Is there any actual public roadmap or major content coming to Elite or just updates and fixes?

[Fizzatron]

That seems to be a trick question that translates as 'Given there is no money to develop what you would like*, what would you like developed?'

Not at all. The temptation to throw out ideas that go far beyond the scope of what is possible is what I'm trying to avoid. It isn't a gotcha, I'm legtimately curious as to what ideas OP had within the scope of what could be reasonably expected.

*What is the source of the assertion that Frontier has limited funds to spend on the development of ED?

Um, the fact that it is impossible that they be unlimited?

 

[amigacooke]

Um, the fact that it is impossible that they be unlimited?

Obviously, but how limited?

Unless you know Frontier's investment strategy and how much any particular feature is going to cost it seems fairly pointless to make suggestions.

 

[Fizzatron]

Obviously, but how limited?

Unless you know Frontier's investment strategy and how much any particular feature is going to cost it seems fairly pointless to make suggestions.

It's a bit of a pendantic argument you're making here. Are you trying establish that because limited can be 1 to infinity minus one that it's ok to suggest pie in the sky features that are beyond the reasonable scope to expect of an in-between expansion update - because it's still technically defined as "limited"?

My definition would be more in relation to the percentage of resources available for any particular aspect of the game development. Put it this way; if 90% of the dev resources are being committed to the combat/conflict aspect of the Thargoid narrative, what would someone who wants to see something different to that suggest could be done with that other 10%?

 

[metatheurgist]

I know that 500M+ and 10 years can produce nothing.

 

[Jack Winter]

But they do have roadmaps! Unfortunately, they never really come true..

 

[metatheurgist]

Yep, just shows that roadmaps are pointless if you can't actually deliver them. I guess if you know you can't it's better not to have them, or you can just string people along I guess.

 

[Jack Winter]

It's getting off topic, but you can sell dreams complete with roadmaps, or you can stay mum and deliver a product.

 

[zimms]

Or neither. Or anything in between.

 

[Kzak]

I would have thought that would be along the lines of "you don't know if the roadmap is there or not until you open the box".

(Opens box)

Oh. It's not there.

Poor Zorg.

 

[Jokerman]

just cosmetics and few little things.. I assume the game is finished by FDEV

Indeed, for non combat pilots you mean ... right? Saying that FDev consider the game finished is easy to say but not a fair conclusion to draw though. What they are adding is not to everyone's wants and I guess what the non combat part of the community are again hungry for some TLC (i.e. exploration and exobiology)

I do think personally that FDev have a timely opportunity here in light of emerging competition.
S!

 

[EdzUp]

All we are gonna get this year is the dates of the next patch, with maybe a upcoming livestream on its content. Unfortunately this doesnt help the community garner whats next, even a "More Thargoid stuff, more discoveries and other things to find relating to xyzx would be better than silence.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

By its very definition, Starfield is the dead game here. Don't get me wrong, I do love most of the big Bethesda games. It's just that a single-player game is "dead" once it's published. Yea, there will be some patches and some DLCs, but it won't evolve any more, because that's just how it was planned. I can't imagine that the official News section for Starfield will be as busy as the one for ED after 8 years. So again, not really fair to both games to compare features like that.

Important to remember I feel that with Modding, Skyrim is now a multiplayer game, and as this is (I think) running off another isation of their long-running engine, we're likely to see something similar in Starfield.

 

[shockbait]

Important to remember I feel that with Modding, Skyrim is now a multiplayer game, and as this is (I think) running off another isation of their long-running engine, we're likely to see something similar in Starfield.

That's completely and totally missing the point, it doesn't matter if a handful of people download a mod that poorly connects them in a single player game, once the Developer stops developing, it's "dead".

Their point was that Starfield is a single player game, Bethesda will make a few DLCs, and then completely abandon it until sequel or MMO time comes, provided it does well enough. It will be "Officially" "Dead" as soon as they announce the final DLC. That is not disparaging the game or Bethesda, that is just factually their business model. They won't be constantly updating it for 8 years as Frontier have with ED.

I can just about guarantee you Starfield won't have any updates in 2029, but maybe Starfield 3: The Quest For More Money will be out by then.

 

[zimms]

You are forgetting about mods. A game isn't "dead" if thousands of people still play it each day.

 

[amigacooke]

It's a bit of a pendantic argument you're making here. Are you trying establish that because limited can be 1 to infinity minus one that it's ok to suggest pie in the sky features that are beyond the reasonable scope to expect of an in-between expansion update - because it's still technically defined as "limited"?

My definition would be more in relation to the percentage of resources available for any particular aspect of the game development. Put it this way; if 90% of the dev resources are being committed to the combat/conflict aspect of the Thargoid narrative, what would someone who wants to see something different to that suggest could be done with that other 10%?

Is the 10% being used to fix bugs at the moment or is this 10% sitting idle?

If it's fixing bugs, best to leave it there, if it's sitting idle, how about an official way to change UI colours.

 

[amigacooke]

That's completely and totally missing the point, it doesn't matter if a handful of people download a mod that poorly connects them in a single player game, once the Developer stops developing, it's "dead".

Their point was that Starfield is a single player game, Bethesda will make a few DLCs, and then completely abandon it until sequel or MMO time comes, provided it does well enough. It will be "Officially" "Dead" as soon as they announce the final DLC. That is not disparaging the game or Bethesda, that is just factually their business model. They won't be constantly updating it for 8 years as Frontier have with ED.

I can just about guarantee you Starfield won't have any updates in 2029, but maybe Starfield 3: The Quest For More Money will be out by then.

This seems to be a change in the perception of a dead game.

Way back when, when games were bought in shops (please feel free to look up any terms that may be unfamiliar ) there was no way to easily add DLC to a game, so games were published in a complete state. Games were only dead when people stopped playing them.

Now, as ably demonstrated by shockbait, the perception is games are dead when the developers stop developing for them.

 

[shockbait]

You are forgetting about mods. A game isn't "dead" if thousands of people still play it each day.

We're arguing semantics at this point.
You define "dead" as 0 players, I define "dead" as no official development, no matter how many players. We're arguing over a word but not talking about the same thing.

Since we are here, you know, on the forum of a Live Service game, I would have thought we were on the same page with this, but judging by amiga's snarky post that just popped in while typing this I guess not. My bad.

I don't really understand that viewpoint personally, I mean, literally every single game that isn't lost media is "alive" because somewhere someone is playing some old obscure game. I mean I replayed Eternal Darkness:Sanitys Requiem for the gamecube last week.

I guess I just view my version as the logical meaning, and yours as like, childish fantasy because it offends you to hear a game you like described as "dead", but whatever.

 

[zimms]

The only childish thing here is your attitude.

It's not just semantics, but wildly different definitions of the term then. My definition is "still enjoyed by a large and thriving player base". Yes it's vague, yes it's more a feeling than a fact. But obviously it is, no game is actually 'alive', it's a piece of software.

By your definition CS1.6 in its heyday would have been a dead game as well.

 

[amigacooke]

Since we are here, you know, on the forum of a Live Service game, I would have thought we were on the same page with this, but judging by amiga's snarky post that just popped in while typing this I guess not. My bad.

My intention is not to be snarky, I think a dead game means different think to different gaming generations.

Every game I bought for my Spectrum was going to be 'dead' because additional content was virtually unknown.

Starfield being dead very quickly under that definition doesn't worry me at all, the launch content appears to be all I'll need.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

That's completely and totally missing the point, it doesn't matter if a handful of people download a mod that poorly connects them in a single player game, once the Developer stops developing, it's "dead".

Their point was that Starfield is a single player game, Bethesda will make a few DLCs, and then completely abandon it until sequel or MMO time comes, provided it does well enough. It will be "Officially" "Dead" as soon as they announce the final DLC. That is not disparaging the game or Bethesda, that is just factually their business model. They won't be constantly updating it for 8 years as Frontier have with ED.

I can just about guarantee you Starfield won't have any updates in 2029, but maybe Starfield 3: The Quest For More Money will be out by then.

I think the problem is that we're operating with two very different definitions of 'dead'. Using Skyrim for example (again), people are still avidly playing it, modding in it and it has a solid community that has been built around it. I wouldn't consider it 'dead'.

Yes, its very likely that the developers won't be putting much time into it (which is what I think your definition is) post release, but there are exceptions to the rule. However even in that instance, I don't think that once official development stops, the game ceases to be.