Introducing the X4: Envoy Pack - Stealth, Deception, and Strategy Await

[Starmeadow]

[...]

[...]

But the point that you quoted missed is that we ARE getting loads of content, but Egosoft is shaking up the mold a bit by putting many of the items that would normally be in the DLC into the free update (in addition to the normal free update content we'd expect). Think of it this way: We're getting a new ship, half a dozen sectors, and a new plot - an amount of content that is reasonable for $8. [...]

As great as that sounds at first glance, unfortunately the bottom line still remains to me: Judging by the Hyperion pack, it is sadly not loads of content in comparison. The "plot" conists of 3 short missions, there is no lore or history taking place, no notable development. The whole "plot" barely takes time to go through because it is not much at all. Past DLCs added a ton of ships each, not just 1. Yes that one ship is more detailed, but still not close in value to the masses of ships in the past. Additionally, I would like to mention the Astrid alone was a freebie pre-packed within the DLC and is close to as detailed as the Hyperion. But again, Avarice adds on plenty of more ships to that, new mechanics (well, interesting hazards), actual lore and stories of individuals, choices, morality. Other DLCs add a ton of equipment as well. Plenty of good quality voicelines (in comparison to Hyperions of course), entirely new station modules, some even add more/rework behaviours, rules (Cradle of Humanity and Kingdom End), the list goes on. As for the sectors alone, Split Vendetta adds a bopping 16 sectors if I counted correctly in addition to all the other stuff I have mentioned. This is not a mere shakeup as you describe it, it unfortunately is a factual decrease in value for money but packed in a lower scale. And plenty of people will eventually realise that. I am not necessarily saying Egosoft should go back to big dlcs, but I *am* saying that the value-price ratio does not add up so far in comparison. It did not for the Hyperion and while I genuinely hope it will for the Envoy, I have my concerns considering the past pack.

EDIT: Again, I am *not* against different kinds of DLCs at all but what I am getting at is this:
Keep the same amount of content but lower the price.
OR: Keep the price, maybe even up it BUT add more content or depth into the packs.

The current balance is just too much money for too little in my opinion, free updates or not, they aren't a bandaid for bad deals. And if a bad balance keeps up, there will likely be more and more people that will start to dislike it.

[Mjaue]

I would like to support this chew-ie as well.

Egosoft is among a very few development teams I have trust in and have no personal issues with helping out with development costs. If there is a small reward in form of a ship or soundtrack that will motivate more players to support them then I am all for it.
I do not see this as the same as horse armor or other shady money grab schemes that has become so prevalent in the industry these days. As long as Egosoft is open and transparent about this form of funding progress for both paid and free updates I will most likely continue to support them.
The game is after all mostly a single player affair, so it is not like someone gets any unfair advantage over other players.

I support that as much as possible of the new mechanics is made available for the players of the base game. This keeps the community alive and well, and no one feels left behind.
All of us playing and enjoying X4, no matter where in the "expansion pack" tier system we reside, are potential future customers to Egosoft. It will be a mistake to divide this great community.

[clakclak]

[...]

But the point that you quoted missed is that we ARE getting loads of content, but Egosoft is shaking up the mold a bit by putting many of the items that would normally be in the DLC into the free update (in addition to the normal free update content we'd expect). Think of it this way: We're getting a new ship, half a dozen sectors, and a new plot - an amount of content that is reasonable for $8. [...]

As great as that sounds at first glance, unfortunately the bottom line still remains to me: Judging by the Hyperion pack, it is sadly not loads of content in comparison. The "plot" conists of 3 short missions, there is no lore or history taking place, no notable development. The whole "plot" barely takes time to go through because it is not much at all. Past DLCs added a ton of ships each, not just 1. Yes that one ship is more detailed, but still not close in value to the masses of ships in the past. Additionally, I would like to mention the Astrid alone was a freebie pre-packed within the DLC and is close to as detailed as the Hyperion. But again, Avarice adds on plenty of more ships to that, new mechanics (well, interesting hazards), actual lore and stories of individuals, choices, morality. Other DLCs add a ton of equipment as well. Plenty of good quality voicelines (in comparison to Hyperions of course), entirely new station modules, some even add more/rework behaviours, rules (Cradle of Humanity and Kingdom End), the list goes on. As for the sectors alone, Split Vendetta adds a bopping 16 sectors if I counted correctly in addition to all the other stuff I have mentioned. This is not a mere shakeup as you describe it, it unfortunately is a factual decrease in value for money but packed in a lower scale. And plenty of people will eventually realise that. I am not necessarily saying Egosoft should go back to big dlcs, but I *am* saying that the value-price ratio does not add up so far in comparison. It did not for the Hyperion and while I genuinely hope it will for the Envoy, I have my concerns considering the past pack.

EDIT: Again, I am *not* against different kinds of DLCs at all but what I am getting at is this:
Keep the same amount of content but lower the price.
OR: Keep the price, maybe even up it BUT add more content or depth into the packs.

The current balance is just too much money for too little in my opinion, free updates or not, they aren't a bandaid for bad deals. And if a bad balance keeps up, there will likely be more and more people that will start to dislike it.

Well next time Egosoft should simply lock the diplomacy feature, sector map overhaul and quality of life improvements behind the 8€ paywall instead of handing it out for free. At least than people would have one more item on their checklist and would probably feel like they are getting a better deal.

The ship packs right now are meant as a way for people to voluntarily support the further development of a singleplayer game that launched 7 years ago, while still making most of the updates free so all of the community can enjoy them, but I guess people would be happier with the feeling they are getting more for their money instead of getting not that much for their money, but getting a ton of stuff for free.

[vvvvvvvv]

Well next time Egosoft should simply lock the diplomacy feature, sector map overhaul and quality

The concerns are valid, and should be voiced so egosoft gets data to decide their further strategy.

I'm happy about the new ship, or at least about what I imagine it will be, because I always want interiors. However, when I bought hyperion, while the ship was cool, what I got felt a BIT lacking. And that is something absolutely worth pondering. We'll see how it goes with this ship.

"But it is to support the game" is fundamentally not a good argument. Because there are examples where this has gone badly. Those being Space Engineers, Elite Dangerous, or Paradox tiles. So it would be best to let people speak concerns out. As I said - to let Egosoft gather data and make decisions.

[Starmeadow]

Well next time Egosoft should simply lock the diplomacy feature, sector map overhaul and quality of life improvements behind the 8€ paywall instead of handing it out for free. At least than people would have one more item on their checklist and would probably feel like they are getting a better deal.

The ship packs right now are meant as a way for people to voluntarily support the further development of a singleplayer game that launched 7 years ago, while still making most of the updates free so all of the community can enjoy them, but I guess people would be happier with the feeling they are getting more for their money instead of getting not that much for their money, but getting a ton of stuff for free.

Once again, a free update is not and never should be a bandaid. I appreciate the trust in Egosoft, but the logic is flawed. What you say is equal to saying "Well Star Citizen has a huge game environment right? So having to pay incredibly high prices for access to any progress/ships in a sensible amount should be fine because the base game exists."

In a way you are supporting predatory tactics, encouraging them even, because there is good noise nextdoor.

I appreciate the free updates Egosoft still puts out this much later. But that does not excuse worse marketing developments and those should not be made harmless because of a good approach on a different action. I do not have problems with Egosoft, I have problems with where this (so far experimental) pack marketing strategy of theirs could lead to. Which is a valid concern in my opinion. Because worst case scenario exactly what you said will happen, but with even less content, because it is the same road. And if that were to happen you would not be supportive of that yourself either. It has happened plenty of times in the past with other games and if this great community/game would be one of the many ones that fell this way would, in my opinion, be a huge loss in this genre.

