I endorse this stament and retract my last i do not agree with play to win but i do agree with being able to buy credits alone or paint jobs and such
Last edited:
What is your view on microtransactions for credits?
- Thread starter Shear
- Start date
I endorse this stament and retract my last i do not agree with play to win but i do agree with being able to buy credits alone or paint jobs and such
I believe, quite passionately, that micro-transactions are an absolute must for this game, if it is to survive longer term. Micro-transactions drive revenue beyond the small one-time purchase price and any future DLCs/expansions down the road. This revenue is required to keep Frontier incented to continue to develop and support the game, which benefits ALL who enjoy playing it. That being said, I think micro-transactions should be limited to cosmetic items that provide no unreasonable advantage over other players - ship paint jobs, bobbleheads and other cockpit customization items such as custom HUD colours and voice packs, as an example. Frontier has barely scratched the surface here - think this needs to be a priority given the absence of a steady(ish) annuity that comes with a subscription fee.
Absolutely.
There's 2 ways to really go wrong with in-game asset microtransactions.
- Introducing items that can only be access through microtransactions. Were Frontier to introduce a new ship - call it the "Foo" that significantly outperforms all others, but made it available through the store only, then I have no doubt that the condemnation would be near universal from the fan base. Certainly I would be in the camp of opposing the move.
- Making progress slow enough that purchasing assets is the only way to obtain items in a realistic timeframe, while leaving them technically achievable in-game. An example of what I mean here is Neverwinter's combining relics which at higher levels gave you a choice - purchase an item available only for cash that gave a 100% probability of success, or use in-game sourced resources that took an average of 10-20 hours game play to gather, for a 1% probability of success.
Route 2 is, in my view, even worse than route 1. It shares the effect of route 1, while allowing the publisher to say "micro transactions are not necessary" even though the statement is effectively, if not technically false.
Personally I trust Frontier on this, and would believe that should they implement "cash for credits", it would NOT be accompanied by a hike in the prices of in-game assets. It would be a convenience measure for those who lack the time or inclination to build credits in game only.
If it's only to buy skins and other personalisation features like goodies on the dashboard, I don't mind.
If it's a "pay for time" like 10% credit boost by mission, I don't know. It could help those who don't have time to play. But it can give adantages for those who have plenty of time.
If it's a "pay to win", definitively no. But I don't think Frontier would do this mistake.
If it's a "pay for time" like 10% credit boost by mission, I don't know. It could help those who don't have time to play. But it can give adantages for those who have plenty of time.
If it's a "pay to win", definitively no. But I don't think Frontier would do this mistake.
Last edited:
No. With a side order of "no" (to get around the minimum post length)
Why not just ask for free money instead? Why should we have to pay real money for pretend money? The purpose of this feature is to make the game more fair for those who don't have the time to play, yes? Let's just implement a feature that gives everyone an in-game wage, based on how much they are not playing. The wage can be what the average player makes per hour. For every hour you're not playing the game, you make that many credits. Much more fair, no? Everyone wins, yes? Looking forward to everyone's response to this awesome new feature!
Seriously, though. Please tell me why this is worse than buying credits for real money. PLEASE DO.
Seriously, though. Please tell me why this is worse than buying credits for real money. PLEASE DO.
Last edited:
My problem with the selling of credits is that I suspect it leads to them increasing the grind to make it more likely you'd buy. Don't want, but happy with pay for cosmetic items.
I think this would drive people not to play the game as everyone would wait for that paycheck, which would eventually end up being a nice round 0 because everyone is waiting.
A bit like EVE skill learning where if you dont log in for a while you get a bonus skill learning for a while.
There is effectively no difference between things that can only be bought with real money and things which are priced in game so that real money is the only reasonable way to acquire the credits required.
Microtransactions would probably kill this game for me. I'd much rather pay a sub (if the cosmetics were acquirable through in game means) than have any sort of cash shop. Of course, I don't think either are necessary. This game's architecture is a lot less dependent on infrastructure than many other MMOs. Guild Wars 1 and 2 have both done fine with models similar to this one.
I think this would drive people not to play the game as everyone would wait for that paycheck, which would eventually end up being a nice round 0 because everyone is waiting.
Perhaps, but it would still be fair
Buying credits could not possibly be any more pay to win.
It would be sad and pathetic if they did that.
I would support cash for credits if the conversion rate was 1:1 ie 1usd = 1 ingame credit.
Speak for yourself.
You're arguing semantics here. You don't need a clear win condition in order to have pay to win. Pay to win = anything that gives you a gameplay advantage for real money. We just call it pay-to-win because it's more convenient than pay-to-have-an-unfair-advantage-over-those-who-don't.
I think this a ridiculous idea and I would still prefer this to credits for money.
A less ridiculous idea, not that I am saying I would want it, would perhaps be allowing us to set what our game selves are doing during our logged off time. Perhaps we are trading (getting a wage and affecting the market) or perhaps we are engaging in support activities (affecting the balance of power and perhaps costing credits), this could be reflected in game with increased npc activity in those areas.
Last edited:
I can support this. If someone wants to fund the game for years to buy a ship, I can live with that.
We've been here and done this but I'm game. I have no problem with any kind of microtransaction as long as what is bought for money can also be obtained though in game means. In other words as far as I'm concerned they could sell ships and credits for cash, it wouldn't disturb me. This is a minority opinion of course. Heads explode at the idea.
I find it more and more interesting reading comments that seem to suggest that there is some sort of "End Game" apparent, and to get any enjoyment out of this game you have to have the biggest ship and the best weapons. You don't, and whats more, i find it even more interesting that some need to have instant gratification in one sitting on the game. Being able to "buy" your progress in a game defeats the point of earning the progress within the game. Whats the point?
I don't buy the time argument at all. If you don't have time then this is not the game for you. Ultimately, life will need to be tended to, we are not all kids with massive amounts of time. Has this meant things take me longer, yes, has is spoilt the game for me - no.
The only possible reason to have this is to buy a massive amount of power through bigger ships and/or better weapons. It takes all the risk/reward away and only serves to disrupt the balance. It will mean playing open will ultimately require you to "Pay" to be able to exist in that space without being ridiculously outmatched, thus ruining it.