MULTICREW: Adam Woods describing MC during the Horizons' launch stream.
- Thread starter Besensec
- Start date
Hi Ed,
When you say weren't good from a gameplay perspective, what exactly do you mean? There are any number of people here who would be quite happy to occupy a crew seat doing route navigation and planetary scanning, or system repairs or shield balancing, all of which were in the original discussions. If you mean that these weren't good from a combat oriented gameplay, then that's a different arguement all together.
It just seems that the emphasis is heavily placed on the combat aspects of the game and that related gameplay, when one of the things people were most looking forward to in Multi Crew were the non-combat related things that had been "promised". I understand that development is an organic thing and that things do change, but it's not unreasonable to delay a feature in order to get it right.
THe example I'd give here is the Beta launch of Battletech from Harebrained. It was scheduled for the 17th March, they informed the community on the 2nd March that there was an issue with the new release of the game engine that would delay this Beta whilst it was integrated into the code, and this was universally accepted among the backers waiting for Beta as they would rather get something that is right than something on time.
I understand that it's slightly different here, as this is a game in production already, but surely FDev learned their lessons with GameTek that it is better to delay a launch than release something that doesn't meet expectation (either from your own devs or from the player community).
For me, this is the most annoying thing about MC, and it also means it will probably be under utilised by the community, which then (by Sandro's own admission) removes the appetite and incentives for developing the feature further. I think extending this to NPC crew and allowing crew members to trade positions would have greatly increased the uptake on Multi Crew.
It's one thing to see the community get hyped, it's another thing entirely to then not deliver the stuff that got everyone hyped in the first place.
Respectfully
CMDR Kellan Fell
In reality majority of people would have used MC for combat. That's just a nature of the beast. *Some* people might find exciting to taxi drive and explore, but let's be honest majority of them will just pew pew.
- - - Updated - - -
Sandro didn't say there's no plans for now. He said that they will develop MC as they go, taking feedback and considering futher extensions of mechanism as they move forward.
I think too many people knee jerk about Sandro's very carefully crafted language due of NOT promising anything. Consider they already had to downscale MC because some of parts didn't work. Of course they will be very careful with promising anything for future.
Totally understand. But the time those decisions were made was (hopefully) way back - so why not communicating it after the decisions were made instead of raising expectations and hyping the community? from what I have learned as a product manager is: When you have to disappoint someone, do it way before release - the initial hype is flattening, but after a couple of days the hype is raising up again because everyone is looking forward to release.
Just my 2 cent.
What kind of great things you could do with MC in exploration, mining and trading that isn't just button smashing and would actually add to gameplay?
Without space legs there's very little MC could do.
Dear Ed
, I really appreciate you came in an replied. I seriously do. I also hope you understand that none of what I wrote was a personal attack to you, nor to Adam (as some people wrongly objected). Whatever criticism there is, is or it should be to FD and its policies, as some sort of objectable entity. I know you guys were not trying to deceive and, as I said before in the thread, I consider everything said in the past as evidence of good intentions, good ideas and a good plan. However, it is important to admit that a huge portion of Season 2, and ultimately MC, differs significantly from what was ever described. To say that things simply change is an oversimplification of what is going on; the sum of all changes (generally to the bad side of things) put MC far away from what was being offered (and you guys also made the caveat to the caveat! because I guess you knew there is a limit to how much change is acceptable). And as such, something has to be done.I expected to hear plans for the future, some clarity on what is going to happen with the product we bought. It seems obvious that the lack of transparency is hurting FD's image. If you sell things in advance, during the wait it is reasonable from us to expect some communication of what is going on with what we paid for. Specially if things keep getting delayed. Some of us do understand development can be unpredictable, and is part of life to make plans only to alter them in the future; but I guess you also understand how it feels after you pay for something in advance, to get the provider become silent, miss his self imposed deadlines, miss the goals, and then offer no ETAs in exchange. I offer my understanding to accept all of this, but I expect your understanding to, and I want FD to show they understand this situation and act accordingly. Let me explain what I mean with this.
What made me open this thread was mainly the omission and potential dismissal of any clear future for MC, as shown in the live stream at PAX. Because I expected to hear things will certainly improve, that the ideas are still being worked on. I accepted MC as presented two months ago. What I don't accept is omitting the changes, offering no future plan, and to consider the possibility of MC being abandoned as it is. That shouldn't be a option, at all. We need an assurance that MC will be expanded, that this is the plan. Time can always be a problem, some of us understand that. A possible course of action was to deliver a simple form of MC, admit there are some problems, that some features will be missing, and that it will be expanded in a clear and well defined future (and I am sure it can be expanded, isn't it? or is it really impossible?). If some things were not good from a gameplay perspective, I am sure they can be perfected. There are just so many ideas around, it is hard to think all of them were technically impossible, or simply boring.
I want to see that FD is aware of what is going on. Your reply doesn't suggest this is the case.
All this being said, I want to take the chance to tell you directly that I enjoy your streams, and I watch them regularly. Although I haven't killed you yet! And again, thanks for showing up!
This is what I mean with what I would like to see as a response from FD in accordance to the situation, but sometimes I word things like spaghetti. You said it better though! Hope to see this question in today's live stream!
Last edited:
Thats absolutely nonsensical, sorry. You cant take an indefinite amount of extra time, we dont live in a fantasy world. That doesnt mean they 'dropped the claim'. They took three times longer than planned, betas now last way longer than they did.
I for one am not prepared to wait another nine months just to satisfy you. I'd much prefer to take what we already can have and then develop on top of that. If you want to keep waiting, go right ahead. Hey, feel more than willing to wait till 2042 for the absolutely perfect and amazing Star Citizen if thats your idea of development.
Seriously, your whole attitude of 'if its not what I want everything is a lie and everyone is clueless' is so... silly it boggles the mind.
OP. An interesting post. A couple of observations.
This video was not an advertisement, it was FD chatting about potential content for MC. Like most other industries I've consumed products/services from and/or worked with over 4 decades, they don't have to explain anything or show their road-map.
We have no right to make demands from FD and they do not have to justify any decisions they make. They are not in debt to us, have no contract with us and owe us nothing.
It's still very early days, MC was only released on beta last week. Most devs release content in stages over several years and MC will probably be expanded in the future.
I don't want to come across too strong here, but maybe time contraints would not have been so tight if FD din't about with meaningless changes in the 2.2.03 beta.
I posted this post in the 2.2.03 thread back in January, knowing that "lack of Time and dev resources" would be used as an excuse for some future disappointment.
Um they do. If they take money for something (like they did with Horizons) then they have a debt or a contract to deliver the thing people paid for.
Which they have done up to this point.
If you take money before you deliver, you are in debt.
That's practically the very definition of debt.
I'm not saying they haven't. I was replying to a post that to summarize says "FD owe us nothing". They do, they owe the people that paid for Horizons 1 season of expansions to by exact. The component part of 2.3 was described in advance and it's perfectly acceptable for people to expect the thing that was described to them.
I suggest you revisit your mercantile law studies and check the definitions of "debt" and "contract".
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
I think both sides of the coin have valid points however 1 thing i will say... imo this shows one reason why the season approach for Horizons has not imo worked very well.
i like the old addage of underpromise over deliver and that has simply not been the case here. I already put my faith in FD by paying for everything up front, and i dont feel short changed yet (so long as the updates keep coming) but IF i bought horizons based on the early dev talks - and they are advertising videos, come on................ drumming up excitement to make sales, of course its advertising) then I would now be thinking if S3 was the same that i would probably wait for a bit.
Which is why imo an upfront DLC is just a better fit going forward. FD can put all their cards on the table, say this is what we have. over the course of the next year we will tweak the rest of the game, etc but this here is the main event... buy it or dont. That way everyone knows exactly what they are paying for and then everything else done over the following 12 months will be a free bonus.
i like the old addage of underpromise over deliver and that has simply not been the case here. I already put my faith in FD by paying for everything up front, and i dont feel short changed yet (so long as the updates keep coming) but IF i bought horizons based on the early dev talks - and they are advertising videos, come on................ drumming up excitement to make sales, of course its advertising) then I would now be thinking if S3 was the same that i would probably wait for a bit.
Which is why imo an upfront DLC is just a better fit going forward. FD can put all their cards on the table, say this is what we have. over the course of the next year we will tweak the rest of the game, etc but this here is the main event... buy it or dont. That way everyone knows exactly what they are paying for and then everything else done over the following 12 months will be a free bonus.
Last edited:
I didn't claim that video to be full-fetched advertisement. But I think it falls within the category of promotion and advertising, isn't it? Just look at the context of it, it was the launch of a pack of expansion, from which Multicrew was one of the main features. The video had not only the purpose to tell us what is expected to come, but also to make us buy it. But I worded that carefully, since I know what you mean. That information is obsolete now, so there is no need to focus on that one, since it represents visions of another time. But what about the new trailer shown at PAX? that clip is clearly showing a multi-crewed ship deploying an SRV (the corresponding links to check this are in the first post). I normally manage my expectations when watching trailers and teasers, but if you put these videos together, then you are inevitably mislead to believe this is something you can do in the game. And this is just one example.
And yes, it is still early. We know that, and this is why the community is reacting like that, because now is the time.
On the other point I haven't addressed from your post. First of all, what is legal is not necessarily moral. If the law doesn't force them to show clarity, that doesn't mean that obscurity is the right way to go. It would be totally fine if FD didn't have a history of missing the goals (missing deadlines would also be sort of OK if they reached their goals). But this is not the case, if they want a healthy community and a good relationship with the customers, we need clear communication whenever these problems happen. When I say I have the right, I don't mean I will bring a lawyer to defend my rights, I only mean that I think it is a proportionate reaction to come and ask for an explanation, and to say that I expect a change. Regarding legal obligations, the case of No Man Sky, from what I read, was a hard sue to pursuit in spite of it being a blatant scam. That doesn't mean its advertisement and promotion was acceptable.
Thats absolutely nonsensical, sorry. You cant take an indefinite amount of extra time, we dont live in a fantasy world. That doesnt mean they 'dropped the claim'. They took three times longer than planned, betas now last way longer than they did.
I for one am not prepared to wait another nine months just to satisfy you. I'd much prefer to take what we already can have and then develop on top of that. If you want to keep waiting, go right ahead. Hey, feel more than willing to wait till 2042 for the absolutely perfect and amazing Star Citizen if thats your idea of development.
Seriously, your whole attitude of 'if its not what I want everything is a lie and everyone is clueless' is so... silly it boggles the mind.
You can't compare anything to Star Citizen. Chris Roberts is the worst person in the world to have in charge of a project. He's the classic enthusiastic developer. Well intentioned, bursting with enthusiasm but with absolutely no control over his compulsion to keep adding feature after feature after feature to the point where what he ends up with is impossible to deliver. Go read the story of the development of Freelancer for an insight into why Star Citizen, as pitched by Chris, will never see the light of day.
Also, 'if it's not what I want everything is a lie and everyone is clueless' is not what Jex said. He merely pointed out that it's better to do something right, even if it takes a bit longer, than to just half bake it and rush it out so you can move on to the next shiny thing and he's right.
This nails it on the head. If we want FD to clam up and never tell us anything, picking over something said in 2015 before they did the implementation will surely work to shut them up for good.
At some point you have to say, its ready to deploy, even though its not as full featured as we first hoped it would be within the resources devoted to it. That happens all the time with software.
Last edited:
I put work into showing this is not entirely accurate, right in the first post of the entire thread. Considering this reply from you, and the other one where you quoted me saying "snip" and then not explaining yourself, I wonder if you actually read anything before joining in and objecting randomly. I enjoy good arguments, please show me one.
Saying it was in 2015 sounds like a while ago, but it is not. It was one year and three months ago. 2.3 was supposed to be release about 9 months after that (according to the old timeline in the official site).
Last edited: