Elite Dangerous, confirmed but not yet implemented features from 2013

[Ian Doncaster]

I am interested to know: What's all this talk (in OPs original text - not their message but quotes from others) about 'release 1', 'update 5' etc.? Are these milestones that relate to the current game? If so, how, and how do the quoted release/update numbers relate to current game play numbers/version?

I don't think that's ever been fully published, but the most likely match up to what they released I think is:
Release 1 = Elite Dangerous 1.0
Update 1 = Horizons (ED 2.x)
not originally planned = Beyond (ED 3.x)
Update 2 = Odyssey (ED 4.x)
Update 3+ = future paid expansions originally planned, current status unknown, planned contents largely unknown

It's possible that at least some of Odyssey was brought forward from Update 3+, or some of what was originally expected to be in Update 2 didn't appear in Odyssey, of course.

 

[deleteduser]

There are vast differences between 'things we'd like to see', 'things we're thinking about seriously', things we can do', 'things we are going to do', 'things we are doing' and 'things we've done, that you are going to get'.

As always with software development, change is a constant. Terms of Service explicitly, and industry standards implicitly, allow for developers to deviate from what they said and what you get, specifically in order to avoid lawsuits for not providing what was allegedly 'promised' at some earlier date, after finding the proposed thing was either technically and/or economically infeasible.

 

[Cohen the Worrior]

That's not how the law works in the UK.

If by an investor you mean a shareholder [1] - which you appear to, from context - you can't sue [2] a company solely because the value of your shares goes down (or even because the value of your shares doesn't go up as much as you were hoping), even if you are sure that the company could have had more valuable shares if it had listened to your advice. "The value of your investment may go down as well as up", etc. etc.

Your route for accountability is that as a shareholder you can - together with a plurality of others - require the company to replace its executives. In this case, given the substantial shareholding of D Braben and Family who won't be voting in favour of that, you would need to either hold a very substantial number of shares yourself - at least £120 million even at current relatively low prices - or talk a similar value of other shareholders into it. It's not a meaningful risk.

[1] If you mean some other sort of investor it would depend on the specific contractual terms but those are highly unlikely to depend on Frontier releasing specific products with specific features at specific times.
[2] Technically anyone can sue anyone for anything. Read "sue with any plausible chance of success".

You're missing the point, probably on purpose:

• Any shareholder understands that shares can go up and down.
• However, they promised exciting features would be included in the game, but not in release 1. This was nearly 10 years ago. Most of these features aren't even close to being included. Realistically they probably never will. So a shareholder could argue that he was mislead by empty promises and earnings for the company would be much higher as would the stock price.
• You're free to deny the light of the sun, but listed companies need to follow rules in their public statements. Making empty promises to customers and shareholders is a big nono. These rules were clearly broken.

 

[Cohen the Worrior]

I don't think that's ever been fully published, but the most likely match up to what they released I think is:
Release 1 = Elite Dangerous 1.0
Update 1 = Horizons (ED 2.x)
not originally planned = Beyond (ED 3.x)
Update 2 = Odyssey (ED 4.x)
Update 3+ = future paid expansions originally planned, current status unknown, planned contents largely unknown

It's possible that at least some of Odyssey was brought forward from Update 3+, or some of what was originally expected to be in Update 2 didn't appear in Odyssey, of course.

Wait what? We're on update 14.
Not only words are losing their meaning, also numbers.

 

[Greasetrap42]

What is described by the OP does not come close by any means to a contractual agreement. An informal Q&A session where representitives are vaguely saying various features might be looked at in future updates hardly amounts to a "promise" and is certainly not any kind of basis for legal action that wouldn't get laughed at.

Perhaps if contractual agreements were made with shareholders or customers (purchasers of the game) there might be a valid arguement. Otherwise the discussion is crap garbage on an internet forum.

 

[Comandante]

I don't think that's ever been fully published, but the most likely match up to what they released I think is:
Release 1 = Elite Dangerous 1.0
Update 1 = Horizons (ED 2.x)
not originally planned = Beyond (ED 3.x)
Update 2 = Odyssey (ED 4.x)
Update 3+ = future paid expansions originally planned, current status unknown, planned contents largely unknown

It's possible that at least some of Odyssey was brought forward from Update 3+, or some of what was originally expected to be in Update 2 didn't appear in Odyssey, of course.

Thanks Ian. So basically the numbers really, from FD's point of view, are out of our reach - I just thought that I'd missed something.

If FD know, they're not saying, and we're still none the wiser.

I don't think it really matters - what has been said doesn't match up with anything that was promised and we were not promised any of the promises that were promised, that's the main point. Now, where's my Onion Head...

 

[Rat Catcher]

Wait what? We're on update 14.

Indeed we are - on ED version 4.xx

 

[Rat Catcher]

So a shareholder could argue that he was mislead by empty promises and earnings for the company would be much higher

Promises?

I assume these shareholders are only getting dividends from Elite Dangerous, and thier shares are only for the one title, and none of the other titles in Frontier's portfolio that didn't exist at the time they purchased a share or 2?

 

[Ian Doncaster]

So a shareholder could argue that he was mislead by empty promises and earnings for the company would be much higher as would the stock price.

Sure. And the risk of success - I did check through Frontier's actual market and financial statements and their statements about future ED content are either incredibly vague to the point where you couldn't possibly argue that successfully, or have been met in full anyway - is essentially none, so Frontier's lawyers aren't going to lose any sleep over it.

There's more risk - still not measurably more than none, though - of being sued for claiming in advance that Odyssey would release in a non-disaster state, and it actually knocking about 2/3 off their share price in the aftermath of release. My hypothetical shareholder - arguing that they should have released fewer ED expansions, or at least taken more time over the ones they did - I think has better odds than yours. But still not good enough that my hypothetical lawyer will take the case.

As with "maybe some other company will make Elite Dangerous but better" or "maybe Frontier will be bought out by the mythical Competent Game Developers who will fix Elite Dangerous" ... if it was going to happen it would have happened years ago.

 

[Rat Catcher]

As with "maybe some other company will make Elite Dangerous but better" or "maybe Frontier will be bought out by the mythical Competent Game Developers who will fix Elite Dangerous"

You forgot:

"If they rebuilt ED on Unreal Engine 5...", that being another chant from the peanut gallery.

Perhaps now is a good time to start the rumour that CD Projekt Red is planning a hostile takeover of Frontier?

 

[Jack Winter]

If anyone could remake ED according to dreams.txt it would surely be RSI?

 

[amigacooke]

If anyone could remake ED according to dreams.txt it would surely be RSI?

Frontier and RSI both ran KickStarters, and after a decade neither company comes out very well. There is a reason crowd funding for video games is moribund, too many unsubstantiated feature claims, too many ‘changes of plans’.

In my opinion obviously

 

[amigacooke]

Sure. And the risk of success - I did check through Frontier's actual market and financial statements and their statements about future ED content are either incredibly vague to the point where you couldn't possibly argue that successfully, or have been met in full anyway - is essentially none, so Frontier's lawyers aren't going to lose any sleep over it.

I think at some point Frontier nailed their colours to the mast and stated that Odyssey would be released in financial year 2021. In my opinion, that was why Odyssey was shovelled out as it was and the poor CMs had to take the justified heat.

 

[Cohen the Worrior]

Sure. And the risk of success - I did check through Frontier's actual market and financial statements and their statements about future ED content are either incredibly vague to the point where you couldn't possibly argue that successfully, or have been met in full anyway - is essentially none, so Frontier's lawyers aren't going to lose any sleep over it.

There's more risk - still not measurably more than none, though - of being sued for claiming in advance that Odyssey would release in a non-disaster state, and it actually knocking about 2/3 off their share price in the aftermath of release. My hypothetical shareholder - arguing that they should have released fewer ED expansions, or at least taken more time over the ones they did - I think has better odds than yours. But still not good enough that my hypothetical lawyer will take the case.

As with "maybe some other company will make Elite Dangerous but better" or "maybe Frontier will be bought out by the mythical Competent Game Developers who will fix Elite Dangerous" ... if it was going to happen it would have happened years ago.

A short memory is very handy indeed.

But in the first message of this thread they were quite specific. Not in update 1 suggests it might be included in update 2 or 3.
It wouldn't suggest, well nine years later we're not anything near to including it.

 

[Cohen the Worrior]

What is described by the OP does not come close by any means to a contractual agreement. An informal Q&A session where representitives are vaguely saying various features might be looked at in future updates hardly amounts to a "promise" and is certainly not any kind of basis for legal action that wouldn't get laughed at.

Perhaps if contractual agreements were made with shareholders or customers (purchasers of the game) there might be a valid arguement. Otherwise the discussion is crap garbage on an internet forum.

For a publicly traded company, there's no such thing as vaguely promising various features.

 

[Greasetrap42]

For a publicly traded company, there's no such thing as vaguely promising various features.

Are you trying to mis-quote me by putting certain words in italics? Or just misrepresent what was said? There seems to be quite a bit of that on this thread.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Closed - as the two reminders to discuss the topic and not the participants have been ignored.