Like I said, factually incorrect, not sure why you are struggling with this.
No Man's Sky recent success is good sign for Elite and future Space games/sims
- Thread starter DoppelGanger
- Start date
Like I said, factually incorrect, not sure why you are struggling with this.
Well aware thanks, what does Sean's personal finances have to do with it and where are you ascertaining your information on his personal finances from?
hahah, nice, you guess figures, I call you on it and you then ask me to provide proof with figures you know cannot be attained, good one, I'm not falling for it.
Yes, there was a factual inaccuracy on your part on claiming they said 300 people were working on Elite specifically (hint, no one said that even when mentioning the total employee count) when we're discussing that post. Why you keep doubling down I'm not sure. Unless you're now saying not even 60 people are working on Elite?
I've never said grind is in the mind. In ED grind is a choice. In NMS the early game is pure grind. You have no choice in that grind. You have run around constantly shooting rocks otherwise you die.
But I think people like that kind of thing. As it gives that repetition a purpose, to them it stops being a grind. For me being forced to do these repetitive tasks constantly is not my cup of tea.
In ED I can potter around and go at my own pace, I don't notice the repetition as it can be several weeks between doing a similar activity. So it isn't a grind as I don't notice it.
All games are full of repetition. Can't get away from It, it's whether you notice it or not and with ED that so depends on the player and how they play.
Rafe Zetter
Banned
official site says 17 - financials says 25 - take your pick.
Either way the 312 the Fdev has officialy reported is still over ten times the manpower
- update
financials of HG is that they have assets of £2.8 millions - but a net WORTH of just £277k. (assets minus costs)
compared to FDev's net worth of 38 MILLION and an income stream of £7.8 MILLION.
David and Goliath was never truer - and David is stealing players from ED, and more than a few if forum posts are to be believed, or are you going to call the people posting that they are enjoying NMS liars as well?
Context, you made the statement as a direct comparison, I simply cleared it up. Keep going...
Still disagree with this. ED is a game where "do 'x' to get 'y'" is in full effect. You can spread out 'x' as much as you'd like but you're still doing it or forgetting about 'y'. And if you don't enjoy 'x' then you can pound sand. And you can bet it's become an expectation with the power creep. You can't ask for loadout assistance without someone posting G5 bling fits even when you specify unengineered. Or people suggesting to get it engineered fast.
I would submit that NMS does not either since there is no difference in flight. The only reason there are atmospheric landings is because of your wild imagination.
Where on earth did I imply that?
No, I did not, a distinction you should appreciate as a stickler for pedantry as you've presented yourself. And also, a comparison of the companies, which is wholly fair because the resource allocation out of that number towards Elite is wholly within their control.
Why? It doesn't matter. Unless you're able to get a complete breakdown of the workload, project schedule, code details, design challenges of each game it's just a meaningless number. Can you show me in detail what it takes to create a Stellar Forge like ED has, and compare that with the engine used in NMS to create their universe? No, you can't. Only those companies can.
Key riced, you actually really think the employee count on it's own tells you anything? For frog's sake man, you cannot be this naive.
Last edited:
Rafe Zetter
Banned
not that wasn't a ruse - you've said I'm wrong - REPEATEDLY - that gives anyone who's read our posts the assumption that YOU KNOW THE CORRECT FIGURES.
That being the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY TO KNOW I'M WRONG.
I'm sure the correct figures are available somewhere, but FDev's are a matter of public record from companies house - because they are a publically traded company and it's a legal requirement - Hello Games however are not a publically traded company so I've gone by financials post in various places along with information elsewhere - I've done my due diligence as best as can be done in a short amount of time.
Now you do yours.
Still your move.
OR, do you concede that YOU DO NOT KNOW THE ACTUAL FIGURES, and were merely saying "you're wrong" in the hope of scoring some points without anything to back it up, because if that's the case, you don't know me very well do you.
If you tell me "you're wrong", you better damn well have something other than your finger in your pocket (fake gun) to back it up sonny.
Should those considerations expand development multiplicatively?
If they do does that not call into question the forward thinking of past development and/or efficiencies of current development?
From the outside the best details we can get can only lead us to ED being a much less efficient game to develop by your considerations presented here. In which case the argument still stays as valid as it ever was.
So just because I cannot provide figures means you are correct? righto, that makes sense of course. You provided figures, I called you on it because I don't believe you, either prove it or don't, it's your figures on the line, not mine.
Sole Hunter
Banned
They started with 6 devs on early development then got to about 12-16 devs. Anyway still lower than frontier development you get the point.
Last edited:
The validity is proportional to the amount of information used to support that argument. And in this case the amount of information is a couple of numbers and: they're both space games. (Sorry Pi)
Rafe Zetter
Banned
err no?
I was merely pointing out the proportional sizes of teams and financials - although those two keys facts do say quite a lot. - As I said elsewhere even if FDev's staff was equally broken down btween their stable of 3 games or even 3 current games and a 4th in production that still outstrips HG project staffing ability by a factor of 3:1 - 78 vs 25 (or 16, which makes it almost 5:1)
You can take from those what you will - but usually more staff and money = better when games development is concerned, or would you argue that too?
Good luck making that one fly.
You are also correct, we have no clue which stellar forge takes more work to produce - considering NMS has significantly more variables than ED's with flora and fauna and much more intricate topography, it's far from being an absolute certainty that ED's was/is more complicated. Graphical representation is meaningless - it's the LINES OF CODE THAT MATTER.
next!
I stand corrected.
When the counter argument is that product A is harder to develop while product B is also comparably complex and B does more with less than A I think there is room for comparison. This isn't an in depth deep dive we're talking about.