The epic fail of Beyond

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Success story, event you know what I mean.;) Why would it invalidate my post? The market had a need for space games and there was no competitor (as it is now), hence people will buy it anyway, even if there are flaws in the game.

I thought that is what you meant, but sometimes it is unwise to assume. :)

In my opinion, E: D today is in pretty much the same situation as it was originally - it's a game that doesn't follow the "industry standard" (quoted as there isn't really an industry standard for games, but hopefully you can understand what I am trying to convey). Personally, I think this is why the forum is so toxic on occasion - some gamers do just seem to want an interactive story that you can play and complete. E: D is not that. You can't complete it, and while it does have some story elements I think it would be a bit of a stretch to say there's much story. There is a lot of lore, but this doesn't make a good story (e.g. the Silmarillion vs. The Lord of the Rings). The story is very much a background element - in fact, the friends I do have that play E: D aren't aware of any of the story at all.

Looking back, I think I quoted the wrong part of your text (doesn't help for a discussion, does it? :eek:). It was this bit I should have quoted:

And then ED comes along, it lacks a lot of basic things other game devs are very aware of. Threads demanding those basic things are prove of that. Like the question why important lore videos are not presented in the game or limited player communication and interaction. Regarding the MP aspect it is still mind-boggling to me, how they created a PvE game without any specific coop mechanics, beside the most basic ones like money sharing. I think people where fine with the first iteration having CZs and RESs or A to B trading during that period in time, by today`s standards it is lacking. Especially with multiple CMDRs in an instance.

Your take is that FD made a mistake in not including these things. My take is that they don't necessarily want them in E: D, just as these things weren't in the original. They aren't an oversight or sign of not keeping up with the gaming industry, they simply aren't that important to E: D. Some features (squadrons, for example) will appear in the future. I don't expect lore videos (or any other video) to appear, though - nor do I want this. I have other games when I want a story.
 
Well as far as I am concerned....I love this game. I don't show up on these steam stats because I play on Xbone. I will probably break down and get another PC just to play this game(Mac and Linux at the moment) solely for VR.

I enjoy it now and I hope for the foreseeable future. It is the only game I play and certainly not as often as I would like due to RL.

I am personally looking forward to Beyond (which can hardly have failed since hasn't been released yet) and any future releases.

What's not to love? PVP all the way to chillin' out in the black( or the California Nebula searching in my case at the moment)

Just my POV.

YMMV

07
 
Last edited:
The restrictions on basic movement are the main reason i can't play ED. Can't suspend disbelief that i'm in a 'space ship' with a 'space speed limit' in all planes and axes. Besides which, there's no point anyway because those restrictions preclude any chance of fun, excitement or skill. It's not "Elite", and it's not my kind of game.



Few here seem to have a sorry clue what Elite always was, before ED. The original Elite was as realistic as arcade space sims could get, given the restrictions of the 8-bit hardware. You traded your way towards ship upgrades whilst fighting through hordes of enemies. And i do mean swarms of them. Pirates, police, both at once, thargoids launching thargons, anacondas launching worms, bounty hunters in fer de lances, rock hermits defending their claims, etc. etc. When not under attack, you were likely attacking something else. Quiet runs were relatively rare. It was hard-slog arcade action almost every inch of the way.

Elite 2 and 3 were the same as before, now as real as you could get in 16-bits. Almost no restrictions at all, seamless without transitions, atmospheres and gravity and cities, road and river networks, bridges, sprawling suburbs with white picket fences and churches with cemeteries and working clock towers, domed habitats and agriculture, mountains, craters, clouds, air density, resistance and frictional heating, proper inverse-square of radius gravity, the ability to fly and mod all ships, all of which are animated to varying degrees (working undercarriages, external hardpoints etc.), and again, shed-loads of combat; "exploration build", you say? Pfft good luck with that...

2 & 3 were awesome in all the same ways as the original, only cranked up to 11. They retained the decent UI and function-key mappings for the various systems screens (was a bit messed up in FFE but still usable).

And you played them the same basic way - trading your way up while fighting off hordes of attackers. The better equipment was usually worth it. That was how you progressed.

In ED all that's thrown out the window. I tried to play it the traditional way, trading up to bigger ships, but was only ever attacked on three occasions, and simply 'boosted' away each time. Zero combat experienced. And you quickly realise there's zero point in any of the upgrades since all the ships have the stupid space speed limit. No matter how much money you make, you're never going to be free to experience the fun of basic unfettered spaceflight. ED is intrinsically incompatible with that. The equipment upgrades make absolutely zero sense, but again there's zero point in trying to work it out because there's almost zero chance of needing any of it anyway - if you do get attacked, just run away.

So my experience of ED was basically like playing Euro Truck Simulator; launching, dot-tracking through the supercruise minigame without autopilot or external views, then docking, trading, or more often, not, since i could rarely find any reliable margins on anything i'd stocked up on, there isn't even a basic BBS system at any of the stations and the "duh, missions!" board and "passenger lounge" are so toe-curlingly dumb and wooden i can only cringe at every offering, its neurotic conditions and spurious rewards.

I don't want "experience points" or "reputation points" or "engineering materials", i just want to be free to fly the damned ship without restrictions, find reasonable trade routes and fight other ships with mainly fixed beam weapons, shields and missiles / ECM's, in zero-G free space - just the basic minimum features we had in the previous games. Just flying a ship, in "real space", with full control, defending my precious cargo of whatever against relentless waves of pirate clans and police.

ED is nothing like that. In comparison, it's a slide-show, trying to tempt you into playing more by flashing an ankle of possibilities it can never actually fulfill. It's a drag queen. An imposter. The real Elite must be tied up in the janitor's closet in its underwear. It looks Elite-ish, but doesn't play anything like it... and the things it's missing are where all the fun was in the previous games. Full flight control, no nerfs, and merciless waves of assaults on almost every flight.

ED is not Elite. It's a completely different type of game, abandoning the freedom and scope that made its predecessors so compelling.

Its basically a space-trucking arcade game with Jumpgate-like instanced 'combat zones', space speed limits and transitions for the transitions... and as such, an anathema to this lifelong Elite fan..

"The restrictions on basic movement are the main reason i can't play ED. " ..
. Yep :)

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/369641-Off-Ship-Storage-2-4-if-not-when
 
How is average life expectancy of singleplayer games? No, I don’t ask you for how long people are playing a regular singleplayer game, but how long the game withholds the price and sales? One, two, up to three years, no more and then you have to launch next one. I suspect that at some point of game development, DB has realized the potential of ED and decided to extend its lifetime to be able to add thing like spacelegs, atmo planets with life and why not populated planets? So, the only way to do this is by making the game multiplayer one. Now FD is learning what the hell a multiplayer game is and how it is working.
 
How is average life expectancy of singleplayer games? No, I don’t ask you for how long people are playing a regular singleplayer game, but how long the game withholds the price and sales? One, two, up to three years, no more and then you have to launch next one. I suspect that at some point of game development, DB has realized the potential of ED and decided to extend its lifetime to be able to add thing like spacelegs, atmo planets with life and why not populated planets? So, the only way to do this is by making the game multiplayer one. Now FD is learning what the hell a multiplayer game is and how it is working.

What gives you that impression?
 
The need for such a thread per se shows the state of this game. It shouldn´t be pointed out to anyone, who calls himself "game developer", that the current RESs and CZs game mechanics are place holders or 1980s style game mechanics. It is like needing to point out to your car mechanic, that one of your tires are flat -it should be obvious to him.

Btw. I wonder how it is reviewed at FDev taking a technically modernized version of an 80s game as a basis for expansion in an online environment. It seems like taking a car from the 1940s, create it with recent technology and then running it at a 24h race against most recent racing cars, while trying improve and develop basic things at the same time. What I want to say is, it is at least a very uncomfortable starting point. This is backed by the delays we have seen, the quality and execution of each major update and the statements of Sandro Sammarco.

Thanks for another completely unconstructive post, you managed to add nothing to the discussion.

Well said.

People on this forum love to disregard steam and the steam spy stats but the truth will always be that Steam is the single largest game distribution platform on PC, to think that Frontier developments, a relatively small company can sell more copies of this game from its own site than from steam is ludicrous.

It's clear that the majority of sales for this game went through Steam, so to try and disregard the numbers makes no sense unless your in denial.

That's actually not true, they sold ~3 million copies and only 1.2 million via steam.
 
no ppl have sayd the game was perfect even before the beyond announcement. no game is perfect, theres allways room for improvement, and although i dont agree with the op saying it will be a big fail he does have a point.

ppl in this thread sayng its a troll thread, that because others think the game is dull but they dont then the problem is the other ppls fault. dudes wake up, they are bringing us beyond because the game is in fact dull. it lacks basic game mechanics. ppl who think its fun to be on a 2 hour journey in supercruise are ruining the game, devs take feedback and think all is fine due to some mindless dudes who think playing with a joystick is enough.

Sorry, there is no point in discussing with someone who is clearly unwilling to read.
 
No, it's very clear that Steam sales are the minority. For a start, many people had bought E: D before it ever released on Steam. There are also Xbox and PS4 players. It would appear to be yourself disregarding numbers. Tell me, what are the total Steam sales? And how many copies of E: D have been sold in total (as per the latest information we have)? Both these pieces of information are readily available, and prove your statement false.

Yeah you have to remember when ED first launched it wasn't available on steam for a fair while. It was only sold on Frontiers web-site and of course through the Kickstarter campaign


Remember though everyone who bought through the Frontier store received a free Steam key, and it added to the total supposed number of players/buyers as in they were counted twice! Probably helped things look great in the finance reports. Folks seem to have forgotten this.

FDev have always used unusually vague and misleading wording whenever talking about their total game sales. There's likely a good reason for this such as make them look better than they probably are. It's always been stated in some nebulous description like "Elite franchise sales" which they also stated included merchandise and even the free beta demos which many received for Xbox. I got one. So with one game purchase I likely counted as three Elite franchise 'buyers' when including the Steam key and Xbox beta demo license.

And it's somewhat funny to keep seeing those on one side of the debate flip-flop on whether Steam numbers are valid. Steam numbers and stats seem just fine when used to show how great the game is doing. But Steam numbers are apparently wrong and useless if used to support how poorly the game has done. Pretty funny actually...
 
Last edited:
Remember though everyone who bought through the Frontier store received a free Steam key, and it added to the total supposed number of players/buyers as in they were counted twice! Probably helped things look great in the finance reports. Folks seem to have forgotten this.

FDev have always used unusually vague and misleading wording whenever talking about their total game sales. There's likely a good reason for this such as make them look better than they probably are. It's always been stated in some nebulous description like "Elite franchise sales" which they also stated included merchandise and even the free beta demos which many received for Xbox. I got one. So with one game purchase I likely counted as three Elite franchise 'buyers' when including the Steam key and Xbox beta demo license.

And it's somewhat funny to keep seeing those on one side of the debate flip-flop on whether Steam numbers are valid. Steam numbers and stats seem just fine when used to show how great the game is doing. But Steam numbers are apparently wrong and useless if used to support how poorly the game has done. Pretty funny actually...

I know I have a steam key available but i have never activated It, so I will never be on the steam charts. I would think there are many others that are in the same boat. Basically it is impossible to tell how many people are playing the game.

But when it comes to steam stats I will always say on steam, for instance the players in the last 2 weeks is around 140,000. This is pretty good and the only state we can use to judge the player base on steam. Concurrent players only say how many player are playing at that specific time or the average over a day. It does not tell you how many people have logged in and played in that day.

Using steam stats is fine as long as you use the correct ones. Concurrent players tells you very little.

Also it only tells you about subset of PC players not all. At the moment ED seesms perfectly fine with the player numbers in steam. Sure the more there is the merrier though.
 
Remember though everyone who bought through the Frontier store received a free Steam key, and it added to the total supposed number of players/buyers as in they were counted twice! Probably helped things look great in the finance reports. Folks seem to have forgotten this.

FDev have always used unusually vague and misleading wording whenever talking about their total game sales. There's likely a good reason for this such as make them look better than they probably are. It's always been stated in some nebulous description like "Elite franchise sales" which they also stated included merchandise and even the free beta demos which many received for Xbox. I got one. So with one game purchase I likely counted as three Elite franchise 'buyers' when including the Steam key and Xbox beta demo license.

And it's somewhat funny to keep seeing those on one side of the debate flip-flop on whether Steam numbers are valid. Steam numbers and stats seem just fine when used to show how great the game is doing. But Steam numbers are apparently wrong and useless if used to support how poorly the game has done. Pretty funny actually...

Now that can't be right as I bought my main game through the Kickstarter campaign so no steam key at that time so cannot be counted with steam at all.
 
Remember though everyone who bought through the Frontier store received a free Steam key, and it added to the total supposed number of players/buyers as in they were counted twice! Probably helped things look great in the finance reports. Folks seem to have forgotten this.

That's just not correct. Players could generate one, if they wanted to.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/148965-Elite-Dangerous-Steam-Keys

I'd advise getting your facts right before you start on missives about sales, steam keys, player numbers.
 
Last edited:
Remember though everyone who bought through the Frontier store received a free Steam key, and it added to the total supposed number of players/buyers as in they were counted twice! Probably helped things look great in the finance reports. Folks seem to have forgotten this.

I would suspect that few players who bought the game outside Steam would then obtain the Steam key and run it through Steam. Why would most people bother? Besides, it won't end up with double-counting as a sale is a sale - you don't count someone using a Steam key to run something they've already bought via another platform as a sale.

Basically, unless you have a shred of evidence to back up your assertions, then your analysis here is utter rubbish.
 
No, it's very clear that Steam sales are the minority. For a start, many people had bought E: D before it ever released on Steam. There are also Xbox and PS4 players. It would appear to be yourself disregarding numbers. Tell me, what are the total Steam sales? And how many copies of E: D have been sold in total (as per the latest information we have)? Both these pieces of information are readily available, and prove your statement false.

http://massivelyop.com/2017/08/15/elite-dangerous-has-passed-2-75-million-sales/ total sales are at 2.75 million, that includes expansion sales so you can't tell how much of that is actually the full game or just the expansion, and if that is accross multiple Platforms or just PC.

Steam sales are at 1.2 million, so if the 2.75 total covers all platforms, then it's logical to assume the majority of sales on PC were via Steam.
 
In my opinion, E: D today is in pretty much the same situation as it was originally - it's a game that doesn't follow the "industry standard" (quoted as there isn't really an industry standard for games, but hopefully you can understand what I am trying to convey). Personally, I think this is why the forum is so toxic on occasion - some gamers do just seem to want an interactive story that you can play and complete. E: D is not that. You can't complete it, and while it does have some story elements I think it would be a bit of a stretch to say there's much story. There is a lot of lore, but this doesn't make a good story (e.g. the Silmarillion vs. The Lord of the Rings). The story is very much a background element - in fact, the friends I do have that play E: D aren't aware of any of the story at all.
I concur with most of your post. Regarding the story (it is the same with most of my friends btw.), it can´t be a good thing, that content created by FDev is hidden to players, who only play the game (and I am not talking about easter eggs here). And GalNet is obviously not suited to convey a story.

Your take is that FD made a mistake in not including these things. My take is that they don't necessarily want them in E: D, just as these things weren't in the original. They aren't an oversight or sign of not keeping up with the gaming industry, they simply aren't that important to E: D. Some features (squadrons, for example) will appear in the future. I don't expect lore videos (or any other video) to appear, though - nor do I want this. I have other games when I want a story.
But there is a story, why waste it? (I know I am exaggerating a bit). Regarding the game mechanics, I also think FDev swims against the current on purpose at times. But other times, like the first instalment of 2.1 the question "They can´t be serious?" arose to me. So many basic aspects miscalculated, overlooked and disregarded. I think, this is why we get Beyond for free, FDev knows they under delivered with Horizons, despite the massive delay of it. And that is also why I am very sceptical about Beyond. As you can see even at this time, the overhaul of Engineers despite changing a lot, the outcome might not be an improvement. Since you still have to wait and praise RNGesus for spawning the right USSs. The underlying game mechanics remain unchanged, which is what most people criticize.
 
I concur with most of your post. Regarding the story (it is the same with most of my friends btw.), it can´t be a good thing, that content created by FDev is hidden to players, who only play the game (and I am not talking about easter eggs here). And GalNet is obviously not suited to convey a story.

But there is a story, why waste it? (I know I am exaggerating a bit). Regarding the game mechanics, I also think FDev swims against the current on purpose at times. But other times, like the first instalment of 2.1 the question "They can´t be serious?" arose to me. So many basic aspects miscalculated, overlooked and disregarded. I think, this is why we get Beyond for free, FDev knows they under delivered with Horizons, despite the massive delay of it. And that is also why I am very sceptical about Beyond. As you can see even at this time, the overhaul of Engineers despite changing a lot, the outcome might not be an improvement. Since you still have to wait and praise RNGesus for spawning the right USSs. The underlying game mechanics remain unchanged, which is what most people criticize.

I think that's a very fair comment and I mostly agree with it.
 
Noooo! It failed! I can't take any more! We are doomed, DOOOMED I tell you! I've no option but to fly all my ships to Sag A and nosedive the core! Waughh!
doomed-we-are.jpg
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom