Where is the paid 'content' LEP holder get for 'free'

[Devari]

NO. There is a difference between expect and intend.

Intend: have (a course of action) as one's purpose or intention; plan.

Expect: regard (something) as likely to happen
Likely: such as well might happen
Might: used to express the possibility that something will happen

It is a possibliliy that it will happen. What part of that do you not understand. A possibility is not a figure that is set in stone.

It is the exact reason why they say expected lifespan. So they can change it if they want to. If they said intended lifespan. That would be a completely different thing as they would fully intend to shut the game down at that point.

Fact.

You are back to making utterly nonsensical arguments because you don't want to accept a clear statement from FD about how long they will be developing Elite.

Sorry but at this point I'm going to have to put you on my ignore list because you are not making a remotely reasonable or coherent argument. You are refusing to trust clear statements directly from FD's Annual Report and there is literally no better or more accurate source for the information that has been provided.

 

[Komemiute]

It's true, though. Why set a "deadline" if you don't plan to adhere to one? Just leave it open-ended and you'll avoid the trouble associated with breaking one.

Like most businesses, Frontier seems to create a lot of their own problems.

I assume you literally never worked. Or you're just in retail...

 

[Sylveria]

That's utter nonsense to claim they have "no idea" how long they will continue development. They have given us an extremely specific timeframe for how long they intend to continue development. They can revise this stated goal in the future but unless they do so it should be accepted at face value.

Nonsense, eh?

So tell me where your crystal ball and tea leaves are. For all they know, their business could fail within the next year.

Speculation does not define certainty.

I assume you literally never worked. Or you're just in retail...

Assume whatever you wish.

 

[Devari]

As Max Factor has directly informed you above, you appear to not understand what "expected" means.

I have already informed you that FDev can change their market expectations for Elite in their future Annual Reports if they so wish.

Unless they do this you have no reason to believe this development end-date will change.

 

[Devari]

Nonsense, eh?

So tell me where your crystal ball and tea leaves are. For all they know, their business could fail within the next year.

Speculation does not define certainty.

So now you're suggesting that FD could "fail in the next year". Seriously? That's your "argument"?

It's a shame really. I just cleared out my ignore list at the start of the week and I'm already having to put people back on it for making utterly nonsensical arguments that don't contribute in any way to the discussion we're having here.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

You are back to making utterly nonsensical arguments because you don't want to accept a clear statement from FD about how long they will be developing Elite.

Sorry but at this point I'm going to have to put you on my ignore list because you are not making a remotely reasonable or coherent argument. You are refusing to trust clear statements directly from FD's Annual Report and there is literally no better or more accurate source for the information that has been provided.

I have never seen someone who just cannot accept when they are wrong as badly as Devari. It has nothing to do with trust or acceptance, its all to do with comprehending what is written in front of me instead of making up crap to suit a silly agenda/purpose.

 

[StuartGT]

You are back to making utterly nonsensical arguments because you don't want to accept a clear statement from FD about how long they will be developing Elite.

Sorry but at this point I'm going to have to put you on my ignore list because you are not making a remotely reasonable or coherent argument. You are refusing to trust clear statements directly from FD's Annual Report and there is literally no better or more accurate source for the information that has been provided.

Ignoring a user for educating correct usage of the English language is a little extreme. PSA: "expected" != "intended"

 

[Sylveria]

So now you're suggesting that FD could "fail in the next year". Seriously? That's your "argument"?

It's a shame really. I just cleared out my ignore list at the start of the week and I'm already having to put people back on it for making utterly nonsensical arguments that don't contribute in any way to the discussion we're having here.

I'm simply acknowledging that although they make a projection- it doesn't mean they know for certain how long they'll be in business.

If that's truly "ignore-worthy" then by all means, do so. You'll be adding quite a few people to that list if you can't even acknowledge something as simple as that.

 

[Devari]

Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned that's in no way a definite statement of intent.

A specific and direct quote from their 2017 Annual Report is "in no way a definite statement of intent"? Seriously?

Sorry, but you realize that shareholders are spending money investing in FD on the basis of receiving accurate information in that report. Right? You understand that FD is very much expected to make a "definite statement of intent" when they provide that type of information?

You do realize that the Annual Report is an official FD publication that relates to a publically-traded company?

I mean I thought I explained all of this already. Did you read my prior posts in this thread?

Ignoring a user for educating correct usage of the English language is a little extreme. PSA: "expected" != "intended"

It wasn't correct use of the English language. It was a nonsensical argument attempting to justify ignoring a direct statement from FD.

 

[Luniticisi]

Ignoring a user for educating correct usage of the English language is a little extreme. PSA: "expected" != "intended"

Ignore lists are for those who can't handle being challenged, it's weak and I will personally never use that function. Never have.

 

[Sylveria]

Ignore lists are for those who can't handle being challenged, it's weak and I will personally never used that function. Never have.

Agreed. Burying one's head in sand doesn't make the world around them disappear.

 

[Thatchinho]

Well that is very interesting. That is why I have been telling everyone to read the Annual Reports, it's quite remarkable how much useful information you'll find there written in very direct language that is readily understandable to their shareholders. That clearly puts the total development lifetime of Elite as ending sometime in late 2021, i.e., approximately 7 years of total development, certainly less than the 10 year "plan" that many people have tried to claim. We will be 4 years into development by the end of 2018. That means that FD will need to deliver a full Horizons-quality expansion every year from 2019 through to 2021 in order to deliver adequate value to their LEP holders.

That is quite a lot of work that FD has ahead of them, and it also sets a hard cap on when we can expect space legs, boarding actions and inhabited planets to be developed, i.e., a maximum of 3 years after Beyond is finished at the end of 2018.



It just keeps getting better. That literally refers to "promised content".

So I guess that FD did make a "promise" after all, didn't they?

I suppose the next question is, did they pinky swear though? I mean technically if not then it's not a "real" promise, right?

I need to go back and read those Annual Reports again. They are full of fun facts about Elite development.

Honestly, as someone who was well aware of this bit of the annual report I've been wondering what most of the fuss has been about in this thread.

 

[Sir.Tj]

A specific and direct quote from their 2017 Annual Report is "in no way a definite statement of intent".

Sorry, but you realize that shareholders are spending money investing in FD on the basis of receiving accurate information in that report. Right? You understand that FD is very much expected to make a "definite statement of intent" when they provide that type of information?

You do realize that the Annual Report is an official FD publication that relates to a publically-traded company?

I mean I thought I explained all of this already. Did you read my prior posts in this thread?



It wasn't correct use of the English language. It was a nonsensical argument attempting to justify ignoring a direct statement from FD.

I do understand the context of the word expect not being a definitive statement.

Sorry, but I'm afraid you've sort of backed yourself into a corner on this one.

End of the day, feel free to believe what you want, I've no problem with that, but by the looks of the consensus of the majority of the posts in the thread you're wrong.

 

[Devari]

Ignore lists are for those who can't handle being challenged, it's weak and I will personally never used that function. Never have.

I have no interest in continuing a nonsensical discussion with someone who refuses to accept clear statements in an official FD publication. I have even less interest in discussing a topic with someone who is making an "argument" based on suggestions that FD never "promised" something, especially when their Annual Report states that they did in fact sell "promised content". At some point trying to continue that discussion with those individuals is just not productive.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Ignore lists are for those who can't handle being challenged, it's weak and I will personally never used that function. Never have.

I would rep you more if I could. Same here. I have no one on my ignore list.

 

[Devari]

I do understand the context of the word expect not being a definitive statement.

Sorry, but I'm afraid you've sort of backed yourself into a corner on this one.

End of the day, feel free to believe what you want, I've no problem with that, but by the looks of the consensus of the majority of the posts in the thread you're wrong.

Sorry but when does "consensus majority of the posts in the thread" determine if someone is correct or not? I mean you realize that we live in a world with an objective reality that is not subject to how many forum posts may happen to agree with it?

 

[StuartGT]

A specific and direct quote from their 2017 Annual Report is "in no way a definite statement of intent"? Seriously?

Sorry, but you realize that shareholders are spending money investing in FD on the basis of receiving accurate information in that report. Right? You understand that FD is very much expected to make a "definite statement of intent" when they provide that type of information?

You do realize that the Annual Report is an official FD publication that relates to a publically-traded company?

I mean I thought I explained all of this already. Did you read my prior posts in this thread?

You appear to be trolling the modteam now.

It wasn't correct use of the English language. It was a nonsensical argument attempting to justify ignoring a direct statement from FD.

FDev's exact statement of "At 31 May 2017 the expected remaining life of the franchise is considered to be four and a half years" is both:

• A factual statement at the time of the Annual Report's publication
• Not equal to "At 31 May 2017 the intended remaining life of the franchise is set to be four and a half years"

I hope this lesson has been useful to you. Please remember to do your homework for GCSE English this evening

 

[Devari]

Honestly, as someone who was well aware of this bit of the annual report I've been wondering what most of the fuss has been about in this thread.

I think it's because some people have tried to make ludicrous claims in this thread such as "FD never promised anything" or "FD might deliver paid content over 20 years" when those suggestions are very clearly disputed by direct statements in the Annual Report.

You appear to be trolling the modteam now.

He was not posting as a mod. That is very clear based on the color of his posts. Are you suggesting here that he was posting in the capacity of a moderator? That can be objectively disproven.

FDev's exact statement of "At 31 May 2017 the expected remaining life of the franchise is considered to be four and a half years" is both:

• A factual statement at the time of the Annual Report's publication
• Not equal to "At 31 May 2017 the intended remaining life of the franchise is set to be four and a half years"

I hope this lesson has been useful to you. Please remember to do your homework for GCSE English this evening

And this is when you also get added to my ignore list for continuing a nonsensical argument. Have a nice day!

 

[Sir.Tj]

Sorry but when does "consensus majority of the posts in the thread" determine if someone is correct or not? I mean you realize that we live in a world with an objective reality that is not subject to how many forum posts may happen to agree with it?

As I said you're welcome to believe what you want. Honestly it makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever.

I'm just saying like many others that quoting FD and repeating that you believe that them stating that they "expect" something to happen is a bit of a stretch to saying it's a definite statement of intent.

But if that's what you believe then that's fine by me.

Time as they say will tell.

And no for some reason I can't turn the flair off my posts but I'm posting as me not as a mod.... It'll all end up being my fault at some point anyway.

 

[Luniticisi]

I have no interest in continuing a nonsensical discussion with someone who refuses to accept clear statements in an official FD publication. I have even less interest in discussing a topic with someone who is making an "argument" based on suggestions that FD never "promised" something, especially when their Annual Report states that they did in fact sell "promised content". At some point trying to continue that discussion with those individuals is just not productive.

You keep saying that people are ignoring a "definite statement of intent" whilst completely ignoring the fact that that statement uses ambiguous words like "Expected" and "considered" as I have said before, those words are not there to make the sentences look pretty, they are there to clearly say 'This is our best guess at the moment' ... and the statement is over a year old.

there is no "Definitive" timeline on ED mentioned in that statement .. only speculation based off of facts.

that's all there is.