Player numbers dropped?

RevCaoticFox

RevCaoticFox
Electric Kite said:
Shinrarta was as busy as it ever was tonight. Was full of wanted commanders and we did some good hunting. If youre just going by what you hear...pro tip - dont, as its usually greatly exaggerated. I go by what i see and expereince with my own 2 eyes.
Click to expand...

During the sale for last month (edit* Q4 release in December) , my Squadron picked up 60 recruits (to add to our 20), we currently have 5 active members (those 20 were active until Q4, and dedicated players for MONTHS). Is there a problem? Most definitely. Is there a "fix"? Probably not. Is the game dying? Again, probably not. Is the playerbase TANKING? YES!
 
Last edited:

babelfisch

babelfisch
Ramsey Sparrow said:
Possibly all of it, I haven't noticed OP mentioning any item of your list.
Click to expand...

Every single item has been mentioned in the thread though, I guess that was the point.

Ramsey Sparrow said:
I think you're generalising and you're off the mark on your main point also: people kickstarted and sponsored Elite Dangerous, based on the features promised and outlined. FD does owe players the features and level of quality promised the moment it took their money to make the game. If they made it of their own budgets, you would have been correct.
Click to expand...

Kickstarter only provided a fraction of the initial development costs. The bigger part came from Frontier. Also, sponsored is the wrong word, since they got a game for it.

Marc_Hicks said:
Is your Avatar meant as a direct mockery of Old Duck? ;)
Click to expand...

It's both, mockery and support. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

amigacooke

amigacooke
babelfisch said:
Kickstarter only provided a fraction of the initial development costs. The bigger part came from Frontier. Also, sponsored is the wrong word, since they got a game for it.
Click to expand...

Frontier misled from the off. They gave the impression the money was vital, but it appears it was not.
 

amigacooke

amigacooke
GreyAreaUK said:
It would be vital to demonstrate enough interest in the product to procure more convention funding.
Click to expand...

Ah, so it was the interest, not the money that was vital. Wish I'd know that at the time, my backing could have been considerably cheaper.

Hmm, so some say the money is vital, some say it is not! I wonder who is right?

If you'll pardon the cynicism, it was an exercise to shift the burden of risk from those who had control over the product (the developer) to those who had none (the KickStarter backer).
 
Last edited:

Stigbob

Stigbob
amigacooke said:
Ah, so it was the interest, not the money that was vital. Wish I'd know that at the time, my backing could have been considerably cheaper.

Hmm, so some say the money is vital, some say it is not! I wonder who is right?
Click to expand...

The people who are not making claims they can't back up.
 

GreyAreaUK

GreyAreaUK
amigacooke said:
Ah, so it was the interest, not the money that was vital. Wish I'd know that at the time, my backing could have been considerably cheaper.

Hmm, so some say the money is vital, some say it is not! I wonder who is right?

If you'll pardon the cynicism, it was an exercise to shift the burden of risk from those who had control over the product (the developer) to those who had none (the KickStarter backer) using a refined form of blackmail.
Click to expand...

*shrug* Ok, whatever. Best of luck grinding that axe.
 

Stigbob

Stigbob
amigacooke said:
If you'll pardon the cynicism, it was an exercise to shift the burden of risk from those who had control over the product (the developer) to those who had none (the KickStarter backer) using a refined form of blackmail.
Click to expand...

No, its just unrealistic expectations.
 
Last edited:

amigacooke

amigacooke
GreyAreaUK said:
It would be pointless since you've already made your mind up.
Click to expand...

Didn't the KickStarter shift the burden of risk, at the very least partially, to those who had no means of mitigating that risk? i.e. You and me?

When I bought Elite and Frontier, there was no discernable risk, I parted with the cash and got the product. To get Elite Dangerous, I had to, apparently, risk the entirety of the cash, with virtually no guarantee. And that was because those best placed to judge the viability of the product wouldn't take that risk.

Perhaps I'm not the only one who has already made up their mind?
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser191218

D
amigacooke said:
Ah, so it was the interest, not the money that was vital. Wish I'd know that at the time, my backing could have been considerably cheaper.

Hmm, so some say the money is vital, some say it is not! I wonder who is right?

If you'll pardon the cynicism, it was an exercise to shift the burden of risk from those who had control over the product (the developer) to those who had none (the KickStarter backer).
Click to expand...

I think it's shameful conduct for a private company to ask for donations to build a product. Frontier weren't a start up with a new innovative product. They're a game developer looking for funding for a game to re-launch the business. The appropriate conduct would be a share issue. Instead you donated your money for them to grow their business and shareholders received the benefits of capital and dividend growth. It's not quite a ponzi scheme, but it's in that ballpark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom