![[DOOK] Droogie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/124/124078.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
I can appreciate that. However, we're watching it evolve at the cost of a fully evolved game multiple times over. That's the issue a lot of people are having.
Elite Dangerous should still be in Beta (like most big games with 4 years of development)
- Thread starter SentineI
- Start date
I can appreciate that. However, we're watching it evolve at the cost of a fully evolved game multiple times over. That's the issue a lot of people are having.
Sure, no problem, just go and buy another game with the same features for 50 bucks. Whats that you say? It doesn't exist? Oh boy, I wonder why that is! Could it be? Is it possible that if you want more stuff you have to pay more to make it happen? Outrageous!
What, Derek Smart isn't completely factual and accurate?!?
Shocker.
He certainly knows a lot about decade-long development, though... Battlecruiser 3000AD, anyone?
What, Derek Smart isn't completely factual and accurate?!?
Shocker.
He certainly knows a lot about decade-long development, though... Battlecruiser 3000AD, anyone?
Oh right... that explains the lack of understanding , the random genre mixing and so on.
How can you have MMOs , RTS , RPGs all in the same list? its stupid.
I dont think anyone can take that guy seriously , he has admited to sometimes going down on forums and causing trouble.
So, that justifies us paying premium price for a game that is still basically in early access? Wow. That would be a first. We're not even getting bookmarks until 2.1. Something that should have been there at "release". I've paid my fair share. I won't be paying anymore until I see more progress. Not paying for promises any more when they won't tell us what we paid for. Even a little hint as to how the engineers work, and an example of a modified module or something would help a lot.
I've said it many times. I bought a product without knowing what I was getting. That is my mistake. I won't make that mistake again. Asking for some transparency isn't a lot to ask when you're asking people to blindly pay.
Last edited:
He basically set an internet record with like 70,000 flamewar posts on usenet back in the 90s. So nothing new...
Yes it was wasn't it but telling us "many times" doesn't make it any more interesting. At least you seem to be getting over it - admitting to yourself that it was a mistake purchasing ED is a great start. Good luck with the rehab.
Well....
First Derek Smart didn't create that graph, some other person on the SA forums did. Derek Smart picked it up before it was obvious it was all fabricated and stuck it on his Twitter.
BUT regardless, I don't even think it was an original creation of the SA forum member....
When anyone criticized the long development time of Star Citizen, Star Citizen folks would post a graph just like the one in OP's thread showing OVERALL development time of other "big" games in order to show 3-4 years itsn't very long (of course the periods were hugely biased to make other games seem to be in dev much longer than they had been...)
Also at the time CIG kept saying how they're in pre=alpha, so the SA guy took the SC graph and broke it down into pre-alpha, alpha bits. Totally made it periods of time of course.
Suddenly the SC fans claim of 3-4 years not being very long didn't look right, since it was clear it was 3-4 years in pre-alpha and the SA fan's graph highlighted that.
Just amazing it would turn up here for Elite Dangerous as "evidence" for something.
As I say this thread, you know people will keep randomly dropping in see the graph and assume it's real. Another stupid thread based on nothing deloves into bickering... Mods?
Last edited:
Nice hyperbole. This kind of stuff is the reason we get Day 1 DLC's with content that should be in the base game, causing us to have to pay double the price for the full game on release day. It's the reason we get buggy messes at release. I simply won't be giving FD any more money until I know what it is they are offering. I got ripped off, and it won't happen again.
Oh good grief! I've had more than a year of great fun, and it continues. I would not have had that if we were still waiting for it to "be complete". Don't like it? Go elsewhere. Not everybody will like every game - that's fine, just go. Why are you still hanging around here moaning? And actually, I am totally convinced that the input from the community has helped shape the game - both in terms of content and also the priority decisions made by FD. They have needed us to be here and playing it and in general the feedback has been good and valuable to them.
So go and play SC. Oh, wait, we are all waiting for it to "be complete".
So go and play SC. Oh, wait, we are all waiting for it to "be complete".
Its true, but without a big publisher and perhaps other income to hold them over and also the game being a bit of a niche it had to be released, but the good thing is that we'll be able to influence its development in the medium to long term. Perhaps not to everyones satisfaction, but still .
.The difference being SC lets you know it isn't finished and doesn't advertise itself as being "released". It lets you know you are donating to a game in development. My issue isn't with the game itself. It's the $100+ I've invested into it when it is still very much bare bones.
I have no problems investing in early access game. I enjoy them. I like playing games as they're being developed. I just expect to know exactly the state of the game before I purchase it and don't expect to invest the full price of a AAA title in that state.
As you recover you will find that the resentment and bitterness you feel towards yourself will recede and you will no longer feel the need to tell us all about your mistake.
If its any consolation I too bought Elite not knowing what Frontier were offering and then paid even more for a Lifetime Expansion Pass when Horizons was announced. I'd read very little about the game but went ahead and bought it. Then, hoping for more, I paid 3x more for the Lifetime pass. I guess the difference between us is that I'm extremely pleased with the game. Its great fun and to date its cost me about £5 / day - thats a full 24 hours of enjoyment - and its getting cheaper every time I play!! Even at £5 / day its far far far cheaper than my other hobby (fishing) so I'm well pleased. Perhaps you could find a cheap hobby to occupy your time and take your mind off Elite ?
Very interesting and good information. I do agree. I think the issue is that it was a kickstarter. Those other games are internally funded. I think a kickstarter has expectation to come out sooner. Even if it's not ready. With those other games the majority general public really doesn't know when the project begins or the time it took to develope. They just know when it gets released.
I enjoy the game, just not enough to justify the cost. It costs the same amount as a full release AAA title. I paid $40 for Skyrim a month after it released, and I have infinite replayability through it with mods, I have a living, breathing world (albeit corny) that I can shape with infinite possibilities. That's value for my money. I actually feel like I exist in a world in it.
This one doesn't give that. Even the most highly populated systems are dead. Sol is the capital of a corporate oligarchy, yet there's no commercial traffic at all. No fleets of ships reflecting the system's economy. Even earth is just another "Earth Like World" in the map. It isn't acknowledge it as being the cradle of humanity. I have over $100 invested in this and it is just a skeleton of a game. They weren't up front about what I was getting. It's deceptive marketing. Unless something serious changes in Season 2, Season 3 is a no go here.
I paid $30 for DayZ. It is clearly early access. It is being developed as I am playing it, and I'm dealing with the issues as it goes because I knew what I was getting going in. It makes you agree to it every time you log on. Your condescending and dismissive attitude doesn't change the fact that FD have marketed something as a release game, when it is clearly still in its early stages. You even get constant dev releases detailing what is coming up and they are very open about what issues they are having if there is a delay. I have 1000+ hours in it because it was clear up front with what I was getting. Their producer is even in Twitch chat rooms of DayZ streamers giving out information. Whether you like it or not, or like how they've done it, it does nothing to hide what it is. They are up front and clear.
The OP is right. This should be titled something other than a full release game. It is well behind that curve. Or they need to at least be more up front about what it is you're getting and what their plans are before you purchase it. Your dismissive and condescending attitude doesn't change that.
Last edited:
The graph is a list of outliers rather than a realistic representation of game dev schedules. While there are plenty of wildcards like team size and experience, I'd describe things more like:
- 2 years start-to-finish is normal for AAA titles (the Call of Duty games for example) if the studio is well oiled, firing on all cylinders, and hits the ground running. (Alpha ~15 months, Beta ~18 months.)
- 18 months start-to-finish is a rush for AAA but normal for a cheaper game such as a movie tie-in.
- 12 months is an ugly quick production for even a cheaper console game, unless making a sequel or DLC that reuses the same engine and many assets. If working without existing assets then its Metacritic score is probably going to be ~65
- Less than 12 months is moving more into phones/handhelds/freemium rather than console productions.
- 3 years is for an AAA title that involves a bit more unknown territory, or the project got into trouble, or the product is a platform flagship, or a land-grab into a market dominated by an established competitor, etc.
- 4 years and more is mostly MMOs, a few huge AAA productions, backburner projects, and AAA clustertrucks that were able to go beyond schedule for some reason or changed direction mid-production or some other unusual situation (eg HL2 and TF2 were funded by GabeN until they were done, whereas a publisher generally won't do that)
- Honorable mention to Duke Nukem...
(Elite is an MMO built on unknown territory and ambitious in scope. To my thinking, even though it's going to require a long time they're cranking it out quite quickly.)
- 2 years start-to-finish is normal for AAA titles (the Call of Duty games for example) if the studio is well oiled, firing on all cylinders, and hits the ground running. (Alpha ~15 months, Beta ~18 months.)
- 18 months start-to-finish is a rush for AAA but normal for a cheaper game such as a movie tie-in.
- 12 months is an ugly quick production for even a cheaper console game, unless making a sequel or DLC that reuses the same engine and many assets. If working without existing assets then its Metacritic score is probably going to be ~65
- Less than 12 months is moving more into phones/handhelds/freemium rather than console productions.
- 3 years is for an AAA title that involves a bit more unknown territory, or the project got into trouble, or the product is a platform flagship, or a land-grab into a market dominated by an established competitor, etc.
- 4 years and more is mostly MMOs, a few huge AAA productions, backburner projects, and AAA clustertrucks that were able to go beyond schedule for some reason or changed direction mid-production or some other unusual situation (eg HL2 and TF2 were funded by GabeN until they were done, whereas a publisher generally won't do that)
- Honorable mention to Duke Nukem...
(Elite is an MMO built on unknown territory and ambitious in scope. To my thinking, even though it's going to require a long time they're cranking it out quite quickly.)
Last edited:
Many people pay a lot to feel feelings. Some people go to soccergames to get angry. They are willing to pay money again and again to just get angry.
They dont like the judge, the play, the defence and even the other teams fans. They feel in a way good of being angry.
If you considering how much feeling you get from this game, you could say you get your value there.
As an outlet of emothions you are invested in negativ respons of losing some money. I feel for you.
But look at it in a possitiv way. You dont have to invest more time, money or emotions, if you dont want to.
You seem to have found an other game you like, reading your posts. Im happy for you.
Dont end up in a negativ defence. Go out find your great valuebles and enjoy life. But invest only if you are 100% sure its the right thing for you.
I feel that the developing of elite is in the right of Frontier to deside. They own the title. If they say they have a 10 year plan for the game, i figure I dont get all of that in the first years.
Wisly they let us find out stuff ourself. There is stuff in Elite right now that we not have found out about. I am looking. They will put in more stuff that we dont know about.
Game on everyone. Fly safe or not. Its up to you!
I assume you have asked Frontier for your money back and they have refused ? So take them to Trading Standards - UK has VERY tight trading regulations. Or take out a Small Claims case against them. You seem to have a sure-fire case for your money back. Please make sure you come back on here and tell us "many times" about the outcome. I for one am keen to hear how you get on.
And look on the bright side - being free of the burden of having to play Elite (to try and get some "value" from the game) will give you more time to enjoy those other great games you already have.
Last edited: