Nope, that makes ZERO sense.... there are currently two versions of ED:-
- v1.x - Base ED features plus directly related updates
- v2.x - ED features plus ED:Horizons features plus directly related updates
Last edited:
[QUESTION] Should game updates be paid for?
- Thread starter Cmdr Travers
- Start date
3.0
i would pay for 3.0 as an expansion as i did with horizons if it promised a lot of extra content and gameplay
i would like to buy the lifetime pass which i think will come up again with 3.0[yesnod]
i would pay for 3.0 as an expansion as i did with horizons if it promised a lot of extra content and gameplay
i would like to buy the lifetime pass which i think will come up again with 3.0[yesnod]
I'm just throwing this out there because we all want more features and expansion in the game, but those cost money. They need developers, and so the more available cash the company has, the more developers they can hire... and so on.
So the theory goes anyway
They have money. plenty of it as shown in your own original post and others on this forum in the last couple of days.
We as consumers need to inspire development by taking money and 'interest' away, not throwing more at them and hoping for the best.
Fdev are a developer which now have a portfolio of titles under their belt and i can bet you that the lion share of this 'Extra cash' you want to spend will go directly into that portfolio and not ED.
We all love the game and want more, but these 'How can i give Fdev more of my hard earned money' threads are ludicrous.
Last edited:
I'm just throwing this out there because we all want more features and expansion in the game, but those cost money. They need developers, and so the more available cash the company has, the more developers they can hire... and so on.
So the theory goes anyway
The Development-Plan is set since Kickstarter. Braben and his Team has got the Game they want in mind since then. Every Update (Major) is a step twords that goal. Paying for every Update would not be helpfull. Cause every Addition is a foundation for other Moduls, that will follow.
Last edited:
No reputable developer with a sense of reality would do that. Every bit of information they'd put out will be used against them later on. What gets communicated are items that are almost ready for delivery. It's called expectation management, and it's an extremely important part of marketing and community management.
I can see your point - we do get an awful lot included as part of a season - or a one-off subscription fee, if you think of it that way.
But... it's not something I'd be happy about. Each new update brings features that are intended to enhance gameplay or the capabilities of your ship or its modules. If you choose not to pay for a certain update, let's say Engineers for example, then you'd be at a severe disadvantage (not just in combat), and yes, that would be down to individual choice, so it's not an actual penalty. However, it does put a player at a disadvantage, and eventually, so much of one that either the disadvantaged player quits or spends the money on the software upgrade anyway - so Elite becomes pay-to-play.
You could argue that it is already pay-to-play, because we pay for seasons, but each season includes a significant number of enhancements - and all players get all enhancements if they pay for the season. Horizons brought us planetary landings, engineers, commanders, and hopefully, aliens. I can't remember if Powerplay and CQC were season two or not. There'll always be forgettable elements
I prefer the per-season model. It seems to work, and increased profits for Frontier would seem to agree. It would be interesting to see links between new updates and increases in store sales - both for ship paints, kits and so on - whether each release boosts microsales of these items.
Frontier also have yet to monetize whatever rights they bought earlier this year to an as-yet-unannounced franchise - http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/alliance-news/detail/1486369700323150400.html
I think the future for Frontier is rosy at this point - and as customers of one of their products, I (would like to) think we can look forward to many years of seasons, enhancements, upgrades etc. It will be interesting to see if season 3 requires season 2 in order to play it, though, or whether you can still play with reduced content as per season 1.
But... it's not something I'd be happy about. Each new update brings features that are intended to enhance gameplay or the capabilities of your ship or its modules. If you choose not to pay for a certain update, let's say Engineers for example, then you'd be at a severe disadvantage (not just in combat), and yes, that would be down to individual choice, so it's not an actual penalty. However, it does put a player at a disadvantage, and eventually, so much of one that either the disadvantaged player quits or spends the money on the software upgrade anyway - so Elite becomes pay-to-play.
You could argue that it is already pay-to-play, because we pay for seasons, but each season includes a significant number of enhancements - and all players get all enhancements if they pay for the season. Horizons brought us planetary landings, engineers, commanders, and hopefully, aliens. I can't remember if Powerplay and CQC were season two or not. There'll always be forgettable elements
I prefer the per-season model. It seems to work, and increased profits for Frontier would seem to agree. It would be interesting to see links between new updates and increases in store sales - both for ship paints, kits and so on - whether each release boosts microsales of these items.
Frontier also have yet to monetize whatever rights they bought earlier this year to an as-yet-unannounced franchise - http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/alliance-news/detail/1486369700323150400.html
I think the future for Frontier is rosy at this point - and as customers of one of their products, I (would like to) think we can look forward to many years of seasons, enhancements, upgrades etc. It will be interesting to see if season 3 requires season 2 in order to play it, though, or whether you can still play with reduced content as per season 1.
Last edited:
I can see your point - we do get an awful lot included as part of a season - or a one-off subscription fee, if you think of it that way.
But... it's not something I'd be happy about. Each new update brings features that are intended to enhance gameplay or the capabilities of your ship or its modules. If you choose not to pay for a certain update, let's say Engineers for example, then you'd be at a severe disadvantage (not just in combat), and yes, that would be down to individual choice, so it's not an actual penalty. However, it does put a player at a disadvantage, and eventually, so much of one that either the disadvantaged player quits or spends the money on the software upgrade anyway - so Elite becomes pay-to-play.
You could argue that it is already pay-to-play, because we pay for seasons, but each season includes a significant number of enhancements - and all players get all enhancements if they pay for the season. Horizons brought us planetary landings, engineers, commanders, and hopefully, aliens. I can't remember if Powerplay and CQC were season two or not. There'll always be forgettable elements
I prefer the per-season model. It seems to work, and increased profits for Frontier would seem to agree. It would be interesting to see links between new updates and increases in store sales - both for ship paints, kits and so on - whether each release boosts microsales of these items.
Frontier also have yet to monetize whatever rights they bought earlier this year to an as-yet-unannounced franchise.
I think the future for Frontier is rosy at this point - and as customers of one of their products, I (would like to) think we can look forward to many years of seasons, enhancements, upgrades etc. It will be interesting to see if season 3 requires season 2 in order to play it, though, or whether you can still play with reduced content as per season 1.
But... is there an argument that, say, 2.2 and 2.3 should have been seasons in their own right, as each of them included as much new features and content as 2.0 did? #justAskin
I'm just throwing this out there because we all want more features and expansion in the game, but those cost money. They need developers, and so the more available cash the company has, the more developers they can hire... and so on.
So the theory goes anyway
At which point then do they have the money they need to do the things they want to ?
And who can make that call ?
Any profit FD makes isn't solely reinvested into development, they are human beings just like us, and they like good wages, southbound holidays and shiny and expensive things too....and good on them, it's cool.
So how do you know if you're funding the next content update, or DB's new car ?
Beyond a certain point, throwing infinite amounts of money at them doesn't automatically improve the game anymore. All it does is accumulate company wealth, which is legitimate for them to strive for of course.
It's also legitimate for me not to care about that.
With the numbers they release (yes, i read the financial statements they publish), i have no reason to believe that a lack of funding is holding anything back.
And i have a theory of my own, one that seems to have worked for games publishers before....make a better game -> sell more units -> happy customers and happy company.
Last edited:
Personally for me, 30$ for a single season (except base game) would be a good price. That crap with "Buy Horizons ONLY bundled with base game for 45$ total" was enraging. I'm quite okay with current seasons thing, as long as they stay away from selling Pay2Win features in seasons, aka Engineers. Something like Multicrew (if it's polished well enough and enriched with needed features) is a good filling for a season package - it doesn't provide straight upgrade or OPness against base game player, but gives some interesting alternative.
Such things like Engineers and Fighters, IMO (read it again - IMO), should be available to base game owners too. Engineers created a huge gap between non-engineered and engineered ships, and fighters just feel like they should have been available to everyone.
Planetary landings are great choice for "DLC" content filling. Lots of mysteries are hidden on those, there are planetary missions, and those are also great source of micromaterials required for synthesis and Engineers.
