Counterbalance: the Truth about Elite Dangerous (Horizons)

[Stavro Mueller]

As I see it, the truth about E : D and H is that the devs have tried (and succeeded) to produce solid mechanics. Horizons brought planetary landings, in a fully realized way - far more than FE2, because it's actually fun - yes, you can go fire up Space Engine, but nothing in it is actually _fun_. E: D is rolling out the game development in such a way that each part has a component of being an actual game. While some bits feel somewhat placeholder currently, the point, for me, is that the mechanics are solid and provide a coherent substrate. What is being built on that substrate is currently thin, and either relies on imagination or multiplayer for depth. The point, though, for me, is that it's a really solid substrate. Other games that permit you to fly in space and land on planets don't have the fully-realized mechanics of doing so - they're just sandboxes with unrealistic mechanics. Everything you do in Elite feels like you're actually doing it - flying a spaceship or driving a buggy - it's been done with enough care that you're actually doing it and grappling with the difficulty of it, rather than just changing simulation modes.

Yes, some parts are thin, such as the missions and the in-station interaction. But they really aren't any thinner than any other options you have. And again, although a lot of people have a problem with the excuse (and it is so) that you need imagination for this game, the fact is that you _do_. But if you do invest some imagination, or play with other real people, the odds are that the actual substance/substrate will provide realism, not detract from it. FD are going slowly but surely.

As an example of what is not a game: Space Engine lets you do whatever you like in terms of exploration and planetary interaction, but you just know the whole time that it isn't even trying to be real on a relatable scale. E: D gives you the fundamental reality. Yes, the missions and random USSs let you know (jarringly) that it just exists in a computer somewhere, but the underlying mechanics are robust and this, even though we're a year in, is still very early days. The emphasis on substrate is extremely encouraging, to me at least.

Those who begrudge paying 50 quid a year for a MMO are welcome to their observations, but that is basically what we are doing - paying 50 quid a year for the most advanced space sim available.

I have no real complaints.

 

[CMDR Saunders]

Most advanced space sim.... I'm still waiting for the MMO part. Seeing another commander in space is the equivalent to seeing a Jedi in the pre-cu days of SWG. SWG fans know what I'm talking about, haha.

 

[Spookyy]

Yeah where is that MMO thingy? Season 4? FD needs to fill and fix that sanbox before adding more empty sanboxes.

 

[CMDR Ellegon]

FD, continue to evolve the space sim, please. The MMO can go where the sun doesn't shine...

 

[tawittle]

I agree with the OP completely. FD is putting all the parts together, whereas the SC people are just making tech demo after tech demo, and theres no telling how or when all the different parts of SC will fit together.

People complain about instancing: I see CMDRs everywhere in the galaxy. Make sure your router and firewall and game are all configured correctly for this: there are several easy guides on how to do this. I agree the instancing is problematic, but as soon as FD gets more money they can fix it by buying central servers. It sounds stupid I know, but I honestly think all of FD's problems will be solved with more money.

 

[GMANTOR]

To Me The Devs are building a game in a very specific order and in such a way that future components are allowed for in the code (even items that might be years away). For Example why aren't Thargoids in the game yet ? To me its because they want certain foundations in place. Even things like powerplay maps. perhaps they plan on giving a 3D representation of Thargoid (and other alien) occupied space using the same mapping as powerplay. All speculation, of course, but I see bricks being placed deliberately in a very specific order. Non Atmospheric planetary landings will no doubt have some work done to facilitate future atmospheric landings. In some ways I like having the components drip fed as I can take time to master the new items. its risky of FDev to build all of the foundation before adding complex content but I am happy to wait and see how this simulation evolves.

 

[Cynaqq]

No need to compare ED to SC in particular to make a point.

It has to be compared to the entire genre to really shine at what it does.

Every space game ever limits itself in some way or the other, with the goal of being 'fun' and 'not empty' and of course for being finished and released in a reasonable amount of time so it's developers can at last start to make profits. Because let's face it, developers only return a considerable profit only after active development is finished. Every other monetary gain is just funding for the game.

There is not a single space game which has full sized planets, a full scale galaxy with everything proportioned correctly, solid flight mechanics which balance realism and fun with this quality, generates planets with such scientific fidelity. The list goes on.

All games, shy away of at least several of these either because the developers are incapable or, more likely, they are scared of the sheer scope of the work and the criticism which surely will follow.

I knew people left and right would accuse the game of being empty and lifeless when they announced the scale and that they would not give up on it no matter what. Every sane game developer knows the bigger you make something the longer it takes to fill it up. No wonder the elder scrolls or the fallout games get smaller and smaller with each iteration. No wonder the maker of evochron mercenary ditched full sized planets not only for the first game but also for the second iteration.

Making ED the way it is, is akin to breaking all the taboo of game making and pure insanity from a game designer's or publisher's point of view.

This is exactly why I support FD and have mad respect for them.

 

[Volthorne]

There is not a single space game which has full sized planets, a full scale galaxy with everything proportioned correctly, solid flight mechanics which balance realism and fun with this quality, generates planets with such scientific fidelity. The list goes on.

All games, shy away of at least several of these either because the developers are incapable or, more likely, they are scared of the sheer scope of the work and the criticism which surely will follow.

Or - and just bear with me here, even though it might sound crazy - maybe, MAYBE, no other games have ever done this because dividing available content over such a large area is essentially development suicide? Let's think of it this way: if you want to put up a playground in a neighbourhood, you want to put it up in a relatively small area, so all of the fun things are right next to each other and can be accessed in no particular order easily, and so that all of the people on said playground can interact with little or no impediment. What FD have done is they've basically bought an entire planet to assemble a playground in, and all they have to put in it are ladders, slides, and bridges. And now, having filled literally the entire planet with nothing but ladders, slides, and bridges, they're having a hard time installing new equipment at a pace fast enough to keep their playerbase stable/expanding. On top of this, since the entire planet is the playground, the odds of seeing another person on said playground is astronomically low, with some exceptions (players congregating around the exceptionally tall slides).

Believe it or not, ED took a loss of 16000 units (that means they got returned) on Steam from the 20th to the 23rd, and only managed a net gain of 16000 units since the 20th despite being on sale for 50% off (approx. $15 USD) during one of Steam's two largest sales of the year. On top of this, there has been a net 25% loss in players over the last two weeks (granted, this was preceded by a 300% increase in the week and a half before 1.5/2.0, but immediately after it goes live the count immediately starts decreasing). Those sorts of numbers are abysmal for a company in FD's position, with a relatively small amount of cash in the bank and no publisher to back them up if sales really start flagging.

 

[Cynaqq]

Or - and just bear with me here, even though it might sound crazy - maybe, MAYBE, no other games have ever done this because dividing available content over such a large area is essentially development suicide? Let's think of it this way: if you want to put up a playground in a neighbourhood, you want to put it up in a relatively small area, so all of the fun things are right next to each other and can be accessed in no particular order easily, and so that all of the people on said playground can interact with little or no impediment. What FD have done is they've basically bought an entire planet to assemble a playground in, and all they have to put in it are ladders, slides, and bridges. And now, having filled literally the entire planet with nothing but ladders, slides, and bridges, they're having a hard time installing new equipment at a pace fast enough to keep their playerbase stable/expanding. On top of this, since the entire planet is the playground, the odds of seeing another person on said playground is astronomically low, with some exceptions (players congregating around the exceptionally tall slides).

Believe it or not, ED took a loss of 16000 units (that means they got returned) on Steam from the 20th to the 23rd, and only managed a net gain of 16000 units since the 20th despite being on sale for 50% off (approx. $15 USD) during one of Steam's two largest sales of the year. On top of this, there has been a net 25% loss in players over the last two weeks (granted, this was preceded by a 300% increase in the week and a half before 1.5/2.0, but immediately after it goes live the count immediately starts decreasing). Those sorts of numbers are abysmal for a company in FD's position, with a relatively small amount of cash in the bank and no publisher to back them up if sales really start flagging.

Did you not read the rest of my post where you quoted?

This is exactly why I respect and support them, as you'd have read the entirety of my post.

They clearly have a plan on funding other than directly selling games and using it to fund the game. We don't exactly know how much they have in the bank, or what connections DB is going to pull but no sane man goes into production without having a feasibility assessment done.

When you accept the fact that they don't expect a return of profit for at least the first five or six years, as usual with game development, they apparently believe the sales after that time, the game then being at least nearly feature complete, will bring enough revenue to profit.

While on the surface the steam numbers don't look very nice, they don't actually even want to be on steam by the looks of things considering Valve gets a ridiculous cut from games sold on there.

Another thing is, I got the base game through steam but never launched it through there. I always use the launcher directly so steam doesn't track me as playing while I actually am playing. I'm doing the same with Horizons, not bothering with steam.

 

[smiths121]

Well if sales are minimal and reviews pretty much split down the middle, I hope FD drop Steam, your post suggests it seems pointless being on there. I hope FD agree - I can dream.

Cheers
Simon

Or - and just bear with me here, even though it might sound crazy - maybe, MAYBE, no other games have ever done this because dividing available content over such a large area is essentially development suicide? Let's think of it this way: if you want to put up a playground in a neighbourhood, you want to put it up in a relatively small area, so all of the fun things are right next to each other and can be accessed in no particular order easily, and so that all of the people on said playground can interact with little or no impediment. What FD have done is they've basically bought an entire planet to assemble a playground in, and all they have to put in it are ladders, slides, and bridges. And now, having filled literally the entire planet with nothing but ladders, slides, and bridges, they're having a hard time installing new equipment at a pace fast enough to keep their playerbase stable/expanding. On top of this, since the entire planet is the playground, the odds of seeing another person on said playground is astronomically low, with some exceptions (players congregating around the exceptionally tall slides).

Believe it or not, ED took a loss of 16000 units (that means they got returned) on Steam from the 20th to the 23rd, and only managed a net gain of 16000 units since the 20th despite being on sale for 50% off (approx. $15 USD) during one of Steam's two largest sales of the year. On top of this, there has been a net 25% loss in players over the last two weeks (granted, this was preceded by a 300% increase in the week and a half before 1.5/2.0, but immediately after it goes live the count immediately starts decreasing). Those sorts of numbers are abysmal for a company in FD's position, with a relatively small amount of cash in the bank and no publisher to back them up if sales really start flagging.

 

[CaptainKremmen]

As I said some time ago...

When you create a galaxy... You create a galaxy-sized to-do list.


I, for one, am keen to see where this game goes over the coming years.

 

[JoeShmo]

No need to compare ED to SC in particular to make a point.

It has to be compared to the entire genre to really shine at what it does.

Every space game ever limits itself in some way or the other, with the goal of being 'fun' and 'not empty' and of course for being finished and released in a reasonable amount of time so it's developers can at last start to make profits. Because let's face it, developers only return a considerable profit only after active development is finished. Every other monetary gain is just funding for the game.

There is not a single space game which has full sized planets, a full scale galaxy with everything proportioned correctly, solid flight mechanics which balance realism and fun with this quality, generates planets with such scientific fidelity. The list goes on.

All games, shy away of at least several of these either because the developers are incapable or, more likely, they are scared of the sheer scope of the work and the criticism which surely will follow.

I knew people left and right would accuse the game of being empty and lifeless when they announced the scale and that they would not give up on it no matter what. Every sane game developer knows the bigger you make something the longer it takes to fill it up. No wonder the elder scrolls or the fallout games get smaller and smaller with each iteration. No wonder the maker of evochron mercenary ditched full sized planets not only for the first game but also for the second iteration.

Making ED the way it is, is akin to breaking all the taboo of game making and pure insanity from a game designer's or publisher's point of view.

This is exactly why I support FD and have mad respect for them.

And yet, ED still makes "shortcuts" like all games before it.

Can you travel from 1 system to another outside of hyperjumps? No.

Can you fly into a RES site / Combat zone / Etc. without having to load into it? No.

Are the station / system markets, resources, etc. actually live actions? No

Are planets / stars / etc. representative of real universe masses? (Scale, gravity, energy, behaviors, etc. ) No.

Do ships and their modules actually follow realistic mechanics / physics ? No.



The list goes on. FD has its fair share of decisions made to accommodate the "fun" of being in space, in a game, ...without the realism to go along with it. So not even ED is far from its predecessors in regards to design choices for the sake of actually releasing a game in our lifetime.

And some choices are done in a manner that are subpar to others in the genre / similar genres. Even a game like Starscape has a more in depth module decision process, because you had to accommodate fixed room in the ship on a grid ( like many 4x space rts games too )..not just something arbitrary like "Class Sizes" in ED; or whatever internal module count they gave you. Rebel Galaxy has a more dynamic trade / economy system because it accounts for events that are happening; this means you could have trade cut off entirely for a period of time because of a recent blockade of pirates; or a sudden discount / surplus of supplies, or a station offering higher profit rates because of a sudden need to fund an experiment / research / wedding event / etc. Evochron Mercenary offers flexible customization of the ships themselves ( which can get a little silly admittedly ), allowing players to make a ship "theirs" in a manner of speaking; rather than depending on FD to make "new" ships that may or may not fit a particular style or agreeable aesthetic.


ED ( and the series ) definitely pushes the genre in a "different" direction, and expands on some gameplay mechanics that were relatively untouched ( like actually physically landing on stations / planets ). Dynamic hit boxes / interaction of the ships ( for things like module damage / collision / physics); and generally just a more "thematic" representation of thing's we normally just saw as a loading screen / quick resolve.

