Elite Dangerous, confirmed but not yet implemented features from 2013
- Thread starter CMDrAdam
- Start date
- Status
Ok, I'll spell it out then. They could claim damages.
Yes, FDev had the plan and outlined what they want to do. You always make changes as you go through a multi-year complex project. The whole industry is changing with new hardware/software-engines/social preferences. A good company will always adapt to a new environment and learn from mistakes of others.
Take CIG for example. They promised everything in 2011 (I remember when they started the campaign). By now, we should have 100 star system, a lot of planets with cities, etc.
Now, let's look at FDev. We have a finished product which many enjoy to play. They came up with two new DLCs that significantly enhanced player experience. I bet they have something else in mind (I hope for one-two cities where you can buy a land plot and build your own place in earth-like environment).
Modding. There are graphical (I changed the HUD to blue) and voice mods (HCS) approved by FDev. There are many 3rd party tools (eddb, Inara, etc.) that get data from FDev files (not only but some). The problem with modding is obvious: you can easily allow modding in a single player game (such as Egosoft X3, X4); however, if it is a multiplayer and different players run different modes, it can completely screw the game. Another side of that, any game update may screw custom mods installed. I am playing one game which is heavy on mods and players are shouting load with each new update, even though the updates are really good and even free.
Interior-exterior. We have ship, FC, station exterior and I personally like it. We have station, FC and land base interiors. We do not have ship interior and it is actually very good. I played games with ship interiors and it does more harm than good. First of all, two games came to my mind (X4 and SC) , the interiors are buggy. You have to make a proper mash for all available ships (a lot of work). There is no meaningful interaction but open and close the door, press the pilot seat. When you are not in a pilot seat, you may be kicked out in an open space when the ship is moving and you die or worse get stuck in the "interior". I got kicked out of a small fighter cockpit when I tried to put three cargo boxes inside - apparently there was no room left for me. I could not do much as to grab the third box and throw away I needed to enter the ship.
What Fdev could focus at is doing some extra work on FC interior. It is just one ship, everyone eventually will have one. It can be done very nicely with some extra rooms for decoration. It can bring a lot of real money to the company. Players can buy for ARX the extra rooms that have nothing to do with performance but decoration mainly. I guess NMS approach (a lot of options to build inside your FC, no other ship interiors) here proved to be the right one instead of SC - so many ships, so many interiors, so many bugs, the game will never go to Beta.
Odyssey was the right step and it makes a strong foundation for the future game expansion upon. FDev promised and deliver.ed. Is it good? Some like it (including myself).
FC is great that you can get all (at least 40) your ship to land and be stored at. So again it is done in one form or another.
The only thing is really missing is cities. I would not go for a full universe but it could be just one-two well designed cities. Or there is an alternative, just dedicate one planet (Sirius? or Mars?) and sell land plots there and come up with pre-fabricated modules to build whatever players like (lego style).
Take CIG for example. They promised everything in 2011 (I remember when they started the campaign). By now, we should have 100 star system, a lot of planets with cities, etc.
Now, let's look at FDev. We have a finished product which many enjoy to play. They came up with two new DLCs that significantly enhanced player experience. I bet they have something else in mind (I hope for one-two cities where you can buy a land plot and build your own place in earth-like environment).
Modding. There are graphical (I changed the HUD to blue) and voice mods (HCS) approved by FDev. There are many 3rd party tools (eddb, Inara, etc.) that get data from FDev files (not only but some). The problem with modding is obvious: you can easily allow modding in a single player game (such as Egosoft X3, X4); however, if it is a multiplayer and different players run different modes, it can completely screw the game. Another side of that, any game update may screw custom mods installed. I am playing one game which is heavy on mods and players are shouting load with each new update, even though the updates are really good and even free.
Interior-exterior. We have ship, FC, station exterior and I personally like it. We have station, FC and land base interiors. We do not have ship interior and it is actually very good. I played games with ship interiors and it does more harm than good. First of all, two games came to my mind (X4 and SC) , the interiors are buggy. You have to make a proper mash for all available ships (a lot of work). There is no meaningful interaction but open and close the door, press the pilot seat. When you are not in a pilot seat, you may be kicked out in an open space when the ship is moving and you die or worse get stuck in the "interior". I got kicked out of a small fighter cockpit when I tried to put three cargo boxes inside - apparently there was no room left for me. I could not do much as to grab the third box and throw away I needed to enter the ship.
What Fdev could focus at is doing some extra work on FC interior. It is just one ship, everyone eventually will have one. It can be done very nicely with some extra rooms for decoration. It can bring a lot of real money to the company. Players can buy for ARX the extra rooms that have nothing to do with performance but decoration mainly. I guess NMS approach (a lot of options to build inside your FC, no other ship interiors) here proved to be the right one instead of SC - so many ships, so many interiors, so many bugs, the game will never go to Beta.
Odyssey was the right step and it makes a strong foundation for the future game expansion upon. FDev promised and deliver.ed. Is it good? Some like it (including myself).
FC is great that you can get all (at least 40) your ship to land and be stored at. So again it is done in one form or another.
The only thing is really missing is cities. I would not go for a full universe but it could be just one-two well designed cities. Or there is an alternative, just dedicate one planet (Sirius? or Mars?) and sell land plots there and come up with pre-fabricated modules to build whatever players like (lego style).
Really... Gosh that is terrible.
They may even close Frontier down because they are such bad people....
I can't see the fact that Odyssey didn't make a profit would have the investors suing Frontier... Truly!
`=............( accompanying you in your painThe "ship interiors update"
Game is still being developed yada yada yada, but you know that, it's troll time isn't it?
Are you concerned?
…I literally went to Merriam-Webster! If you're actually trying to argue that Merriam-Webster doesn't know the definition of a word, just... leave. Go. Because that's such a monumentally stupid thing to- that's like saying the Pope doesn't understand Catholicism!
Really... Gosh that is terrible.
They may even close Frontier down because they are such bad people....
I can't see the fact that Odyssey didn't make a profit would have the investors suing Frontier... Truly!
Looks like it.
Not quite the reverso I think you're looking for. I mean, I get it, you say that you think you've been swindled and that everyone else is blind to it so it's up to you to convince us poor ejits that we've been had. Though the problem of course is that your position is entirely built around your own supposition. Has Frontier said that Elite is not being developed/supported any more? No, so then it can't be said that y z aspects of the game that aren't present amount to a con or that a promise has been broken.
Even with their own words they talk about things 'down the line' and that it has to be an x y z proces that's sequential, not x y z all at once. Nothing is unreasonable or misleading about that. We could make a fair argument about the pace of development but we can put a large portion of that on developing Elite for consoles, which I will guess you are a supporter of, or at least after they announced they had to be dropped to allow for the game to not stall. So, while I'm ambivalent towards the time that developing for consoles detracted from pushing the game forward at a quicker pace, which would also include the time taken to try to get Odyssey working on them, it's not like Frontier haven't brought anything to the game since launch, or have authoritatively said anything to the effect of "that's it".
You have seen The Princess' Bride, haven't you!?
Thanks but you don't have to keep proving my point over and over again.
They promised us something.
They didn't deliver.
Your team is even willing to tick of modding because they modded their cabin colors. While the article clearly read: "giving players the chance to author their own scenarios and missions, or create completely new content." But hey, he changed the cabin colors ! ! !
Just because you don't feel fooled, doesn't mean you haven't been fooled.
Want to have another go at it?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Note to all participants: please discuss the topic. Other participants are not the topic. Failure to comply may result in reply bans, advisories, warnings and / or thread closure.
Nothing is "confirmed" there... except that some features will be part of future plans. And plans are never set in stone, they usually depend on future conditions.
If you really want to get what CONFIRMED means check this:
That
bit was part of Odyssey Update 8 patch notes, released about 14 months ago.And it had never made it into game.
So, yea, complain about that, you have my full sympathy
But complaining about what they have planned in 2013... mmmph
I'm really not, as I fully understand what you are trying to say and my disagreement with it doesn't automagically prove your point in some contrived manner.
Based on what arbitrary time line? Taking into consideration, as in, not ignoring, the fact that Elite Dangerous is still being developed.
I don't have a team, I try to stick to the facts.
That can be true, but conversely I employ the same and just say that just because you feel fooled, it doesn't mean that you have. ie; I know you are, but what am I? Not a compelling response either way really, is it?
I don't need to, however, I have responded to some of your points. But your words do the job of highlighting your fallacious thought process if one were to apply some critical thought to them. My only outstanding thought is whether your argument is sincere or that this is your troll bait schtick. It's becoming clearer now though.Want to have another go at it?
As a "white knight" I feel obliged to point out that the game isn't dead yet, so any missing features "promised" back then can still materialize. I think one would have to postpone this present discussion until the game really is dead. 
Back to the topic on hand.
I am interested to know: What's all this talk (in OPs original text - not their message but quotes from others) about 'release 1', 'update 5' etc.? Are these milestones that relate to the current game? If so, how, and how do the quoted release/update numbers relate to current game play numbers/version?
I missed large chinks of releases, so where does Horizons (driving in buggies), power play, what not, relate to these? Or do they not relate?
Just askin'
I am interested to know: What's all this talk (in OPs original text - not their message but quotes from others) about 'release 1', 'update 5' etc.? Are these milestones that relate to the current game? If so, how, and how do the quoted release/update numbers relate to current game play numbers/version?
I missed large chinks of releases, so where does Horizons (driving in buggies), power play, what not, relate to these? Or do they not relate?
Just askin'
That's not how the law works in the UK.
If by an investor you mean a shareholder [1] - which you appear to, from context - you can't sue [2] a company solely because the value of your shares goes down (or even because the value of your shares doesn't go up as much as you were hoping), even if you are sure that the company could have had more valuable shares if it had listened to your advice. "The value of your investment may go down as well as up", etc. etc.
Your route for accountability is that as a shareholder you can - together with a plurality of others - require the company to replace its executives. In this case, given the substantial shareholding of D Braben and Family who won't be voting in favour of that, you would need to either hold a very substantial number of shares yourself - at least £120 million even at current relatively low prices - or talk a similar value of other shareholders into it. It's not a meaningful risk.
[1] If you mean some other sort of investor it would depend on the specific contractual terms but those are highly unlikely to depend on Frontier releasing specific products with specific features at specific times.
[2] Technically anyone can sue anyone for anything. Read "sue with any plausible chance of success".
I think Cohen the wOrrior is just trolling in this post. It is also entertaining.
"They could claim damages". Who are they? If he/she is talking about Alpha backers, I did not hear a single ED backer who said it was a money waste (contrary, there are many SC backers who are not happy). Even theoretically, if you want to sue a company in UK over 50 pounds, you need to get ready to spend thousands on lawyers. "damages" - someone got a heart attack because there are no cities in ED, did he/she?
"They could claim damages". Who are they? If he/she is talking about Alpha backers, I did not hear a single ED backer who said it was a money waste (contrary, there are many SC backers who are not happy). Even theoretically, if you want to sue a company in UK over 50 pounds, you need to get ready to spend thousands on lawyers. "damages" - someone got a heart attack because there are no cities in ED, did he/she?
It seems there is the group that feels they don't believe anything until it's in their hands - anything provided in the future isn't fact until it happens. Someone "promising" something means nothing.
There is another group that hangs off potential future deliveries as a guarantee, anything that changes that delivery to anything that was not originally perceived (and any changes) and they were lied to - no matter the circumstances.
One group is reasonable - the other will be fooled regularly and feel they were lied to when that is not factual.
There is another group that hangs off potential future deliveries as a guarantee, anything that changes that delivery to anything that was not originally perceived (and any changes) and they were lied to - no matter the circumstances.
One group is reasonable - the other will be fooled regularly and feel they were lied to when that is not factual.
- Status