I'm quite curious of what David Braben said during last AMA - that they're going get away from "seasons" system. What will come instead? Will we be able to "buy" every feature separately, like buying Engineers, but not buying fighters? Interesting.
Such things like Engineers and Fighters, IMO (read it again - IMO), should be available to base game owners too. Engineers created a huge gap between non-engineered and engineered ships, and fighters just feel like they should have been available to everyone.
Planetary landings are great choice for "DLC" content filling. Lots of mysteries are hidden on those, there are planetary missions, and those are also great source of micromaterials required for synthesis and Engineers.
I'm quite curious of what David Braben said during last AMA - that they're going get away from "seasons" system. What will come instead? Will we be able to "buy" every feature separately, like buying Engineers, but not buying fighters? Interesting.
Ooh! I didn't know that.
With a big of luck that would keep the complainers and idiots out
starts a thread to complain about not being able to pay more for a product he already paid
calls others idiots...
excellent thread
Fdev like any game developer of an ongoing persistent online world need above all to maintain 'Interest'. If interest falls the game dies.
If i was to be nickel and dimed every 3 months to pay for a new patch iteration and a handful of half baked features i have no doubt that i wouldnt keep up and then lose interest, the more i fall behind the more money it would cost to catch up and the less likley i am to return.
The season pass keeps me engaged because its simple and not a subscription model which i wont do.
Last edited:
If you want to set aside any feeling about current implementation(which implies negative feelings) then you should probably set aside any positive feelings for everything else.
And then you're left with : If update brings enough to warrant payment, a price can be put on it because people would buy it.
If you want examples: I would pay 10euro for planetary landings, if there was more to it than there is now. I would absolutely not pay 10 euro for ship launched fighters and passenger missions. And I would not pay 10 euro for current multi crew. Does that answer your question?
No he didn't. Stop being disingenuous.
No time to read the thread, so I will answer this "untouched".
I am against paying for new versions, except if we talk about some major breakthrough (possibly add an FPS/RPG part or destructible major objects or jumping to Andromeda or something).
The game sells well to new users (AFAIK) so this should be enough (plus the major initial campaign), PLUS the very active (again AFAIK) sales of misc stuff like laser color and even nametags (!)... Which is actually "pay us for nothing really".
So since this misc stuff market is really acting like a donation system (the only way I can ethically accept that they charge me for a bobhead or for my commander's uniform or for coloring lasers), I think normal game updates (including new features, just not "very big" as I describe in second line above), could and should be free.
The season thing didn't go too well. At least as a season thing. If they again just say that they will charge a bunch of new features spread over some arbitrary timetable, I might again bite the bait (like I did with Horizons), but the price CANNOT be like buying the game again (as it was the case with Horizons!). This can't go on forever.
After all they cannot afford fragmenting their clients too much (maintenance-wise).
Now they maintain 1.X and 2.X. Imagine also 3.X, 4.X (and still having to maintain 1.X - except if at some point they let people jump to next-newer for free and just keep one version back). Some would be willing to be "one season back" for free.
I am against paying for new versions, except if we talk about some major breakthrough (possibly add an FPS/RPG part or destructible major objects or jumping to Andromeda or something).
The game sells well to new users (AFAIK) so this should be enough (plus the major initial campaign), PLUS the very active (again AFAIK) sales of misc stuff like laser color and even nametags (!)... Which is actually "pay us for nothing really".
So since this misc stuff market is really acting like a donation system (the only way I can ethically accept that they charge me for a bobhead or for my commander's uniform or for coloring lasers), I think normal game updates (including new features, just not "very big" as I describe in second line above), could and should be free.
The season thing didn't go too well. At least as a season thing. If they again just say that they will charge a bunch of new features spread over some arbitrary timetable, I might again bite the bait (like I did with Horizons), but the price CANNOT be like buying the game again (as it was the case with Horizons!). This can't go on forever.
After all they cannot afford fragmenting their clients too much (maintenance-wise).
Now they maintain 1.X and 2.X. Imagine also 3.X, 4.X (and still having to maintain 1.X - except if at some point they let people jump to next-newer for free and just keep one version back). Some would be willing to be "one season back" for free.
Last edited:
Last edited: