Different ways of looking at it is always the cause for disscusions.
For example...
Aren't you with that argument kind of "ignoring" all the things ED has done that NMS doesn't have and probably never will have?
For example...
Multiplayer
(big one...adds enormous amounts of complexity to every single feature you implement.)
Realistic galaxy based of real science vs a more evenly spread out universe in NMS.
Far more complexity in terms of the PG generated solar systems. NMS won't have gas giants, accurate distribution of planetary bodies...I'm not even sure we'll see planets without atmosphere (due to the draw distance I mentioned earlier). So another way of looking at it is that NMS will
only have rocky worlds with atmosphere.

Planets that will only have one biome per planet. Elite planets seem to be prepared for several due to things like icecaps.
I also doubt NMS going to have
"massively varied spacecraft that handle slightly differently" that gives more variation compared to Elite other than in regards to small visual differences between the different ships. The customization and variation that can be done to ED ships in terms of gameplay (internal modules/weapons/equipment) is rather substantial and 1.6/2.1 is going to expand on that considerably. The same can be said about "tech mods" when engineers/loot/crafting soon hits. As for diplomacy there are quite a lot of work done in ED towards factions, reputation, Powerplay and so on...I suspect the ED mission system
(even with all its complaints) is going to be a lot more complex and varied too compared to NMS.
Finally...none of this is really me "talking down" on NMS as such. I'm just trying to look at these games for what they are, which is rather different from one another. If I want a fantasy/scifi experience that's a bit more causal to explore then I'll play NMS. It's going to be a first person survival game mixed with Spore and a dash of Elite. Which is awesome!
If I want something more "real", gritty with more in-depth gameplay and the multiplayer aspect attached I'll play ED.
I think you'll find me being quite positive about NMS in this thread. I do think people
(especially the media) are overestimating what Hello games have done and what they can expect from that game and I do find some people are grossly underestimating what FD have achieved with ED so far.
I'm friends with everyone as long as there is a real dialog going on.
Huzzah for dialogue! In that case!
As for ignoring stuff E: D does that No Man's Sky doesn't, not at all, but at that point we're then drifting into differences in preference. To address your three examples;
=Multiplayer is definitely going to be a big boon, to plenty of players! ...just maybe not the ones who spend all their time in Solo, wanted an offline mode, or in my case someone who succeeded to regularly find the farthest and quietest corners of occupied space because trade routes. ;P It's not even the reason I bought Elite: Dangerous, I wanted to scratch the big, sci-fi itch that has nestled against my very soul, to have that immersive experience, and while multiplayer might have added more to do, ultimately other people did a lot to break my immersion. Basically, you would value 'Multiplayer!' to a greater extent than I, whereas I'd value 'Offline Mode!' to a greater extent than you.
-Have we ever seen No Man's Sky's galaxy from a more 'distant' scale, though, enough to speak on how it's structured? Legitimate question, if you have, I'd really appreciate a link, as I haven't. Whenever they show the galactic map, they seem to 'skim' through it at a fairly 'close' magnification, which kind of means everything is just a skimming stream of dots, and without that 'larger picture' it's hard to say from a relative perspective how much closer/further from the center the camera moves compared to the edge in each demonstration.
-The solar system complexity I will indeed concede, but a fair number of those things currently exist as non-interactive props, things I can- and goodness knows, have plenty- stared at from my cockpit at the closest possible distance. xP If nothing else, the thing borders on a massive tease. This drifts into a question, actually, what does Frontier have planned for gas giants and other bodies-not-landable? I was kind of hoping high-risk resource scooping might be a thing, where one can fight the high gravity in order to try and skim elements out of the gaseous clouds. :3
-To throw in something of my own, one thing that E: D does actually have over NMS is their ships have a greater variation in ship scale, i.e. (at least at launch,) you'll never be able to pilot something the size of an Anaconda in NMS. But when it comes to visual and performance variation, No Man's Sky does appear to edge them out due to procedurally generating their ships as well, (even the larger freighters and cruises we've seen flying around, apparently even stations,) and they will have variations in their 'performance,' whether in terms of their maneuverability, storage space or combat proficiency. This is structured a little by having a handful of ship 'classes,' i.e. vessels whose stats would be more suited to combat, trading, exploration, etc, and I think these classes might be defined by which race is responsible for 'building' the ship. But finding better ships is often going to be a combination of luck and obsessive attention to detail, i.e. checking stations and outposts you visit to see if they've any promising vessels for sale.
Anyway, I've got to point out that you've drifted into 'eventualities', several times bringing up what the game 'will have,' rather than what it does. You did it with the multiple biomes- even though right now there is only technically one landable biome, 'rock,'- then with mechanics, missions and equipment. It's great that 1.6/2.1 looks to be giving a lot of things an overhaul, and I look forward to seeing what it does. (Missions need overhauling. IT NEEDS IT. T_T ) But when it comes to 'It will EVENTUALLY be better,' you're preaching to the choir on that one, as I'm not disputing that- down the road, sometime, eventually- it'll continue building up to bigger and better things, outpacing No Man's Sky. Again, it's demanding a premium price, and taking a far longer, more calculated approach with greater resources, so I'm expecting a premium product to come out of it.
But I've found particularly passionate Star Citizen supporters tend to fall into the same argument, where it's "Oh, our game is going to have SO MUCH SHINY COOL STUFF when it's all finished, you don't even know man, you don't even know, that's why we're the best science fictiony space game out there." To which an Elite player might reply 'Yeah, sure, okay... but we've actually GOT our game right now, it's successfully done this big massive galaxy, so HA.' Regardless of what planets may be coming, or what equipment/diplomacy/mission complexity/etc may be coming, it's not here
yet, (unless 1.6/2.1 released on the day I wrote this, in which case oops x3 ) and it's hard to comparatively judge something that's currently in the ether, which is why I stick with the 'wait til it's out to give it credit' approach.
Anywho, I do agree with the last bit, both games offer very different things, and that variety is key. No Man's Sky looks like it's going to be more, well, 'game-y' with a greater focus on gameplay elements rather than Elite: Dangerous' far more meticulous, 'simulator' approach. ^.^ And however long down the line I've no doubt I'll have plenty to be excited about in Elite: Dangerous when it comes to exploring planets and whatnot... I'm just vastly more excited about No Man's Sky because it's almost finished and soon, sooooon it will be miiiiiine. :3