I wouldn't say though that it's just taking pre existing "experiences" of playing a space sim..and making it more immersive / realistic. No more than having the option of a "Chest slider" or ragdoll physics in a game like Aion is taking the genre forward when compared to World of Warcraft or Everquest.

As one aspect of a game gets "enhanced" so does other parts of the game get "reduced" by comparison ( Rather like making a game in Game Dev Tycoon, ironically. ). ED is fulfilling in a lot of regards compared to the status quo...but starving the player in others. It's not a simple case of "it's just making the same thing better"; which going back to what you mentioned previously...is what most game designers have to balance. New tech definitely makes the transition to "bigger and better" things easier..but It can also pull back a development if it focuses too much on trying to be "new". One of the reasons we have discussions about "Graphics vs Gameplay" so often.

How much of the game would be different if they cut out the development for say...supercruise? And instead just made "normal" space the standard for finding ships / stations. It would change the aesthetic of the game a lot ( in my opinion ), as well as possibly making some other part of the game "more enhanced" from the extra development manpower/hours. How much of the game would be different it they made stars realistic in size / variance? It would change supercruise and beacons most definitely; and probably have cut back development on something else.

 

[Tinman]

Believe it or not, ED took a loss of 16000 units (that means they got returned) on Steam from the 20th to the 23rd, and only managed a net gain of 16000 units since the 20th despite being on sale for 50% off (approx. $15 USD) during one of Steam's two largest sales of the year. On top of this, there has been a net 25% loss in players over the last two weeks (granted, this was preceded by a 300% increase in the week and a half before 1.5/2.0, but immediately after it goes live the count immediately starts decreasing). Those sorts of numbers are abysmal for a company in FD's position, with a relatively small amount of cash in the bank and no publisher to back them up if sales really start flagging.

You don't seem to understand Steamspy stats.

They are approximations based of stats from players logging in...similar short term dips can be seen in many other games and are most likely due inaccuracies in the data. They also lag behind a couple of days. The way I read that graph is that sales went down due to Horizons launching (because they now bought Horizons instead of the base game) and the last bit of that graph shows the winter sale.

On top of this, there has been a net 25% loss in players over the last two weeks (granted, this was preceded by a 300% increase in the week and a half before 1.5/2.0, but immediately after it goes live the count immediately starts decreasing). Those sorts of numbers are abysmal for a company in FD's position, with a relatively small amount of cash in the bank and no publisher to back them up if sales really start flagging.

You do realise that Horizons is counted as a different game on Steam right?

That the base game Elite: Dangerous dropped players when 1.5/2.0 went live is a GOOD THING since that means these people now bought Horizons and started playing that instead.

 

[lysan]

No need to compare ED with SC, I: or NMS. different games all together.

I agree with the OP in many of the points. This is a SIM and a multiplayer game. ED still need a lot of work for sure, however the foundation is here and looking good.
FD still need to give more life to the universe, the space ports and settlements need a lot of work to bring them into life. Again the foundation are done and they just need to build on that.

Everybody need to understand that this is a huge game in so many ways, they can't just do it all. They need to expand and fix the bugs at the same time, not an easy task.
I find the game very enjoyable and I do have a lot of fun playing it. Sure its annoying when you deploy your SRV and it drops directly into the planet, but instead of rage posting, filling a ticket and move on is more what is needed.

 

[Volthorne]

You don't seem to understand Steamspy stats.

They are approximations based of stats from players logging in...similar short term dips can be seen in many other games and are most likely due inaccuracies in the data. They also lag behind a couple of days. The way I read that graph is that sales went down due to Horizons launching (because they now bought Horizons instead of the base game) and the last bit of that graph shows the winter sale.

Now YOU are not understanding the graph. It shows TOTAL SALES. Previous to Steam offering refunds, you never saw such dips in TOTAL SALES, regardless of how many users logged in on that day. The fact that the TOTAL SALES graph can "dip" in upwards of 10000 units can't and shouldn't just be written off as "inaccuracies". It should be setting off some serious alarms. I'll say it once more for good measure: TOTAL. SALES.

You do realise that Horizons is counted as a different game on Steam right?

That the base game Elite: Dangerous dropped players when 1.5/2.0 went live is a GOOD THING since that means these people now bought Horizons and started playing that instead.

Yes, I am indeed aware of that (and it is much to FD's detriment that they decided to market it like that rather than as DLC, but that's a different topic). Unfortunately for your argument, Horizons did not increase in sales by 16000 units since the 20th, nor player count by 50000 since release on Steam. Your "good thing" doesn't look quite so good now, does it?

 

[Ydiss]

If the result of ED:H is developer suicide, I would love there to be more dead developers.

Of course, it's not though. I've seen games that were developer suicide. This isn't close to any of them.

 

[Tinman]

Now YOU are not understanding the graph. It shows TOTAL SALES. Previous to Steam offering refunds, you never saw such dips in TOTAL SALES, regardless of how many users logged in on that day. The fact that the TOTAL SALES graph can "dip" in upwards of 10000 units can't and shouldn't just be written off as "inaccuracies". It should be setting off some serious alarms. I'll say it once more for good measure: TOTAL. SALES.

That graph shows total owners...not sales. And as I said, total owner numbers are not actual total owner numbers...it's an approximation based on players logged in. Players loggin in less during Christmas isn't really that hard to imagine. I haven't been playing for days for example due to being with my family. There are plenty of other reasons why this stat (no matter what game we are talking about) might have inaccuracies too. The graphs are useful for getting rough idea of the numbers over longer periods of time, but should never be looked at on a day to day basis. The end of that graph still shows a peak upwards to reflect the winter sale.

Yes, I am indeed aware of that (and it is much to FD's detriment that they decided to market it like that rather than as DLC, but that's a different topic). Unfortunately for your argument, Horizons did not increase in sales by 16000 units since the 20th, nor player count by 50000 since release on Steam. Your "good thing" doesn't look quite so good now, does it?

It looks even better actually.

Steam sales did not increase by that number (at the same time), that's true.

So what's more likely. That a third of players suddenly disappear the very same time the first major expansion goes live without even testing it out (this NEVER happens no matter what game we are talking about. There is ALWAYS a peak at launch), OR that they start playing on their Horizons copy that they bought from Frontiers own store as a pre-order? As soon as Horizons went live they would naturally disappear from EDs stats and they wouldn't appear on the stats for the Steam version of Horizons either since they didn't buy it from there.

That drops only shows that huge amount of players bought it through Frontiers own store. Which isn't really strange considering that FD never advertised any Steam release in any major way. Why would they? The more people that buys from their own store the better.

They will release their trading update early next month anyway. We'll have some official numbers then to look at. These will IMO show that they are doing just fine.

 

[Patrick_68000]

I agree with the OP. Solid foundations are the most important. The game will evolve for years in complete safety

 

[FrogsFriend]

For what it's worth, the Steamspy stats state an error margin of +/- 17000 for each data point.

And, the figure isn't for Sales it's for Owners i.e. it counts the games in Steam users' accounts regardless if they got there by purchase, early/beta access, buy one game (Horizons) and get another game free (1.5), free weekends, etc. For these reasons games totals do go both down and up.

 

[bigtaff]

The trouble is that there are too many people with entrenched views and I don't think they will change them no matter what FD do. Also there seem to be a lot of posters in these forum's, whose ego's seem to be larger than the Horsehead Nebulae - "What, how dare FD not listen to me, don't you know who I am! Blah, Blah Blah, Open vs Solo, Pvp Vs PvE, MMO vs no MMO and all that endless rubbish (I can't believe we are on V4 of that thread, BTW).

I think most players are in the following 2 x groups:

Group A: Happy or reasonably happy with what they have paid for this game and what it gives back.

Group B: Unhappy, they feel that the game has not delivered what it has promised.

I'm firmly in Group A by the way!

Where I think the game falls down is the lack of player input, sure there is powerplay and CG's, but it all seems a bit hit and miss to me.

All I know for what it's worth, is that I am still playing this game regularly one year on, so it must have some longevity in it. The Sim's that seem to me, to be able to hold onto a hard core of simmers are the ones that involve the community as a whole, for example the MS Flight simulator series, this sim which is probably the longest running and biggest selling sim of all time is so successful because there is a huge community base adding liveries, scenery, aircraft etc, to the point where it is then commercially viable for full time publishers to sell add-ons and make a profit. But this will never happen to ED because you would need to either open up the code or support SDK's, which FD will never allow to happen. This also happens with other sim's like Euro Truck Simulator which also has a large community base.

Come on FD instead of selling pointless paint packs, most of which people don't want, how about selling a base pack which the community can then create individual liveries, they can could be sent to FD for verification and then uploaded to your commander account.

£45 for a game that is still going one year on, not bad, you can blow that in a couple of hours in the pub with your mates and all you get is a hangover the next day.