Latest CG, the clearest example of P2W in ED to date?

[AndiBcool]

Maybe a bit late in the discussion, but to my point of view this is the 1st time since Frontier added Ships for arx that i can say ppl that can buy the panther clipper will have an advantage over players that can not buy the ship with arx.

Not that it matters a whole lot, but its the 1st time you will gain some advantage.
In the past i could care less about paid ships, most of the time i have already better ships or some different, that can do the same better or as good.
Plus when it comes to earn credits, i dont care. Its so easy now with every CG it does not matter. If it helps new players ok.

Now that the panther is only for arx buyers and there is a CG running that gives extra rewards that are compleatly new modules and sticked to a percentage of ranking, i see an issue.
Panther owners will haul much more then long time players can with the regular ships buyable with credits.
This will lead to a lot time saved and hauling even more in the same time.
If two players wont stop hauling and one can haul 50% more every turn, that player will win the competition.

Even if it does not matter much, its a thing Frontier promissed they would never do, and with this CG and excluding long time players the access to buy the same ship it falls clearly under pay2win. Getting advantage with real money spend.

I wonder why other players cant see it, the thing you save here is time, and that is a big benefit. Its not only about the CG, you can also colonice much faster systems.
Earn much faster money with hauling/Mining, the whole time this bigger hauler is not buyable with credits.

Its not that i care much about it, but it is now very clear buying advantage with real time money and that is usually called pay2win.

Sad, very sad thing.

 

[Morbad]

They do not.

The game says they do and depicts corresponding changes. They may not hit your personal threshold of significance, but they're absolutely there.

The bgs is pointless.

An equally subjective assertion.

It's irrelevant if it's in the game's context or not because, as i mentioned, there is no distinction from any player's perspective between a group of grinders or a smaller group of people skipping some of the grind...in or out of game context.

The existence of a better set of rules for sale is a distinction. Even if I can't directly observe each discrete difference--though some of the advantages of the Arx purchased ships are so blatant that I can--I know it's there and that it's skewing the game.

Again, this is the same argument open vs solo has been having for over a decade. Game modes are also just as 'external' to the game context as buying something with arx and the exact same arguments are made around that. This is the same debate with the names changed.

So what? The existence of one issue does not justify another. That goes for the Engineering complaints and prior examples of monetization too. Doesn't matter how big the dung pile is, every additional turd is still a problem.

Yeah, especially when the only game mechanic relies on your time to scale reward. That's a crap game limitation, not something worth defending.

You should have options to get your rewards with less time but in more difficult ways. This would eliminate any advantage a paid option would have. Since they would still be doing that tier 1 activity that is boring but easy.

I'm not sure who you're arguing with here.

In elite all paid options do is cut a line of acquiring something anyone with time can get. A temporary barrier for anyone inclined to get the same thing. It really doesn't matter.

No. Paid options that bring in more than their very minimal development costs incentivize the creation of further 'crap game limitations' to sell new products to mitigate them.

You assume there is a chance they would resolve those 'problems'.

No, I assume that success of their monetized solutions will encourage them to introduce new problems faster.

Enduring grind is not a skill a gamer should be proud of, nor should a game be proud to utilize as their main way to control 'progression'. That's all paying for ships affords players.

What people are, or should be, proud of is for them to decide and no concern of mine.

The game does use tedium as a content gate and as bad filler in lieu of more meaningful content. Selling ships for Arx is the newest way to extract profit from that and is going to fuel more tedium and more store-bought workarounds.

This isn't a multiplayer game where you oppose humans.

Yes, it is.

You just have a problem with the level of abstraction involved in these interactions. Honestly so do I, but abstract competition is no less competitive. If Solo were the only mode, it would still be an intrinsically competitive multiplayer only experience and the results of those contests would still be reflected in the setting. Maybe not to the degree I'd like, but I'd have more difficulty ignoring the BGS you dismiss than I would most CMDRs shooting mine in the face when we're both in the same instance. After all, most CMDRs can just be swatted into a wake or a rebuy screen in a face-to-face confrontation, but undoing even their unwitting BGS impacts can be a real chore.

What any other player happens to be doing only matters to you if you opt into imagining that it does...and that's where we really diverge. Because caring about that means also believing in the wrongness of open and solo modes. You cant believe one without the other and we know modes aren't being changed so there is no point in having your imagined gameplay impacted by paid players, unless you exist in a constant state of feeling cheated by game modes or are hypocritical by exploiting game modes.

You've repeatedly asserted that your imaginary value criteria are more important/correct than my imaginary value criteria, but this is a truly obtuse case of whataboutery. You're arguing with someone who only plays in Open (and makes every reasonable effort to facilitate smooth matchmaking) and who's ideal version of this game would be Open-only.

Modes aren't the topic of this thread and Frontier isn't selling access to Solo.

 

[Jaffz]

Yes it is pay to win, pay real money and you'll have an advantage over people that don't pay

It's not World of Tanks bad, no premium ammo or anything like that, but they're clearly doing this to make people buy their latest ship which is a step in the wrong direction IMO

I'll buy cosmetics, but I've never paid for a ship nor will I

 

[robbyp]

Who cares. I dont. Its a game with no real world results

 

[Agony_Aunt]

And? Seriously, this matter has sailed long time ago with first ARX ship release. Nothing new in that regard happened since that. There are some advantages coming with each ARX ship, this is just a plain fact. PC2 as is offers me use my spare gaming time more efficiently ... and this is all, what is for me personally important.

Thank you for answering the main question. Indeed, my title is incorrect, this isn't the worst example to date.

 

[Darth Ender]

The game says they do and depicts corresponding changes. They may not hit your personal threshold of significance, but they're absolutely there.



An equally subjective assertion.



The existence of a better set of rules for sale is a distinction. Even if I can't directly observe each discrete difference--though some of the advantages of the Arx purchased ships are so blatant that I can--I know it's there and that it's skewing the game.



So what? The existence of one issue does not justify another. That goes for the Engineering complaints and prior examples of monetization too. Doesn't matter how big the dung pile is, every additional turd is still a problem.



I'm not sure who you're arguing with here.



No. Paid options that bring in more than their very minimal development costs incentivize the creation of further 'crap game limitations' to sell new products to mitigate them.



No, I assume that success of their monetized solutions will encourage them to introduce new problems faster.



What people are, or should be, proud of is for them to decide and no concern of mine.

The game does use tedium as a content gate and as bad filler in lieu of more meaningful content. Selling ships for Arx is the newest way to extract profit from that and is going to fuel more tedium and more store-bought workarounds.



Yes, it is.

You just have a problem with the level of abstraction involved in these interactions. Honestly so do I, but abstract competition is no less competitive. If Solo were the only mode, it would still be an intrinsically competitive multiplayer only experience and the results of those contests would still be reflected in the setting. Maybe not to the degree I'd like, but I'd have more difficulty ignoring the BGS you dismiss than I would most CMDRs shooting mine in the face when we're both in the same instance. After all, most CMDRs can just be swatted into a wake or a rebuy screen in a face-to-face confrontation, but undoing even their unwitting BGS impacts can be a real chore.



You've repeatedly asserted that your imaginary value criteria are more important/correct than my imaginary value criteria, but this is a truly obtuse case of whataboutery. You're arguing with someone who only plays in Open (and makes every reasonable effort to facilitate smooth matchmaking) and who's ideal version of this game would be Open-only.

Modes aren't the topic of this thread and Frontier isn't selling access to Solo.

They are selling what leads to the same argument. That someone's imagined gameplay is being negatively impacted by the external game mechanisms that allow a player to circumvent whatever it is you personally have chosen to build your imagined gameplay around.

There is absolutely no difference between the two things. You can't argue one is harming your gameplay without the other also and since there is no chance or point in caring about the differences in modes, the caring of this is entirely optional. If you think the game should be open only, then you already exist in a game that isn't fair or will ever be. This paid ship doesn't change that or make it worse. Nothing they do is any different than what some faceless solo players might do. There is nothing a player can do in a pc, that anyone else couldn't do in a different ship with either a team mate or more time grinding...and they could be doing it in a different mode and there would be zero difference for you.

In regards to 'winning' a cg....cg's haven't been given a realistic opposition 'goal' in forever...they aren't a finite resource these other players can take from you. So, i dont see how their activity in them impacts anyone at all.

You wanna be upset someone isn't playing as hard as you for the same things...go right ahead. It's your wasted time because fdev certainly isn't going to care or change things from how they do it. Since so much of your gameplay exists in your head, and presumably most players, you can imagine a lore reason such players exist and imagine how you'll deal with them and move on....the same way everyone has from thinking this game will separate the solo mode. It's your imagination, you can choose to make the gameplay unfair or not, because it has always been unfair for external reasons. Nothing has really changed.

 

[anShpan]

Yes it is pay to win, pay real money and you'll have an advantage over people that don't pay

In ED advantage not equal to win and never will.
Faster PC = advantage
Better mouse = advantage
Better HOTAS = advantage
ARX ship = advantage? Let's assume it is.

Accusing Game-Dev that you've being forced to pay for that above is one thing, but blaming Game-Dev company for your decision taken is another, IMO.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

As I read things, the issue was raised as the PC2 is currently on advanced access and will become available for credits down the line, but two(?) days after release a hauling CG started. As far as I am aware, I am old and do forget things, apart from AX stuff, we may not have seen an advance access ship followed closely by an activity that having such a ship gives an advantage. A cunning plan to some, the thin end of the wedge to others. I can go along with the decisions taken so far.

Thanks Steve for the honest comment on this. I'd rather see people say "Yes, it is what is it, but i'm fine with that" rather than come up with various arguments as to why its not an issue at all. Doesn't stop me debating them either way though

 

[Rat Catcher]

this isn't the worst example to date.

Ignoring the kickstarter benefits, surely the worst to date would have been the release of Horizons, bringing Engineering, along with a host of new ships (was planetary landings / SRV available before Horions?) over its lifetime.

FD rolled it into the main game around the release of Odyssey and memory tells me thay had quoted a figure of 25% sales of Horions to sales of the base game, no doubt a number of those base games sold were to players no longer active, but it still meant that there were players in the game not taking advantage of the benefits of Horions, and. allegedly disadvantaged as they didn't spend money to buy the expansion.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Will everyone on this CG’s top 10 list have done it in a PC? Probably.

Does it matter for the overall rewards of this CG? Not in the least.

The only bonus they’ll get is extra credits, which is meaningless to anyone that’s even approaching 10% or probably even 50%.

FDEV have been generous in maximizing the rewards at 75%, and at that bar, whether or not you own the PC is completely irrelevant. That’s why it’s not really “P2W” in the context of this CG.

I wouldn't use the word "generous", I'd say playing it safe to minimize backlash. Imagine if they had limited it to the top 25% or the top 10!

Then I think I'd have more people arguing on the side of P2W.

But the fact they made it relatively easy (supported by all the people who will deliver 1 load then forget about it) doesn't alter the underlying issue that its clearly an attempt to use the CG to push the sale of more PCs for real money.

Or maybe I assume a cash grab where none was intended? But that would mean assuming there was no discussion in meetings at FD about this nobody raised the specter (damn US spell checker, its spectre!) of P2W in relation to this... and its hard to believe that didn't come up.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

there's nothing in this game that could be considered "pay to win"....this cg or otherwise. What is winning in elite? There's nothing special that the richest player in the game can do that some newbie 1 month in can't. The activities available in the game that you start playing with are the exact same activities that very literally all players are doing. There's no special thing anyone else is doing that you can't. The bar to making credits meaningless is extremely low and everything else is just a matter of spending time to grind. Once you have whatever items that grinding provides, then what? What are you going to do with all of it? Create more npc stations ? There's no end-game in this game. It's just keep playing on the neverending merry go round ...the same one you have been playing since you started.

I really dont see what advantage to doing the same grind loops and same activities any player has regardless of whatever they have acquired is. An advantage in what? space trucking ? swapping which meaningless faction is in power in which meaningless system ? An advantage in pew pew'ing dead simple npcs ? What? Nothing that you can do in the game really impacts the gameplay for anyone else, or even yourself really. So...where is the win? If i could pay some amount of money to get to this mythical non-grindy win gameplay I would. Cuz i've been playing the same grindy game loops since launch. But that doesn't exist, so until then, the idea that there's a "Win" state for someone to cheat their way to by paying or otherwise is just ridiculous. You can't win in elite. You just get to the realization that nothing you do matters and there's no actual point to doing anything faster.

You win time. Or do you put zero value on your time?

I'm sure you sell your time to your employer (assuming you are employed), and that you'd rather spend your time doing things you enjoy rather than working for someone else, but that someone else gives you the money you can use to play computer games, right? Or if you are self-employed, maybe a business owner, you work for yourself to get people to buy your products or services, that allows you to play computer games.

And with your hard earned cash, you can choose to spend your money on the new ship, which can haul more cargo quicker than any ship available for credits in the game, thereby saving yourself time or allowing yourself to haul more in the same amount of time.

Does that not have value to you?

 

[WillFrog]

If two players wont stop hauling and one can haul 50% more every turn, that player will win the competition.

What competition? Nobody is competing. You do not need a Panther Clipper to get into the top 75%. You just don't! Yes, someone with a PC will gain a personal advantage in that they can earn more credits per hour, but they will in no way gain an advantage over you because how many credits someone else has does not affect you in any way. There is no competition happening.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Or leave those who are happy to cough up twice for the ships to do so, and carry on playing at no extra cost.

Which is exactly what I would do.... and i'd be hauling right now if it wasn't for the fact we just had a several hour power cut, during which i sat drinking a rather potent cognac with my wife by candle light, and now I'm seven sheets to the wind, so flying a spaceship would be rather dangerous.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I understood it. But its not really important. At the end of the day, there is no winner elite dangerous, its a game that you could play for the rest of your life. Someone get more than you at a CG because he has a bigger ship then you. So what, it shouldn't matter. I do my trade CGs in a T8 and there are platers with much bigger ships then mine. They don't win.

You do not value you time? Do you not consider anything that saves you time and effort a "win"?

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Dear CMDRS, I apologize, English is not my native, but isn't "winning" means "gaining, resulting in, or relating to victory in a contest or competition.".

Some people view winning only through the lens of direct competition. But there are many ways you can win in life (or computer games) that don't involve direct competition. Exhibit A in this context is single player games with undisputed P2W mechanics.

I'll offer up here Dungeon Keeper 3 as an example, a single player mobile game (that totally trashed the Dungeon Keeper franchise, but i digress), whereby you could only perform a certain number of actions per day. However, you could unlock more actions by paying real money. That is a clear example of P2W in a single player game.

In the context of this discussion, the P2W comes in terms of time as well, but instead of unlocking more actions, you save time by being able to haul more in the same amount of time compared to if you hadn't given FD real money.

So even disregarding the multiplayer and potential competitive aspect of the game, you give yourself a real advantage by opening you wallet.

Some people might say, that's not pay to win, that's pay to make your life easier or similar.... well, yes, we can all play the semantics game, but at the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves, are we ok with this? Is it a good practice for the devs to encourage people to open their wallets to make our game life easier?

We can translate this into a MMORPG type situation. Imagine a game where the best weapon is a +4 sword. But then the devs offer a +5 sword, but its only available for real money (for 3 months). Then they start a competition where there are rewards for people who make the most kills. Now, those who buy the +5 swords are going to be able to kill more enemies quicker, so its going to be easier for them to top the leaderboard, or perhaps maintain parity with less effort.

