Not sure why Star Citizen is always "the one" competitor brought up in arguments like these. I've got plenty of games competing with Elite (and winning), and none of them are Star Citizen.
Lower your Expectations for ED
- Thread starter Cosmo
- Start date
Possibly the Easter Frontier sale which had ED at £5 might have boosted numbers. It difficult to see why the previous down trend would have been reversed for any other reason. No doubt U15 will boost player numbers again when it comes.
The vast majority of EVE Online players do not use Steam to play the game. Like... the vast, vast majority.
This is why Steam Charts is garbage and we really shouldn't be bringing it up. It does not provide accurate information, because it does not include players who play these games via external clients. Very few EVE players use Steam to access the game. Most get the client from CCP.
EVE pre-dates third party games being sold on Steam so its steamchart numbers are probably not a good measure.
With the mention that, at least for PC, NMS is played mostly on Steam, while ED is played mostly on FDev, with Steam second and Epic 3rd
So if ED is like 25-30% under NMS on Steam charts, overall on PC it may actually beat it by quite a margin
Serious question, no jesting intended - does this number combine both Live and Legacy, or is Legacy left out? I really don't understand how Steam handles what is essentially two different games (live vs legacy) being sold under a single "banner".
There are currently 20,000+ people playing it. Its daily peak is around 25-27k, which is a significant drop from the 35k averages it was seeing the last time I was genuinely active in the game. This makes EVE roughly twice to three times as active as NMS, even during a lull in activity.
Steam counts the Launcher being Open (so Legacy and Live combined)
However, PC players in legacy make about 1% of the total number (as per Ian analysis of squadron leaderboards performance)
EDO still runs like complete crap, relative to how it looks vs. it's immediate predecessor and most other titles I can think of. Since the alpha, it's come about half-way, performance wise, but at the cost of numerous graphical downgrades. What one gets out of the hardware one puts into the game is flatly poor.
That said, my biggest problems with Odyssey never had anything to do with the performance. It's never run as well as it should, but it's always run well enough on the hardware I've had. It's everything else that's the real problem.
I considered Odyssey a 2/10 title on launch and consider it a 3/10 title now. However, it has no competition at all in the specific niche I'm looking for when I play it. It is the best game of it's kind by virtue of being the only game of it's kind. The only other title that even came close was Jumpgate, and that's been defunct for almost two decades. There are plenty of titles that are superficially similar, but their differences are profound. EVE's gameplay is more abstract. NMS has scale and flight model issues and is essentially a single-player title. Star Citizen is still barely a game and has a monetization scheme I consider insane. Space Engine is also barely a game. I'm aware of about half-a-dozen modern combat oriented titles that do combat and flight models at least as well, IMO, as ED, but they usually don't do anything else.
Anyway, I have no expectations of Elite: Dangerous improving in any way I'd find meaningful. My outlook on the game is rather Buddhist at this point; I accept the enjoyment I find in it, while having shed my attachments to it.
That said, my biggest problems with Odyssey never had anything to do with the performance. It's never run as well as it should, but it's always run well enough on the hardware I've had. It's everything else that's the real problem.
I considered Odyssey a 2/10 title on launch and consider it a 3/10 title now. However, it has no competition at all in the specific niche I'm looking for when I play it. It is the best game of it's kind by virtue of being the only game of it's kind. The only other title that even came close was Jumpgate, and that's been defunct for almost two decades. There are plenty of titles that are superficially similar, but their differences are profound. EVE's gameplay is more abstract. NMS has scale and flight model issues and is essentially a single-player title. Star Citizen is still barely a game and has a monetization scheme I consider insane. Space Engine is also barely a game. I'm aware of about half-a-dozen modern combat oriented titles that do combat and flight models at least as well, IMO, as ED, but they usually don't do anything else.
Anyway, I have no expectations of Elite: Dangerous improving in any way I'd find meaningful. My outlook on the game is rather Buddhist at this point; I accept the enjoyment I find in it, while having shed my attachments to it.
Currently when it comes to similar games i'm also playing Spacebourne 2 which is very very good (all considering) but it doesn't offer the full package that Elite does, and the same type of semi serious space flight mechanics etc. As for no mans sky... mehhh.... And others like X4, again, they don't exactly offer what elite does. I know there's others, but again, they are more acardy space shooters than space sims that offer unlimited freedom.
If i wanted a semi serious space sim that offers a sandbox experience in an online world , there's only 2 that pop in mind for me, that's Elite and SC. Star Citizen is a non starter.
I was never into no mans sky graphics, it felt like fortnite in space.
Am I missing something which is very similar to elite, just better? I hope I am, and I hope you can tell me.
Games aren't seasonal per se. Buyers can expect the products they buy to function satisfactorily. If a product doesn't deliver - it's an underperformer. Now I know there is a lot of people sucking it up to EA for the newest FIFA, Madden and whatyounameit but the recent successes of long-running "seasonal" contenders from that front gives also a mixed impression.
Crap just doesn't sell well.
Star Citizen is a joke, not a competitor.
Well, apparently 80% of the people that reviewed F1M22 gave it a positive review.
So it must be functioning satisfactorily, delivering a good gaming experience, AFTER FDev stopped "supporting" the game.
It's a done game.
(edit: At €60 is a bit expensive for what i'm usually willing to pay upfront for a game - even tho each of my own ED accounts invested way more than that in game+arx over time.
Generally speaking i mean. For example i got CP2077 only when it was 50% reduced, that is to €30 - and i've still havent got to the point to install and play it)
Last edited:
We'll see how the next game will sell soon.
I'd tend to think that EDO laid a foundation for new game play or download contents, with the updated planetary tech, the reworking of the graphics engine, the addition of on foot mechanics, etc. Probably a lot of the cost went into reworking all this, and not only into what some term a mediocre FPS.
For me personally, X4 is very similar to Elite, even more similar than Star Citizen, but perhaps that's because of how I play the game. This includes:And others like X4, again, they don't exactly offer what elite does.
[..]
Am I missing something which is very similar to elite, just better? I hope I am, and I hope you can tell me.
- very detailed trading and economy
- a variety of missions
- 6DoF flight model, including a controller mapping that almost perfectly mirrors my Elite controls
- ship progression (small, medium, large, extra large) and various ship classes (trade, combat, mining, exploration)
- ship outfitting and engineering / crafting
- exploration (of space, not planet surfaces, more on that later)
- really enjoyable space combat
- factions with accompanying reputation system
- with Odyssey, space legs!
ThargoidsXenons- a wonder and detailed Lore
- etc etc etc (I think I've made my point)
So again, I don't know why people default to Star Citizen as the only Elite alternative when I think games like X4 actually do a better job at this.
Because it's easy to dunk on, and constructive criticism just melts away under the fierce logic of "but star citizen is worse". No Man's Sky is unfortunately decent but the same can be done, just substitute quality for artstyle.So again, I don't know why people default to Star Citizen as the only Elite alternative when I think games like X4 actually do a better job at this.
Even tho i play Ed mostly in solo, i still consider my play social since it interlocks with other's people actions too - in CGs but also in the current thargoid Narrative or randomly in the various systems
If ED was purely a single player game, like X4 for example - i would have definitely not sink 8000+ hours in it (spread over 3 accounts)
For me NMS is a decent alternative for Elite if exploration is your primary gameplay, though this assumes you don't mind exploring a fantasy universe rather than a scientifically-based universe like Elite. I actually prefer Space Engine for my "realistic" space exploration these days, unless I'm in the mood to run around on a planet full of life and interesting sights / sites, then NMS is a fun alternative.
But when it comes to trading, flying (flight model), combat, and a variety of other things I listed in my previous post, IMO No Man's Sky does not compete with Elite or X4. It's an alternative, sure, but not really a competitor.
EDIT - considering my subsequent arguments on what counts as a space game competitor, I probably shouldn't make the blanket statement that NMS is not a competitor to Elite Dangerous. It's not for me personally, but it is for many other ex-Elite players, and that's what matters.
Last edited:
Wait, I thought that was for "Global Thermonuclear War"
