than is fewer, full fledged expansion packs, with fewer, solid, headline features, and much more "minor" focus improvements, possibly with "minor" patches in between to improve even more the core structure of the game and the expansion itself.

The line between them might be thin, what do you think?

Seems like an ill-fix to me. They seem to be unaware of what's really going down here and the response is to sell the game short time, in 3 monthly patches rather than change the model and invest big time.

 

[SkUnimatrix]

I really hate small and fragmented paid for DLC simply because what it does is fragment the playing community into small groups each with various configurations of haves and have-nots. I much prefer a season where you know that everyone buying it is getting access to everything, I cant really believe FDev have moved away from this model to be honest.

Given the expectations that many people bought into season 2 with only not to have those expectations met means that a lot of people weren't going to pre-order season 3. They'd much rather take a wait and see approach as to what FDEV actually ends up delivering opposed to once again having expectations crushed by reality.

Take multi-crew. I saw people log in that I've not seen in nearly 2 years. Why? Because it was oft discussed even 3 years ago that when they got around to multi-crew you needed 4 roles: helm, tactical/gunner/navigator/fighter pilot (pick 2), and engineering. That was the expectation given along with fun things to do for each of those roles not to mention content to go along with those roles. Instead we got fighter pilots & gunners with no multi-crew content to go along with it. Just a bare bones way of basically doing the same RES site and CZ combat we've been doing since Premium Beta 3 years ago.

If they got to paid feature release they can't pull this "release Minimally Viable Product and maybe expand it later on" it will have to be a complete feature set with associated content to go with it. But my biggest fear is that we'll continue to get half-though out and implemented designs that will cause new content to not sell and then they'll come back with "well it didn't sell enough copies therefore on to the next half though out idea"...

 

[JesusRocks1988]

Simply put, small and frequent paid DLC just increases the amount of different versions and iterations that FD has to support.

I personally think they'll go for infrequent large updates.

 

[Xzanron]

my guess they will go the Paradox route of selling small DLC's every 3 months or so

(Full disclosure: I get all updates for free regardless as I'm a kickstarter backer)

If they also do the weekly dev diaries, then I'm up for this.

I like the paradox model. Stellaris will have had 6 updates in 1 year (on the 9th of May), this includes significant base game changes, 1 paid for DLC (mostly artwork), one smaller free DLC (if i remember correctly) and 1 larger expansion (more expensive) and a couple of free bug-fix / quality-of-life improvement updates.

It basically works out to the same as a "season" financially for the player, the difference is that when you hand over your cash you know what you're getting, and can opt out of the paid bit if it really doesn't interest you.

I despise the whole "Season Pass" business model as it's basically anti-consumer, getting people to pay for the (Schrödinger) cat in the box, so going the other way of paying for known features is much better in my view.

There's enough RNG in the game without adding RNG to new features. (and it is very much RNG as FD don't tell us what's planned).

 

[stormyuk]

I really hate small and fragmented paid for DLC simply because what it does is fragment the playing community into small groups each with various configurations of haves and have-nots. I much prefer a season where you know that everyone buying it is getting access to everything, I cant really believe FDev have moved away from this model to be honest.

I must admit it does feel totally counter intuitive to drop the season method. I can't understand how having smaller DLC or paid content will actually save the consumer money in the long run. If you have to pay for each patch its going to get very messy and arguable more expensive than just paying for a season.

 

[Thetele]

They probably should go the mmo road. One a year release big update (in elite terms this would mean all content that was part of horizon at once not dropping one by one time to time.), during the year have couple small updates that add some small additions/balance tweaks, missions, scenarios etc. Then one big dlc and same road again until next dlc next year.

Now they are going to spent about 2 year with horizon so in theory they could have next dlc developed along site (they have doupled the time they have used for season 2). So 3.0 could actually be 40-60€ and be more like 3.0-3.4 in one box, I.e they have developed them And not only done 2.x stuff during last 2 years.

But this is just stupid dreaming

 

[shadragon]

I must admit it does feel totally counter intuitive to drop the season method. I can't understand how having smaller DLC or paid content will actually save the consumer money in the long run. If you have to pay for each patch its going to get very messy and arguable more expensive than just paying for a season.

You seem to forget this was brought on by players complaining they didn't want to pay for Seasons. Now they are moaning they don't like the new system. The fact no details have been released about the new system does not seem to slow them down in the slightest.

People on these boards have a very short memory sometimes.

 

[Lightspeed]

They seem to be pretty quiet about in-development stuff in between each update. There's a terrible risk they could go very quiet after 2.4, until 3.0 emerges.

And then an even longer period of silence until 4.0 ...... that policy of silence could hurt FD badly if SC starts up.

We have all got used to fairly frequent updates and I hope they don't go for just one big release until the next, but I can see the nightmare of co-ordinating players with paid-for interim releases and potential allegations of a "pay to win" business model.

 

[Rafe Zetter]

I think the smaller DLCs have the potential to bring in more money than larger expansions/seasons, simply because players are much more likely to be happy to spend a few pounds on an extra feature often rather than being intimidated by a large up-front sum. It's staggering how much money developers can raise by chipping away at the players' wallets gradually. It also has the benefit of a more gradual stream of revenue rather than run the risks of running low on funding towards the end of a long season; there's the bonus of more relaxed time constraints too as things won't have to be released in a certain order so they can just be released when ready, rather than being shoehorned into some season roadmap and potentially being rushed and/or delaying other features. The increased disconnect between additional DLCs and core gameplay updates would also allow for a more streamlined approach to patching, as not every patch would have to wait for a new headline feature - they could throw out regular patches for every month or so without worrying about a lack of new shiny things, the DLCs would march to the beat of the regular updates rather than the other way around.

Of course, this would require every single headline feature they release to actually be worth paying for by a majority of players, meaning that they can't get away with placeholders or underdeveloped mechanics unless they are willing to sell them for a pittance. For example, I personally would be more than happy to put £7 for planetary landings, plus another £7 for engineers, but spending the same amount on Multicrew+HoloMe?

A fractured community isn't that likely due to the shared galaxy preventing DLCs from veering too far off the beaten trail, players are likely to be able to travel around and play with each other as the DLCs are more likely to restrict methods for particular activities rather than the activities themselves. Plus, communities provide a nice source of peer pressure for additional sales, particularly close-knit multiplayer groups that want each of their members to have every tool available at their disposal.

The idea of smaller DLC more often may finally be way for FDev to learn from the community that if what they put out stinks, they'll have to change it or they will get significantly reduced sales; as even though there are always the few that buy on launch day, with FDev's current track record I'd wager the majority portion will wait for reviews and a few weeks or longer to make sure it's bug free.

And content that stinks and isn't fixed, won't sell, regardless of the price. Nothing like a wallet incentive to keep developers on the straight and narrow.

I disagree about community peer pressure in ED - what "community", what "shared galaxy" number limited small instances... remember? There's only a very few cohesive player groups. I think we may end up with private servers like mobius running variations of ED, similar to the private servers of older multiplayer games where you needed the right "build / mod" to join it, but that's a requirement rather than peer pressure per se, and likely a private server like that will only have "the good stuff", the most popular dlc's, with the so/so dlc's sidelined.

It could be a way for FDev to steer this wildly veering boat back on course, but in those immortal words "baby, you better not suck".

 

[CMDR Endincite]

Pros and cons, as has been said.
If your quarter's profits rest in the hands of one DLC, you'd better be damned sure it's a popular thing. Reality of a publicly traded company.

That sounds fine, but in a game with many subsets of players doing their thing and waiting for their thing's turn for some love, it's easy to see a sort of "forgotten minority" problem - exacerbating the ones that already exist.

There's only a very few cohesive player groups

Not to argue their importance one way or the other, but there's several hundred player groups of varying sizes and levels of...whatever you mean by "cohesive," ingame.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/172TfRsLVFg3Al-RkrYWbOr2W-7EMDR6164P-wXbL4nc/edit#gid=0
730 system descriptions. I'll leave you to count how many belong to player factions added since 1.4. Some have no actives, some have a few, some have hundreds and a couple have thousands.