Underwhelmed by Galactic Starfighter

[ZavienUK]

To judge GSF now is sort of like looking at an acorn and saying, "This oak tree is really underwhelming."

 

Hopefully, anyway. I presume that, over time, GSF will continue to be developed with new features and maps and rewards and performance tweaks. I don't mind the slow, continual development process as long as the material that is released is high-quality and adds to the fun.

 

Sadly (maybe I'm cynical) I'm not convinced we will see that (but would be very happy to be wrong). From experience if you look at the pace of releasing new warzone maps for example we only see the odd new one very very occasionally (and with too much hype), and past experience and my general impression of the limited development resources (of which over half seems to be focused on cartel market content) would suggest once it's released it's will see very little further development time (but I would be so so happy to be wrong about this - please prove me wrong Bioware/EA!)

[ZavienUK]

"Early Access"...not beta, but not fully functional either. They're still working on the other levels.

 

To me 'Early Access' suggests well early access to a finished product. I saw it as entirely a financial thing - artificially keeping it locked for non subscribers to persuade people to subscribe - which I haven't really got a problem with - it's a business after all. There was nothing to suggest it was not fully functional. I'm confused why anyone would choose to pay to get access to a 'not fully functional' product when they can play it for free a month or so later, perhaps with the advantage of another month or two's development time.

[Mallorik]

So...XP buffs are also P2W in your opinion?

 

I agree that this is REALLY close...VERY close...but it's not.

 

You can never fly a ship and just keep getting req off it to power level another ship, Its P2W.

 

But more importantly this is a huge screw job to subscribers, did anyone think about what youre going to do when your favorrite ship is mastered? youre going to have to pay money to take req off that ship and use it on another ship.

 

To make sure more subscribers start paying them extra cash they are encouraging you to fly your mastered ship by giving mastered ships a 10% bonus to ship req.

 

Ive always said the day this or any game makes me feel like I need to pay them extra money on top of my sub regularly is the day I find a new game, this just might do it.

[SawneyRath]

When the disparity is this large between upgraded and not, being able to get there that much faster by spending money is most certainly pay to win. Having an otherwise unobtainable advantage is not the sole definition of pay to win and I wish people would stop saying that.

 

I don't know what "Disparity" you are talking about. If you're a good pilot, you can defeat a fully upgraded ship in a stock one. This is a skill based team system, and upgrades give slight advantages. If you're a smart flier, you're fine.

 

Also, converting your Ship Req to Fleet Req is a waste of coin if you just spend the time to gain it through Dailies and Weeklies. People who do it are impatient and/or don't have time to grind. So they unlock a ship before you? Big deal. How is it pay to win?

[ZavienUK]

You folks do realize that Bioware and EA are businesses.....right?

....and the "Star Wars Franchise" is a device with which to make profit.....?

 

Like it or not....this is the future of gaming and content......though some programmers LOVE to program, they won't do it for free....at least not forever.....

 

You want a gaming industry and new titles to play and content for those titles......yet are amazed that it costs money to create....?

 

Are you some sort of communist.....like me? Even I know the ins and outs of capitalism......

 

Of course, I can't speak for anybody else but I'm well aware of that. But 'being a business' and 'operating ethically' do not need to be mutually exclusive. Indeed operating an ethical business that cares for the customer is a very valid business strategy - a consumer is far more likely to spend money with a business he or she knows and trusts. Why does my local sandwich shop make hundreds of pounds a year from me? Because they treat me well, provide good customer service and I trust them - I don't see any reason why it should be any different here.

 

I'm not amazed that games and content cost money to develop, and as a consumer I'm MORE than happy to pay money for quality games and great content. In fact if somebody is making a great game with great content I will WANT to give them money to encourage it to continue. What I don't appreciate is a business treating me like an idiot and below the belt money grabbing techniques.

[ZavienUK]

So...XP buffs are also P2W in your opinion?

 

I agree that this is REALLY close...VERY close...but it's not.

 

Yes actually I'm very uncomfortable with the XP buffs than can't be gained through other methods. As as I said I think 'P2W' is probably the wrong expression here but 'pay for advantage' is almost as unpalatable as P2W

[ZavienUK]

You can never fly a ship and just keep getting req off it to power level another ship, Its P2W.

 

But more importantly this is a huge screw job to subscribers, did anyone think about what youre going to do when your favorrite ship is mastered? youre going to have to pay money to take req off that ship and use it on another ship.

 

To make sure more subscribers start paying them extra cash they are encouraging you to fly your mastered ship by giving mastered ships a 10% bonus to ship req.

 

Ive always said the day this or any game makes me feel like I need to pay them extra money on top of my sub regularly is the day I find a new game, this just might do it.

 

You talk about an important point I've noticed over the last few months. When the 'free 2 pay' thing launched I expected to see a system where subscribing would, as it always has, provide access to all the content. The logic for me was quite simple, people could subscribe as before, or those who don't want to subscribe can 'pay as you go' through the cartel market. I had no problem with this, it made sense, retain your subscribers as before, lower the barrier to entry, and open up a new revenue stream, and perhaps get people into the game who would then want to subscribe.

 

The reality unfortunately is that is clearly not the business plan they have gone with. It's become more and more obvious (while subtle at first) that their business plan is to extract as much money as possible from existing players of the game. It's pretty obvious they want to exploit subscribers to spend additional money on top of the subscription, it is greedy and it alienates existing customers. Ironically if they didn't treat me like a cash cow, I would spend more money - but I refuse to reward business practices such as these (which incidentally is also why I've still not bought the new SimCIty game)

[ZavienUK]

Hey all,

 

I would just like to thank you all for your responses so far, It's always healthy to get a bit of debate going. Sorry I've not responded to every post but I've certainly read and appreciate every opinion, including those than disagree with me. I feel rather reassured there are other people who have similar feelings as me - I was beginning to think I was the only one who 'didn't get it' and wasn't understanding what the whole hype was about. It's also interesting to see there are other people enjoying the content, all credit to you, I've certainly enjoyed playing it, and will carry on doing so, I just feel a bit cheated I subscribed back essentially for a mini game, oh well lesson learned as they say!

 

Thanks again all, and please let the debate and opinions continue!

[ODTONE]

Hey all,

 

I would just like to thank you all for your responses so far, It's always healthy to get a bit of debate going. Sorry I've not responded to every post but I've certainly read and appreciate every opinion, including those than disagree with me. I feel rather reassured there are other people who have similar feelings as me - I was beginning to think I was the only one who 'didn't get it' and wasn't understanding what the whole hype was about. It's also interesting to see there are other people enjoying the content, all credit to you, I've certainly enjoyed playing it, and will carry on doing so, I just feel a bit cheated I subscribed back essentially for a mini game, oh well lesson learned as they say!

 

Thanks again all, and please let the debate and opinions continue!

 

respect

[Archellion]

Sadly (maybe I'm cynical) I'm not convinced we will see that

 

Well, I'd say many developers have earned cynicism from their players. Certainly, I feel that GSF is about two years late in arriving, and had Bioware listened to us back in 2009/10 and brought what there is now to us at launch, TOR would've had more success. However, what we have now is definitely a step in the right direction. That gives me hope for the future.

[TheOne]

Disapointed with Galactic Starfighter:

-No PvE

-One game type

-Two maps

-Clunky mouse control, lack of joystick support

-Monetisation even for subscribers

-Lack of legacy integration

-Integration into base game vs completely separate

 

Are we even getting any pve?

They try to maximize CC spending in a pvp environment

Releasing with two maps really is terrible

Not so bad when you get the hang of it, but yeah, I'm old-school wing commander/privateer 2 so yeah joystick

They're trying to maximize CC spending , and on every character you have

No legacy unlocks, again, maximization of CC usage

Yeah I'm with you here, no ground hanger. At least have us go to one of the capital ships to take off

[Mallorik]

You talk about an important point I've noticed over the last few months. When the 'free 2 pay' thing launched I expected to see a system where subscribing would, as it always has, provide access to all the content. The logic for me was quite simple, people could subscribe as before, or those who don't want to subscribe can 'pay as you go' through the cartel market. I had no problem with this, it made sense, retain your subscribers as before, lower the barrier to entry, and open up a new revenue stream, and perhaps get people into the game who would then want to subscribe.

 

The reality unfortunately is that is clearly not the business plan they have gone with. It's become more and more obvious (while subtle at first) that their business plan is to extract as much money as possible from existing players of the game. It's pretty obvious they want to exploit subscribers to spend additional money on top of the subscription, it is greedy and it alienates existing customers. Ironically if they didn't treat me like a cash cow, I would spend more money - but I refuse to reward business practices such as these (which incidentally is also why I've still not bought the new SimCIty game)

 

While I despise F2P games and usually avoid them like the plague, I really had no problem with swtors model as a subscriber, the only run in I had with cartel coins that pissed me off was having to pay a lot of money to transfer characters to a server that didn't suck but I let it pass because it was my fault for thinking you could still do progression pve on a pvp server in a game this small.

 

But with this new squeeze on subs im seriously rethinking whether or not I want to play this game anymore.

[DAMossimo]

But more importantly this is a huge screw job to subscribers, did anyone think about what you're going to do when your favorite ship is mastered? youre going to have to pay money to take req off that ship and use it on another ship.

 

That observation just left a pit in my stomach when I realized the scope of what it will mean. People who spend more money right now will have to spend even more money later. A coin-op hamster wheel. How elegant.

 

Guess I'm out. Best to do it now before investing hours and days into something that will just become a burden later.

 

<reverts avatar to previous choice>

[Nethgilne]

That observation just left a pit in my stomach when I realized the scope of what it will mean. People who spend more money right now will have to spend even more money later. A coin-op hamster wheel. How elegant.

 

Guess I'm out. Best to do it now before investing hours and days into something that will just become a burden later.

 

<reverts avatar to previous choice>

 

Or you could just keep playing because the you find the game enjoyable.

 

Also, don't you also gain Fleet coms at faster rate for mastered ships?

[DAMossimo]

Or you could just keep playing because the you find the game enjoyable.

 

Also, don't you also gain Fleet coms at faster rate for mastered ships?

 

Yeah. I don't really find it enjoyable in its current form. I was hanging on the promise of additional content being added later but even if it is at this point, it's a money-grab in exchange for a grind.

 

EDIT: Oh, I will keep raiding but I don't think GS is worth my time...or money for that matter.

Edited December 11, 2013 by DAMossimo

[stevetsuida]

Quick question. Are subscriptions to one or another MMO mandatory in the USA? Up here in Canada, we just unsubscribe to games we don't like anymore, but from the way some posts get all huffy and puffy it sounds like it's harder to get out of an MMO if you live in the States. Kind of like how I hear Comcast won't let you leave, or something.

[Nethgilne]

Yeah. I don't really find it enjoyable in its current form. I was hanging on the promise of additional content being added later but even if it is at this point, it's a money-grab in exchange for a grind.

 

EDIT: Oh, I will keep raiding but I don't think GS is worth my time...or money for that matter.

 

Well, there's nothing wrong with not liking what you don't like. That's what's nice about this being a side game, you can always go do what you rather be doing and still enjoy the game.

[Mallorik]

Or you could just keep playing because the you find the game enjoyable.

 

Also, don't you also gain Fleet coms at faster rate for mastered ships?

 

Yeah its fleet and ship req. I do find the game enjoyable but I don't find extortion enjoyable and I wont reward it.

