Wait, I never said I dont like game As it is right now(thats why I started playing only 2 years ago), but it could be much More by now
Elite Dangerous, confirmed but not yet implemented features from 2013
- Thread starter CMDrAdam
- Start date
- Status
You seem to not understand the Original Post. There is no mention of incompetence. The OP is a claim of "fake news" which means deliberate misinformation. Knowingly distributing false statements. That is what this thread is about, made clear by the title.
If the OP wanted to discuss something else that is their failure to not discus it in the Original Post.
If all the posts that some people don't really like would be deleted, the entire forum would fit on a floppy disk.
It’s been eight years since release.
If it could be, it would be.
The OP doesn't mention incompetente, that was your defense. Are you now retracting your defense?
Will you bother to bring up another?
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Note to participants: please discuss the topic. Other participants are not the topic. Failure to comply will result in reply bans, advisories, warnings and / or thread closure.
I am discussing the Original Post and main topic of this thread as described by the title.
The Original Post has now been edited so its difficult to have a clear discussion.
I did not Edit that, I wanted to change the title to a More clear one
Ha ha ha ha!
Now that is awsome irony. Desiring to go back and change what was said. You made my day, cheers! 
What? I just wanted my post to not get deleted and also to listen to the critics what people said about it(only for the title), what I say in the post is what I really think and what I won't changeHa ha ha ha!
This
: "Players will be able to board other players' ship and even hijack them".Edit: And this, lol: "ships to have diverse and interesting interiors"
Last edited:
If we had the technology to travel back in time, the ticket would most probably cost more than what you spent on Elite. Bad deal IMO.
In my case, those promises were irrelevant. I bought the game because of what it was at launch, not because of anything they promised for the future. If a man promises me a sandwich for money and gives me the sandwich, and says he'll give me a drink in the future but doesn't, I'm not going to feel swindled if all I cared about was the sandwich. The drink is just a bonus.
Like I said, it's easier to swindle a man than to convince him he has been swindled.
Thanks for proving my point.
Of course nobody is going to file a lawsuit and ask for his money back.
An investor however, who has far more skin the in the game . . .
Really? What would they do?
How does that prove your point? It refutes it. From Merriam-Webster itself:
swindle: to obtain money or property by fraud or deceit
I was not deceived. I knew exactly what I was getting for my money (the game in question), which is what I got. I was not defrauded, because there was no perversion of truth to make me buy the game. I got exactly what I wanted. More, in fact, because they've added to the game after I was satisfied with it. By definition, I was not swindled, and no amount of wordsmithing or insistence on your part can override the accepted definition of the word.
You keep using that word, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.
An investor could claim the promised features would have resulted in more sales and a higher stock price.
- Status