We dropped cash on the project based on what the company pitched to us, it wasn't an investment, it was a gift in order to help get the project under way.
When a company says,
"We are going to do A then B, later on we'll add C and D and if possible we'll put E and F into the game over time"
But what they actually do is A, drop B totally, add in C and D in a limited half way house kind of way then surprise everyone with the unexpected and mostly unwanted G and still haven't got around to E and F several years later because they are to busy fixing and balancing A still, then it's pretty understandable why some of us are a bit peeved.
Had FD pitched the game, as it is now at me they wouldn't have got my money, it's similar in concept to the original game and draws on similar background but it's seriously handicapped by the choices they made for the multi-player aspect.
I knew there would be multiplayer but given that a single player version was pitched and it was mentioned a lot that we could play "our way" i was expecting a single player game that could be played with other people, what we got is a game so dependant on being multiplayer that pretty much every aspect of the game is directed by the need to make that balanced and workable for all levels of player skill and game progress. Had it been made as a game that worked and was fun to play and then had multiplayer as a secondary part of it it might have worked out better than it currently has.
Having the multiplayer aspect as a secondary part doesn't mean it would be bad or be less important, look at GTA V for instance, it's a great single player game with multiplayer capability and the multiplayer part has now grown way past the single player game, ED could have gone that way, give us a year or so of great content for single player with bits and bobs added over time to that for those that want it and work the multiplayer around that content rather than forcing the whole game into a desperate cycle of rebalancing and exploit fixing. Even something like Freelancer would have been a good model to look at, i believe there are still multiple multiplayer servers up and running even after all these years.
I guess its pointless arguing with the posters who don't care about the direction and pace of development, but i like this game and and depressingly disappointing what's happening (or not happening) to it at the moment.
And this is what I even mentioned in the first post.
Everyone is correct in their opinion.
And you executed it without being mean or using hyperbolic ideas that are base on irrational, hateful heresay.
As you said the kick starter set up your expectations.
And the direct implementation did not marry up to your expectations.
And as a straight up consumer I too would chant "bait and switch".
But as a developer from a while back to running QA, I have experience and understanding, that what is on the white-board, in the niave early stages, seams great.
But in the implementation, there are compromises, there are bugs, there are issues.
So I took one look at the kick-starter, bought my lifetime expansion pack, read the forums, read the design forums.
And understand there is a
gamble and uncertainty at every suggestion.
Let's take your suggestion for Just single player, and add in the multiplayer afterwards.
Would that be first person walking around ships as advertised?
Because that requires faces,
Avatar creation shipped in early 2017 with the commanders (2.3), and was used partially at the post launch of horizons (2.1) to give NPC faces. It was ready because development was already on the go from a few years prior.
This means that just walking around stations filled with NPC's couldn't have occured until sometime during horizons, 2016 correct?
This also mean single player content for landing on planets (again) could not work out until horizons.
and detailed non-atmoshperics planets to walk around (the easiest to implement), is still being implemented during horizons AND the beyond series so 2018.
Again as a consumer, this is frustrating.
As someone who does works occasionally with software developement it's totally understandable.
And I take solice at another product that was at E3 many many years ago.
Some developer put together a fancy ship model with fancy thrusters, made a large singleplayer map for a capital ship with a hangar bay, so he could demonstrate the concept of running round a massive capital ship, and get in a ship, launch and blow up 1 kind of bad guy.
After not launching the complete Multiplayer game with landable planets they launched during the timeframe the kickstarter originally believed he would, they shipped a alpha combat test.
Where the fancy flight models shown at e3 for the one and only ship they had, didn't transfer over to the other ships.
Roll the clock onwards some more years.
Having bought out the gaming engine, and having a company dedicated solely on planetary tech with said engine, they still have not shipped that part of the game.
again you can chant Bait and switch,
But I am impressed by both of these companies, fighting the good fight even if it takes a very long time.....way past our, and even the developers expectations,
Why?? because this is SUPER complex, very hard, very time consuming and expensive tech that needs to be developed.
