My thoughts on where things are going.

[Agony_Aunt]

I practically stopped playing since January 16. And I only played until this date believing that what was sold to me would be implemented in the game in future updates. Instead we had the PP, CQC, Arena, Engineers and other wasted updates with combat tuning only. And other mechanics present in the game at launch, which were released completely in bare bones, continue in the same way in the game until today.

I think everyone who criticized the game and the way he took it is because we want it to improve and not the opposite so that one day we may come back to admire it, because so far it is a visually beautiful but empty game. Except for the combat.

More patience required unfortunately. A lot of what was talked about in the early days is still years away yet. Some of it might never leave the cutting room floor, some of it might arrive differently, and some might arrive pretty much like described, but it still all takes time.

Yeah, personally i wish they hadn't bothered with CQC (rumours exist they had to do that as part of a deal with MS - but at least not a complete waste, it has given us SLFs which are awesome), and Powerplay for me was a big dissapointment, but saying that, 1.3 was a good update otherwise as it gave us limpets, which was massive for piracy, mining, and of course, the fuel rats... Engineers, i wish was different, but its still good, its opened up massive range of outfitting options, and i'm still messing around with ship configurations months later, well worth it for me... although i can imagine its not been good for the state of PvP.

 

[jasonbarron]

More patience required unfortunately. A lot of what was talked about in the early days is still years away yet. Some of it might never leave the cutting room floor, some of it might arrive differently, and some might arrive pretty much like described, but it still all takes time.

Yeah, personally i wish they hadn't bothered with CQC (rumours exist they had to do that as part of a deal with MS - but at least not a complete waste, it has given us SLFs which are awesome), and Powerplay for me was a big disappointment, but saying that, 1.3 was a good update otherwise as it gave us limpets, which was massive for piracy, mining, and of course, the fuel rats... Engineers, i wish was different, but its still good, its opened up massive range of outfitting options, and i'm still messing around with ship configurations months later, well worth it for me... although i can imagine its not been good for the state of PvP.

I've had my highs and low's with engineers for sure; the PvE side of me has adored them and never tires of tinkering with new configurations, while the PvP side of me is pretty worn out to the swiss army knife approach to getting weaponized and staying relevant.

My wishlist for the 2.4 "surprise" update: follow through with shield nerf/follow through with the proposal to link gimballed effectiveness to sensor type and reduce overall tracking cone/dial back engineered upgrades and special effects to less godlike levels. Hell, I'd pay Fdev $60.00 for that right now.

 

[Zarkon]

I agree they should be as clear as possible, but even a cursory investigation would have revealed that it was a game that was going to be in development for a long time. And marketing teams all over the place (not just FD) do just love to highlight the shiny stuff and not always give relevant info.

So, despite what companies *should* do, you as a consumer *should* also do you own research. Anyone who doesn't is going to get burned a lot in life, and no matter how much they proclaim what companies should do, reality is different, so protect yourself and educate yourself, so you do not get burned.

On the other hand, I don't see how anyone has been burned with ED, except for the offliners who eventually got offered refunds. Besides, complaining at this stage....like NMS who said he bought May '14..... hell, almost 3 years ago. Time to move on.

Researching the history of a game and it's developer isn't necessarily a positive thing. I posted as a White Knight on this thread (best I could), but I could have just as easily posted as a Dark Villain and expressed my negative deductions about Braben's KS campaign, with tons of circumstantial evidence, but that wouldn't help anyone, and would likely get this post closed asap.

Bottom line is that we, the original backers, just have to wait a few more years to see if what we bought into was what they are actually developing.

 

[NMS]

Researching the history of a game and it's developer isn't necessarily a positive thing. I posted as a White Knight on this thread (best I could), but I could have just as easily posted as a Dark Villain and expressed my negative deductions about Braben's KS campaign, with tons of circumstantial evidence, but that wouldn't help anyone, and would likely get this post closed asap.

Bottom line is that we, the original backers, just have to wait a few more years to see if what we bought into was what they are actually developing.

Well placed. This is the moment. There are those who keep the Faith and rely on the 10 years plan (now less than 8) for things to adjust and those like me who foresee, for what was done in more than two years, that the game will never get close to the which was evidenced for it in the beginning, quite the contrary, unless the game development is changed now.

 

[VR Golgot]

Sorry, the onus is on the seller to ensure they clearly indicate what you're buying from any advertising they make.

K, have you seen any ED trailers? . Combat is somewhat prevalent in them...

(I still think different professions will see varying amounts of love across ED's lifespan, but you can't really say you didn't have fair warning that pewpew would get some major attention...)

It isn't u p to the customer to visit their forums to check if the game is finished or not, if the game is not released in EA or something similar.

Buying blindly in your argument = buying on the advertising details. That's ridiculous. Elite isn't a car, or a house. It's a digital product, and as such, is supposed to be ready when released. Like movies. You wouldn't go and see a movie that was left half finished (unless it was part of a series I suppose...). No Man's Sky is probably the best example you could have given to make MY point - it was released as a full, complete game. The advertising was claimed as such. The only way you could find out the truth was to actually BUY it. It doesn't matter that people said it wasn't finished AFTER they bought it...even gaming reviews were the usual paid shill crap we see infesting the gaming industry. Thankfully, I don't see any evidence of that with Elite, which is refreshing.

Games do occupy a weird niche though, they're far more malleable than films, or indeed houses, with their delivery flow (and indeed the current flux in their delivery model generally re Early Access etc). They're almost more of a service than a product these days in a weird way in the case of online games and updates. I think given these criteria, and the general subjectivity of artistic products, 'buyer beware' kicks in more than it ever has.

Ultimately they've become punts to a far greater degree than they ever were. You take a bet on whether the company can fix a borked launch, realise their roadmap, be true to either the spirit or the word of their official pronouncements etc. Anyone who bets £50 on something in this context without doing a bit of due diligence has kinda only got themselves to blame. (And personally I'm fine with the scenario, when the end game is artistically and technically ambitious. I'm happy to fund creatives to take risks, to a degree. And I don't see how we kickstart a better model than the ones currently available as consumers right now. I kinda see it as being a patron when it comes to ambitiously eccentric games like ED. And like all patrons you can still kick off and disagree with the direction of travel, but we took the dive based on a mix of gut feeling and evidence of past delivery, we're taking a risk. As consumers we can demand that explicit promises are honoured and technical competence displayed, but whether art comes out the other end? That's where the real punt is at...)

Anyway, the bottom line is this. If I bought the game, with full knowledge that PvP and combat would be the primary focus of the game, with little love for other trades, I would possibly have not bought the game... OR I wouldn't be so upset with the game as I am today, because I wasn't expecting what we were sold.

Bottom line on your expectations: If you're betting on a company doing something that's technically and creatively incredibly difficult (and what you're asking for ultimately is, re fulfilling Exploration gameplay), and you're expecting them to do it quickly, then your expectations may be out of whack...

 

[Agony_Aunt]

unless the game development is changed now.

It won't, or more precisely, they won't change to suit to specifically try and please certain individuals. They will change as the game grows to meet shifting needs of the game and engine and as they discover more clearly what is possible within development constraints.

My suggestion to you is, if you are not at least moderately happy with the game in its current state, then you might as well bail now, because you are not going to be happy no matter what in the long run.

 

[fademist]

It won't, or more precisely, they won't change to suit to specifically try and please certain individuals. They will change as the game grows to meet shifting needs of the game and engine and as they discover more clearly what is possible within development constraints.

My suggestion to you is, if you are not at least moderately happy with the game in its current state, then you might as well bail now, because you are not going to be happy no matter what in the long run.

if he do that how he going to be toxic here?

 

[Zarkon]

Frontier has had plenty of time to focus full developement towards the console demographics. The content of Season 3 will be my final assessment of their future plans. Disgruntled supporters should just check back every 6-9 months to see if things have changed. Telling an original backer to leave the game now if he has no more faith in the future of ED seems wrong.

 

[Kaltern]

Bottom line on your expectations: If you're betting on a company doing something that's technically and creatively incredibly difficult (and what you're asking for ultimately is, re fulfilling Exploration gameplay), and you're expecting them to do it quickly, then your expectations may be out of whack...

Then they should never had advertised the game with that exact gameplay as part of the overall experience. The game has been in development for over 4 years I believe, and while there have been useless (IMO) bell and whistles added to it, the core gameplay has changed very little. Refined, perhaps, but not enhanced. Except for pewpew. That's been transformed into something way beyond it's orginal planning.

And the early trailers, of course they showed lots of shooting, I get that. But I'm also talking about the other trailers (which conveniently I can't seem to find) which I'm sure showed other things. And then there's all the other advertising blurb, with a lot of information on what is to come - apparently - with regards to exploration, mining and trading.

I didn't expect this game to become World of Starships, but that's pretty much how it's turning out, and I will absolutely abandon the game completely if whatever is coming after 2.4 doesn't change anything other than more ways to kill each other.

 

[NMS]

Frontier has had plenty of time to focus full developement towards the console demographics. The content of Season 3 will be my final assessment of their future plans. Disgruntled supporters should just check back every 6-9 months to see if things have changed. Telling an original backer to leave the game now if he has no more faith in the future of ED seems wrong.

Exactly that, since I have LTP I'm just checking the game at each new update to see if any worthwhile content is finally added to the game. So far not so good.

Meanwhile I stay in the forum that has content much more fun than the game.

And waiting for what i paid for.

 

[robbyp]

I love this game. It's great. I'm on the forums to positively comment not carp ��

 

[VR Golgot]

Then they should never had advertised the game with that exact gameplay as part of the overall experience.

Where did they display fulfilling/deep exploration or trade gameplay in any of the adverts?

And the early trailers, of course they showed lots of shooting, I get that. But I'm also talking about the other trailers (which conveniently I can't seem to find) which I'm sure showed other things.

Finding them would definitely help your case

And then there's all the other advertising blurb, with a lot of information on what is to come - apparently - with regards to exploration, mining and trading.

Which specific claims are you thinking of here?

The game has been in development for over 4 years I believe, and while there have been useless (IMO) bell and whistles added to it, the core gameplay has changed very little. Refined, perhaps, but not enhanced. Except for pewpew. That's been transformed into something way beyond it's orginal planning.

I don't contest that combat has had the deepest mechanics from the off, and on balance more love overall for sure, including stand-alone flagship stuff like CQC, and 'disproportionate' benefits from Engineers etc. (I'd argue that its core roles are actually similarly thin to the point of barely functioning as intended re piracy and bounty hunting, but the surrounding support is certainly more significant). I think there are various non-sequitur ideas that get bandied about on this topic though, and the main one is: 'If far less work was done on combat stuff exploration and trade would be vastly improved by now'. Tell me if I'm strawmanning here, but it seems to be an idea you ascribe to. For me it falls down on a number of points:

On Exploration:

• Deep scanning mechanics require a deep simulation of planetary bodies. That stuff would take time regardless.
• Seeding lost cultures or other discoverables in space with credible variety and rarity, while adding a discovery mechanism with compelling gameplay, is a massive technical and art task, and one that comes very close to 'hiding' a flagship update. The cost/benefit analysis means this is always going to be a hard sell for them internally. (Although the latest alien trailers hint at some further tip toes in this direction). I wouldn't say combat has received a flagship update of comparable difficulty.

It's also easy to ignore that Exploration has actually got some love this Season, in the form of:

• Passenger missions
• Neutron stars
• All the key interactible storylines

Some flagship stuff in there, along with the fringe benefits of Engineering & nebula based asteroid bases and what have you. It's not the deep mechanics we'd all like to see, but it's far from pure neglect either.

On Trade:

It's certainly fallen short of the more dynamic aspirations of the kickstarter, and they're clearly struggling with some of the technical aspects and server requirements of modelling a human bubble of this size. I'd agree that most additions (state changes having more impact, ship alterations, SLFs for defence etc) have been hedging around the edges or dual use. They're clearly not in a position to amp up the servers to create the necessary dynamism though, so again cutting back on combat additions doesn't seem to help here either though. It seems reasonable to surmise that improved and steady sales would make the most significant difference. What specific features do you think they should have included that are purely mechanisms etc that could have majorly improved trade?

I didn't expect this game to become World of Starships, but that's pretty much how it's turning out, and I will absolutely abandon the game completely if whatever is coming after 2.4 doesn't change anything other than more ways to kill each other.

Sure that seems wise. Take a break from the game if '3.0' isn't Exploration or Trade centered. (I take a break from it most of the time because I'm waiting for key bits to cross over quality lines ). It's perfectly natural to be frustrated by this stuff taking time. The game's made by some crazy guys who want to make a credible 1:1 galaxy though, there will doubtless be intriguing stuff down the line...

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Telling an original backer to leave the game now if he has no more faith in the future of ED seems wrong.

Huh? Seems 100% logical to me.

 

[Mengy]

Telling an original backer to leave the game now if he has no more faith in the future of ED seems wrong.

Huh? Seems 100% logical to me.

Eh, I kind of agree with Zarkon here. The original backers are fans of the franchise, many of whom have been longtime fans over many versions of Elite. They made this game possible with their money and dedication. So yeah, IMHO the game's development should somewhat cater to what they were promised, and if the original backers are not happy then Frontier should be doing everything it can to rectify that situation. Anything short of that is disrespectful to the people who made the game possible in the first place.

Certainly it's impossible to make everyone 100% happy, but telling a backer to leave because the game has gone down a different road than they paid for back in the alpha days? I can't agree with that at all.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Eh, I kind of agree with Zarkon here. The original backers are fans of the franchise, many of whom have been longtime fans over many versions of Elite. They made this game possible with their money and dedication. So yeah, IMHO the game's development should somewhat cater to what they were promised, and if the original backers are not happy then Frontier should be doing everything it can to rectify that situation. Anything short of that is disrespectful to the people who made the game possible in the first place.

Certainly it's impossible to make everyone 100% happy, but telling a backer to leave because the game has gone down a different road than they paid for back in the alpha days? I can't agree with that at all.

I think you misunderstand a bit, and perhaps others do. Im not talking about the fantasy, i'm talking about the reality. There is lots of "shoulds" and "ifs" and other words like that here, but the plain reality is certain people (not all) feel that ED is going a direction different to what they expected when they backed. REALITY. Now, regardless of what the Devs *should* do, you have to look at what they will and are doing. We are now over 2 years in, and its time some people to accept that what they expected isn't going to happen.

Now, excuse me for being only a lowly beta backer, i don't have quite the same level of entitlement that alpha and kickstarter backers have, but the game is turning out fairly ok from my point of view. Not quite what I expected, and some design decisions that leave me scratching my head. But if i discovered at some point the game wasn't going in a direction i wanted, i would not presume to hang around the forums being negative constantly. I'd just back off and play something else. I'd keep an eye on things, but if things diverged so much from what i wanted, then i'd probably resign myself to it no longer being a game i wanted to play.

There are more important things in life to do than sitting around forums whining all day. And that is a fact.

 

[Zarkon]

The game's not even half way through it's developement cycle (10 year plan), but if someone is not currently happy with what's in the game now, they should leave the forums because ED wont be any different when it's finally completed? I for one hope it will change at least a little bit in the next 7 years.

 

[Franc Kaos]

... The "original backers" don't own the game and Frontier owes nothing to them...

Respectfully disagree. If the backers hadn't backed the game, if the kickstarter had crashed and burned, this game wouldn't exist for you to enjoy their fruits, for Xbox / PS to generate boatloads of cash for Fdev.

Fdev can go in any direction (cash shop, pewpew, poorly networked half glass full multicrew), but saying they / we* don't owe those original backers a debt of gratitude is just plain wrong. Now, I don't know if the successful Elite Dangerous kickstarter got them the Planet Coaster / new Hollywood IP gigs (maybe they'd still be rolling in cash without EDs success), but it certainly brought them back to the forefront of game developers.

* Not a backer, got it & Horizons cheap in Steam sale, still have opinions on the games direction tho'.

 

[Jaiotu]

The reality is that there is a huge difference between a vision and the realization of that vision.

The following text is take directly from the original Elite: Dangerous Kickstarter page:

"Stating the obvious, all projects, whether building a bridge, making a film, studying for an exam or whatever, carry risk. Projects can run out of time or money, people can leave, assumptions that were made at the start may prove to be mistaken, or the results may simply not be as good as expected. Games development is no different."

 

[Agony_Aunt]

The game's not even half way through it's developement cycle (10 year plan), but if someone is not currently happy with what's in the game now, they should leave the forums because ED wont be any different when it's finally completed? I for one hope it will change at least a little bit in the next 7 years.

Not quiet. Its more about development direction. If they are not happy with the direction at this time, then nothing is going to change there most likely. Of course, keep an eye on things, but just complaining about it isn't good for the soul.

Of course the game will change, it should change a lot. Its already changed a lot in 2 years, significantly in many areas... but then, some people are not happy with the direction its gone, and its likely to keep going in that direction.

 

[VR Golgot]

As I understand it NMS is still sore over the offline debacle in particular. I think counselling someone to let that go is perfectly reasonable, as it's pretty clear that's unlikely to change.

Respectfully disagree. If the backers hadn't backed the game, if the kickstarter had crashed and burned, this game wouldn't exist for you to enjoy their fruits, for Xbox / PS to generate boatloads of cash for Fdev.

Fdev can go in any direction (cash shop, pewpew, poorly networked half glass full multicrew), but saying they / we* don't owe those original backers a debt of gratitude is just plain wrong.

Yep that's all very fair. Although the cash wasn't make or break for FDev launching as a publisher or anything, it signalled market intent and meant they took the risk of making a modern Elite game. We do owe thanks to the Kickstarters on those grounds . (As you say though, so long as they stay within the broad roadmap promised, when technically attainable, the direction of travel is still their call).

Now, I don't know if the successful Elite Dangerous kickstarter got them the Planet Coaster / new Hollywood IP gigs (maybe they'd still be rolling in cash without EDs success), but it certainly brought them back to the forefront of game developers.

That's going too far though. If they hadn't gone with ED they probably would have gone with Planet Coaster as their launch project, done well, and been fine. Kickstarters didn't do that, they just helped us get a niche space game out first