[Wajakla]

I see your point, though I think it is fair to say that my opinion differs and I think the current practice with the DLCs is a good one and should continue. There are very few games out there that put this much content in free updates for so long.

And there is only so much content a studio like egosoft can push out. The questions is how they divide their content between DLC and FLC. Say they have 100% output per update-cycle. They can put 70% behind a DLC and push out 30% for free - or they can push out 70% for free and put 30% behind a DLC. I prefer the second option.

[Starmeadow]

They can put 70% behind a DLC and push out 30% for free - or they can push out 70% for free and put 30% behind a DLC.

The question and main concern is: Will that truly stay that way? Or will the 100% per update end up becoming 50% or less slowly (eg ai voices, less content overall, less effort)? Or will it even shift to 30% effort/content and 100% payed? Which judging by other examples is why I am not eager on supporting this practice, concerned about it actually. I believe it would be fitting for them to either return to the bigger dlcs (the safer option), adjust the prices to be more fair to the actual content within the dlc (not safe perhaps, but at least it would give me a bit of a trust boost), or give another reason to belive them that this will not end up like so many other games (which seems like an incredibly risky gamble to take to me).

[clakclak]

Look Starmeadow and vvvvvvvv, I think you both make fair points. Marketing certainly is an issue here, as I think these Ship packs would be far less controversial if they were marketed as "supporters packs to voluntarily finance the further development of X4 many years after release" and not as "DLC".

The reason I cut egosoft far more slack than for example RSI is a personal one and not at all objective. There is a reason, why even though I made my account here in 2008 (a time at which I had allready played Egosoft games for at least 2 years) I am still here. Not everything Egosoft does is great. Not every release is a hit (looking at X Rebirth in particular), but Egosoft has done a lot to earn my trust over the many years I have spend with their games. So maybe my answer was driven a bit to much by emotion, and maybe I am a bit naive trusting a company operating in a capitalist system, but I still believe Egosoft has the intention to make good games. Would I recommand anyone to buy the Hyperion DLC for 8€ for what is in it? No. I have said basically the same in my Steam review. I would only recommand it to people who want to support the developers and I have seen a lot of similar sentiment in other reviews. So maybe Egosoft should shift its marketing and make it clear that these are supporter packs rather than classical DLC.

That being said, I absolutely do not feel what they are doing here is a "predatory buisness practice".

[Starmeadow]

Look Starmeadow and vvvvvvvv, I think you both make fair points. Marketing certainly is an issue here, as I think these Ship packs would be far less controversial if they were marketed as "supporters packs to voluntarily finance the further development of X4 many years after release" and not as "DLC".

The reason I cut egosoft far more slack than for example RSI is a personal one and not at all objective. There is a reason, why even though I made my account here in 2008 (a time at which I had allready played Egosoft games for at least 2 years) I am still here. Not everything Egosoft does is great. Not every release is a hit (looking at X Rebirth in particular), but Egosoft has done a lot to earn my trust over the many years I have spend with their games. So maybe my answer was driven a bit to much by emotion, and maybe I am a bit naive trusting a company operating in a capitalist system, but I still believe Egosoft has the intention to make good games. Would I recommand anyone to buy the Hyperion DLC for 8€ for what is in it? No. I have said basically the same in my Steam review. I would only recommand it to people who want to support the developers and I have seen a lot of similar sentiment in other reviews. So maybe Egosoft should shift its marketing and make it clear that these are supporter packs rather than classical DLC.

That being said, I absolutely do not feel what they are doing here is a "predatory buisness practice".

My intention is not to brand this pack as predatory business and bash Egosoft, but I am genuinely worried it could morph into that in the future. I think so far this is meant as an experiment to see how the community reacts and not to steal money...yet. At least not intended to be that way. The whole reason I brought this up in the first place is because I am rooting for Egosoft and what they usually do. However they may push themselves into a pit if they continue like this and warp into something that is not what they intended to be and that the community would not appreciate. That is why I am trying to criticize the path these packs are moving towards, as if these packs themselves continue to be like they are now more and more people will inevitably jump ship or worst case: Egosoft will get less income due to people not supporting them, some perhaps even hating on them, and through that be financially forced to rely on cashgrabs to even continue to exist/update their games, becoming something worse and untrue to the original vision of theirs in the process. So I am trying to make them think about changing course before it comes to that, hopefully for the better (as small or little of a course correction that would be). Perhaps experiment with things like actual donation packs, openly branding dlcs as support only or just return back to what they originally did. Egosoft was always somewhat alternative (in a good way!) and I do not want to see them becoming one of many mainstream corporations that release low quality and zero effort dlcs to exploit their players (and of course in turn be hated for it). Theres plenty of those already and I think the market deserves better. Egosoft themselves deserve better. But they need to watchout to not move themselves into this firing line. I genuinely appreciate the amount of support in this community that Egosoft gets. But that trust can disappear very quickly with wrong practices, especially if everyone is just keeping their eyes closed when looking at the issues. So to preserve the great community to developer relationship, critique is absolutely crucial. And Egosoft *need* to take this critique to heart.

[vvvvvvvv]

Look Starmeadow and vvvvvvvv, I think you both make fair points. Marketing certainly is an issue here, as I think these Ship packs would be far less controversial if they were marketed as "supporters packs to voluntarily finance the further development of X4 many years after release" and not as "DLC".

I'm not sure it is controversial. Number of people speaking against it is fairly low.

It is also clearly not Elite with its ARX madness and not SC.

But if you have concerns, voice them, I'd expect developers to take note.

Having said that, supporter packs in other games typically grant nothing. Or next to nothing. This seem to be above that level. So I think it is fair to call it a DLC.

[thegreybetween]

I just want to take a moment to say "Cheers!" to this discussion and its participants. It is refreshing to see an actual DISCUSSION about an issue these days.

And complacency is a fair point. If we cut a company too much slack based solely on historic goodwill practices, it can go very bad long before anyone notices. Locally, we have a particular brand of potato chip/crisp known as "Tim's Cascade Jalepeno Chips" that were once a beautiful thing - Natural flavors, high-quality oils, thick cuts of real potatoes in a 20oz bag. Then, big business noticed. Then, the world economy met a few wrinkles. Today, that same bag of Tim's Cascade Jalepeno chips comes in the exact same bag, but contains 12oz of thin composite chips cooked in cheap oil and coated with MSG-laden seasonings. It still presents the same "high quality, great taste!", and it isn't until you take your consumer brain off of auto pilot and actually pay attention that you realize how far things have fallen.

Now, I don't expect anything of the sort from Egosoft (unless they get bought by 2k or Paradox). They went into this particular product line with very open communication, and continue to behave in a way that makes me happy to support them. But it is a fair point that we could see a shift if they get too comfortable with people throwing money at them without much regard for the output - "Buy now, ask later" rarely favors the consumer.

So yeah, keep up the feedback and never hesitate to prod the sleeping masses into employing those ever-so-rare critical thinking skills we humans are rumored to possess. If Egosoft drops a ball, they should be taken to task for it. But from where I'm currently sitting, they are winning and I'm happy to support it while it lasts.

[jlehtone]

Marketing certainly is an issue here, as I think these Ship packs would be far less controversial if they were marketed as "supporters packs to voluntarily finance the further development of X4 many years after release" and not as "DLC".

A ship is content and downloadable for a price. Does the acronym "DLC" mean something else?


Who are we?

1. Don't care about the additional (optional) content; won't pay for the DLC
2. Don't care enough for the price; won't pay for the DLC
3. Feels a need to get the content; has to pay for DLC
4. Don't actually care about the content, but will pay for DLC anyway (for other reasons)

Which categories did I miss?

Should Egosoft really market "mini-DLC" so that majority of users is a D?

If majority would be a B -- which no market study can indicate -- then there would be pressure to adjust content and/or price (but no money to fund the adjustments).

[Starmeadow]

A ship is content and downloadable for a price. Does the acronym "DLC" mean something else?

By this logic you can market a picture of an egg as a DLC. Problem is: People will still feel scammed when comparing it to what is usually perceived as a worthwhile dlc with actually sizeable content and additions. Especially if there are DLCs like that already released.

Additionally, the main marketing reason according to most posts here as to why these packs are bought is to support, however the marketing for these packs that I have seen myself is far more swayed to the content in the packs. These 2 apparently official reasons do not add up.

While I am not saying that this is the one solution to the problem and would invalidate all concerns, assuming support is the reason people actually buy them while the content is not, it is a valid idea to say that this should be made clear to keep truthful marketing and purpose in place (which unfortunately barely exists in the world at this point).

[Raptor34]

[...]

But the point that you quoted missed is that we ARE getting loads of content, but Egosoft is shaking up the mold a bit by putting many of the items that would normally be in the DLC into the free update (in addition to the normal free update content we'd expect). Think of it this way: We're getting a new ship, half a dozen sectors, and a new plot - an amount of content that is reasonable for $8. [...]

As great as that sounds at first glance, unfortunately the bottom line still remains to me: Judging by the Hyperion pack, it is sadly not loads of content in comparison. The "plot" conists of 3 short missions, there is no lore or history taking place, no notable development. The whole "plot" barely takes time to go through because it is not much at all. Past DLCs added a ton of ships each, not just 1. Yes that one ship is more detailed, but still not close in value to the masses of ships in the past. Additionally, I would like to mention the Astrid alone was a freebie pre-packed within the DLC and is close to as detailed as the Hyperion. But again, Avarice adds on plenty of more ships to that, new mechanics (well, interesting hazards), actual lore and stories of individuals, choices, morality. Other DLCs add a ton of equipment as well. Plenty of good quality voicelines (in comparison to Hyperions of course), entirely new station modules, some even add more/rework behaviours, rules (Cradle of Humanity and Kingdom End), the list goes on. As for the sectors alone, Split Vendetta adds a bopping 16 sectors if I counted correctly in addition to all the other stuff I have mentioned. This is not a mere shakeup as you describe it, it unfortunately is a factual decrease in value for money but packed in a lower scale. And plenty of people will eventually realise that. I am not necessarily saying Egosoft should go back to big dlcs, but I *am* saying that the value-price ratio does not add up so far in comparison. It did not for the Hyperion and while I genuinely hope it will for the Envoy, I have my concerns considering the past pack.

EDIT: Again, I am *not* against different kinds of DLCs at all but what I am getting at is this:
Keep the same amount of content but lower the price.
OR: Keep the price, maybe even up it BUT add more content or depth into the packs.

The current balance is just too much money for too little in my opinion, free updates or not, they aren't a bandaid for bad deals. And if a bad balance keeps up, there will likely be more and more people that will start to dislike it.

I'll say it again, but the only thing I actually liked from ToA is the Astrid. The rest were... just meh honestly. And the VIG is a lag generator that actively made the game worse. So for some people, including me, ToA is the overpriced DLC instead.
Or even take Timelines for instance, not everyone likes those missions but would like those ships. Is that value for money? Content packs you only pay for what you want, but in return you pay more relative to content. Yet paying more is still more value for money because you only pay for what you want not misc stuff you don't care about. Or again coming back to VIG, paying for stuff that makes the game lag more.
Not all content are equal, and just as jumbo variety packs gives you more content, the question you need to ask is that do you actually want all that you're paying for?

Or to give another example, X4 recently had a bundle with Space Engineers iirc. And I assume it'll be cheaper to buy that bundle than both games individually since bundles generally also gets bundled with a discount. But if you do not care for SE. Then is it actually cheaper for you to spend more money for more content? Because this is the exact same thing.

[vvvvvvvv]

A ship is content and downloadable for a price. Does the acronym "DLC" mean something else?

His point was that "DLC" normally represents SUBSTANTIAL amount of context. Compare hyperion to boron/timelines, for example.

If a thing is labeled as DLC, and past DLCs had SUBSTANTIAL amount of content, but the new one does not feel the same, that'll cause negativity. Or it could be seen as digital shrinkflation.

[jlehtone]

Substantial amount of content for the price, or in other words appropriate price for the content. Yes, increasing the price to value of content ratio is not positive. However, every DLC do not have to be of same size (as long as price follows the size).

Raptor34 sounds above like to get the Astrid without rest of ToA would have been nice. I would have been happy to get the rest of ToA without the Astrid. Splitting the price between the two parts would be hard though as each of us sees "the other part" with little value, but would not accept that the part that we like should have all the price ...

[burger1]

I would like to support this chew-ie as well.

Egosoft is among a very few development teams I have trust in and have no personal issues with helping out with development costs. If there is a small reward in form of a ship or soundtrack that will motivate more players to support them then I am all for it.
I do not see this as the same as horse armour or other shady money grab schemes that has become so prevalent in the industry these days. As long as Egosoft is open and transparent about this form of funding progress for both paid and free updates I will most likely continue to support them.
The game is after all mostly a single player affair, so it is not like someone gets any unfair advantage over other players.

I support that as much as possible of the new mechanics is made available for the players of the base game. This keeps the community alive and well, and no one feels left behind.
All of us playing and enjoying X4, no matter where in the "expansion pack" tier system we reside, are potential future customers to Egosoft. It will be a mistake to divide this great community.

Pretty much. Egosoft needs money to run as a business. Adds new life to the game and gives people a reason to play again not quite the same but similar to larger dlc. Ships also take time and effort to make. Not really sure what they mean by full interior. Hyperion pack here is less than half the price of the larger dlcs. Other games dlcs cost much more if that matters?

[Starmeadow]

It seems the above posts are mainly focusing on amount of content now. Yet the problem I continue to see with several of these points is if I do not look at the amount of content itself but the ratio of content to price. The problem remains, no matter what you may personally like or not like about a pack: The avarice dlc, as this is the prime example we went on so far added plenty of content I listed in an earlier post.

Past DLCs added a ton of ships each, not just 1. Yes that one ship is more detailed, but still not close in value to the masses of ships in the past. Additionally, I would like to mention the Astrid alone was a freebie pre-packed within the DLC and is close to as detailed as the Hyperion. But again, Avarice adds on plenty of more ships to that, new mechanics (well, interesting hazards), actual lore and stories of individuals, choices, morality. Other DLCs add a ton of equipment as well. Plenty of good quality voicelines (in comparison to Hyperions of course), entirely new station modules, some even add more/rework behaviours, rules (Cradle of Humanity and Kingdom End), the list goes on. As for the sectors alone, Split Vendetta adds a bopping 16 sectors if I counted correctly in addition to all the other stuff I have mentioned. This is not a mere shakeup as you describe it, it unfortunately is a factual decrease in value for money but packed in a lower scale. And plenty of people will eventually realise that. I am not necessarily saying Egosoft should go back to big dlcs, but I *am* saying that the value-price ratio does not add up so far in comparison. It did not for the Hyperion and while I genuinely hope it will for the Envoy, I have my concerns considering the past pack.

Now, the past DLCs were around 15$ and you got a fair amount of stuff for that. The Hyperion pack is currently about half of that price, but the issue is the content is not proportional (namely half the content of eg avarice). Dlc size itself does not matter that much (to me at least), but the price you pay for the content does for everyone, which is unfortunately getting worse. Nitpicking what you like or not like about the DLC does not matter when looking at the bottom line either. And the bottom line and where it is headed is what I am concerned about.

[jlehtone]

Other games dlcs cost much more if that matters?

They might, but how much is in their DLCs? (For example, a random DCS World DLC seems to pack about one plane for $70? Granted, such plane is on whole different level than the Envoy and Cypher.)