Pay2Win made it to Elite
- Thread starter Einar Donarsson
- Start date
No, I have paid for exclusive rights to both....
Sorry!
er .... ok
And early access for a portion of players gives them an advantage over the rest; that's the form the 'win' takes. By having access to the ship one not only gains whatever subjective personal enjoyment comes from that, they get a temporary leg up on doing whatever that ship is better at than the rest, and most importantly, they gain first hand knowledge and experience (which is a pretty damn big deal in a ship marketed and used as a PvP-centric combat vessel) that won't be matched by non-paying competitors for months.
If your idea of pay-to-win mandates a literal 'win' counter somewhere, I'm going to argue it's so pedantic as to be completely useless as a practical definition, and I can be pretty pedantic myself.
Pay-to-win equals bad, from my perspective, but the entirety of the blame is on Frontier. That Frontier is, entirely rationally and understandably, doing what they calculate to be in their best interest is both a given and excuses nothing.
I have no animosity toward those spending money to improve their subjective experiences in accordance with the rules of the game. I have a problem with the rules.
I expect players to play by the best set of de jure or de facto rules they're given access to--inconsistent and arbitrary self-handicapping is no way to balance a game--which is why it's important to put clear constraints on what players can do in multiplayer games. Constraints contingent on how much one spends out-of-game are always going to strike me as harmful to the game, no matter how good it is for the product.
But the statement "Pay2Win equals bad" could be taken to mean "having to pay for games is bad", which then equates to "all game development must be given away for free", which based on the rest of your comment here isn't your standpoint at all. This is the issue people have with a term that has a definition so broad it can apply to paying for anything, including the core game itself.
The elements of Pay2Win, or selling developed product, we now have gives you cause for frustration, and you consider them harmful to the game. That's an absolutely fair opinion to have, and despite my more accepting view of where we're at right now, I understand why players such as yourself feel the way you do over the situation. I certainly wouldn't want to see the game in such a state where the only way to achieve ones goals is to keep feeding the beast.
There's a fine line there, for sure. I don't mind buying newly developed things, but if a new weapon type came out, cost £100, and trounced anything otherwise available, then I'd be leaning towards fighting that implementation. If that same system came out for <£10, and was balanced among the rest of the sandbox, then I'm happy to support it. If it's given away in a free update then I see it as a very gracious move from a company that's ultimately trying to make a profit and views us as ATM's.
Last edited:
Nah, too many people good at making theme parks, no one good at making other games.
Last edited:
I'm not sure under what name he flies, but I see this in game: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!
Maybe he is just waiting for August to get the P2 for free?
Yeah, I had the ARX mostly sitting around anyway. I wouldn't call it a move in a great direction but If getting some cash so people can play with a new toy a little earlier than others is the extent of it I'm not overly offended. I purchased a bit more to have some for other stuff and maybe if the game shows that it can bring in some money to develop new ships and modules then it incentivizes the company to do more of that. If it becomes abusive or the paid-for equipment becomes exclusive for long-term access then I do find that repulsive and think it will be a disaster overall.
For me the difference comes from time spent engaging in game mechanics, or lack thereof.
I could never see Odyssey as P2W because it doesn't give you something directly just by purchasing it. I don't buy Odyssey and suddenly find my backpack filled to the brim with Opinion Polls. I have to grind my behind to get those. I have to fly my ship to the surface, I have to build my loadouts, I have to jump buildings and I have to fire my weapon. I have to play the game in order to get whichever advantages Odyssey provides over Horizons.
And then, those advantages are anyway mostly nullified by segregation. Horizons players cannot play directly with, or against Odyssey players. So any advantages given by Odyssey should be considered only in the context of the shared background universe - and here I agree with you, that someone could be making this argument for P2W - but it gets really hard to judge which actions in Odyssey cannot be offset by actions in Horizons (honestly the only one I can think of is winning Odyssey settlements in a war by playing the on-foot CZ exclusively - does anyone have anything else?).
Simply put, the PMKII and the pre-builts scream P2W because you just push a button in a menu and you get them in-game.
Ideally everything would be free, but I don't believe that this interpretation follows my statements.
A more accurate summation of my position would be, 'All players, in a multiplayer game, should be playing by the same set of rules, as far as is possible'.
Pay-to-win isn't bad because of the 'pay', it's bad because of the differences in access to gameplay implied between those who pay and those who do not. The scale of these differences may thus far be small, but I consider any difference, in this regard, a problem.
There are plenty of ways to charge any arbitrary amount for a game, or even introduce microtransactions, without creating different sets of rules for players in the process. Frontier has repeatedly declined to do this, instead leveraging mechanical advantages as incentives to sell product. That's pay-to-win and it's incompatible with my ideal multiplayer experience.
If they wanted to depreciate the current game to legacy status and open up a new subscription based game, I'd seriously consider paying for it.
If they had some sort of group buy for new features, with a monetary goal that had to be reached, upon which it would be developed and released to everyone, I'd have been happily have contribute to those features I think would enhance the game. I like new ships and if they said they needed x amount of dollars for the Python Mk II, I may have gladly parted with a few hundred and reasonably expect enough others to do the same and meet the fundraising goal. I would much, much, rather subsidize a pile of freeloaders than feel compelled to play by a better set of rules than them.
I'm sure there are plenty of other possible funding avenues that I'd find palatable. I'm also fairly sure they wouldn't be as profitable, so I'm acutely aware of why Frontier is doing what they're doing, and they can do it without a single additional red cent from me.
I don't mind paying for newly developed things, but everyone I'm playing with has to have access to the same, whether they are willing or able to pay or not. If they don't have the same opportunity, then that thing I'm being sold can have no value to me and I'd be better off if the game didn't feature it. I do not gain any enjoyment from my fantasy characters having non-contextual advantages, nor disadvantages, most certainly not ones baked in the game through distasteful monetization schemes.
I agree with everything you wrote apart from this bit:
I would definitely go against anything available for money that isn't in the game or just early access. That doesn't apply (though it's shaving close to be fair) to the CMK4 though, that was a free limited edition perk to promote the Horizons expansion, and I missed out on it myself for full disclosure. I think cool limited edition things for active players are neat.
And in my opinion, that whole chain of logic sounds ludicrous. But I can certainly follow the logic, even if it requires some leaps to get there.
The typical strategy of most “Free-to-Play” games is to give the base game away for free, give those new players “free” bonuses just long enough to get past the learning phase of the game, and then hit them with the pay-to-win aspects once they’ve gotten hooked.
For many of us older gamers, the way we bought games was: you paid X dollars for a game, and that was it. MMOs required a subscription, but nobody got anything special for that. But there was always the problem of unequal access to equipment and broadband. Someone with a high-end PC and broadband would crush a low-end PC or dialup, thanks overwhelming advantage they data volume and minimal response times.
So the game developers of the day took steps to make games more fair by artificially bottlenecking incoming and outgoing bandwidth, and adding delays to player actions. No more being able to spam five move combos in the time it took a dialup user to make one move. Sure, the wealthier player might have a massive 17” monitor, but that wasn’t nearly as big advantage as broadband access + a fast PC was. But at least the game developers themselves were doing the best they could to keep the games fair.
That isn’t the case with Pay-To-Win. Those with money get to play with one rule set, those without get to play with another one, and there’s plenty of perverse incentives for companies to make the latter rule set as unfair as possible.
I’m an amateur golfer. For the longest time, I used second-hand clubs and “bargain bin” balls to save money. I’ve finally reached a point financially that I feel comfortable enough to buy a new set of clubs, and brand new balls. I’m now hitting balls on average 10 yards further, and saving about three strokes from my game. This is a form of pay to win, but it’s inevitable unless a golf tournament insists on everyone using the exact same set of equipment.
The Pay-To-Win equivalent in golf would be a tournament where those who paid more get use winter rules, 4 mulligans, and four free drops.
Odyssey players can log in to Horizons mode and keep any advantages they've gained from Odyssey for same-instance play with Horizons players, though.
From August Odyssey gives access to the Python 2 (which the Horizons player can also pay cash to cancel the advantage, yes), and it seems likely the other three planned ships will follow the same pattern in the months after that.
Exobiology and spire assaults give an Odyssey player much easier access to credits than a Horizons player which can give them a better ship for the same time played.
It's possible to get the materials for Thargoid-resistant Guardian weapons in Horizons but it's a lot easier to get some of them in Odyssey.
(Aside: from a feedback perspective the segregation of most Horizons and Odyssey content appears to get criticised for poor integration much more than it gets praised for not giving Odyssey players a competitive edge)
"Offset" I'm taking to mean "with comparable efficiency" here, rather than "you can offset anything if you have enough players".
Odyssey settlements on atmospheric planets may be a challenger faction's only source of trade or exploration influence in a system, so having or not having access to that could be important in at least some contexts. On the other side, missions to attack Odyssey settlements (or just flying in and shooting everyone) can be a fairly decent source of negative influence on the target, as Anarchy factions across the bubble have found.
Much as Frontier have attempted (often unsuccessfully) to avoid it recently, access to the higher bonds/hour rate of a surface high CZ also makes a big difference to war CGs both in personal score and potentially the overall winner. "Solved" by not having any war CGs lately, of course...
There's really no substitute for spire assaults when it comes to the Thargoid conflict; admittedly one where "offset" doesn't really come into it, and they can't win the war alone.
The non-vulnerability and hands-free nature of Apex might come in useful at times. Being able to run at least some parts of a mission (for data courier, the entire thing) while AFK gives at least some efficiency advantage.
Would it therefore stop screaming if you had to pay 1000 credits or 3 Carbon or some other game-only asset every time you pressed the button? Or if rather than giving you pre-built ships that way, it enabled mining T6s as signal sources on planet surfaces, and you could fly up to them and steal them (undefended, counts as legal salvage) by boarding them on foot or with a SRV?
Both of those cross back over the "it just gives you access to an advantage you have to do something else in game to materialise" line but I don't think materially change the outcome or perception.
I presume that they don't get out of screaming on a technicality either just because I could buy one solely with my saved from-gameplay ARX. Pedantically I think that makes the ARX purchase itself the P2W element, though (you're paying to get an in-game currency) rather than anything you can then do with the ARX afterwards, for which the source doesn't matter.
This only follows if you make the assertion that the people who do not play a game need to be kept in parity with those who do within that game. But those who don't play the game aren't affected within the game by content in the game being denied to them so it's a non issue.
Well yes, I was arguing against game expansions being considered P2W in a general sense. The introduction of the PMKII (and whatever other ships) with the current ruleset changes that. If we should now say that the PMKII is P2W, or the whole Odyssey is P2W because it includes the PMKII, this I don't know... and frankly I find it irrelevant.
To me yes. It would stop being blatant P2W if they would mask it behind some mission or other in-game effort.
Don't get me wrong, it would still be P2W and I would probably continue to call it that, but to me it would be more swallowable. And again, this is just my personal feeling, I'm not trying to redefine P2W here.
It was specifically about others players ..... "You're free to do whatever you want, of course, but that doesn't mean that everyone should behave like Cowslip. Some of us prefer to keep our wits about us, and sound the alarm when we begin to notice the silver wires."
You evoke the individuals right to choose, then iitalicized everyone .... you are singling out other players.
Again, you imply that you have some higher understanding of development and pricing practices that the majority don't, therefore their opinions, or "rebuttal" comes from a place of ignorance or brainwashing. Invalidasting their legitamate, thoughful responses. Perhaps they understand the same things, but draw a different conclusion, or apply that understanding in a way they see as valid in their experience.
Everyone assumes that their uncomfortable truth isn't the falsehood
That's a very good point. ARX is basically just a second currency to the in-game credits.
You could highlight that by means of incorporating this currency into the game-play even deeper, like e.g. giving every credit transaction a "transaction fee" of 1 ARX. Refueling, repairing, restock, handing in bonds, purchasing a module, selling a module, etc... all would take 1 ARX as a fee.
On the surface, that would make the game-play more interesting, because all of a sudden you would have to think about those muscle-memory 10cr refills right after landing. Together with ARX being purchasable, though, it would catapult Elite right to the climax of P2W.
Heck, they could even charge 1 Arx each time the player fires up the game, another Arx for landing, then another for take off, and 10 for each supercruise jump, 4 Arx per minute spent in Supercruise, 15 for engaging the SCO drive, another 10 when disengaging it, and 1,000 for each food, potty, phone or just stretch your legs break.
They could even make a premium payment for not playing, that would be perfect, wouldn't it? (just think of the bill those who haven't played for years would receive!)
ETA: Even better, the forum could start charging Arx for posts mentioning Arx, and Arx being used as P2W, or just P2W (and its variants), FD would have MILLIONS raised in mere days!
Last edited: