Console Update
- Thread starter David Braben
- Start date
Nobody's looking for it. It's in your face and you have to go out of your way to avoid it.
the quote is just supplemental. the premise that work would wait until pc was finished is entirely not believable. You wouldn't be able to gauge if or when a console release could be scheduled if you weren't testing during the updates and you'd want to release the console port as early as possible. Not wait for months and months for pcs to get to a point where you're happy and then check only to find out that maybe consoles could have been released months prior. None of that would make any business sense.
It's not seeing what you want to see. It's knowing someone's blowing smoke when they say that they're saving the planet by recycling when you know almost everything "recycled" goes in a landfill.
If you know the premise is a lie, then why was it made and maintained for months? There's only one reason you'd want to do that, and it's to retain sales when you know revealing the truth would hurt them.
There's a wider gap in believing the narrative provided vs believing a much more self serving corporate conclusion.
Believing the narrative forces you to conclude that fdev was flying blind. After over a year of odyssey development before the alpha they made it to release day and were totally caught off guard by the release's performance. I guess there aren't any weekly meetings and tests done during development and nobody tells the managers anything.
Then you have to believe that during odyssey's post-release updates, nobody knew what was going on and every update was a discovery and experimental test of changes to see if it would do the trick. All the while you would have to believe that console development was sitting pretty waiting for some unforeseen date in the future to be tested to see if performance was up to par. And it wasn't until, conveniently, after the holidays that management finally admitted defeat in PC and determined that console would never reach acceptable performance.
That's what you believe and you think withholding information that would be detrimental to sales if revealed is silly? It's not like they needed to do anything to maintain this lie. They just enforced an information blackout and never made their final decision known to subordinates. Easy Peasy. It's not like everyone needed to be in on it and maintain it. We're not talking keeping the existence of alien contact secret. This would be a trivial thing to manage. You literally have to do nothing.
"FD wanted to sell a product but failed to make it." If you strip away the hearsay, conspiracies, guesses, assumptions and rants: what exactly is your counterpoint in one or two sentences?
The point to that snippet is that you can't be optimizing for a platform without testing that what you're doing is actually optimizing for that platform.
Which means that the whole idea that there was no update to consoles status because it was not being done until after pc wasn't true. And i dont think anyone really believes it is true. it would make no sense to do things that way.
and if you did believe it was true, it means that all of that work optimizing towards the platform was done without testing. So (in your head). And then the decision to cut the platform was done prior to pc being finished and prior to any real work on the console port (since that hasn't started yet). So it's performance must have just been guessed at. Or we are to believe the decision to cancel console had nothing to do with odyssey performance and really it's due to other reasons and it's just conveniently occurring now.
They failed to make it 9 months ago. They didn't tell anyone they knew they were going to cancel the update (which they knew was likely to happen very early on) until this month to delay the impact to sales.
And i think it was very early on because the info blackout makes the most sense if it was already a significant possibility. That possibility of cancelling wasn't communicated though. Even though many players saw that writing on the wall, because this entire farce was fairly obvious to those who have been following things from the start.
that's my counterpoint.
lol, "it's not when I do it" evidently. You have no proof of anything in regards to what happened internally at FDev, just conjecture, yet you believe it is out of the realm of possibility that someone would purchase Odyssey to review bomb it and then get it refunded. I mean, someone who's thousands deep in Star Citizen is going to balk at spending $40 on Steam and then get it back again for the chance to disrupt the success of their game's main competitor...
I mean, it's impossible, no-one would ever go to such lengths over a video game..
Are you suggesting that what I said above is equivalent to that? I mean, I never said it accounted for it all, but a little can go a long way, and I think it's more conspiratorial to suggest that it's somehow impossible and beyond the realms of imagination, almost to the point of being willful denial...
Interesting that you would bring up 5th column espionage, evidently you are aware of such goings on, yet still deny any of that could happen here, so, ok, going along with the 'tin foil hattery' it could be suggested that that's what you're doing here. I have sincere doubts, and frankly it's passed my mind more as a way to explain the tragic lack of awareness, but it's far from possible to entirely rule out.
While I'm at it, next level conspiracy, as you put it in a previous response to me, could be used to suggest, in a similar vein to your point above - though made in jest, surely, that there's internal sabotage at Frontier. There's a lot of money at stake in regards to Star Citizen, not just for CIG, but also for
that effort wouldn't make sense, plenty of players had a lot of reasons to negatively review odyssey. Only the dlc was negatively reviewed.
It would make more sense if there was some coordinated effort from outside the players to negatively review the base game, which became positively reviewed a year before odyssey was released. If star citizen players were being all anti-elite by review bombing, it wouldn't make any sense to negatively review something that was already getting negatively reviewed. They would negatively review the base game - so their efforts would actually matter.
Review "bombing" odyssey is as useless as fortifying an already fortified control system in powerplay.
the 5th columning post was a sarcastic joke response to the question posed. There is a mile wide gap between a business doing something that businesses always do and a bunch of people orchestrating the negative reviewing of odyssey to be negative while it's already being reviewed negatively by actual players but those evil non-players totally ignoring the base game.
cig doesn't need nor care about frontier's success or non-success with elite dangerous. Elite's been released for 7 years and star citizen hasn't and star citizen makes more than 2x the income frontier development makes in all their games combined (edit, this is actually closer to 1x the income of frontier. close to 80mil star citizen vs 90mil fdev. i was looking at a figure that combined a couple years.). Their income keeps going up, year over year. If elite couldn't hurt them by now, they'll never be able to. There's 0 motivation to "bomb" elite dangerous ....it isn't something they've needed to do in the past (as we see the base game increased in postiive reviews since the game's launch) - so what would the motivation be now?
Your idea that there's a coordinated effort to hurt elite from the outside just doesn't make sense. Elite is being hurt from within by it's own merits.
Last edited:
I'd say your analysis is almost entirely wrong. The time to inflict most damage is at release, as you said Elite's rating had gone from mixed to positive quite a while prior to Odyssey, the general consensus for that rating would be much more difficult to swing/influence. Far better to get in early by hurting Odyssey's release and then hurt the main game by claiming because of Odyssey, Elite is dead. Of course, you didn't/don't see that happening at all.. oh wait.
Now you're getting into it, familiar territory would you say? Still wrong due to the above though. There are more ways to skin a cat as they say and I can see for you that the only path that shows that it can't happen has to remain the narrative at all costs, don't want people thinking for a second that there is another path that could ring more true..
Many a true word said in jest as the saying goes and many admission made as a projection too. Maybe I'm jesting too, eh?
So you're confident that know what's going on in CIG now, too. Are you trying to imply that CIG has the superior and firmer financial position? They are a one game studio with all their eggs in one basket, a far more precarious position than Frontier Developments. And objectively, if you compare the development of both Elite & Star Citizen, I think the reverse is true too, I could easily imagine CIG being quite concerned about the traction that Elite had been getting into the lead up to Odyssey (as you rightly pointed out) and what Odyssey would bring to build on top of it in relation to keeping its backers/players onboard. Is it surprising that the loud chorus of Odyssey criticism coming from certain segments tend to match up pretty closely with features that are in Star Citizen, like ship interiors?
Though I'm not really suggesting that CIG is behind it, you chose to focus on that part, though I wouldn't entirely dismiss the possibility either, as I said, there's a lot of money involved. I think it's more along the fanboy lines, like I said (again), the ones who are hundreds/thousands deep into Star Citizen and, in the lead up to Odyssey, were rightly concerned that Elite was at least achieving parity with one major key feature that SC had that Elite didn't. I don't blame them entirely either, I'd probably feel the same way if I were in their shoes, though I chose not to back the Star Citizen Kickstarter so I personally consider that a bullet dodged.
That doesn't mean I want Star Citizen to fail whatsoever I want to point out, but maybe there's a mindset that believes that for Star Citizen to succeed, Elite has to fail. And if that's the situation, I have an issue with it, as any gamer who wants to see the industry grow might too, not just those who enjoy spacegamestm. It would also be fallacious, would anyone really believe, given the nature of the history of SC's development (hi, full featured release in 2015 is knocking) that losing it's main competitor would actually cause development to increase? Or would they just rest more on those laurels and their dubious methods of raising funds? I wonder what the total development cost of both Elite & Star Citizen are up till this point? Healthy Elite is probably the best option to see Star Citizen come to full fruition, if people started leaving for Elite, maybe CIG might have to do more than sell jpgs of ships, for instance.
It doesn't fit your narrative so I understand completely that you would want to dismiss it.
There are mitigating circumstances that surround Odyssey, you choose to ignore them despite the whole world going through the same circumstance, and that's entirely your prerogative based on your own motivations and viewpoints. I will put Odyssey aside for a moment and question the idea that Elite on it's own merits deserves the criticism aimed at it, and you have contradicted yourself by quoting the truth that the base game is a positively reviewed game on Steam now. Your own metric shows that there is a lot of merit to Elite, yes, some of the criticisms are valid though again, I suggest all these issues be looked at through the lens of a game that is in ongoing development and still filling in major parts of its framework, its development funding almost directly related to sales of the game and arx, so the equation of time & resources is always at play.
I think if one were to look objectively, and past the naysayers and doomers, most decisions made by Frontier make more sense in an overall wider picture, I would even suggest that some of the franchises that Frontier have developed go a long way to moving Elite forward in development if you look at some of the mechanics present in them. Elite has made steady progress but is still building the foundation, y feature may frankly be more relevant to implement after x feature, notably, full atmospheric worlds, ship interiors, fauna & flora etc, which all benefit from the implementation of onfoot mechanics ahead of them. And some of the features that need fleshing out will get the attention down the line, but maybe the vocal minority are blinded by the fact that x niche mechanic (but no less important in the bigger picture) that needs work comes at a cost of y big feature that the majority (including them) want implemented first. Again, development resources / time equation, directly tied to finance via purchases of the game.
Isn't that the least conspiratorial way to look at it? If Frontier can fund further development of Elite through purchases of the game/expansions/arx then we get to see the full enchilada. I don't see anything that contradicts that as historical fact, and I'm not suggesting there hasn't been challenges/setbacks that required sumounting - I mean, I know which thread I'm posting this in - the resolve to fully develop Elite is what I'm referring to, and the same people who are saying x feature isn't coming to Elite were pretty much the same who said that onfoot mechanics weren't coming to Elite either, but yet, here we are, and they're still not happy, the narrative of doom (for whichever purpose, hi adsense) must be upheld so the goalposts move, and by the way, have you heard about this game that's way better than Elite? Here's my code to get a bonus...
Last edited:
@Bottom Hat being in his best faculties and spot-on on a inconspicous Wednesday afternoon...
End of times indeed!
2,000 hours to get a master's? I wished.
It's crazy talk to think that Frontier would lead people on in the hopes of making some more money. It's just unfortunate for the console players that it took so long for them to figure it out, and for the VR players, and for everyone who wanted any of the cancelled features originally slated for the game.
Also, yes, I'm one of the Star Citizen fanboys who collectively ganged up to say mean things about Odyssey. We are the reason Odyssey was negatively received. The "new planetary tech" is fueled by fairies, and if you don't believe in it, your FPS drops. It is too late for you to stop us.
Also, yes, I'm one of the Star Citizen fanboys who collectively ganged up to say mean things about Odyssey. We are the reason Odyssey was negatively received. The "new planetary tech" is fueled by fairies, and if you don't believe in it, your FPS drops. It is too late for you to stop us.
1 ECTS is 25-30 hours. A one-year master is 60ECTS, or about 1500 hours minimum. A good student can go much faster though, about 1000 hours for a one year master, or 2000 for a two year master, is pretty common.
Look, this isn't an argument, it is just contradictions.
I came here for a good argument, not the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says...........
I came here for a good argument, not the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says...........
If it helps FDev didn't have to make the statement that started his thread, the actual situation hasn't changed but now we know the intent going forwards. So they are being more open & honest than they absolutely needed to be.
If there is to be only 'one codebase' that does suggest there will eventually be a point where horizons only clients no longer work though (which was not said) hence the motivation to placate console players with an account transfer to the PC platform.
The actual motivation behind that is unknown (outside of FDev) and I don't think Darth Ender is being entirely serious with their conspiracy theories.
I thought he meant you could get a masters for 20,000 dollars, possibly from one of those places that sells degrees or doesn’t that happen nowadays.
Said every "truther".
1. Your theory that it's outside influence that negatively reviewed odyssey just ignores the negative feedback of actual players of odyssey that was universal during launch. There was no need to pile on because the players were all piling on. Your idea that this is the best time to review bomb would be true if players, themselves, were not heavily motivated to review. And they were. And they did. There are far more players than there are motivated outside star citizen players looking to buy a game to negatively review it. It's not a matter of your statements not fitting my narrative. It's that your narrative dosen't make any sense given your own hypothetical scenario. There is no motivation to do all the work to negatively review something already getting negatively reviewed so that it can be negative. That doesn't reach any goals. That doesn't do anything better for this hypothetical star citizen undermining.
What would make sense for them is to undermine the base game. The base game went from mixed to positive in just the year prior to odyssey's release. That means it's not buffered by a huge number of reviews. It's also the most seen review when searching for elite dangerous and would have the most impact on the game overall. It would make more sense for this hypothetical undermining to occur here, where their fake reviews would actually matter. Yet this did not happen - at all. It's still mostly positive.
I dismiss your conspiracy theory because it has no logical motivation. If they existed in numbers, they would have attacked a target that makes sense, not one that didn't need any outside help. Unless your theory also involves them being incredibly stupid that they would concoct such a plan and then waste their efforts.
It's just a bad theory that doesn't fit.
