That last sentence though is pure conjecture because just like there was never a laid out release feature set, there isn't one now either. Its basically pay me now ill do the work later. You don't know if they are trying to get it right or cramming it out the door to move on.
Did Betas raise the question that the game was not ready for launch?
- Thread starter Salkinius
- Start date
That last sentence though is pure conjecture because just like there was never a laid out release feature set, there isn't one now either. Its basically pay me now ill do the work later. You don't know if they are trying to get it right or cramming it out the door to move on.
Correct: you don't know.
There are one or two things that we know about for sure that seem to me to be encouraging, however. The NPC AI Programmer has been working on a pile of stuff (probably) for 1.2, and has posted about it on the forums. Whilst we can argue that that stuff should all have been in the first release (I would say that - indeed, there is still stuff needed to make harder NPCs, so that solo mode is not easy mode that I have not heard is being worked on, and which I think should have been in the first release. Much (but not all - there are people who genuinely want a solo game) of the pain we have all seen about open vs solo on these forums would probably not have happened had the NPCs been sorted out beforehand), the fact that those fixes are coming does not suggest a company trying to cut and run with the bare minimum. It sounds more like one that has seriously underestimated the effort and resources required, but is still trying to do the right thing, though the lack of some simple statement on this is very bad PR.
Absolutely, from the posts it looks like Ms Avory is doing exemplary work - especially around docking and the whole issue of accidental fire. But sadly I feel her work is getting lost in the mire of posts on this forum.
It's the kind of thing that is ripe for a dev blog post on the improvements in AI in 1.2.
One of the biggest issues, and one of the reasons negativity runs rampant on these boards, is the fact that FD does not communicate what they are working on or what we can expect outside of the next major patch (and even in terms of 1.2 we have very little detail). This lack of communication undermines players' trust in FD, and as far as I can tell they don't care or are simply oblivious to the fact. Better communication would go a long way towards alleviating community angst, and yet there is no sign that that will ever happen. They seem to intentionally keep us in the dark and somehow expect us to just trust them.
Yeah cut and run probably isn't a good way of putting it because even if they just want to get it out the door they would still need to push as much content as they can to drive dlc sales. And frankly I've never heard a dev say there is a long term development plan post dlc, it's one of those things that gets thrown out there as if it's a given. The people throwing it out there would like us to be silent and wait, but they will probably no doubt accept a harsh reality excuse if it comes and then any sort of feedback is just useless whining because the project is over.
And to be clear if the plan is: add content, drop dlcs, bug fix then move on, I'm ok with that, i don't expect them to go broke trying to entertain me or meet my personal criteria for best space game. I just want them to come out and say, this is what you get. X is what we consider your monies worth. The fact they won't do that though leads me to believe they haven't because nobody is going to like the answer. Which probably isn't even their fault, the community has gone out of their way to paint this game as something it's not, and seem to have no problems promising the world on the devs behalf. Perhaps the devs are also optimistic, but they should know as well as anyone the realities of business, and that they cannot work on this for 10 yrs.
Which leads to my comment. If your gonna point out misconceptions don't follow up the comment with "but don't worry with time you will have everything" because nobody has gone on the record saying exactly what continued development means to them. And I've been as guilty of this as anybody. Which kinda steams me a bit. At release I spent a good deal of time in the newcomers forum telling some quite shocked customers that everything will eventually come together and be fine. But after doing some research every assurance I gave was actually the result of optimistically interpreting non committal comments, and the ever present "the devs said in x thread" purple monkey dishwasher shenanigans.
If pessimistic bombast and lies are to be called out, I think optimistic interpretations should too. Neither is doing us or them any good.
What you are playing isn't Elite. It's Asteroids in perfect 3D, where the money you collect is your score. I didn't pay for Asteroids, I payed for a MODERN game in a huge sci fi enviroment. I didn't read up on what I could expect. I just saw the trailers and the other videos and thought that Elite would be awesome and suspected that it would contain a living world. But Elite is a shell full of small 80's mini-games in 3D. Mini-games that don't effect each other, other payers (unless you shoot the poor CMDR down) or effect the world in general... what so ever!
It's DEAD!
Hey man this is now a 25 page thread... Which means that the topic has to be worth discussing. If this thread get's closed down... it would just be another stake on the pyre.
Sigh... these white kniggits.
I seriously doubting the seriousness of these defending posts. I don't think anyone expects a complete game on release when it comes to MMOs. What people do expect is a game where the gameplay that's actually in the game works. And that the game world is thought through and developed to the degree that it is immersive. How else is the game going to retain its players?
Perhaps if you learned to use "Multi Quote", you could have saved us a few pages. 
Promising tomorrow will be a brighter day without specifics seems to do the trick for now.
Whenyou're taking flak,your're right over the target. I remember when the release date was announced, people were quite worried but hopeful that FD pulls out bunny and david copperfield out of the hat. Many put theyr hopes to the "plot" but that turned out to be a dud. Personally i was worried about bad reviews of a rushed release and low metascrore ( = less revenue, less glorious future for elite. Think what you will about MS , i found it not always but generally to be a accurate enough. Btw, im talking the user reviews, not critics) But, mostly positive feedback took me by the suprise. However, i didn't dare to say this back then, i know its easy to say this now, but i was quite sure that the gamers will sooner or later smell the coffee and that house of meta numbers starts to shake, (I believe ED had 7.6 shortly after launch give or take) since then the score has been dropped down to 6.9 and i suspect this trend will countinue at this pace. I'm confident ED will be better and better with every patch, but my concern is it too little too late.
It works for me. I'm loving it. Of course I don't mine. That is a major grind, but I've found I can actually take on NPC pirates in a T-7. Anymore, when they interdict me, I submit and then commence heating their shields (if they have any) and then their hull. It's great fun to see them go BOOM. But I digress. The gameplay works for me. I'm sorry it doesn't for you. But it works for me and a lot of others. We're loving it. It'll be even greater when they add more content.
The game is too easy and there aren't enough features in it that have real depth. I have tried the pirate role, trader, BH, miner, explorer, smuggler, and all of these roles lack depth and don't force the user to think critically in any way and usually have the player performing extremely repetitive and dull tasks simply so they can make more credits to buy better ships or upgrades. In fact, the only money sink in this game is ship/upgrade progression so there is no reason to earn credits from doing anything unless you're looking to upgrade ship which is in my opinion extremely shallow gameplay. The worst part is that there is no reason to feel any attachment to any of the factions or the galaxy itself because it just feels too fake and that nothing you do will ever truly have any sort of impact on the gameplay in any way that you or others will care about. This game is a sandbox with too much sand and not enough toys, 400 million star systems sounds impressive but its not as impressive when everything is just randomly generated and there is no rhyme or reason to it. FD needs to flesh out the lore in this game a fair bit, they also need to greatly expand on the so called "professions" and make them real professions because frankly, a cashier at McDonalds could qualify as a profession if we are going by FD's current measuring stick.
----
----
The game is so easy and so dull that I have taken to self imposed iron-man in open mode just to spice it up. I shouldn't have to do that but its the only way I can get any satisfaction out of this product right now.
----
----
The game is so easy and so dull that I have taken to self imposed iron-man in open mode just to spice it up. I shouldn't have to do that but its the only way I can get any satisfaction out of this product right now.
Last edited:
I know that an approximation to facts is the last thing some people want, but the 6 monthly report from FD does lay out a few things, in typically generic ways:
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12258941.html
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12258941.html
I guess if someone would be willing to take the time to count how much different forum accounts have posted non-satisfied comments just in the last week, we could have a pretty interesting number to come up.
The reason is all the same: not enough content and/or broken bits and pieces.
These are the "players" really. People who bought the game to PLAY it. And that's where ED fails them. With or without emotions. (Doesn't matter really, it's only a difference in the forum tone but it doesn't touch the fundamental facts they are referring to.)
Of course in these topics the other party appears as well, I would call them "the Believers". For them it seems to be more important to believe in the game (and in FD's bank account) than playing it. If they really would like to play, they had to face the same problems what "the Players" have.
I've seen already a lot of the believers turning. That's not a good sign. I am one of them (hell, in my first couple of posts here I also asked players to use their imagination! Anyway, those days are over for a reason.)
So I really would like to see how much different "players" have posted their doubts or dissatisfation lately. Might be interesting.
The reason is all the same: not enough content and/or broken bits and pieces.
These are the "players" really. People who bought the game to PLAY it. And that's where ED fails them. With or without emotions. (Doesn't matter really, it's only a difference in the forum tone but it doesn't touch the fundamental facts they are referring to.)
Of course in these topics the other party appears as well, I would call them "the Believers". For them it seems to be more important to believe in the game (and in FD's bank account) than playing it. If they really would like to play, they had to face the same problems what "the Players" have.
I've seen already a lot of the believers turning. That's not a good sign. I am one of them (hell, in my first couple of posts here I also asked players to use their imagination! Anyway, those days are over for a reason.)
So I really would like to see how much different "players" have posted their doubts or dissatisfation lately. Might be interesting.
Last edited:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYSupJ5r2zo <= asteroids 2d top down, shooting asteroids
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IYQvxtOlcE <= elite 3d, trading shooting asteroids and other space ships.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufXNQJAUjxs <= elite Dangerous, trading, shooting asteroid and other space ships.
I would argue it's (Currently) more of a remake of the original Elite from 1984......correct?
and yet you have news letters every week, and things like Wings and Community goals broadcasted BEFORE release. There are even dev posts from yesterday about issues.
I dont' see a lack of communication implies poor or even iregular communication?
and in comparison other companies such as Valve and Half Life 3, Frontier is a paradigm of dreamlike behaviour.
So effectively your arguement is they haven't pushed out a road map, and fleshed out specific details.
I do agree with your sentiment. but they don't suffer from a lack of communication. They just need fine-tuning, wouldn't you agree?
However I've learned in recent months, If you run and agile/scrum based project, it's time based, not feature based.
What get's released with wings, is what it is.
So first off why imply stuff is missing if there was never a laid out feature set.
Seriously, you can't STATE stuff is missing, if there isn't a feature list to compare with.
Your arguement wouldn't therefore stand up in a court of law, and it's a technicality I'm not going to let people get away with
More-so-ever,
1) if their is a launch window, was already decided for q4 for maximum profit to help fund the game - > why complain? Are you suddenly against developers getting money to continue?
2) their launch window includes Booking in of Amazon servers and their expected use.
3) feedback that came in too late for the launch window to implent or improve certain features successfully so naturally they are delayed to another launch window (see Scrum/agile development process)
or do we run with fan-boy, forum rage of sentiment and emotion, are you saying you'rd rather have the opposite?
you'd rather wait 3 more months, delaying the project let's hypothosize shall we?
1) profits diminish, meaning less funds to develop with.
2) heamorage money for the amazon servers,
3) and have more systems at launch that need to be investigaed/debuged at the same time, making debugging/fixing/balancing harder.
Because the majority of you are smart enough to understand on an intelectual level, from the three points I laid out, are valid enough reasons to launch a bare-bones product and limit the bleeding away our backing money, and increment after the fact, following the dev pattern we've seen established - even if you don't like it. Yes it's not ideal, but it's the smart play to make.
How would you rather have it be, and what consequences for the product and our community would you be willing to take otherwise?
Last edited:
I see where your argument goes and it makes sense for sure.
However there's one important part which is missing from it: the general standard of quality. And software development is also not exempt from it regardless how the market is conditioned to believe that in the past years (in lack of proper feedback possibilities).
It doesn't matter what was stated before release and what not. Releasing a product to the wide public is a commercial act and the product then falls into the general quality standards of a commercial product. Period.
It's valid to use arguments like "it's not finished" or "they told it's not fully functional", etc. as long as the product is pre-release. It's ok to offer a pre-purchase option for those willing to buy an incomplete (in general quality standard) product because they are fancy to be part of the development (or at least to believe that).
Once a product is released, it should meet some general quality standards: in usability, in reliability, in reflection to it's purposes (marketing statements included) and has to meet the general satisfacrtory level of the genre. That's called fair trade.
That's where the game industry is bleeding in the past years making financial excuses or others to explain themselves. (Lately some players (the "believers", see above) are even happy to do that for them for free.)
So the argument of "this hasn't been stated before" or "if you have done a research before", or "because the company needs money", etc. doesn't hold water. Never did, never will. No matter how many times these arguments are used, it won't keep people from turning away because the general lack of quality and standards a game as a product also has to meet at release.
Last edited: