Pay2Win made it to Elite

[CMDR Daiyus]

This kind of argument has been going on for decades now. The Pay2Win definition pretty much makes charging money for anything "Pay2Win", including, I might add, buying any base game as that technically gives an in-game advantage against those who didn't buy the game because the buyer can actually play. I think the impasse tends to come when an individual looks at it from a black and white, Pay2Win equals bad, perspective, then the offended individual start painting the unoffended with negative traits, such as short-sighted, selfish, etc. I'm deliberately not pointing fingers here. I think many reject the definition simply because people weaponise it when it includes such a broad scope of practice.

Ultimately, Frontier are free to monetise the game how they see fit. We, as consumers, can decide whether we're willing to buy what they're selling. Modern social practices make turning a profit mandatory for any product. The utopia of paying once for a game and having endless support and access to new development is nothing but a pipedream, but we all have our own version of how far from that vision we're willing to go. My line will be different to everyone else's, and I'm the only one that can make that judgement call for me.

My lines are quite simple: I'm not super competitive, and I really don't care how someone else got their Anaconda or Corvette fully engineered. I'll do it the way I find fun and interesting. If someone else wants to buy a shortcut, be it credits, engineering materials, prebuilt ship, whatever, it's really none of my business. I'm willing to pay for content, whether it's an expansion, new ship, new gameplay or cosmetic. If it wasn't stated to be included in the package when I bought it, it's fair game to be sold as an add-on. I will decide what I'm willing to pay for that new feature, if it seems too pricey I'll wait for a sale, or not buy.

The thing I really dislike in games is time-limited content; I gloss over the CG rewards because I enjoy the game so much, but I would much rather they came to tech brokers after a set period of time. The killer for the ARX store would be rotation, just give me everything on a shelf and I'll decide when I want to buy it. The latest loss of some paintjobs does give me concern that this may be coming, however, I will decide how to deal with that when and if it happens.

 

[galahad2069]

It can be called whatever one wishes...

Sure, if the purpose is to make any kind of meaningful conversation impossible.

 

[Rat Catcher]

I think the impasse tends to come when an individual looks at it from a black and white, Pay2Win equals bad, perspective, then the offended individual start painting the unoffended with negative traits, such as short-sighted, selfish, etc. I'm deliberately not pointing fingers here. I think many reject the definition simply because people weaponise it when it includes such a broad scope of practice.

Possibly some consider their refusal to participate in buying something is a virtue, and that those who do not follow their lead are lacking in mental faculty?

An individual may refuse to spend money as they see fit - it is their decision. But intimating that they are morally superior, or have a greater mental capacity, than those who do spend, is quite amusing.

I know 5 people (myself included) in the 2 groups I frequent in ED related discord (and have talked to whilst plating in a group) who have purchased one of the P2 packages, none of them (apart from me, maybe, how could I possibly know) appear to be morally bankrupt or lacking in mental acuity, despite this being intimated by some who perceive purchasing a petty game asset as an indication that they are lacking somehow.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Sure, if the purpose is to make any kind of meaningful conversation impossible.

Is a concept that buying something or not, in a game, actually meaningful in the grand scheme of life?
Provided the individual opts to do what they consider benefits them, does the label attached to it by others actually make the slightest difference?

Added: This whole 'debate' centres around some folk citing a definition as an absolute (think about it!) and suggesting that those who do not "toe the party line" are lacking in some way. Others elect to make their own decision, ignoring said definition as it is not relevant to themselves.

Anything else is just padding, isn't it?

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I've always said engineering was the cookbook version for introducing monetised grind avoidance via "choice", like marketing often tries to sugarcoat it. Just without the monetizing bit to bypass the grind. It made no sense back then (but "D. Braben said they'd never do such things") and today, well, to me it kinda looks like a last ditch effort trying to milk some more cash out of an end-of-shelf-life product.

 

[Jumpin' Jack Flash]

Hi All

I've always said engineering was the cookbook version for introducing monetised grind avoidance via "choice", like marketing often tries to sugarcoat it. Just without the monetizing bit to bypass the grind. It made no sense back then (but "D. Braben said they'd never do such things") and today, well, to me it kinda looks like a last ditch effort trying to milk some more cash out of an end-of-shelf-life product.

Hi
Speaking of David Braben, does he have any influence with / over the game now?...the last time he posted here was just after the Odyssey release and the discontinuation of Consoles I believe?
Unless of course he frequents here under a secret identity. ...and another thought springs to mind, does he even play this game now!

Jack

 

[galahad2069]

Is a concept that buying something or not, in a game, actually meaningful in the grand scheme of life

You can have a meaningful conversation about virtually anything, including the length of grass, the topic does not necessarily need to be very meaningful in the grand scheme of life.

However, the conversation will become impossible if you start to redefine things arbitrarily, and start to call centimeters or inches miles, only because of your "feelings".

 

[zimms]

It's just a video game. You don't actually win anything.

Bam! Proof that the very concept of pay2win doesn't even exist at all in today's game industry. /s

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Hi All



Hi
Speaking of David Braben, does he have any influence with / over the game now?...the last time he posted here was just after the Odyssey release and the discontinuation of Consoles I believe?
Unless of course he frequents here under a secret identity. ...and another thought springs to mind, does he even play this game now!

Jack

No, he's chairman of the board now, I think. There is no direct operational control he exerts anymore.

 

[Darkfyre99]

I have no idea what this is a reference to, but have no doubt it is along the same avenue of your existing debate that others are lacking moral fortitude.

The comment wasn’t about others players' moral fortitude, or the lacking there of.

It’s about the moral fortitude of companies who use predatory monetization strategies, such as pay-to-win in video games, and how they stimulate the pleasure centers of the brain, resulting in predictable behavior in addiction-prone individuals. It’s a neural hack that more and more video game companies are exploiting to extract large amounts of money from addiction-prone individuals, which in the industry are called whales.

Like most early backers, I ignored all the early warning signs that Frontier considers such a strategy a viable one. They changed their mind on money for credits, they said. The Kickstarter benefits would be a one-time thing, they said. “Limited time only” on a (grossly overpriced) season pass before the release of Horizons. Putting all Engineers on the surface of planets in Horizons. Increasing the difficulty of NPCs to require Engineering in the base game. Diminishing returns to acquire traditionally "end-game" assets. Grossly over-valuing on-foot rewards.

And now pay-for-assets and pay-for-“early access.”

The worrying thing about pay-to-win for me is not what other players will do. It’s what the developers will do to the game to maximize monetization, at the expense of making good game, or transforming a good game into a bad one. We already have three examples of Frontier gating valuable abilities behind a paywall. We already have an example of Frontier altering the base game to make it more difficult for players who didn’t pay.

We also have a contra-example, in the form of Beyond. Fleet carriers are such an obvious monetization friendly asset that it was previously planned on being one.

I’ve also long been critical of Frontier for monetizing what is typically a vital development tool: a public test environment. I’ve recently learned that they also consider it a valuable marketing tool. This isn't good for the game either, because it results in very buggy patches, updates, and expansions.

Will Frontier resist the desire for easy money, and focus on making Elite a great game? Or will they succumb to temptation, and make their decisions on maximizing monetization, at the expense of a great game? Only time will tell, but past behavior suggests it will be the latter, not the former, as has been the case for so many other companies.

 

[Rat Catcher]

However, the conversation will become impossible if you start to redefine things arbitrarily, and start to call centimeters or inches miles, only because of your "feelings".

I agree entirely - if emotions were removed from the debate it would certainly be better balanced.

My 'feelings' are certainly bordering on the sense of ridiculous over the matter, which, I admit, just like others here, is colouring my responses, as, in truth, there isn't really much to debate, essentially:- "Frontier arer wrong in selling XXX as that meets a definition of pay to win" from one camp, and from my perspective 'so what?' (which appears to be shared by some others, and with the perhaps only moderate success of P2 sales (as nobody bar FD knows the actual number) is illustrative that the concept of P2W is recognised as existing, individuals are electing to do as they see fit, regardless.

With no disrespect intended, what is left to debate? Morals? Balance? Equality? Poverty & wealth?

FD have chosen to walk a path that is unpopular with some, it is happening now, I suspect that, if revenue is sufficient to justify the unpopular (to some) decision, it won't go away either. The individual player will decide if the practise is loathsome enough to quit the game, and that is it, really, pay or not, play or not, it is that black & white.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

I will say that early access is a trap for players with poor impulse control. But I also acknowledge that not every player actually paying for the early access has poor impulse control. in fact I hope that for most it's an informed conscious decision to buy and not a FOMO impulse.

 

[Rat Catcher]

It’s about the moral fortitude of companies who use predatory monetization strategies, such as pay-to-win in video games, and how they stimulate the pleasure centers of the brain, resulting in predictable behavior in addiction-prone individuals. It’s a neural hack that more and more video game companies are exploiting to extract large amounts of money from addiction-prone individuals, which in the industry are called whales.

Strangely, perhaps, I'm perfectly aware of the stategies used by corporations to seperate people from their wealth, and equally aware that there are a minority who will succumb to the blandishments of marketing in what would be perceived as a devastating way. The gaming industry has certainly cashed in on providing a dopamine hit for cash, and, yes, there are some who will keep pressing the button for another hit.
Will ED attract "Whales"? I have serious doubts that the game provides sufficient 'instant gratification' (FD would need to release a P2W asset daily to compete with the experts) to sustainably relieve the few of their fortunes, but don't mind being proven wrong...

Will Frontier resist the desire for easy money, and focus on making Elite a great game? Or will they succumb to temptation, and make their decisions on maximizing monetization, at the expense of a great game? Only time will tell, but past behavior suggests it will be the latter, not the former, as has been the case for so many other companies.

I don't wish to appear negative, but, if in the 10 years of its life ED hasn't become a great game (for whatever reason) it isn't likely to become one now.

Wasn't the statement made by Frontier, that, when Horizons was gifted to all who never bought in, that only 25% of the total purchasers of the base game had bought it? I wonder what percentage of the base game owners have bought the Odyssey expansion? Probably less than the Horizons figure.

It isn't a great game, although, for me at least, it is a good one (that, sadly, I play less these days than previously, but that is because of RL changes) and 'predatory monetisation' may even improve the game, as to keep people spending, the hooks must be powerful, and a mediocre or poor game experience is unlikely to succeed in that objective.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Sorry to pick this to bits...

I will say that early access is a trap for players with poor impulse control

That is certainly one opinion, as it is your own, it certainly isn't wrong...

But I also acknowledge that not every player actually paying for the early access has poor impulse control. in fact I hope that for most it's an informed conscious decision to buy

I only know 5 players, including myself, that I speak to, and play with regularly, who have purchased the P2 in either option, so my sample is very small.
Me? I'd decided that I had sufficient Arx in one account (49k+) to get the Stellar, but did spend, after a few days consideration, £12.99 to give me sufficient to buy the base P2 and have the option for a PJ or 2 when they eventually realease them on another account.
My discord friends also considered carefully if the P2 was a viable purchase (of perhaps just a £5 pack to bring enough Arx to buy for one) so I think my small sample were able to control their impulses reasonably well.

and not a FOMO impulse.

Does FOMO marketing still rely on the (very old metric) of 1:4000 people in the target marketing group buying? Or has the metic changed in recent times? (serious question, as I have no idea of changes in the past 12 years)

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

Does FOMO marketing still rely on the (very old metric) of 1:4000 people in the target marketing group buying? Or has the metic changed in recent times? (serious question, as I have no idea of changes in the past 12 years)

I have no idea, but I found a 60+ pages bachelor paper on the whole wider topic. As much as I would want to read that myself fully, I'm currently at work, so have to postpone that for later.

 

[Brrokk]

I agree entirely - if emotions were removed from the debate it would certainly be better balanced.

My 'feelings' are certainly bordering on the sense of ridiculous over the matter, which, I admit, just like others here, is colouring my responses, as, in truth, there isn't really much to debate, essentially:- "Frontier arer wrong in selling XXX as that meets a definition of pay to win" from one camp, and from my perspective 'so what?' (which appears to be shared by some others, and with the perhaps only moderate success of P2 sales (as nobody bar FD knows the actual number) is illustrative that the concept of P2W is recognised as existing, individuals are electing to do as they see fit, regardless.

With no disrespect intended, what is left to debate? Morals? Balance? Equality? Poverty & wealth?

FD have chosen to walk a path that is unpopular with some, it is happening now, I suspect that, if revenue is sufficient to justify the unpopular (to some) decision, it won't go away either. The individual player will decide if the practise is loathsome enough to quit the game, and that is it, really, pay or not, play or not, it is that black & white.

I'm in the "so what" camp. To me, the only decision was whether I wanted to pay for the early-access Python 2. I decided that for how I play it would be a useless ship, that's all. If you like, I'd "pay but not win". I really don't see a moral dimension to this decision, it's just a "do I feel like it?" thing.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Strangely, perhaps, I'm perfectly aware of the stategies used by corporations to seperate people from their wealth, and equally aware that there are a minority who will succumb to the blandishments of marketing in what would be perceived as a devastating way. The gaming industry has certainly cashed in on providing a dopamine hit for cash, and, yes, there are some who will keep pressing the button for another hit.

I have no doubt about that. Most people aren't, though. This isn't a moral failing on their part, though. There is a huge amount of misinformation deliberately spread by the industry to suppress this information. Given the hundreds of studies by other predatory industries on the psychology of misinformation, it isn't all that suprising to see others echoing the most common "rebuttals."

A comfortable falsehood spreads much easier than an uncomfortable truth. "A lie spreads round the world in the time it takes the truth to put its boots on" has existed in some form for hundreds of years, and IIRC it might be even much older than that. In the last hundred years bad actors have weaponized this trend. This isn't a moral failing on the part of those who believe the lie, but the companies and industries and organizations who deliberately spread this misinformation for profit.

Will ED attract "Whales"? I have serious doubts that the game provides sufficient 'instant gratification' (FD would need to release a P2W asset daily to compete with the experts) to sustainably relieve the few of their fortunes, but don't mind being proven wrong...

Given how much money some people, myself included, have spent on cosmetics in the past to "support the game," this game already has whales. It appears that Frontier has decided to target a potentially far more valuable variety of whale.

I don't wish to appear negative, but, if in the 10 years of its life ED hasn't become a great game (for whatever reason) it isn't likely to become one now.

Wasn't the statement made by Frontier, that, when Horizons was gifted to all who never bought in, that only 25% of the total purchasers of the base game had bought it? I wonder what percentage of the base game owners have bought the Odyssey expansion? Probably less than the Horizons figure.

It isn't a great game, although, for me at least, it is a good one (that, sadly, I play less these days than previously, but that is because of RL changes) and 'predatory monetisation' may even improve the game, as to keep people spending, the hooks must be powerful, and a mediocre or poor game experience is unlikely to succeed in that objective.

I agree. This game used to be a good game, but Frontier's many pratfalls and poor decisions regarding this game have transformed it from a good game into a decent one. And by all rights, this game should be much better than it is. It's just that this game includes so much unnecessary friction towards playing the game that it degrades the overall experience. So many of those frictions are also common in pay-to-win games and MMOs... it's just that those games monetize the removal of that friction.

I used to attribute this to inexperience at running an lifesim style MMO. Recent events have now make me wonder if this is due to something else...

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Wasn't the statement made by Frontier, that, when Horizons was gifted to all who never bought in, that only 25% of the total purchasers of the base game had bought it? I wonder what percentage of the base game owners have bought the Odyssey expansion? Probably less than the Horizons figure.

Quite a bit more: https://frontier-drupal.s3-eu-west-...ic/press-releases/financial/FY20_Interims.pdf in early 2020 has

For Elite Dangerous, a major paid-for series of expansions called Horizons was launched in 2015. Four years later, the overall Horizons attach rate to lifetime unit sales of the base game is around 50%, demonstrating the strong ongoing engagement by the Elite Dangerous community to additional content.

I doubt the figure changed much further before it was folded in.

The Odyssey figure is obviously going to be less than that. It's not really comparing like-with-like, though (the Epic giveaway being the biggest factor, but there are several others too).
Frontier were hoping for around 500,000 "early" sales of Odyssey, which would have been about 12% without Epic accounts or about 4% with; based on what public information there is I'd guess they got about a third of that initially and were roughly maintaining the (implied) ~5% rate for new PC sales since (but that's all got big error bars, of course)

 

[Rat Catcher]

Quite a bit more: https://frontier-drupal.s3-eu-west-...ic/press-releases/financial/FY20_Interims.pdf in early 2020 has

I wonder what I mixed up with to get that 25%?
I sit corrected, thanks!

 

[Rat Catcher]

I used to attribute this to inexperience at running an lifesim style MMO. Recent events have now make me wonder if this is due to something else...

Probably, during the last, what, 9 years? (When did DB relinquish the CEO reins?) It may be attributed to some failings in the management of the game.
However, with "New Blood" in the driving seat, and some bad investment biting their rear end, quite possibly a deliberate decision was made to raise additional revenue form this geriatric title, in a sort of "sink or swim" model.

Even at 10 years old there is some development being put into the game, rather than retiring it gracelessly, I'd be curious to see if revenue raised by their 'new' strategy directly benefits the game in days to come, or if it plods on at the same rate regardless.