I have no proper words to say No to this. We are getting half backed features, bugs that are there since g years!! Paying for this? FD should pay all the beta tester that does the job instead of them. There are so evident bugs that are impossible to miss, unless the devs doesn't actually play the game.
[QUESTION] Should game updates be paid for?
- Thread starter Cmdr Travers
- Start date
I have no proper words to say No to this. We are getting half backed features, bugs that are there since g years!! Paying for this? FD should pay all the beta tester that does the job instead of them. There are so evident bugs that are impossible to miss, unless the devs doesn't actually play the game.
People still buy Macs?
No, I know they do, but.. they're not what they once were. They're just PC's with a different OS.
I'm really surprised that Apple bothers to make their own PC line any longer.
Doubt me?
https://www.apple.com/imac/specs/
https://www.apple.com/mac-mini/specs/
https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/specs/
Take away the pretty case, and what do you find inside? An Intel processor.
What's in my case? An Intel processor.
Look beyond that - there's a Foxconn motherboard.
Look at mine - Ok, I use Gigabyte motherboards.
Ram?
Macs often have Crucial.
I'm running 32 GB of Corsair Vengence.
So what's any different? The OS.
And it's entirely possible (I have a Sierra VM) to install Mac OS on any (pretty much any, needs to have a 64-bit processor) PC.
Long ago, Macs use to be special. Motorola made their processors, and they were RISC processors, and an 800 MHz RISC processor could run circles around a 1.5 GHz Intel or AMD x86 processor.
They had a ROM Toolbox, which was basically a collection of functions for doing things like drawing the frame of a window or a button, that Windows uses .DLL files to accomplish, and this gave them a further performance advantage. But those days a long gone, and there's nothing special about them any more.
Yes, Apple does still make some stellar displays - the one reason I own an iPhone, but beyond that.. you pay more for a Mac than a Windows PC, and get less for it.
I wouldn't be suprised if they do that!
Same here except i would buy only 2.0.
That's why i like new dlc approach, next dlc i will spend money on is atmo-landings or legs.
Also i would support them throught their store if they are more open and detailed from what to expect from the game and when.
This way i won't spend a dime on it cos i don't know what to expect from the game in a year or two timeframe.
It would be stupid to support something i don't like.
This is honestly one of the worst ideas I've ever seen (sorry OP, not trying to directly attacking you). Why would anyone pay for something they've already paid for...again?! And then the even worse part is that that method would just start splitting up the playerbase with separate versions of ED floating about, plus it'd make development a nightmare for Frontier (more than it already is). Honestly, I just can't understand this mindset of dropping money on Frontier at all times; you've literally paid for the game, season pass, paintjobs, LEP, etc. Give it a rest, they have your money and money from Planet Coaster. Frontier aren't dying and you've done your part.
Last edited:
I invested in the Lifetime Expansion Pass because I wanted to support the future development of the game. FD, in offering such a deal, is accepting money sooner in lieu of receiving (more) money later, and It's up to them to allocate money in such a way as to sustain future development. I, in purchasing it, have trusted them to do that. So far, so good.
That said, my preferred way to support further development is to buy cosmetic items (paint jobs, ship kits, nameplates, etc.). My only wish in that regard is that there were more of them available for the ships I fly, because I'd happily spend more if there were.
That said, my preferred way to support further development is to buy cosmetic items (paint jobs, ship kits, nameplates, etc.). My only wish in that regard is that there were more of them available for the ships I fly, because I'd happily spend more if there were.
You not only paid to identify bugs, but also paid for the communication of those found bugs to be ignored.
Another garden party laugh fest I'm sure.
Last edited:
I'm fine with additional systems and mechanics being DLC/expansions/season content, these things are bolted onto the main game and simply prevent a player from partaking in the particular activity, putting it behind a paywall wouldn't affect anyone unless they wish to partake in said activity. A good example of this is multicrew, that could easily have just been added as a completely separate £5 DLC, it's completely independent and doesn't break the game if some players don't have access to it, while stuff like megaships and the mission board updates everyone would enjoy.
However, changes to the base game and updates to existing content can't be paid for, as they change what people already have as well as you have to make sure that everyone plays by the same rules. You can't nerf something in a patch, only for people who haven't bought said update to carry on using the pre-nerfed stats. Likewise, there's a single BGS regardless of version, any updates to it have to be rolled out across all players unless FD want to create an entirely parallel galaxy for a certain update.
However, changes to the base game and updates to existing content can't be paid for, as they change what people already have as well as you have to make sure that everyone plays by the same rules. You can't nerf something in a patch, only for people who haven't bought said update to carry on using the pre-nerfed stats. Likewise, there's a single BGS regardless of version, any updates to it have to be rolled out across all players unless FD want to create an entirely parallel galaxy for a certain update.
I feel the same. I would buy a season, like Horizons, but I would not buy SLF or multicrew as individual features, since they are combat only, which I'm not interested in. I've yet to haul passengers, so I probably wouldn't buy that either.
To me, what Braben appears to be proposing would actually result in me spending much less on the game and increase the number of bugs (due to complexity of testing the different flavors).
Last edited:
Which in turn would mean they have a greater incentive to offer better fleshed out systems that offer wide appeal. With the current season stuff, we have already paid for it (or at least, most of us have) so they can release a barebones feature just to tick a box and claim it's done; if the headline gimmick of each update was an individual £5 DLC, it would mean that the mechanic has to be good enough to stand on it's own two feet for them to earn money off it.
We already have that, there is no need to change the current approach like the OP is suggesting and in fact I would argue it would be more likely to be detrimental to overall software quality.
As stated above, there is already a business model and it currently seems to be working for FD. No need to change what is not broken, increased funding does not necessarily mean things get done any quicker or necessarily to a higher standard. This is especially true in the commercial software world.
I generally disagree with this, there is no need for a pay-to-win subscription model to be added. Which is what you seem to be talking about.
As for optional DLC, we have optional aesthetic features that we can buy already and FD seem to be happy with that.
Last edited:
getting 25% increase in credits from missions and 25% more rep is pay to win subscription model? Umm what?
Yes, any model that involves in-game measurable gains for real world cash is pay-to-win - if you can't see it then you are a lost cause.
I know a comparable model is used in ESO but that does not mean it is not a pay to win model nor generally speaking a bad idea. It most certainly is both... IMO.
Last edited: