I have no answer to that. I never was good with kiddies.
Frontier's Annual Results have been published (June 2018 to May 2019), showing a record year and Elite passing 3 million basegame sales
- Thread starter StuartGT
- Start date
I have no answer to that. I never was good with kiddies.
DeletedUser191218
D
I did mate. It had a bunch of info on it, including financial ratios (I explained a couple of them). You should go back and re-read.
No, not at all. Way back in the '80 & '90s, white-knights in relation to gaming were people on forums that protected and tried to belittle or denounce anything or anyone that said anything against the game.
A great example is the MMO Conan. It launched to huge fanfare, looked great and played so-so. Players started complaining about the various aspects that were failing. There were huge threads of complaints and of course, the other players trying to protect the game. Not long after, maybe 4 months or so, the game moderators started banning players that posted negatives about the game. Complaints or anything else.
Then whoosh, the game folded.
In relation Elite, I think it is awesome graphically. But as a 'game' it is huge failure (my opinion). But factually, it is buggy and lacks all forms of code and quality control. That is borne out by facts, not here-say. Yet you'll find players here who will argue against that. To me they are white-knights. One has to realistic in both the positives and the negatives. But these people prefer to attack the player and not the issues.
I can guarantee, I can post a list of negatives and someone else will argue the veracity regardless of the facts. That to me is asinine. But then I'm from a different generation so can't agree to the whole new, everything is wonderful rubbish that is peddled here like free candy.
That's what you just did.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Are you referring to these post of yours?
Frontier's Annual Results have been published (June 2018 to May 2019), showing a record year and Elite passing 3 million basegame sales
"Tell me not what is real, only that which seems consistent with what I want to be real" - everyone from around 2014 onwards. It always comes down to perception. Haters always find something to criticize, fans always look at their fave games in a positive light. It's all subjective and leads...
Frontier's Annual Results have been published (June 2018 to May 2019), showing a record year and Elite passing 3 million basegame sales
Yep, and Elite Dangerous itself launched on 16th Dec 2014. Neither the basegame nor Horizons 2.0 launched during the week before FDev's Xmas/NewYear break - they launched a week earlier than that, leaving time for post-launch hotfixes. This is one of those wonderful moments where a statement...
These posts do not show the facts you need though.
Last edited:
As I have not seen any of those yet, I have to conclude that there are no white knights. Everyone that I have seen in the forums including me have something in the game they are not happy with or things that could be improved.
Age of Conan and Conan Exiles are both still going. Can't think of any other Conan MMOs.
Agreed
Except as a game it is doing very well and cannot be a huge failure. Just because there are aspects you don't like doesn't make it a failure.
Not sure what you mean by code being missing. As to bugs, yes it has bugs, but doesn't seem to be any worse or better then most other MMO games. Qaulity control seems reasonably okay to me. Not great, but not bad either.
No they are not white knights. They just don't see the bugs as being as big a deal as you and understand that all modern games are full of bugs.
That depends on the negatives. Most of the negatives seem to be opinions, which people are certainly allowed to disagree with and not be called names.
You have called me a white knight plenty of times, even though there are parts of the game I am not happy with and feel could be better. While I don't want bugs in the game, they will always be there with games as massive and complex as ED. 99% of the time though I don't even notice them, so my game is virtually bug free.
White Knights just aren't what they used to be. Overhyped amateurs. They never come when you need them. I could faint here on the spot cry "Save me, brave knight!" and I bet none of them would come and do their job. It's just for show, really.
DeletedUser191218
D
Are you referring to these post of yours?
Frontier's Annual Results have been published (June 2018 to May 2019), showing a record year and Elite passing 3 million basegame sales
"Tell me not what is real, only that which seems consistent with what I want to be real" - everyone from around 2014 onwards. It always comes down to perception. Haters always find something to criticize, fans always look at their fave games in a positive light. It's all subjective and leads...forums.frontier.co.uk
Frontier's Annual Results have been published (June 2018 to May 2019), showing a record year and Elite passing 3 million basegame sales
Yep, and Elite Dangerous itself launched on 16th Dec 2014. Neither the basegame nor Horizons 2.0 launched during the week before FDev's Xmas/NewYear break - they launched a week earlier than that, leaving time for post-launch hotfixes. This is one of those wonderful moments where a statement...
These posts do not show the facts you need though.
They do, if you understand what you're looking at.
Maybe your time is better spent doing something other than arguing about something you demonstrably don't fully comprehend? I know mine would be.
The fact you stated, in one of the responses you just provided, that we might need an accountant to work out basic growth numbers is rather telling. It's not your fault. I assume it's not your job to understand this stuff so nothing to be ashamed of.
Last edited by a moderator:
Some great points, tacitly projected
I did say, in my opinion... I accept, that you may not see or encounter the bugs and there-fore your game is bug free, others, but we'll stick with me, have seen them. Some over a year old and yet they never get addresses.
As for the quality, I remember one release where a lot of players couldn't login or were being continually disconnected. When they/me complained here we were told it was our machines, our ISPs our WiFi, our anything but the game.... 3 months later after nearly giving up, we got a patch that fixed the net issues. Meaning the problem was in the game all along. Those type of white-knights..
Remember the GNosis jump? players getting killed and players getting sent to detention hundreds of LYs away.. Where was the quality control then?
Where was the quality control that allowed the missions messaging system to spam us repeatedly? Where was the quality that allowed us to take a passenger missions paying trillions of credits? Where was the quality that allowed players to get grade 5 modules for Grade 1 components?
As for the complexity of the game... if Fdev can't manage the complexity then really they have no business creating it. The game being complex is not a valid arguement for the lack of quality.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
I do undesrstand, I am starting to have my doubts you do though.
Can you please point to where in the information in those posts we can find:
- the share price drop you referred to (which date, or dates if applicable) and
- the date the forecasts you referred to made it to the public domain
Sure there are bugs over a year old. The same can be said for a great many other games as well.Some great points, tacitly projected
I did say, in my opinion... I accept, that you may not see or encounter the bugs and there-fore your game is bug free, others, but we'll stick with me, have seen them. Some over a year old and yet they never get addresses.
They are not white knights. If they are not experiencing the issues (I have never had these issues), them saying check your ISP, wifi, network etc is just being helpful. But as it goes I believe it was ISP related, but something FDev could fix themselves, but obviously took time to find and lock down.
Not too sure if that is the purview of quality control. That would be the designers area. The seperate mechanics were all working as intended which is what QA would be checking.
Again I don't think that is the purview of quality control. Theres is "does the mechanic work, yes or no", the rest is implementation which obviously had some minor issues. The Grade 5 for Grade 1 components from what I can remember you had to do something very specific for you to do that, something easy to not find. Passenger missions, again worked perfectly fine, they just payed out far too much, again not an area of QA.
They seem to be managing it perfectly fine in my view, with some ups and downs, just like any other games company. As to the lack of quality, that is just your opinion. Quality on the whole seems good to me.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
I think you both make some valid points and as usual it is a sliding scale where we all sit at different points. I do really enjoy the game but I must admit that there are some extremeists on both sides which can get irritating.
Eg some people try to pass what in any other game off as a bug as a design feature, such as ai ships which escape by the skin of their teeth but 2 mins later jump back in full health ready to fight again when your own shields are barely back online...... Or how about that FGS which can magically chase your 50LY jump range ship .. in any other games these would be glaring bugs top of the pile to fix but not ED.
Then there is the whole thing about certain features being too hard to implement .. features which other games have had for years such as when you find a base it is persistent in your game or stuff like ai wingmates and protect the convoy missions.
FD are proessional Devs. This should not be too hard imo.
I love the game despite the flaws... But flaws they are imo.
Of course there have also been the doom mongers continually predicting the game is doomed unless XYZ, often XYZ being something which was never even mentioned as being in the game. One day the game will be doomed but I see no reason why it would be any time soon. It may however evolve so far from the game I was expecting, and the game I feel FD were pitching that I no longer want to play. In many areas I thought the game made more sense at launch and has gone backwards.
I am really interested in what the 2020 update brings. what with new currencies in the game (credits, materials, data, and now arx I reckon the game is getting more and more a F2P vibe about it, but 2020 could still be great).
Last edited:
I find this a curious statement from somebody who claims to have played over 4000 hours. So you really spend all that time here, despite not enjoying the game? Seriously?
So i guess you have massive expertise in quality control and rolling out software? Or what do you base that statement upon? For i am just a newbie here, only 8 years in semiconductors test and merely a little little over a decade in software test. And based on my observations here, i would say that QA generally is doing an acceptable job here. You can see the typical sign of a too small QA department. Just in like so many other software projects. But within the scope of their capabilities, they seem to generally do a good job.
I mean yes, there are a number of bugs. Like landing gear is not visually retracted, graphical glitch here and there, plenty of stuff like that. But most of the bugs i hear about would be cathegory 2 or 3 here. So "fix when the urgent things are resolved" and "optional to fix when there's time left". The number of gamebreaking bugs generally is rather low. (Especially when also comparing this to other games i have played over the years, and which despite having way bigger problems still were successful. )
Sure, once a while a big problem gets through. We also had plenty of bugs which were around only at launch, but not yet in the beta on just the day before. That's side-effects of last minute bugfixes at other places. No QA has the chance catch bugs which were introduced merely hours before rolling out software. We had some exploits, where the QA just didn't catch in time. All kinds of things did happen. But really, considering which bugs i already saw in my time as tester, and especially which bugs were accepted during the release of commercial software (sometimes on DEMAND of the customer, to rather have the software earlier than without bugs), complaining about EDs QA and general qualty is not a statement about ED. It's a statement that the one posting doesn't have understanding on software development.
