Did you read the suggestion? Doesn't sound like you did.
Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
so at risk of having double standards..... PP2 i think did need to be available to the original game because PP2 is a fleshing out of PP and PP was a specific expansion for the core game so it would have been pretty off to remove PP1 from the core game and make PP2 an forced paid update imo.
(for instance imagine if FD did a complete new reskin of rocky/icy planetary surfaces (again), but locked that behind Ody, but at the same time removed the ability to land on the original version of the planets in Horizons.
I think there would rightly be complaints, and i see PP2 from PP1 as a similar but possibly less obvious example.
Whether it's a bug or not, now even enemies (other Power) are not highlighted in enemy territory
I was replying to this part of a post:
"Nobody would lose access to anything then, there would be content for PvPers and long standing issues (combat logging, blocking etc) would have a solution....."
What's harder to do? Redesigning the menu or a new 3d object.
I am not sure why that is relevant. IF FD want to encourage as many people as possible to buy their expansion then they need to make their expansion as attractive as possible. The most obvious way to do this is to put all NEW content behind it.
Unless they were scumbags (and i do not believe they are) then updates to existing features which involved removing the old version of the features are a little different and would be expected to be included in what ever version of the software the older version of the feature it replaced was in.
So i would suggest if it were me.....
All bases on the ody planets will obviously locked to ody
All bases on the Horizons landable planets would be visitable by horizons players but i would gate the ability to get access to the base building megaships which will be needed to colonise a planet behind the Ody DLC.
it would be nice for FD to clarify however.
I will say this however. The only other forum i visit with an elite dangerous thread everyone is assuming it will be locked to Ody and seemed surprised when i even asked the question if they thought it would be Ody content or partially available to the base game.
maybe people here are a little more tight with their purse strings
Last edited:
Call me old school (or just old), but when I buy a product I expect to keep it forever. If I have to keep paying for something, then I will consider my options. Relying on servers being kept on* is not ideal, but at least I have only made one payment.maybe people here are a little more tight with their purse strings
* Which is a bit like "If I buy a car, theoretically I can keen it going forever, or at least until the replacement parts cannot be obtained".
Wouldn't have a scooby, I'm not a programmer, I'm just saying they spent time and effort on Odyssey buildings and settlements, id bet a pretty penny that's what we get to play with.
O7
It's going to be like assembling a colony with one of those smart Lego bricks. Each building will have a functionality built-in with various grades of efficiency. That's why we have to keep coming back - better bricks will be available sometime in the future.
Elite Dangerous | Trailblazers coming 26th February
Does anyone know the chances of finding an unexplored system in the bubble? Near-zero
I don't disagree however OTOH I don't expect new expansions for free either
Laughs in No Man's Sky
NMS? Just laughs...
NMS and how it has been supported for free is truly remarkable... however they have the might of Sony backing them. I am not saying for sure that is why they have been able to keep the lights on, but with HG other games on the market being ones such as Joe Danger AND them also working on a new game as well, I suspect it is more than the direct profits from their games they have on the market keeping them afloat.
Maybe FD need a sugar daddy to support them as well but them being independent was one of the things which encouraged me to kick into (as well as some may say Jonty up) in the KSer
Last edited:
On an ongoing basis, it's the same way as Elite Dangerous is (mostly) funded - new game sales are sufficient to fund further development, and the rate of new gamers entering the market means that there's never an "everyone has already bought it" situation.
NMS had the big advantage, however, of an extremely large initial marketing push, so its first year sales were over ten times ED's (for a smaller company, too). So that gives a lot more of a cushion and budget in terms of implementing new features from that ongoing income, and also gives a self-marketing feedback loop in the longer term.
So that's also one of the factors that's going to determine Frontier's decisions on whether to make new features Odyssey-exclusive or not: will they make more money from increased Odyssey sales doing it that way, or from increased base game sales? It's not as simple as "obviously it needs to be Odyssey-exclusive or they can't make money from it".
So grant a bonus in merits/trading dividends/bounties for those that play in Open and leave those that don't want to alone.
See? Easy!
Forcing people to take risks that don't want to is wrong, especially in a game that professes to respect player's choices/desires.
Open is not, and, with the current state of networking and rule enforcement, cannot replace sound mechanisms underlying the rest of the game. Any such biases with regard to mode would setup perverse incentives that would neither improve the Open experience, nor be practical to prevent people from abusing irrespective of the intent of those biases. There is also a strong antipathy for making the modes more unequal, which I generally agree with, as I don't believe the mode system should misrepresent itself as some kind of difficulty toggle.
The game doesn't respect our choices or desires and even if tried to, making all choices equivalent would be a poor way to go about it, especially given that this has always been a shared, multiplayer-only, setting.
I firmly believe the game, to be a credible portrayal of the setting it ostensibly depicts, needs a universal baseline difficulty that is both wholly independent of direct CMDR threats and significantly higher than anything we've yet been presented with since the game's release.
With or without any of that, the only way to allow that 'blaze your own trail!' stuff to be carried to the logical extremes that some seem to have in mind would be to also have an offline game that players can tune to taste, without affecting the shared game state in any way.
Sounds like a perfect game. Honestly.
I believe the game would have been much better if they had never canceled the offline-mode. They promised too much and had to make way too many compromises with the shared online-only game we have.
Even if the concerns about the setting being too static without access to the BGS were entirely valid, they could have made the BGS read-only for a pseudo offline mode, until they had something better.
Last edited: