Priority choices of ED development

[AnnuverScotinExile]

At this moment in time I find it hard to believe its David Braben.

And I find it hard to believe it is anyone else. Not only is he CEO, but he is the majority shareholder. He cannot be outvoted. I cannot imagine FD are doing anything major without his explicit blessing.

Now, that does not necessarily mean that he is happy to be doing those things. There are external pressures that he has to be aware of, and respond to. He may well be doing things reluctantly.

 

[jabokai]

And I find it hard to believe it is anyone else. Not only is he CEO, but he is the majority shareholder. He cannot be outvoted. I cannot imagine FD are doing anything major without his explicit blessing.

Now, that does not necessarily mean that he is happy to be doing those things. There are external pressures that he has to be aware of, and respond to. He may well be doing things reluctantly.

While it's all speculation, I kind of agree with that view - I suspect that "the game we want to play" is the one on the DDA - it is, after all, what they came up with initially. Financial priorities, etc, take over and we get where we are now. I don't believe for a second that they wouldn't have loved to deliver on the DDA proposals, or at least the vast majority of them, and perhaps even in more detail.

I just wish they'd balance the need for money (they're a business after all, it is understood) with the essence of the game we're still missing.

 

[TheDuckWhoLostHisQuack]

I fully agree with OP and one more thing. Even now ED(or some developers of theirs) can come to this thread which they host and they can clearly see it and answer us and most of our concerns, it wouldn't hurt them in any way and actually it would be good PR for them to let us know that they actually listen to us and read this but unfortunately no such thing. I'm slowly accepting the reality that this game won't even get close to what were told it was going to be.

I really don't see how some of you in this thread are defending FD when all that we are asking for is information, It's been six months since release and what does FD have to show for it, PP and Wings?
Not claiming that there is anything wrong with them but how many actually use it? How many would prefer improving the core game mechanics by adding other features such as passengers, NPCs and walking around your ship instead of what we have got?
I know I do.

 

[Huros]

From a business development perspective the plan for frontier has got to be Fundamentals of the game on primary platform>Expand on to other platforms>Paid expansions>revisit Missed platforms like Mobile etc> Paid Expansions/content> 2.0> repeat process>......>....>...>..>.>

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

Disclaimer: As well as a PB backer, I am also a shareholder.

Me too. Disclaimer: And I am seriously considering selling my shares, because I do not like the way that I see the company behaving. Being given a pile of money by Microsoft to do an XBox exclusive I have no problem with. Indeed, I might even praise them for it. But it is the stuff that is beginning to look, at best, as very poor PR, and at worst as lying that I find problematic. The problem with offlinegate was not so much that they decided that they could (or should) not do it. The problem was that did not simply and without fuss refund money to people that said that they would not have signed up without offline mode. As a DDF member who was persuaded to cough up by DBOBE's famous "near Godlike-powers", I will be livid if they try to renege on that one - and the signs are not good.

 

[FuzzySpider]

From a business development perspective the plan for frontier has got to be Fundamentals of the game on primary platform>Expand on to other platforms>Paid expansions>revisit Missed platforms like Mobile etc> Paid Expansions/content> 2.0> repeat process>......>....>...>..>.>

But from a business perspective it's a disaster because it looks like they can't even decide what the game is supposed to be.

Less than a month ago we had a space sandbox.

Then two weeks ago we had powerplay and rep decay, and we've got a grind MMO.

Now, at E3, we've got CQC, and it's an action space-shooter.

It's a compromise of games and a massive compromise of design that is going to see the game satisfying nobody while trying to appeal to everybody. It's like taking a game such as Mortal Kombat X and putting the characters into Microsoft Flight Simulator and letting you fly around as Raiden.

 

[SpitTheDog]

It is. And the further problem is that if there is a subscription model, then I'm not going to subscribe until what I see is 'good enough'. Now, my 'good enough' and your 'good enough' will be different, of course. But at the moment the game is NOT 'good enough' for me to be paying a subscription. If all I wanted was Elite with prettier graphics, I would go back to playing Oolite: which is free. So, would there have been enough people willing to subscribe to keep the lights on? I suspect FD would have had to have sunk more money into the game than they have so far to get up to a self-fulfilling critical mass.

So if DB had gone subscription at the beginning the game may not have been made. Now that it has they are constantly going to chase new revenue to keep the whole thing going. Design by committee isn't always a good thing as people get what they are willing to agree to now rather than what is likely to last long term.

Subscription WOULD have made FD focus on keeping people happy and engaged. that boat has sailed. We are getting what was a logical result of the initial 'no subscription' demand.

 

[Kernel Kwatz!]

I really don't see how some of you in this thread are defending FD when all that we are asking for is information, It's been six months since release and what does FD have to show for it, PP and Wings?
Not claiming that there is anything wrong with them but how many actually use it? How many would prefer improving the core game mechanics by adding other features such as passengers, NPCs and walking around your ship instead of what we have got?
I know I do.

Let's not forget the innumerable fixes included in these patches. But I take your point all the same.

 

[stevesideas]

..and there's me thinking that FD started this whole thing as a Kickstarter so they could build the game they and us wanted to play...no external pressures because everything was internal. Does that show a naivety from FD ?

 

[Trafalgar Law]

..and there's me thinking that FD started this whole thing as a Kickstarter so they could build the game they and us wanted to play...no external pressures because everything was internal. Does that show a naivety from FD ?

