You're maybe trolling a little bit, but right now, this is exactly what I'm thinking.
Recent answers = "More in the coming weeks"
- Thread starter Sanderson
- Start date
- Status
You're maybe trolling a little bit, but right now, this is exactly what I'm thinking.
"Keep your eyes peeled for a future newsletter."
Because I supplied you with the quote in the Kickstarter in the FAQ dated back in 2012 during the Kickstarter that they weren't guaranteeing any more than 15 ships at release.
It's about as unambiguous as it gets, I'll quote it again in case you missed it:
Go, read it, it's there, in blue and white. The last edit to it was on November 21st 2012, so there isn't even a case for them going and editing it later to "conceal the truth".
So 25 were never promised at release, therefore there was not an "apology" of 5 extra ships in December 2014 for not delivering 25 because there was nothing to apologise for. Why there were another 5 additional ships made available? We don't know, we can only speculate (as I said in an earlier post).
I'm not sure if I can make it any clearer.
That's exactly the way to measure it.
As per what FD told us before the launch date and before gamma phase. Remember that joke ? The Gamma phase that was supposed to polish out the game and rid it of bugs before the launch ?
So yes, once the launch is complete and now 1 month after said launch the only way to measure progress is in terms of them delivering all they ought to have delivered with a 'finish game' and not the polishing that they have been doing with patches 1.01 to 1.05 which I was under the impression gamma was all about !
Of course then you realise that the launch release was just another beta release that required polishing almost immediately things get a lot clearer.
I understand where you're coming from, honestly. But to expect no bugs or polishing needed (at all) after launch because there was a Gamma phase is unrealistic. I hate day one patches as much as the next man, but with those games it's a more reasonable thing to complain about. A game comes out, you buy it, it's broken. That's not cool. HOWEVER. When we are talking about long-term development, a game where there are long-term plans for large and small expansions, the underlying game framework is going to need to be constantly fiddled with - which will create bugs, which need to be fixed. So we will constantly see bugs popping up and then being squashed all through development until we reached the point where Frontier say, "that's all the content we're doing". If at that point there are still unfixed game-breaking issues then that will also not be cool.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying.
Of course I understand there will be bugs. I agree that it's unrealistic to expect the game, as it should have been released on 16/12, to be bug free and perfectly polished.
But this bug fixing and polishing, they have been doing for the past month since release, is not what I think we ought to measure their progress with.
1.01 to 1.05 and many more bug fixing patches are needed. They are not the patches introducing the content that was sorely missing at release. Those are the ones that matter on this long road towards the 'long-term plans for large and small expansions' which you describe.
And since that first content patch is coming mid Feb (assuming it's 'beta' phase is no longer than 1 week), it will be more than 2 months post release after patch 1.1 will be rolled out and mostly bug free.
And 1.2 ,which hopefully will see the wings finally added in a yet unspecified format, won't come before mid March. That's a full 3 months after release...
But of course they never promised wings with release so we should be thankful we'll eventually get them right ?
I seriously hope no one bought this game with the DDA's 'vision' of mining as a realistic expectation... How long will they have to wait ?
Okay, fair enough. I guess that it's just that I don't personally see 1.1 in early Feb as particularly long. Of course, it's possible that the way I play Elite skews my viewpoint as I'm not running into some of these issues which others are - I would love tourism missions, I would love to find out what the heck those level 2 and 3 scans are all about, and I'd love some more mission flavour - but none of that stuff spoils my enjoyment of the game by not being present / expanded. The problem is, I guess, that one person's "sorely missing" is another person's "meh, whatever" and vice versa. So I do get how my perspective is just local to me and not everyone else.
Are you also going to fix the fired-my-missiles-inside-station-but-I-can-dock-with-impunity exploit as well?
That's exactly what I predict the next sizeable patch will be: some easy wins and some bugfixes.
Everybody's been so desperate and starved, that it'll seem like a feast of new content.
Sad but interesting to see that just a month into launch, the penny might be finally dropping for some of the (previously) most enthusiastic players though. Even the white-knighters seem less ferocious in Frontier's defence.
Because I supplied you with the quote in the Kickstarter in the FAQ dated back in 2012 during the Kickstarter that they weren't guaranteeing any more than 15 ships at release.
It's about as unambiguous as it gets, I'll quote it again in case you missed it:
Go, read it, it's there, in blue and white. The last edit to it was on November 21st 2012, so there isn't even a case for them going and editing it later to "conceal the truth".
So 25 were never promised at release, therefore there was not an "apology" of 5 extra ships in December 2014 for not delivering 25 because there was nothing to apologise for. Why there were another 5 additional ships made available? We don't know, we can only speculate (as I said in an earlier post).
I'm not sure if I can make it any clearer.
Here is the quote I have read before, it hasn't changed:
"We have announced a stretch goal for a Mac version of the game. If we reach the stretch goal of £1.4 million through the Kickstarter we will release a Mac version approximately 3 months after the Windows PC release.
New stretch goal announced, if we reach £1.5 million then we'll add another 10 playable ships to the game."
Never seen your quote before.
Here's what I asked Michael:
He answered someone's quote but to the same question:
He states that not all 25 will be available. Now that isn't confirmation that there ever was going to be 25 at launch.
There were 13 playable ships at that stage. The orca and python were released in beta 3.9, several days later.
I'm not aware of any information about the expected number of ships for release was ever mentioned in a newsletter.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous
Go down to the Frequently Asked Questions, at the bottom. It's been there since 2012. I'm sorry you missed it and feel you've been mislead.
I'm not disputing anything you wrote there, but the only thing that Michael wrote was that there wouldn't be 25 ships, but there would be more than 13. Which there were. I haven't seen it mentioned in a newsletter either, but it was on the Kickstarter, which is the point of origin for ED information. If you can show me a later post, anywhere, by David Braben or Michael Brookes, that definitively confirms without question, that 25 ships were promised at release and I'll happily retract all my comments and apologise for wasting your time in writing these replies. But as I said earlier, you wont find one, because there isn't one.
This has really become superfluous to the debate though, which is that FD are opaque regarding information. In this particular instance, they haven't been, but it doesn't account for the times that they have.
Sarah Jane Avory
Retro Queen
Are you also going to fix the fired-my-missiles-inside-station-but-I-can-dock-with-impunity exploit as well?
I do believe it's being looked at.
Any insight actually related to the thread topic? Not trying to be rude but, something from FD about why the game was released in the state it was in on Dec. 16th would be appreciated.
Last edited:
Nice to know that someone at Frontier has at least read the thread though...
"How many craft types will you be able to fly?
At least 15 at launch, and we plan to add more after launch."
That was written before the kickstarter project was funded, before the stretch goal of 10 more ships was funded.
I don't feel misled in any way with the number of ships. I thought there was going to be 25 at launch, this was changed (clarified maybe) to not 25 at launch but 30 eventually. I was and still am fine with what I still think is a change.
What I don't really like is not knowing any approximate schedule of when these 15 extra ships will be released. Ships seemed to be released fairly close together up to the orca and python, which were available around the 20/11/14. I presumed (quite wrongly) that there would be more ships before the games release, and then the total would be brought to 30 fairly quickly.
As far as I know there have only been 2 official announcements on what these ships will be, the panther clipper xl and the fer de lance.
I still disagree as to what their original plan was for the number of ships at launch, I see what you are saying, but I agree information from FD is hard to come by.
There is quite a bit of interesting information in the FAQ at the bottom of the kickstarter page that also didn't seem to happen
Kickstarter this and kickstarter that. I didn't buy into the game from kickstarter. I wasn't aware FD directed customers to kickstarter before clicking the "buy now" button.
This is part of the problem, there's no single source for information. Small bits are pulled from all over the place trying to piece together a complete picture of what's what. Messy at best and easily distorted and easy to get wrong.
This is part of the problem, there's no single source for information. Small bits are pulled from all over the place trying to piece together a complete picture of what's what. Messy at best and easily distorted and easy to get wrong.
Often is seems event Frontier are unaware of what they have said themselves in some of these places. To many chefs perhaps...
Agree 100%, it's just all over the place without a "cohesive" front. It's what I call the "Dean Hall" effect.
Historically I agree with you, you have to have a PHD in jigsaw puzzles to pick up all the factual information - rather than assumptions and paraphrasing.
But we're not looking historically now, just over a week ago you posted this: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1517507#post1517507
Which appears to avidly support what FD are trying to do in terms of a clearer progression and certainly exhibits evidence of more investment in the project.
Clearly they're moving in the pertinent direction now with a 1 stop-shop. It requires greater clarity and not so many "soons", "maybes" and "eventuallys" to make it a useful reference.
That thread was specifically about FD NOT laying off staff and indeed adding to it. Really nothing to do with stopping blowing smoke up our butts or communication / transparency. Which, btw, Michael deemed worthy of closing while leaving threads (like this one) open for days and weeks.
What did I learn? If you want a thread to stay open then whine and moan, if not, then post something 100% true and positive and it'll be closed or merged.
Last edited:
- Status