Update 13, Narrative and Access to 4.0

No, there was a video where this was directly stated, that the new planetary tech was designed to make it easier to create atmospheric planets and that the tenuous atmosphere planets were the first tranche of planets to be released on the new tech, it is a direct statement from the devs.

Correct, all atmosphere types are now modelled in game by Stellar forge the behind the scenes work is done and it is now just a matter of "tweaking parameters" on how the different atmospheres impact the game e.g. they decided not to impact the flight model with the neglible atmospheres in Odyssey and it is precisely because all the fundamentals were in place that they were able to decide this close to launch. One thing that is uncertain is is it linked to local weather systems and how far down the line is that development which I assume would be required even at a basic level as we get access to thicker more dynamic atmospheres.
 
You don't seem to understand how DLCs work.
They're a package of optional, additional content, not a new baseline for all things being developed in the future.
Sure, FDev may choose to roll them into the base game at some point in the future, but there's no requirement for that.
The next DLC will be built off the 4.0 codebase, not the Odyssey one - the same as every DLC ever released by any company.

Note:
The SRV was obviously intended to be 4.0 content, not Odyssey content - so it was ALWAYS free.

that's nice in theory. But in practicality, fdev uses these "dlc's" as rolling out the progression the main narrative and evolution of gameplay experienced in the primary game (not an optional offshoot like cqc or some side-mission narrative).

This has been the historic MO for these paid updates - except cqc - so far. No reason to assume that's changing. Odyssey is only Optional if you dont really care about playing the full game or continuing to participate in the narrative. Same as horizons was only optional in the same way (though the content you missed there is likely to be far less important than what you'll be missing without odyssey).
 
No it doesn't.

No they don't, there's plenty of crap on consoles.

They removed CP2077 from the PS Store because CDPR decided that Sony was going to give refunds outside of policy without even asking them first; not because it was bug-ridden.
They have apparently removed charging for pushing updates. However, they still charge for a lot of other things. For one, 30% of every sale. "Visibility" ( an ad on the storefront ) starts at $25,000. And plenty of other nickle and dime fees, such as errors and ommissions insurance for thousands, foreign ratings boards like PEGI/USK that each console has to certify the game with are a couple more thousands.

A crap game and a bug filled POS are two different things.

Sony removed CP2077 due to complaints from PS4 owners. Let's try not to revise history, shall we? https://www.playstationlifestyle.ne...erpunk-2077-playstation-store-tough-decision/
 
that's nice in theory. But in practicality, fdev uses these "dlc's" as rolling out the progression the main narrative and evolution of gameplay experienced in the primary game (not an optional offshoot like cqc or some side-mission narrative).

This has been the historic MO for these paid updates - except cqc - so far. No reason to assume that's changing. Odyssey is only Optional if you dont really care about playing the full game or continuing to participate in the narrative. Same as horizons was only optional in the same way (though the content you missed there is likely to be far less important than what you'll be missing without odyssey).
Yep. And just like Horizons, when the next expansion gets ready to plop down, what's left of Odyssey ( it's seriously not even a full expansion now and definitely not worth the price of admission, even less than it was before ) will be rolled into the game same as Horizons was before it.
 
I think enought is enough. They tried to fix Odyssey, it failed, time to move on - would be the best strategy. And the fact that SRV went from paid to free content 8 month after release - probably point to a direction that they are thinking the same.
Can I haz your stuphz when you leave?

I'm an officially licensed BottomHat subsidy if that makes you feel more comfortable.
 
I am sure many thought like this about Horizon vs Vanilla too, until they merged them, and now Vanilla players could land on planets.
If we were in alternate universe where Odyssey DLC had Mostly Positive reviews on Steam - sure adding more content like new types of atmospheric planets would have been great for sales - but when your one and only, at present time, DLC has Mostly Negative reviews, you would want to put an end to it, and simply start over with a fresh new DLC.
So what ever new big content package they have in mind - it will probably not be in Odyssey any longer. That ship has sunk so deep that 13 updates later, players are still not happy with it.
I think enought is enough. They tried to fix Odyssey, it failed, time to move on - would be the best strategy. And the fact that SRV went from paid to free content 8 month after release - probably point to a direction that they are thinking the same.
Doomed was so much simpler in my day.
 
that's nice in theory. But in practicality, fdev uses these "dlc's" as rolling out the progression the main narrative and evolution of gameplay experienced in the primary game (not an optional offshoot like cqc or some side-mission narrative).

This has been the historic MO for these paid updates - except cqc - so far. No reason to assume that's changing. Odyssey is only Optional if you dont really care about playing the full game or continuing to participate in the narrative. Same as horizons was only optional in the same way (though the content you missed there is likely to be far less important than what you'll be missing without odyssey).
There's been precisely 1 (one) paid DLC released for ED.
I don't think you can claim an 'historic MO' based off that.
 
As far as we're aware they kept throwing money at the console versions trying to get Odyssey to work on them, one way or another they fell into sunk cost fallacy. Had they realised Odyssey wasn't going to work on consoles early enough and gone back to the drawing board for the PC version, to develop one they could port over, they'd have had to write off a bunch of what they had spent on development thus far. They didn't want to. So instead they got Odyssey out the door to recoup some losses, kept throwing more money into trying to get it working on consoles in spite of whatever insurmountable problems they faced for the best part of a year before giving up, and had to write the expenditure wasted on all that console development off instead.
That's an interesting take to consider that trying to make it work for consoles was a large factor, among others, in the delay of Odyssey. I tend to think that it was covid/wfh that was a largest factor in it, and probably still would especially seeing as it came right where crunch time would have been, but for sure I can see how trying to develop the expansion to work across platforms could contribute to certain issues with it.
 
Having been a PC user for the better part of 40 years, and been an IT field service engineer for a good portion of that
Me too. Obtained my first City & Guilds in Information Technology (way before the cool I.T was used) back in 1991. Then went on to systems engineer and hardware configuring and troubleshooting. I can tell you that I have a high end system and Odyssey runs flawlessly (in VR) and has since Oddy released. (I had a 2080Ti on launch day) I have never suffered the problems that other high system users claimed to have. In fact since Odyssey's launch I have never opened Horizons since.

There are many reasons why a self declared "great" setup (most think only of GPU, CPU & RAM amount) can have problems with not just this title but many. It could be that they have a - on paper good system, but the important Mainboard or Power supply are woefully inadequate. Prebuilds are notorious for corner cutting but as you are aware, many people see numbers and think "It's a great system" Many think 30 series must be better than an old 20 series GPU because it's newer and higher clocked etc... Even if they have a 3050 (Some just don't understand the last 2 power numbers) Also, many I see reporting poor performance don't always put up their full specs. Then you have the Laptop gamers, who are unaware of the disparity between desktop and mobile GPU'S. The motherboard is the heart of any system, and my guess is that these great systems with massive problems are lacking in quality components, and a high end board capable, along with the Power supply of providing a reliable amount of juice to serve up a pleasurable experience.

I see this so many times on the ED reddit (spit...I know) subs. They have the latest gaming powerhouse with a 3060 and 32GB, they just don't realise that the crap bundled with it is hampering their enjoyment.... But, yeah anyway, as I said, have been with Odyssey from launch, never had any running problems with it. I just build my rigs with quality bits. Also I can't remember where, but I read on some forum that the latest Intels are way above performance in ED than big red. Can't confirm as I only use Intels.
 
Consoles should be upgradable...like a pc essentially. Ram cpu gpu etc.
That's why we have pcs.
Because we can move up when the time comes rather than having to wait for next console release.
Seems daft they (console makers) never bothered or if they did it never caught on.
Anyways that brings me to the point.
Performance.
Let's face it odyssey is crap in terms of performance. Especially in VR.
Having to throw a big hammer at it to make it work isn't what brazen promised.
Just think that all the gumph about narrative etc pushes what's to me, the principle issue with this game, to one side...
Sorry if I appear sullen and downbeat, I'm out in the black. Has that effect.
No intention of coming back till the game runs ok
I say Make Amiga Great Again.
 
Ninja'd?

I knew someone would've already answered, but if there's one thing I've learned here, it's that if a piece of totally incorrect misinformation serves the purpose of continuing to mock the game, it will endure and gain traction. I wanted it in stark terms that this criticism is completely incorrect.
well, if U followed the thread, You´ll have noticed that I corrected myself earlier already, my remark applies for med orbitals nevertheless is true......
Not a big issue anyhow (at least for me), also wouldn´t have been if my remark for FC would have been correct.
 
I am probably missing the context here, and admittedly I didn’t play Frontier, but just at a glance here is a quick list of gameplay implemented in the elements shown in the right screenshot (planets, space, gas giant and star etc) that I believe you couldn’t do on the left one.

(as I said I may be wrong in some as I did not play Frontier so feel free to correct me):
  • Walking on foot in first person or land vehicles on planetary surfaces
  • First person or SRV combat on surfaces
  • First person planetary NPC and AI including in settlement missions or looting
  • Planetary POI and related missions outside settlements
  • Planetary prospection and material gathering from a piloted land vehicle
  • Planetary biological exploration
  • Planetary geological formation exploration
  • Alien ruins exploration and related gameplay
  • Space interdiction mechanics
  • Space signal sources and combat zones
  • Mission system integrated into a dynamic background simulator
  • Mining asteroids in all its ED variants
  • Asteroid ring extraction sites and related bounty hunting
  • Refueling mechanics in stars
  • Celestial bodies exploration scanning, probing and related mechanics
  • Space anomalies and Lagrange clouds exploration
Etc

Just to name but a few.
Ha! Just saw this. o7
 
Ninja'd?

I knew someone would've already answered, but if there's one thing I've learned here, it's that if a piece of totally incorrect misinformation serves the purpose of continuing to mock the game, it will endure and gain traction. I wanted it in stark terms that this criticism is completely incorrect.
Please accept my humble apologies...I shall wallow in my wrongness for the remainder of the day...😄
 
Ironically, had that second screenshot been taken just a few minutes later, it would have shown the star being incorrectly rendered in front of the gas giant:


Just one of the many 'graphical improvements' that Horizons 4.0 players can look forward to.
Was that @MacIntoc 's screenshot? Well, I never.. It's an unfortunate bug and I hope it will be resolved as soon as it can be. Still doesn't invalidate my point though. There was the infamous 500lyr jump bug in Frontier, still waiting for that one to be fixed, however. So, more complicated software = more bugs, but bugs are even being fixed more now than back then, so ironically, it adds another element to refute OPs claim that no-one cares these days.
 
Top Bottom