FD should increase size of the team developing ED

[Rafe Zetter]

Nope, you are wrong - in fact one very vocal KS backer stated that no one from 'those days' still plays

{snip]

DID NOT SAY "DOES NOT PLAY".

said "walked away FROM THE FORUM AND COMPLAINING as a lost cause."

BIG DIFFERENCE -

I have no way of knowing if they play or not - but I DO KNOW they don't post anymore with anywhere near the profligacy (google it) that they used to use. Did they rebuy the game on sale after offline gate refunds? Maybe. But the point stands they don't post in the forum.


but hey, lets not let the truth of facts get in the way of a LIE, used to as a conveniently altered hook, upon which to hang your entire point on eh m00ka?

Thats two lies in a row when quoting me from you m00ka - care to try for more?

 

[Rafe Zetter]

FDEV's productivity is not even close to AAA MMOs. People said, hey it's not a AAA MMO so there isn't going to be that level of productivity.

Then NMS with a dinky indy team flat out embarrassed FDEV on productivity.

This wouldn't even be a discussion without NMS doing what its doing.

Anyways, off to play other things that are actually doing something interesting.

^^ undeniable truth spoken right there. Pay attention m00ka.

+ rep

 

[RamirezKurita]

Considering the achievements that some other companies are able to achieve with limited development staff, I don't think that flat numbers of developers is the real problem facing ED. You just have to look at what companies such as Paradox can do with only 80~ developers, while ED has access to a much larger pool of resources to draw from. Instead, I suspect the issues facing ED's development are more likely due to design, leadership and management decisions. Of course, that's all assuming that ED is getting the Lion's share and the A-team of FD's developers, it's quite possible that ED has been put on the back burner while the company focuses on cash cows rather than their flagship product and the updates we are receiving are simply there to throw the LEP owners a bone rather than representing a game in the peak of its development.

There's also the issue of communication, we don't have any idea what is currently in the works, how much resources are being devoted to them, how far off they are or what difficulties are being encountered in development. Near-complete radio silence leads to the player base hanging onto and dissecting every single statement, formal or informal, by the devs and warping it all out of proportion and context. Long term development plans combined with starving players of information is a clear recipe for disaster. Just a few direct, informative and honest answers to some of the most commonly asked questions would shut down half of the common complaints on the forums. It also doesn't help that even outside future plans, we don't really see FD justifying or explaining some of their more controversial or odd design and balance choices, we are left completely in the dark with regards to why FD are doing things the way they are, which leaves some of their questionable choices becoming festering wounds to be argued about ad nauseam on the forums rather than debated about properly. This overall creates the impression of everything being thrown together at the last minute rather than being part of a carefully planned and implemented grand scheme, creating the illusion of less work being done than is actually being done (assuming that it isn't actually being thrown together at the last moment).

On the topic of more devs not actually helping due to the mythical man-month, that's only an issue that occurs in specific scenarios. Specifically, the man-month warns that adding more staff late into a development cycle is counterproductive as they need time to familiarise themselves with what they are working on, it overall takes months before a new staff member can really begin to contribute to a project and until then they are simply a burden as other staff have to show them how things work and get them up to speed. Adding more staff to ED might not increase development rates for the next 6 months, but beyond that point they will get fully into the swing of things. On the "too many cooks spoil the broth" statement, that only really applies if the code is close knit enough such that everything connects together and it is almost impossible for someone to work without interfering with another's work, however ED is full of extremely disconnected elements that can have their own entire teams working on them without any issues arising with other teams' work. This limitation also mostly only applies to the fundamental code changes and not on basic content such as ships and modules which are basically models and a database entry and as such are very easy to go broad on in development. Considering how Warframe is able to handily sustain 250+ developers actively working on it without any major losses in efficiency and League of Legends had over 1000 developers working on it during its peak, ED could easily find sufficient work for all of FD's employees and more due to the sheer variety in its stuff.

 

[StuartGT]

Considering the achievements that some other companies are able to achieve with limited development staff, I don't think that flat numbers of developers is the real problem facing ED. You just have to look at what companies such as Paradox can do with only 80~ developers, while ED has access to a much larger pool of resources to draw from. Instead, I suspect the issues facing ED's development are more likely due to design, leadership and management decisions. Of course, that's all assuming that ED is getting the Lion's share and the A-team of FD's developers, it's quite possible that ED has been put on the back burner while the company focuses on cash cows rather than their flagship product and the updates we are receiving are simply there to throw the LEP owners a bone rather than representing a game in the peak of its development.

There's also the issue of communication, we don't have any idea what is currently in the works, how much resources are being devoted to them, how far off they are or what difficulties are being encountered in development. Near-complete radio silence leads to the player base hanging onto and dissecting every single statement, formal or informal, by the devs and warping it all out of proportion and context. Long term development plans combined with starving players of information is a clear recipe for disaster. Just a few direct, informative and honest answers to some of the most commonly asked questions would shut down half of the common complaints on the forums. It also doesn't help that even outside future plans, we don't really see FD justifying or explaining some of their more controversial or odd design and balance choices, we are left completely in the dark with regards to why FD are doing things the way they are, which leaves some of their questionable choices becoming festering wounds to be argued about ad nauseam on the forums rather than debated about properly. This overall creates the impression of everything being thrown together at the last minute rather than being part of a carefully planned and implemented grand scheme, creating the illusion of less work being done than is actually being done (assuming that it isn't actually being thrown together at the last moment).

On the topic of more devs not actually helping due to the mythical man-month, that's only an issue that occurs in specific scenarios. Specifically, the man-month warns that adding more staff late into a development cycle is counterproductive as they need time to familiarise themselves with what they are working on, it overall takes months before a new staff member can really begin to contribute to a project and until then they are simply a burden as other staff have to show them how things work and get them up to speed. Adding more staff to ED might not increase development rates for the next 6 months, but beyond that point they will get fully into the swing of things. On the "too many cooks spoil the broth" statement, that only really applies if the code is close knit enough such that everything connects together and it is almost impossible for someone to work without interfering with another's work, however ED is full of extremely disconnected elements that can have their own entire teams working on them without any issues arising with other teams' work. This limitation also mostly only applies to the fundamental code changes and not on basic content such as ships and modules which are basically models and a database entry and as such are very easy to go broad on in development. Considering how Warframe is able to handily sustain 250+ developers actively working on it without any major losses in efficiency and League of Legends had over 1000 developers working on it during its peak, ED could easily find sufficient work for all of FD's employees and more due to the sheer variety in its stuff.

A good post

 

[lenna]

FDEV's productivity is not even close to AAA MMOs. People said, hey it's not a AAA MMO so there isn't going to be that level of productivity.

Sounds like "someone who thinks they knows but does not know".

AAA developers are some of the worst examples to follow, the software quality of their work in the past 15 years or so has on balance got worse because of the push to release content more often/quickly. Not only that, but the vast majority of AAA games out there probably don't even come close to ED in terms of overall software complexity.

 

[SP_Predicador]

Zoo Tycoon, Planet Coaster, and Jurassic World Evolution are all similarly sized games. CCD, TFDS and SR are all smaller.

I disagree, as PC in 2016 was in the same level as ED by FD report, and JWE is a franchised international ip, in another level. And like that has been advertised by FD. They change in those years, as publisher model.

I don't think any of FDev's other games require as much development or support as Elite does, which is why it has the largest team internally.

If I remember correctly, in the 2016 report, Braben said explicitely, that ED and PC had the same level of dev support.

Edited: "Just over half of our developers are working on Elite Dangerous, and the rest are now working on Planet Coaster. ".. Page 8: https://frontier-drupal.s3-eu-west-.../Frontier Developments Annual Report 2015.pdf

I have no idea why you have these assumptions of my opinions. I provided two lists of games.

My apologies then. Maybe I am too professionally accustomed to the fact that the mere presentation of data use to imply a concrete intention, according to the way in which they are provided. Like equalizing projects of very varied weight, for example.

But I agree with others that are more important the continuous renew of the crew (as usual), the change of office, the set of priorities, and so on.

The outcome of Horizons I think spoke more than anything else.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Sounds like "someone who thinks they knows but does not know".

AAA developers are some of the worst examples to follow, the software quality of their work in the past 15 years or so has on balance got worse because of the push to release content more often/quickly. Not only that, but the vast majority of AAA games out there probably don't even come close to ED in terms of overall software complexity.

How do you know that?

 

[Chaparral]

Sounds like "someone who thinks they knows but does not know".

AAA developers are some of the worst examples to follow, the software quality of their work in the past 15 years or so has on balance got worse because of the push to release content more often/quickly. Not only that, but the vast majority of AAA games out there probably don't even come close to ED in terms of overall software complexity.

Um - this is just wrong. Check out GW2. Continuous stream of story updates, mechanics, expansions, balance passes, etc.. Central regional servers capable of hosting dozens of players in a single instance. Shoot even ESOL kicks out full map and campaign updates. I don't think you play other games.

 

[StuartGT]

I disagree, as PC in 2016 was in the same level as ED by FD report, and JWE is a franchised international ip, in another level. And like that has been advertised by FD.

Wait, are you talking about marketing support here, or game devteam size? We already know that the devteam for JWE was smaller than Elite's current 100, even before the former's release:

We currently have some 75-100 people actually working on the third franchise, although those numbers will obviously drop off from when the game is launched

Planet Coaster's devteam was even smaller still, by side-by-side comparing the credits of all three games.

If I remember correctly, in the 2016 report, Braben said explicitely, that ED and PC had the same level of dev support.

Please feel free to link & quote it, as I'd be very interested to read that part.

Edit: I see you've now linked it (the November 2015 report), referring to the devteam sizes at that time. Again, I stand by my statement that "I don't think any of FDev's other games require as much development or support as Elite does, which is why it has the largest team internally".

My apologies then. Maybe I am too professionally accustomed to the fact that the mere presentation of data use to imply a concrete intention, according to the way in which they are provided. Like equalizing projects of very varied weight, for example.

No worries. I presented the data in response to a query (that I quoted in my post).

 

[SP_Predicador]

Wait, are you talking about marketing support here, or game devteam size? We already know that the devteam for JWE was smaller than Elite's current 100, even before the former's release:

Planet Coaster's devteam was even smaller still, by side-by-side comparing the credits of all three games.


Please feel free to link & quote it, as I'd be very interested to read that part.

No worries. I presented the data in response to a query (that I quoted in my post).

"Just over half of our developers are working on Elite Dangerous, and the rest are now working on Planet Coaster. ".. Page 8: https://frontier-drupal.s3-eu-west-.../Frontier Developments Annual Report 2015.pdf

--------

So Braben said: "We currently have some 75-100 people actually working on the third franchise, although those numbers will obviously drop off from when the game is launched"

Two points. And thanks, this is interesting.

1- It's supposed that around 100 people work in ED, so 75-100 for the third franchise is same level.

2- "numbers will obviously drop off from when the game is launched". Yes, of course, like in almost everything project. Thanks Braben, for your honesty, as ever. He thinks that fact is obviously a "mechanical" law.

Thanks for that example about priorities I spoke about before. The game to be released over the game released. So maybe they are working in the 4th at that level today, and with the 5th in some months? And so on. While keeping teams for the older games DLCs and support? Understanding that is not possible that 380 workers can't be all devs, maybe we have to take some ideas with some care? in a general and not so literally way?

 

[StuartGT]

"Just over half of our developers are working on Elite Dangerous, and the rest are now working on Planet Coaster. ".. Page 8: https://frontier-drupal.s3-eu-west-.../Frontier Developments Annual Report 2015.pdf

--------

So Braben said: "We currently have some 75-100 people actually working on the third franchise, although those numbers will obviously drop off from when the game is launched"

Two points. And thanks, tis is interesting.

1- It's supposed that around 100 people work in ED, so 75-100 for the third franchise is same level.

2- "numbers will obviously drop off from when the game is launched". Yes, of course, like in almost everything project. Thanks Braben, for your honesty, as ever. He thinks that fact is obviously a "mechanical" law.

Thanks for that example about priorities I spoke about before. The game to be released over the game released.

Cool, thanks for linking the Nov 2015 report, showing that Elite had a larger devteam post-release than Planet Coaster did even before its 2016 release (and post-release devteam downsizing). "Just over half" > "the rest"

Indeed: Elite has a larger devteam, 3.7yr after its release, than Jurassic World Evolution did even prior to its post-release downsizing. 100 > "75-100"

 

[M00ka]

DID NOT SAY "DOES NOT PLAY".

said "walked away FROM THE FORUM AND COMPLAINING as a lost cause."

BIG DIFFERENCE -

I have no way of knowing if they play or not - but I DO KNOW they don't post anymore with anywhere near the profligacy (google it) that they used to use. Did they rebuy the game on sale after offline gate refunds? Maybe. But the point stands they don't post in the forum.


but hey, lets not let the truth of facts get in the way of a LIE, used to as a conveniently altered hook, upon which to hang your entire point on eh m00ka?

Thats two lies in a row when quoting me from you m00ka - care to try for more?

True and I apologise if I upset your little rant fest. Maybe those that you talk about still play, and accept the game for what it is instead of being bitter and twisted about it? Maybe they went and played something else? It happens in all games, people play, people stop playing - that doesn't signify a game is good or bad, just peoples taste in games change, new games come out that capture their attention, they may think they have achieved everything that that game has to offer.

Now I ask you a question, do you still play Elite: Dangerous?

 

[SP_Predicador]

Cool, thanks for linking the Nov 2015 report, showing that Elite had a larger devteam post-release than Planet Coaster did even before its 2016 release (and post-release devteam downsizing). "Just over half" > "the rest"

Indeed: Elite has a larger devteam, 3.7yr after its release, than Jurassic World Evolution did even prior to its post-release downsizing. 100 > "75-100"

1) 100 > 75 and 100 = 100. And most important, is possible a patron for the new projects.

2) "post-release devteam downsizing" is the key. But for all.

3) 2015 was a critical first year, port to XBOX, and 2.0 Horizons release. I can't see same level of effort in 2017 patches released (and worked in 2016). So numbers "at that time". When they change office and begin to chain franchises?

4) Note that in our quotes, when Braben speak about developpers don't give numbers, he speak about "over a half", and "and rhe rest". And when give number speak about "people" working on.

 

[Mengy]

Considering the achievements that some other companies are able to achieve with limited development staff, I don't think that flat numbers of developers is the real problem facing ED. You just have to look at what companies such as Paradox can do with only 80~ developers, while ED has access to a much larger pool of resources to draw from. Instead, I suspect the issues facing ED's development are more likely due to design, leadership and management decisions. Of course, that's all assuming that ED is getting the Lion's share and the A-team of FD's developers, it's quite possible that ED has been put on the back burner while the company focuses on cash cows rather than their flagship product and the updates we are receiving are simply there to throw the LEP owners a bone rather than representing a game in the peak of its development.

There's also the issue of communication, we don't have any idea what is currently in the works, how much resources are being devoted to them, how far off they are or what difficulties are being encountered in development. Near-complete radio silence leads to the player base hanging onto and dissecting every single statement, formal or informal, by the devs and warping it all out of proportion and context. Long term development plans combined with starving players of information is a clear recipe for disaster. Just a few direct, informative and honest answers to some of the most commonly asked questions would shut down half of the common complaints on the forums. It also doesn't help that even outside future plans, we don't really see FD justifying or explaining some of their more controversial or odd design and balance choices, we are left completely in the dark with regards to why FD are doing things the way they are, which leaves some of their questionable choices becoming festering wounds to be argued about ad nauseam on the forums rather than debated about properly. This overall creates the impression of everything being thrown together at the last minute rather than being part of a carefully planned and implemented grand scheme, creating the illusion of less work being done than is actually being done (assuming that it isn't actually being thrown together at the last moment).

On the topic of more devs not actually helping due to the mythical man-month, that's only an issue that occurs in specific scenarios. Specifically, the man-month warns that adding more staff late into a development cycle is counterproductive as they need time to familiarise themselves with what they are working on, it overall takes months before a new staff member can really begin to contribute to a project and until then they are simply a burden as other staff have to show them how things work and get them up to speed. Adding more staff to ED might not increase development rates for the next 6 months, but beyond that point they will get fully into the swing of things. On the "too many cooks spoil the broth" statement, that only really applies if the code is close knit enough such that everything connects together and it is almost impossible for someone to work without interfering with another's work, however ED is full of extremely disconnected elements that can have their own entire teams working on them without any issues arising with other teams' work. This limitation also mostly only applies to the fundamental code changes and not on basic content such as ships and modules which are basically models and a database entry and as such are very easy to go broad on in development. Considering how Warframe is able to handily sustain 250+ developers actively working on it without any major losses in efficiency and League of Legends had over 1000 developers working on it during its peak, ED could easily find sufficient work for all of FD's employees and more due to the sheer variety in its stuff.

Excellent post, well said.

 

[StuartGT]

1) 100 > 75 and 100 = 100.

To expand upon the above: 100 > 76, 100 > 77, 100 > 78, etc, etc. Mathematics is fun!

2) "post-release devteam downsizing" is the key. But for all.

Ok, I guess? I'm not sure of your point. Elite Dangerous currently has a devteam of 100, while the other two already-released games have much lower devteam sizes.

3) 2015 was critical first year, port to XBOX, and 2.0 Horizons release. I can't see same level of effort in 2017 patches released (and worked in 2016).

2015 also had Wings, Powerplay, and CQC, alongside the Xbox (a Windows/DirectX11 device) port's development & release.
2016 had 2.1, 2.2, and likely the early Playstation (a BSD9/GNMX device) port's development.
2017 had 2.3, 2.4, and the Playstation port's release.

Fair play that you can't see the same level of effort.

Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing 3.2, 3.3, and future unannounced updates arrive.

4) Note that in our quotes, when Braben speak about developpers don't give numbers, he speak about "over a half", and "and rhe rest". And when give number speak about "people" working on.

Erm, ok?

 

[SP_Predicador]

Considering the achievements that some other companies are able to achieve with limited development staff, I don't think that flat numbers of developers is the real problem facing ED. You just have to look at what companies such as Paradox can do with only 80~ developers, while ED has access to a much larger pool of resources to draw from. Instead, I suspect the issues facing ED's development are more likely due to design, leadership and management decisions. Of course, that's all assuming that ED is getting the Lion's share and the A-team of FD's developers, it's quite possible that ED has been put on the back burner while the company focuses on cash cows rather than their flagship product and the updates we are receiving are simply there to throw the LEP owners a bone rather than representing a game in the peak of its development.

Agree. I think probably the selection of priorities changes over time.

There's also the issue of communication, we don't have any idea what is currently in the works, how much resources are being devoted to them, how far off they are or what difficulties are being encountered in development. Near-complete radio silence leads to the player base hanging onto and dissecting every single statement, formal or informal, by the devs and warping it all out of proportion and context. Long term development plans combined with starving players of information is a clear recipe for disaster. Just a few direct, informative and honest answers to some of the most commonly asked questions would shut down half of the common complaints on the forums. It also doesn't help that even outside future plans, we don't really see FD justifying or explaining some of their more controversial or odd design and balance choices, we are left completely in the dark with regards to why FD are doing things the way they are, which leaves some of their questionable choices becoming festering wounds to be argued about ad nauseam on the forums rather than debated about properly. This overall creates the impression of everything being thrown together at the last minute rather than being part of a carefully planned and implemented grand scheme, creating the illusion of less work being done than is actually being done (assuming that it isn't actually being thrown together at the last moment).

I can understand why a company don't give that info (shareholders, rivals, reveal problems that scare away clientes and franchise holders...) . But I agree with you, and I think that is not a good way to retain the customer and to maintain their trust, in good faith

On the topic of more devs not actually helping due to the mythical man-month, that's only an issue that occurs in specific scenarios. Specifically, the man-month warns that adding more staff late into a development cycle is counterproductive as they need time to familiarise themselves with what they are working on, it overall takes months before a new staff member can really begin to contribute to a project and until then they are simply a burden as other staff have to show them how things work and get them up to speed. Adding more staff to ED might not increase development rates for the next 6 months, but beyond that point they will get fully into the swing of things. On the "too many cooks spoil the broth" statement, that only really applies if the code is close knit enough such that everything connects together and it is almost impossible for someone to work without interfering with another's work, however ED is full of extremely disconnected elements that can have their own entire teams working on them without any issues arising with other teams' work. This limitation also mostly only applies to the fundamental code changes and not on basic content such as ships and modules which are basically models and a database entry and as such are very easy to go broad on in development. Considering how Warframe is able to handily sustain 250+ developers actively working on it without any major losses in efficiency and League of Legends had over 1000 developers working on it during its peak, ED could easily find sufficient work for all of FD's employees and more due to the sheer variety in its stuff.

Magnificent words, in my opinion.

We have the problem of the limited info we have about Frontier, because the UK laws forced them to give that info. We can only speak about that, and about a lot of corporate propaganda.

 

[Spacecat]

It's not the size of the team, it's how you use it.

 

[SP_Predicador]

To expand upon the above: 100 > 76, 100 > 77, 100 > 78, etc, etc. Mathematics is fun!

It's easy. I speak about same level, and that is same level. Or you are taken as a precise fact the eternal reference of +100 workers as a true and constant fact, or a thick range of 75-100 as an accurate or incontrovertible truth? I have to remember you, past problems of Braben declarations in media?

Ok, I guess? I'm not sure of your point. Elite Dangerous currently has a devteam of 100, while the other two already-released games have much lower devteam sizes.

Easy. How do you know, do you really know, that are 100 devs working in ED? So, all the other projects suffers the law of downsizing after release, but because someone says without legal consequences 100 people are working in Elite, doesn't matter there are 2 or 4 big projects ongoing, that should be truth? and in every day of every year? people, workers, or devs?

2015 also had Wings, Powerplay, and CQC, alongside the Xbox (a Windows/DirectX11 device) port's development & release.
2016 had 2.1, 2.2, and likely the early Playstation (a BSD9/GNMX device) port's development.
2017 had 2.3, 2.4, and the Playstation port's release.

Fair play that you can't see the same level of effort.

Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing 3.2, 3.3, and future unannounced updates arrive.

As we don't have real and useful info about the developpment, only we can do is stretch what little they say, and judge the results they deliver over time. And in my opinion, what was released for them until 2.1, is so superior to what they released after that, that I can NOT believe they are working with a team equally capable and efficient than before.

Because the answer maybe is, all of them: number, efficiency, management, the continuosly renew of the crew.

In 2014 and 2015, they work harder, when "over the half". "At that moment". Mathematics is fun, I think there can't be 100 devs workin in ED, in every moment, being 380 workers and 5 projects, even being the bigger ED, all are big one, not like 2013, and 1-2 every year ar to be released and proritized. My opinion

When Michel Brookes leave ED?

Drew Wegar in his twitter speak about only one people of his time working with Frontier is still there, and the new ones have other priorities.

Erm, ok?

Careful choice of words in corporate information, maybe?

 

[Phazon Xenomorph]

Not convinced. Most people want their changes, not just more changes.

And you should look at books on productivity in s/w teams - Mythical Man Month by Fred Brooks is a classic. Costs of communication follow a power law, so adding more people doesn't necessarily increase output.

I want MORE changes. I don't care if it's things I want or not, I don't wanna feel like I'm playing a dead game. I really do want to immerse myself in this game, I've always been addicted to the MMO format and love sinking thousands of hours into a single type of game. But at this point we're getting trickle fed so little content it feels like the devs are just twiddling their thumbs while collecting our cash. So give me more content, anything, yes I have my preferences of what I personally would love to see, but right now this game needs a healthy injection of ANYTHING to survive, especially with other titles like No Mans Sky finally (despite being dead) delivering on much of their promises. At this rate Scam Citizen will end up overtaking Elite, after all everyone thought No Mans Sky was long dead and buried and it just clawed it's way out of the grave with less money than what Scam Citizen has available to it. Whose to say they won't churn out a mega patch of their own / launch and then leave Elite in the dust?

Frontier needs to up their ante big time now. Give us anything seriously.

 

[StuartGT]

It's easy. I speak about same level, and that is same level. Or you are taken as a precise fact the eternal reference of +100 workers as a true and constant fact, or a thick range of 75-100 as an accurate or incontrovertible truth? I have to remember you, past problems of Braben declarations in media?

I take the figures provided by David Braben in interviews (current 100-strong team on Elite; 75-100 working on JWE prior to its post-release downsizing) as they are - statements from FDev's CEO - on face value, and compare them to the publicly available games' credits. I don't see any reason for me to think the devteam's are not what has been publicly stated.

Easy. How do you know that are 100 devs working in ED?

Because that's what FDev's CEO has stated in public interviews.

So, all the other projects suffers the law of downsizing after release, but because someone says without legal consequences 100 people are working in Elite, that should be truth? and in every day of every year?

First of all, downsizing after a game's release isn't "law", but it is common practice. Warframe, Rocket League, and Fortnite BR, are good examples of not following that common practice, because those games' devteams have grown substantially since their releases.

Was Elite's team larger or smaller than 100 before its release? I don't know. IIRC FDev have stated on a number of occasions that Elite's team is "larger than ever" or something to that effect.

All we do know is based on public statements, and that is Elite's team is larger than their other already-released games' teams.

As we don't have real and usful info about the developpment, only we can do is stretch what little they say, and judge the results they deliver over time. And in my opinione what was released for them until 2.1, is so superior to what they released after that, that I can believe with a team equally capabe and efficient.

Fair play. I'm looking forward to 3.2, 3.3, and the unannounced future updates.

Because the answer maybe is, all of them: number, efficiency, management.

Cool.

Careful choice of words in corporate information, maybe?

I figure that a CEO often has to be careful with their public words.