We're not talking about threats. Player numbers have dropped off a cliff since EDO launch and are lower now than they were in the build upt to release. Trust in Frontier and the desire to play the game has already been eroded for a lot of people. If you want to ignore it and call it scaremongering then go ahead. But the reality is that this trend will continue if Frontier can't:
I'm not ignoring it, I'm just not that invested in people's statements that a dev stream happening or not is make or break for them. Or the suggestion that it might be. I find that completely ludicrous.
1. Demonstrate that they're engaging with player's issues in a meaningful way, more than lip service from CMs (without this being a critique of the CMs themselves who, we recognise, are not themselves individually responsible for the information they're given, nor what the devs actually implement).
Again, who is anyone on here to make such a demand?
2. Demonstrate that they are capable of getting the game to a playable state in a timely fashion, rather than suggesting that things are implemented that we find out, simply, aren't (inadequate culling that was flagged in the alpha which remained in full release, for example).
Define 'timely' and 'playable state'. That will be different for so many people. For some it's not playable without full VR and that's not even on the cards at the moment.
I get that people want to know more of what's going on and yes that would be a good thing.
But these constant demands from people with such entitlement is just getting ridiculous. Not everyone is going to get the game tailored to their specific wants and needs and Frontier know they will never ever make everyone happy. That's an impossible task that should be recognised as such from both sides.
Even if a dev appears on a stream it's not guaranteed they'll answer the question you want answered (the general 'you'). It's not guaranteed they'll have knowledge in the field you're concerned about either. As I said earlier. CM's should collate answers to the most asked questions from the devs and relate those dev answers to the community.
And sometimes it's just going to be "we can't say too much about that at the moment" or "we are looking into it".
3. Demonstrate that they're able to meet with the claims they're making about what they have or can do with the game can be met in reality.
Again, they're not obliged to do any of this. What claims are you referring to exactly?
The dev stream and patch timed to come out with it takes us to the end of their first roadmap of fixes. That's why a lot of people are viewing it as make or break a break point for EDO launch and whether or not they want to remain engaged with the game and Frontier as a company. Pulling away dev engagement as part of that stream is an issue because it puts us back in a situation where the CMs are the only go-between, relaying information as best they're provided when they're not the ones working on the specific systems. It is not a healthy indicator that Frontier are confident that their updates will be getting to the root of problems that the game is facing.
I think if the CM's were the only go-between, that would be fine. Assuming of course that they info we get from them comes from the Devs. One of the reason I like hearing from the devs is to listen to a more in depth line on how things work in ED.
I don't personally feel the need to have an actual Dev answering my questions. If the CM's can do that based on what the devs have relayed to them, that's fine.
A lot of people have just arbitrarily decided that this is the make or break point. It's them making a point and it's now trendy. That's my view anyway.
The amount of doom and gloom posts I've read over the last 5 years... I've seen this repeat itself time and time again.
It looks like a reversion back to a previous situation where the management at Frontier are bunkering down and hoping community loyalty pulls them through without delivering adequately.
I guess there is some truth to that but lets not forget that Odyssey was released in the state it was due to the need to get it out before the end of their financial year and to please the shareholders. Then to patch it up later. This is what's happening but some people just aren't as patient or tolerant as others.
Discount it as threats and scaremongering all you want, but the player numbers and audience engagement for content creators is what's really speaking here.
They are threats when people say they're going to leave if blah or blah. I'd say 3 out of 10 of those do and 7 don't it's just hot air.
As for audience engagement, as a content creator, since Odyssey, my viewership has risen and stayed to more than it's ever been.
But then I'm not one of those who's channel is just a feast or whinging, moaning and negativity in order to pull in views.
That doesn't mean I don't criticise but I at least try to be constructive about it rather than destructive.
As I say, the guys will elaborate more on the plan later this evening in Supercruise News. I'm afraid I can't say anything more at this point. Thanks!
![[Cancelled Consoleer] boppa_](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/159/159397.jpg?1610496247){kind=avatar}
