Yep, If you aren't part of the "ooh, shiny", "instant gratification" crowd, you're wrong. Those muppets are taking the world by storm.
Efter all these years.. still ED is on top.
- Thread starter z33r0x
- Start date
Actually post today's annual report and accounts (the shiny investors brochure) there has been some chat about the AGM agenda setting the stage for a rights issue or a share buy-back. Hasn't made much of an impression on the share price (still hovering under 210p), small amount of buying going on but maybe the recent 16:35 auto sales (corp investors divesting?) could be an indicator if it continues or stops.
So what can the average game player do about it? Unless they have a few £millions in their petty cash?
Nothing, I believe...
I was just commenting on your observation about the share price - thought people might be interested what the various investment forums were making of things.
I am not forecasting "doom" - FDEV is not in trouble, though I feel the management might be in for a bit of a rough time at the AGM in Nov.
BTW - for the price of the discounted ED any player could buy 2 shares and so have 2 votes at the AGM - not that that means anything. LOL
I apologise if it sounded as if I was criticising you - it wasn't intended.
It was a generality concerning the few who appear to be convinced the sky is falling every other day...
Thanks for the link to the report - interesting, in a light-hearted way, the presentation of Frontier in it is certainly marketing speech. (and I couldn't even find any DOOM about ED in it, but am certain to have missed something)
I'm not pretending anything. It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. Sometimes it's true one way and other times it's true the other way, painting it as a binary option is engaging in pretense.
I was actualluy feeling guilty about my previous post's "BTW" as I noticed comeone actually bought 1 share at four o'clock. LOL (There seems to be a stream of low volume auto buys going on triggered by the 208 "ask" price I suppose.)
If the trend reverses that 208 could earn a reasonable profit, I guess.
Stocks fluctuate, come November and the new Warhammer game, things may be entirely different. (not a game I'd buy - the only title I have from their portfolio is ED)
Saying something is the "best" is not arrogant, it is just an opinion about the game, like many others.
My opinion is that this statement is not arrogant, but it could be judged so by others.
Steve
To understand what people mean by "what Elite could have been" start with known bugs not getting fixed. Some reported bugs have been on the list for literal years, to the point where Frontier haven't just given up trying to fix bugs, they closed them despite no action being taken.
I think those sort of things should come first before new features that players want.
But this is just my opinion, which is apparently wrong and arrogant (or not, I can't decide any more).
FWIW, here's the definition of arrogant, I'm not sure I see much arrogance around here.. 
www.merriam-webster.com
Definition of ARROGANT
exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner; showing an offensive attitude of superiority : proceeding from or characterized by arrogance… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
By that metric, there are countless games "what could have been", surely?
Elite is what it is, much neglected in some respects, actively developed in others, it adds 'character' to the game.
It is also currently unique, which makes the lack of attention to some things unfortunate, as there isn't a single game that can provide all of its content.
(although, allegedly, Starfield is the future ED replacement, once the Modders have done their thing...)
I agree that it's questionable for them to just close bug reports without giving a reason. However, I don't see how bugs not being fixed is somehow relates to a sentiment of "what could have been" (unless, perhaps, the bugs are so bad that they outright stop you from playing some parts of the game or something).
"What could have been" elicits more an image of "what features the game could have had, but they didn't add them". Not really related to bugfixing.
It can be a bit of a pincer problem for Frontier, some request new features, and some request bug fixing. When features get added those who want bug fixing complain, when bugs are fixed those who want new features complain. And that's before we get into why didn't x bug/feature get fixed/implemented instead of y bug/feature complaints. I also don't know how feasible it is to be fixing bugs while adding features as adding features will inevitable introduce new bugs, so fixing the bugs the come with adding a feature along with some other bugs is probably best, but then the issue is that the perception is that it would take longer to add a feature rather than fix bugs, so why are no bugs being fixed? etc. etc.. It's a tough equation to balance on its own, but then you add in folks who want to disrupt and youtubers who want to throw shade because it generates more clicks/income and it's at that point one might understand why game devs keep relatively quiet... and that's before the same youtubers make videos complaining about a lack of communication and direction, which must portend doom for the game of course.. Meanwhile, Frontier is trying to keep sales and engagement up so they can fund ongoing development. So, what's the answer? I don't think there is one that can fully answer it, as the saying goes, you can't please everyone.
I agree with Fizzatron, maintaining an old codebase is a bit like owning a 1920's Jugend style house. There isn't and won't be a day when there won't be "bugs", and in fact, the reason behind the longevity of some old buildings is that some bugs just have to be allowed to exist, so that, for example, the ventilation of the house doesn't go astray.
So "no bugs" is a completely unrealistic dream state for any program running on code that is one year older.
It is also pointless to compare a 10-year-old codebase, which has been worked on by 100 pairs of hands, with a 1-year-old codebase, which has been worked on by 5-10 pairs of hands. It's true that modern tools speed things up, but the rubber doesn't meet the road until both the object of comparison and the "comparee" are roughly the same age and magnitude.
And which one do you think is still standing after 100 years - the Jugend house built in 1920, or the end of a townhouse built in 2010.
So "no bugs" is a completely unrealistic dream state for any program running on code that is one year older.
It is also pointless to compare a 10-year-old codebase, which has been worked on by 100 pairs of hands, with a 1-year-old codebase, which has been worked on by 5-10 pairs of hands. It's true that modern tools speed things up, but the rubber doesn't meet the road until both the object of comparison and the "comparee" are roughly the same age and magnitude.
And which one do you think is still standing after 100 years - the Jugend house built in 1920, or the end of a townhouse built in 2010.
I agree with Fizzatron, maintaining an old codebase is a bit like owning a 1920's Jugend style house. There isn't and won't be a day when there won't be "bugs", and in fact, the reason behind the longevity of some old buildings is that some bugs just have to be allowed to exist, so that, for example, the ventilation of the house doesn't go astray.
So "no bugs" is a completely unrealistic dream state for any program running on code that is one year older.
It is also pointless to compare a 10-year-old codebase, which has been worked on by 100 pairs of hands, with a 1-year-old codebase, which has been worked on by 5-10 pairs of hands. It's true that modern tools speed things up, but the rubber doesn't meet the road until both the object of comparison and the "comparee" are roughly the same age and magnitude.
And which one do you think is still standing after 100 years - the Jugend house built in 1920, or the end of a townhouse built in 2010.
Did they still build Jugendstil in 1920?
Did they still build Jugendstil in 1920?
Dr. Niles Crane: "It was an exquisite meal, marred only by the lack of even one outstanding cognac on their carte de digestif."
Frasier: "Yes, but think of it this way, Niles: what is the one thing better than an exquisite meal? An exquisite meal with one tiny flaw we can pick at all night."
Dr. Niles Crane: "Quite right. To impossible standards!"
It's funny that if you read the start of the Odyssey announcement thread (which was resurrected some days ago), the third reply to the original announcement post was already predicting doom and gloom, and how the game is dead.
So it's literally so that whatever they add to the game, it's never enough. Apparently some people take adding major features to the game as some kind of sign that the game is past its time, obsolete and dead.
Elite Dangerous is awesome and a great experience, but I still hate it sometimes. I love SF, having a blast, but I always schedule time for ED. The game feels unfinished to me with Odyssey dropping the ball on VR for foot, but I can't get the "in cockpit traveling the galaxy" feel that ED delivers anywhere else, so I ignore the foot and immerse in the rest. I'll still be playing up to the time the servers are turned off, begging for a standalone version, bugs and all.