Is that P2W? Well, that's debatable, but looking at some responses in this thread, some people clearly think it isn't.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I bought the Panther Clipper Stellar, but did my contribution to this CG in the Imperial Cutter because it was faster this way. Outfitting and engineering the Panther would have taken me as long as hauling several thousand tons with the Imp.
Now I can take all the time in the world to tinker with the Panther and enjoy the new ship, no P2W in mind

You don't need to engineer the PC to take advantage of it in this CG. You're gimping yourself by not using it since you already bought it.

If it was a combat CG and we were talking about a combat ship, your point would hold more water. But a trade CG where you can get what you need within a jump or two...?

 

[Jaffz]

You don't need to engineer the PC to take advantage of it in this CG. You're gimping yourself by not using it since you already bought it.

If it was a combat CG and we were talking about a combat ship, your point would hold more water. But a trade CG where you can get what you need within a jump or two...?

I agree with everything you said in the OP
Did you buy the clipper?

 

[Stealthie]

Surely we're not going to try and argue that "P2W" actually requires you to win at something before the assertion can be considered valid?
Cos, y'know, that would be a masterclass in pedantry.

I'm genuinely surprised that so many people are attempting to outright deny this issue instead of simply acknowledging it but then discussing why it isn't really a big deal.

I don't think @Agony_Aunt is insisting this is an intolerable issue and is simply noting that it is an issue... aggravated by the fact that immediately after launch, FDev introduced a cargo CG that offers exclusive (as far as we know) rewards.
I'm sure somebody at FDev thought that might be a good idea - possibly with the deliberate intention of encouraging people to buy Early Access to the PC2 - but I think that might've been a bit of a misjudgement.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Maybe a bit late in the discussion, but to my point of view this is the 1st time since Frontier added Ships for arx that i can say ppl that can buy the panther clipper will have an advantage over players that can not buy the ship with arx.

Not that it matters a whole lot, but its the 1st time you will gain some advantage.
In the past i could care less about paid ships, most of the time i have already better ships or some different, that can do the same better or as good.
Plus when it comes to earn credits, i dont care. Its so easy now with every CG it does not matter. If it helps new players ok.

Now that the panther is only for arx buyers and there is a CG running that gives extra rewards that are compleatly new modules and sticked to a percentage of ranking, i see an issue.
Panther owners will haul much more then long time players can with the regular ships buyable with credits.
This will lead to a lot time saved and hauling even more in the same time.
If two players wont stop hauling and one can haul 50% more every turn, that player will win the competition.

Even if it does not matter much, its a thing Frontier promissed they would never do, and with this CG and excluding long time players the access to buy the same ship it falls clearly under pay2win. Getting advantage with real money spend.

I wonder why other players cant see it, the thing you save here is time, and that is a big benefit. Its not only about the CG, you can also colonice much faster systems.
Earn much faster money with hauling/Mining, the whole time this bigger hauler is not buyable with credits.

Its not that i care much about it, but it is now very clear buying advantage with real time money and that is usually called pay2win.

Sad, very sad thing.

On a recent Yamiks video (and i won't link it, because sweary sweary is against forum rules) he dug through old FD missives and pointed out that Braben stated that he was very much against anything P2W. But times have changed, Braben is no longer directly involved, and FD clearly need money to keep the lights on. Its a shame we have reached this point and we can imagine a world where FD made better decisions and didn't go down this road. Imagine what ED could have been today if FD hadn't got sidetracked with trying to be a third party publisher and had focused more into ED, releasing full paid-for DLCs every couple of years!

Ok, maybe it could still have gone sideways, but at least then it wouldn't have been from lack of effort. We might have had a game without the need for selling ships for cash or other P2W stuff.

But we are where we are... could FD avoid the P2W stuff... well, definitely, but i doubt it would generate as much income, because while perhaps most of us say we oppose P2W in principle, wave a shiny new spaceship under someone's nose who has some disposable income and any principles tend to dissipate quickly, perhaps justified with "Well, its not that bad, i'm not hurting anyone else" and they aren't, directly, but they are enabling the devs to continue such practices, and potentially, encouraging them to engage in even worse practices.

 

[Jaffz]

Did you buy it?