Technically, the game is currently buy to play, not free to play. Like when you buy a single player game and play without a subscription.
One advantage of going free to play for the base game, is that you could have multiple commanders (without Horizons) for free.
Frontier would make money from the sale of Horizons and other additions, although I think they need to greatly increase the range of things they sell in the store - not everyone is interested in paint jobs. Why not sell convenience stuff, like increased storage, off-ship storage, faster ship/module transfers etc?
One advantage of going free to play for the base game, is that you could have multiple commanders (without Horizons) for free.
Frontier would make money from the sale of Horizons and other additions, although I think they need to greatly increase the range of things they sell in the store - not everyone is interested in paint jobs. Why not sell convenience stuff, like increased storage, off-ship storage, faster ship/module transfers etc?
Be careful for what you wish for. "Convenience stuff" is already half-way down the slippery slope of pay to win.
The store only offers cosmetics changes because they don't want to go down the pay2win road.
The chances are that FDev should lose a significant portion of the current player base which would not be replaced by enough new players buying the Horizons stuff.
I think this question came up once or twice before and the consensus of opinion of those that posted to the thread was overwhelming in their rejection of any 'Free-to-Play', 'Pay-to-Win' or similar suggestion.
And who would pay for the servers hosting the game? The developers and artists salaries? Any buildings, hardware, and running costs to make it all happen? I've played some good geninuely free MMORPGS - but they where labours of love, rough and ready games. Even those had to fund themselves through shop sales -- and that creeps into pay-to-win territory quite quickly.
No. As a sales pitch, there could be free weekends or whatever, maybe on seperate servers. But a half a legion of gankers and the other half of cannon fodder is of no help and will ruin the game (and the dev's income) in the long run.
I believe, if the game became F2P, even more people would confuse it with an arcade shooter, blaming the devs that flying is much too complicated, the controls are bad (in fact, the controller setup is among the best and cleanest I've come across), and everything is bad anyways. This would really hit the (not so good) reputation of the game even more.
In my opinion, the best the devs could do is to honestly advertise the game as what it is: A spaceship trade, exploration and combat simulator with steep learning curve, detailed controls and your own narrative that you have to make up for yourself. That's very different from what they claim on Oculus store.
I believe, if the game became F2P, even more people would confuse it with an arcade shooter, blaming the devs that flying is much too complicated, the controls are bad (in fact, the controller setup is among the best and cleanest I've come across), and everything is bad anyways. This would really hit the (not so good) reputation of the game even more.
In my opinion, the best the devs could do is to honestly advertise the game as what it is: A spaceship trade, exploration and combat simulator with steep learning curve, detailed controls and your own narrative that you have to make up for yourself. That's very different from what they claim on Oculus store.
I admit I haven't watched the video yet, but the question doesn't make much sense to me.
Going free 2 play is usually bought up for games with a subscription model, not for 60$ retail games.
I've never heard anybody suggest for Dark Souls to go Free 2 Play, even though they need a server infrastructure too for their online gaming.
Going free 2 play is usually bought up for games with a subscription model, not for 60$ retail games.
I've never heard anybody suggest for Dark Souls to go Free 2 Play, even though they need a server infrastructure too for their online gaming.
I can see a strong argument for making the base game free. My main concern is historically it shows a lack of faith in the product (SWTOR for example) and is considered for most games to be the beginning of the end. It's not entirely unreasonable but I'd definitely market it differently as 'ED going F2P'.
Elite is Buy to play, and should remain such, i really do not see a reason or benefit to free to play.
More players come with a cost, and granted no dedicated servers makes that cost less, but it isn't 0.
And the advantages are.....I don't know, is there even a need for it? last I checked Elite is profitable, people that enjoy it play it, is there a need for free to play? his claim is its based on 'grinding', rng, and 'online store has costmetic' yet......it is free in that aspect, no subscription needed. So the video arguments really do not hold up there?
More players come with a cost, and granted no dedicated servers makes that cost less, but it isn't 0.
And the advantages are.....I don't know, is there even a need for it? last I checked Elite is profitable, people that enjoy it play it, is there a need for free to play? his claim is its based on 'grinding', rng, and 'online store has costmetic' yet......it is free in that aspect, no subscription needed. So the video arguments really do not hold up there?
@ swiftwure: Wikipedia is not the best source if you want to know things exactly. Wikipedia only represents the meanings certain people may have to specific topics. If you want to know better, close Wikipedia and read a lot more in different sources. And don't forget to ask Imo.
Uh you are wrong, wikipedia is a consensus knowledge site, people can and do edit it, and yes also with bad information, but it evens itself out over time, because people add stuff that collectively is agreed on, and also stuff from other sources, heck there are also source links directly to said sources, so wikipedia is one of the best sources of 'general' information, like you know, an encyclopedia?
That said, you and Swiftwure seem to be saying the same thing agreeing that Elite is buy to play? it is 'free to play' elite once you have bought it, thus it is 'buy to play', but it isn't a 'free to play' game, free to play games, mean that a game does not cost anything to get as well.
Last edited:
no*
ps, if you want discussion please make your point in written.
(*) mostly just to antagonize as the business model choice should be a concern of the business. elite is already pay2win in a sense.
ps, if you want discussion please make your point in written.
(*) mostly just to antagonize
as the business model choice should be a concern of the business. elite is already pay2win in a sense.
It's all speculation anyway- because ED has never had (nor likely ever will) a subscription accompanying the initial cost, which SWTOR indeed had/has. SWTOR failed because of its switch to F2P for many reasons, but most of it being its failure to keep subscribers with ongoing content for what they had already purchased as well as the accompanying subscription. They went F2P in hopes they could continue to milk the cow after they had already put it to pasture. Sure, they remain afloat... somewhat. But I've no doubt they'll never make a comeback and that most of the customers who left have left (not only the game, but EA as a whole) forever.
If ED went subscription then F2P on top of it, this game wouldn't die slowly... it would die immediately. I'm quite certain of it. FD simply doesn't have the customer numbers (and diversity in marketing with games) to do what EA did solely based on their marketing name in itself. Frontier is a LOT smaller than EA- and even its other ventures wouldn't be able to keep this ship from sinking.
ED was marketed originally as a "hybrid" with Solo play included as optional- there really wouldn't be a way for them to avoid lawsuits from those who would claim they are owed a refund if they locked away the content behind a subscription paywall- they would have to make subscriptions completely optional but continue to allow Solo players to play without interference, or offer a refund for those players in return. Had it originally been marketed as a multiplayer only product, it might be a different story.
(side note, this is also a good reason why it would be impossible for them to "remove the modes" and go Open only)
Funny viddy as usual
I'd say no, right now at least. Let's give the game another year or two to flesh out more and see what else is coming first. Not to be snide, but all my friends who paid for the game didn't stick around, so I can't imagine an influx of f2p players would bode well for retention or conversion at the moment. If there were need for more funding, I'd prefer to see an influx of cheaper cosmetics on the store. Release like 20-30 bobbleheads at once, all around £1 each, or something.
I'd say no, right now at least. Let's give the game another year or two to flesh out more and see what else is coming first. Not to be snide, but all my friends who paid for the game didn't stick around, so I can't imagine an influx of f2p players would bode well for retention or conversion at the moment. If there were need for more funding, I'd prefer to see an influx of cheaper cosmetics on the store. Release like 20-30 bobbleheads at once, all around £1 each, or something.