All that being said, where i do agree is that ED has a number of issues which are based on suboptimal design decissions. A number of problems the game has is based using a P2P infrastructure. (Including all the "miraculous NPC repair" and "teleporting NPC" issues. Fixing that on a client/server structure would be trivial, but in the P2P infrastructure this can get insanely complex in no time. ) Switching to another net infrastructure would require huge effort, so it probably will never happen. As long as part of the actual infrastructure is in hostile hands (anything from badly configured and problematic systems to actual manipulation happening on some players computers), some problems of the game can't be corrected.
I very much am ready to critizise a number of design decissions of this game. It's easy to point at PP and engineer, where the flaws are all to apparent, but i could also make a long list of other things, which could have been done better. Many of them have the smell of "doing it right would have taken too long, so management decided to go this way instead". I might be biased here, but i have seen this happen too often. Usually when some managers had their bonus payment tied to delivering software at a certain date. Some obviously were made to save some money. (Which usually doesn't work out too well. Cheap solutions at the start just create extra effort later. I guess if somebody at FD calculated how much extra work they had to do to get things running acceptable on the P2P infrastructure, they might realize that going for a traditional client/server architecture would've saved them money. )
So no, not all is well here. But almost always when somebody brings up quality issues, i can quickly see that the person doesn't have any idea of what he's talking about. (And no, not everybody has to be proficient in software development and quality control. But i really hate it when somebody who has no idea about a job goes around, claiming that those who do the job are doing it badly. )
Last edited:
Powderpanic
Banned
This question is always quickly dusted off because FDEV won't say. Most other popular games scream about their player retention but not for this team.
People pull out the steam charts showing a very small relative number and tout that as proof the game is popular as ever. Since no one can argue that most people don't log in via other means, its a great tool for popularity. Sits around the 8k mark and peaks to 14k or so when something happens and then drops back. Pick any hearsay you want. Also, throw in "most people play in solo" which we know is factually wrong but a great narrative.
We know from Mobius members that when they log in, the players on that group are virtually nill.
The numbers we see taking part in CG's are always very low and if you look at the number of ships docking at popular starports, also very low relative to the 3million copies sold.
Probably explains why they are focusing on other games.
Powderpanic
The Voice of Griefing
Last edited:
Completely agree. There are many things I think should be in the game already and I really do not like the lack of persistance regarding ship. But they concentrated on other areas, such as multicrew and holo-me which in my view weren't really needed until space legs becomes a thing.
Agreed. These should be in the game already instead of other above.
In my view, they concentrated on the wrong things as mentioned above, they add lots of small things when they should concentrate on 1 or 2 large things.
The update with SLF and passanger missions, in my view should have been dedicated to SLF and a fully fleshed out NPC system. Passanger missions could have had a whole update all to themselves.
I am in the same mind.
Totally agree. Also things like the game is a failure when it blatently isn't. It's pretty succesful considering the rather small dev team they have working on it, 100 is not a big team when you consider games like RDR2 and GTA have had 1000s working on them for a large number of years, RDR2 took 8 years to develop.
Pretty good, eh? Quite stable, too. It actually seems to improve. It's a miracle to me with all the engineer bullcrap but numbers don't lie.
Do we? But anything fitting your narration will do, doesnt it?
Are we forgetting that Elite offers you an experience? that is the game. This experience is unlike most other games and possibly unique that is also the game. There are extras and challenges along the way that you can opt in or opt out of, they add to the experience. Their focus doesn't always align with every player (if ever) that is the challenge of their market. Their quality control of delivered stuff seems to be questionable and at times seems rushed or in conflict with the quality of their marketing/hype, but they seem to get by (as opposed to getting ahead).
And all of this makes them money.
And all of this makes them money.
Last edited:
DeletedUser191218
D
Mate, you don't know what a return is. For the 3rd time now I do not have the date of share price drawdown available. Nor do I have the inclination to work it out to determine the period analysts are referring to. I'm taking it on advice from people who have prepared this analysis that there is a drawdown in reference to revenue forecasts - and cursory research on the metrics available supports this.
You're demonstrably trying to keep an argument going for no reason other than to be difficult. Might I remind you of your role in this forum? Currently, your approach to moderating this conversation is....unconventional.
The share price could ONLY drop in response to the information becoming public. Otherwise it would have resulted from insider trading.
Please now. You are arguing nothing. If you don't want to believe what everyone who has looked at this stock from a professional viewpoint has concluded, then by all means. This conversation has become preposterous now. Let it go.