Mitigitating circumstances? No. You can't blame covid for odyssey's launch. It had nothing to do with the events that happened then. Nor does the supply chain issues. So what mitigating circumstances leads to not knowing what your codebase's state is in, forcing a release before you do and have tested that the release is ready, have the server situation be untested that needed to be created to deal with last minute pivots in horizon upgrades, and the plethora of other issues that directly proceeded and preceded the release? Was there a massive computer virus that went around and ruined everyone's code right at the last minute before anyone knew? no.
The merits i'm talking about are not specific to the base game but they start in it. They end in odyssey. That's why the negatively exists there and not in the base game. The paid pre-testing that ended up being completely and hysterically pointless because things weren't fixed that were identified and then they got worse once released is a merit the game is being judged on. The poor performance is a merit it's being judged on. The on foot fps gameplay is a merit it's being judged on. The overall focus of odyssey on planetary surface foot gameplay vs space ship stuff is a merit it's being judged on. The history of obvious bugs in a release that can be seen by all if they play a bit of the game is a merit it's being judged on. Of not resolving identified bugs prior to release. The various gameplay loops being minimalistic grind-level mechanics is a merit it's being judged on.
There are a lot of things not to like about odyssey from a lot of players that is based on various real aspects of the game that players either saw first - exposed to odyssey as new players or have just grown too tired of seeing yet again for older players and they can no longer turn a blind eye towards. These are the merits it's being judged on.
There's literally no need to undermine from the outside. The game is undermining itself all on it's own just fine. And while many aspects related to the gameplay choices fdev made with odyssey's foot stuff are subjective and would normally be left to the whims of a mix of reactions from the playerbase, it's augmented by the bugs and performance issues that are much less subjective. A negative outcome is all but guaranteed.
None of this is relevant. Nobody is upset that progress is broken into steps and that those steps take time. That's not part of why players are negatively reviewing odyssey and it's not a part of any conspiracy.
We knew 100% that foot gameplay was on the roadmap and being developed. That was never a question. It was leaked years ago and that leak has proven accurate. What is a question is always whether or not the game will still be around by the time it is ready to be delivered. That's the thing players like to doomsay and imagine might be the case. And they have good reason to think it might never happen because there are numerous examples of fdev not delivering something for elite, especially after some initial beginning.
Where's the rest of powerplay so that the mechanic actually matters?
Where's any recognition that CQC still exists?
The time it's taken to get from barren planets to colored skybox planets has been years, while competing games have all been apparently much more visibly active in that department.
The lack of new ships, the time it's taken to add other ground vehicles.
most of the game's gameplay and mechanics appear to be the 1st step or base level (minimally viable), lacking polish and/or completeness found in other games.
These things add up to make players less confident that something is ever going to happen and so to avoid disappointment when it does, they default to believing it wont.
But again, none of this is contrary to the idea that fdev withheld the likely outcome of consoles being cancelled for a long time to get over the holiday sales period...maintaining a statement message of intention instead. more sales is what business is about. but how you get them isn't all equal.
Elite players are generally generous to fdev, and I think the base game review rating is pretty obvious of that. To have disappointed so many in such a magnitude is no small feat. If things turned around the reviews would relatively quickly turn around as well. But it's been almost a year and due to the need to spend most of that time fixing and optimizing a release that shouldn't have happened, there hasn't been enough time spent addressing the subjective gameplay complaints players have or adding to the space non-walking side of things. On top of the numerous bugs that still exist and performance quality issues.
Fdev left players with no other choice but to show them how much they didn't like odyssey thru reviews because they weren't listening to the players anywhere else. Not as a concerted organized effort, but because of a shared negative experience so great that it triggered the desire to make that communication in so many different people who normally wouldn't have done so. They didn't listen to what was being said about the game before release. They weren't listening to what players want in forums or during live streams. It's been 1 way barely-there communication for a long time prior to odyssey's release. There's a willingness to tweak balances but by the time players can voice anything, most if not all of some feature is already set. Normally that wouldn't be an issue but there is a misalignment that's been growing between fdev and elite's players. A priority list of development that has diverged from the priorities of players. That's something that needs rectifying.
Odyssey has this feeling of grasping for a new playerbase market. And it seems pretty clear based on the numerous gameplay choices that were made to compartmentalize on foot gameplay from the rest of the game that this was their primary intention. However the launch killed the intended new player swarm and the existing players were mostly the ones willing to struggle thru and try it anyway. But the existing players weren't looking for what odyssey is when it comes to foot gameplay. The choices that are aligned for some new playerbase are not aligned well to the existing. Maybe we'll grow to like it more. Maybe not. But the gamble backfired.
Anyways, the future of the game and it's eventual doom are not really the point. We were talking conspiracy theories, not the ethics of propping a game up with falsely positive reviews so that it keeps going despite the steps between being objectively bad at times for the greater good of the end product - which we have to take on faith will come.