No I think it shows naivety from us. i.e. that we took them 100% at their word.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

While it's all speculation, I kind of agree with that view - I suspect that "the game we want to play" is the one on the DDA - it is, after all, what they came up with initially. Financial priorities, etc, take over and we get where we are now. I don't believe for a second that they wouldn't have loved to deliver on the DDA proposals, or at least the vast majority of them, and perhaps even in more detail.

I just wish they'd balance the need for money (they're a business after all, it is understood) with the essence of the game we're still missing.

Of course. I can't quite understand why people are still trotting out the "game we want to make" stuff. That was obviously the game we saw in the kickstarter videos, with the details we can still see in the DDA (plus more). They have moved on to the "game we need to make", and I sort-of understand that. If I was in Michael Brookes' shoes, I might even be making the same decisions that he is making: without all the facts on which those decisions are made, we cannot really say that what they are doing is 'wrong'. But it sure feels like it.

I have, now and then, been defending the developers on the forum against some of the worst excesses of forum hate. Posting, as some have done, that the devs dont care is absurd. I was a product manager most of my working life, and I always cared passionately. Yet I regularly released versions with content I was far from happy about, due to external 'stuff'. I bet that, in private, many of the devs agree with what many of us are saying, but they know the constraints they have to work under.

 

[B33 ENN]

...Now, that does not necessarily mean that he is happy to be doing those things. There are external pressures that he has to be aware of, and respond to. He may well be doing things reluctantly.

As the CEO, his first priority is to the sustainable future of Frontier Developments, its staff and shareholders. Not a bunch of Kickstarter and alpha/beta backers that have no recourse but to cry foul on a forum. Elite: Dangerous will be changed in whatever way they see fit to meet that requirement. The only real question for supporters is, what decision will you make the next time they want you to buy something, like merchandise, DLC or an expansion?

 

[RingoD123]

..and there's me thinking that FD started this whole thing as a Kickstarter so they could build the game they and us wanted to play...no external pressures because everything was internal. Does that show a naivety from FD ?

It shows that they cannot be trusted to deliver what they promised in their kickstarter for the amount of money they were asking for. They either lied to us by saying that £1M-1.5M was enough to make the game they had envisioned, or they were VERY naïve about the whole thing.
Fact is, a lot of people are very miffed because FD wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the promises made in the kickstarter and the people who bought into that ethos.
As soon as a Kickstarter achieves it goal, theere is a binding contract that states what was promised must be fulfilled, but instead FD have used kickstarter to merely scope out money men to inject more cash into the company so they can focus on other games/consoles, this is actually against Kickstarter terms and conditions, and their only saving grace is that the game is still being made, so they can use the excuse of "its coming", even though the DDF was burned long ago in favour of mass appeal-minimum effort systems to maximise cash flow and damned be the original kickstarter design.

 

[W4rSkuLL]

Just wait, Frontier has some good cards up their sleeves I think we will soon get good news. Frontier knows what the fan base want and I think they will begin to deliver both from the DDF and info on payed expansions. Be positive

 

[Starender]

with the new arena and Powerplay, they should take 1 month to debug as much as possible

once it's done, they should add thargoids and few other space features (should take 3 to 4 months)

once it's done, they should add First Person mod (with guns, some melee weapons, some tools, sprint/crouch, 12 outfits should be enough at first), Human NPCs, access to friendly ships via invitation, then boardings into other ships (should take 1.5 year)

once it's done, they should add planetary landing with ground vehicules (this one should take at least 2 years if more)


but really, i only care about First person

 

[JeffRyan]

with the new arena and Powerplay, they should take 1 month to debug as much as possible

once it's done, they should add thargoids and few other space features (should take 3 to 4 months)

once it's done, they should add First Person mod (with guns, some melee weapons, some tools, sprint/crouch, 12 outfits should be enough at first), Human NPCs, access to friendly ships via invitation, then boardings into other ships (should take 1.5 year)

once it's done, they should add planetary landing with ground vehicules (this one should take at least 2 years if more)


but really, i only care about First person

Most of us don't want shiny. We want depth.

 

[Arjin]

I am very unhappy since the release of 1.3, it broke for me, and a lot of other players what was a decent stable game in 1.2. It's is now very un-playable and THAT is the frustrating part. Yes in 1.2 it lacked depth, still does post 1.3. Things we would love to see/be in game may never come to fruition. Most of the mature players are patient and will ride it out to see where it ends up at the end of the year and the less mature will most likely ragequit or leave due to boredom.

PowerPlay for me I could care less, and imho I think it is a cool idea but was poorly implemented, it's not a game winning feature for me.

Xbox + Arena Commander mode.. I am Jack's complete lack of surprise...

But as to the OP's point I/we would love to see some reassuring words from FD that things in DDF, and or the awesome suggestions on these forums are in motion!

 

[Starender]

Most of us don't want shiny. We want depth.

hum... what are you talking about ?

 

[Trafalgar Law]

hum... what are you talking about ?

That there's no point in adding things like first person and planetary landing without first adding depth to the game. If there's nothing to do while walking around and landing on planets then there's no point to the shinies.

 

[Darrett]

The more I get into it, Powerplay was a good addition. It added a framework of a new system, made space smaller, and created a "tribe" for people to get behind. What they need to do now though is a full stop on new features and put some meat on the bones that we have.

Combat and ship roles need to be covered, smuggling needs an overhaul, heat management and silent running need to be reviewed and fixed. Missions need to be more complex and branching missions need to be added, along with more mission types. NPC and PC interactions need to be improved, and bugs need to be fixed.

More game modes are not needed right now, we need more substance to what we already have.