[Nethgilne]

Yeah its fleet and ship req. I do find the game enjoyable but I don't find extortion enjoyable and I wont reward it.

 

You won't reward it by not playing or by not purchasing req transfers?

[Itkovian]

You talk about an important point I've noticed over the last few months. When the 'free 2 pay' thing launched I expected to see a system where subscribing would, as it always has, provide access to all the content. The logic for me was quite simple, people could subscribe as before, or those who don't want to subscribe can 'pay as you go' through the cartel market. I had no problem with this, it made sense, retain your subscribers as before, lower the barrier to entry, and open up a new revenue stream, and perhaps get people into the game who would then want to subscribe.

 

The reality unfortunately is that is clearly not the business plan they have gone with. It's become more and more obvious (while subtle at first) that their business plan is to extract as much money as possible from existing players of the game. It's pretty obvious they want to exploit subscribers to spend additional money on top of the subscription, it is greedy and it alienates existing customers. Ironically if they didn't treat me like a cash cow, I would spend more money - but I refuse to reward business practices such as these (which incidentally is also why I've still not bought the new SimCIty game)

 

Because that is NOT what the Free to Play model is. If it was, the F2P model would NOT be the success that it is, and TOR wouldn't have switched to it.

 

The whole point of the F2P model is to provide access to the game itself for free, and generate revenue through microtransactions.

 

Most F2P games ALSO offer monthly subscriptions to gain a series of benefits not available to others, or only available through more microtransactions. These benefits are not all encompassing, and usually include a monthly amount of microtransaction currency.

 

Now, this model works and is generally more effective because of several reasons. For example:

 

1- It allows players who don't want a monthly fee to play the game and contribute to the experience.

 

2- Some of the above players will still spend money on microtransactions, to obtain unlocks and the likes as they need them. Maybe not as much as a subscription would, but some money is better than none.

 

3- Other players, meanwhile, actually CAN spend a lot of money, and have no qualms doing so for a game they enjoy. The microtransaction model allows them to spend that money. These people play a strong role in making F2P games more profitable, and indeed some players are happy to help support their favourite games.

 

4- Another massive benefit of the F2P model is it allows developers to direclty monetize a new feature, making it much more likely that such a feature is included. Being able to derive revenue directly from a feature instead of projected subscription increases makes these features a lot more likely that such features are implemented. Galactic Starfighter is a prime example of this.

 

Expecting subscribers to get everything for their subscription charge is clearly missing the point of the F2P model. The very GOAL of the model is centered on giving players options to spend MORE money on the game to obtain some benefits (usually cosmetic, utility, or progression benefits). That way, it becomes possible for the developers to offer the game for FREE (which it is), while still making more profit than they would through subscriptions.

 

So, there you have it. If you don't like the Free to Play model, so be it. But let's not go ahead and fling accusations of "nickel-and-diming" and "money-grabbing" at the devs, when all they're doing is adhering to a PROVEN revenue model.

 

And let's not forget that at the end of the day, the fact of the matter is that GS is STILL completely free, that NOBODY had to pay a box charge for the expansion, and that subscribes are now getting FAR MORE VALUE for their monthly dollars than they did before 2.5.

 

Asking for subscribers to get even more for free is quite unreasonable.

[Itkovian]

Yeah its fleet and ship req. I do find the game enjoyable but I don't find extortion enjoyable and I wont reward it.

 

Good thing then there is no extortion at work. Nobody is forcing you to convert reqs in the first place.

 

Regardless, nothing wrong with conversion for CCs. It's a way for GS to generate revenue, and that's fine. It's part of why we all got an entirely new game system for free (and one that will continue to get better and deeper... all for free).

[Ridickilis]

Is the conversion 100-1 or 100-10? I didn't go very far when I saw a CC cost, I just backed out of it.

 

Either way as a sub you do get a monthly stipend that BW does not need to give us. So yeah, I'm one of those that refuses to purchase fluff, but it's my choice. If I wanted to BW is paying me to buy a few items every month just for subbing.

 

So if it's 100-1 you can transfer 50k reqs in one month for free just for subbing. If it's 100-10 that still 5k just for subbing. Not seeing a big issue here.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Ridickilis

[TUXs]

Yes actually I'm very uncomfortable with the XP buffs than can't be gained through other methods. As as I said I think 'P2W' is probably the wrong expression here but 'pay for advantage' is almost as unpalatable as P2W

 

I agree with this. It's not quite P2W, but you're right...it's close. It would be like buying PvP gear by transferring PvE comms to PvP comms. I don't like it either...it's VERY close to crossing the line.

[rbl_holmes]

Is the conversion 100-1 or 100-10? I didn't go very far when I saw a CC cost, I just backed out of it.

 

Either way as a sub you do get a monthly stipend that BW does not need to give us. So yeah, I'm one of those that refuses to purchase fluff, but it's my choice. If I wanted to BW is paying me to buy a few items every month just for subbing.

 

So if it's 100-1 you can transfer 50k reqs in one month for free just for subbing. If it's 100-10 that still 5k just for subbing. Not seeing a big issue here.

 

It's 25:1 I believe.

[JimG]

Am i missing something?

Yeah, you're missing a lot of things. We're 1 week into early access for subs. Preferred and F2P don't have access yet. Full release of GSF isn't until February. Some people don't have access to gunships yet if they subbed after Nov. 1st. Bombers aren't in the game yet. There are supposed to be 24 total ships for the February release. This is just the first game mode and the first 2 maps. Again, we're just in early access period. This isn't a full release of all game modes and maps....and obviously they will still be adding to all of this stuff as we go along.

 

They haven't developed PVE yet because it takes a lot more time to development competent AI enemies than to do the PVP set up. I'm sure they'll add PVE stuff at some point.

 

BW calls its an expansion. It's a free mini-game. This is a MMO, not a flight simulator game. It's a free add-on mini-game. This was pretty clear into the announcements they made about GSF. Anyone expecting different eithe wasn't paying attention or they had unrealistic, unfounded expectations.

 

There's no joystick support because they didn't want a free add-on mini-game in a F2P game to require people to buy a joystick just to be able to competitively play the thing. They wanted this free mini-game to be more accessible to everyone. Frankly, we are all playing with the same controls so it shouldn't matter anyway.

 

There is absolutely no need to spend one penny on GSF. You can level your ship just fine without spending anything. The additional ships are cosmetic....and they have been saying since the CM launched over a year ago that cosmetic stuff would go through the CM....not sure why people still can't comprehend that concept over a year later. People can spend CCs if they want to power level a ship....just like you can buy legacy XP boosts with CC or buy consumable XP boosts too. As long as you can't buy something that is more powerful than what I can get without spending CCs, then it's not really a problem. If some people want to spend some CCs to power-level, then so be it. It's not really a big deal. I haven't spent any CCs on ship upgrades and my ship has progressed and competes just fine. I'm so sick of seeing the phrase "cash grab". This is a freaking business, not a charity or a public service. They made this game to make money....of course they are going to try to do things to make more money....and without the CM, there would be no game for people to whine about.

 

As for legacy, I'd expect that there will be more tie-ins to legacy, but I'm sure they didn't want some of us having a 3 month head start on earning vendor Rep, legacy rewards, etc. over everyone else since GSF doesn't fully launch until Feb. Also, it does tie-in to the ground game. There will be a flashpoint and character intro for it. Again, we're just in the beginning of early access so that stuff isn't part of it yet.

 

No offense, but not one thing you said hasn't already been brought up and talked about repeatedly in the forums. You could have spent 5 minutes googling GSF and found out about all the stuff that will be in there by the Feb full release. It would be great if people could just add their opinions to existing threads that have already covered what they have to say instead of creating new threads which are just repetitive and clutter up the forums.