The inability to store modules is an odd decision, we already can store the bulkheads of ships, which may only be used in ships of that class and not inserted into another. My guess is that those are identified uniquely to their 'mother' ship - modules for the pre-builds could carry the same watermark, I'd have thought - maybe I'm too logical thinking that way?
Yes, I also see it as an odd decision.
Some of us that have been playing for a long while in our own playstyle may not want the game turned into a grand shoot-em-up for those with the deepest pockets and the least morals.
Apologies, my brain is addled a bit today (in particular) as the dog was having a rough night and kept waking me!
If, as some believe, FD goes "full Rambo" on monetisation, and there is a massive influx of players who are more interested in PvP, in its myriad of forms, with deep pockets and unafraid to spend (but cannot justify SC pricing for imaginary ships), those of us who are not particuarly interested in 'socialising' would have 3 options on play still, just the open one may be less attractive than normal. (but then, choosing open is literally consenting to meet any other player in the mode, without any limit to interaction)
I can fully understand that sentiment. Of course my comment quoted there was in the exaggerated context of the discussion around the tiny improvement of the non-storing situation. If FD goes "full Rambo" (as our resident pest control officer so aptly put it), more people might vote with their wallets and keep them closed, too. This is a function of the market, in the end. Intrinsically, though, I don't see an ethical problem, just a moral one. But morals change all the time... pecunia non olet.
