It would have been the best tactics if marketing didn´t ruin it by promising a game that obviously will never have any of the features we have seen in the release trailer, or in the game descriptions.
Last edited:
MULTICREW: Adam Woods describing MC during the Horizons' launch stream.
- Thread starter Besensec
- Start date
It would have been the best tactics if marketing didn´t ruin it by promising a game that obviously will never have any of the features we have seen in the release trailer, or in the game descriptions.
But that isnt 'depth' either. Press button for heatmap, land on red zone, press button to mine. It adds one whole button and still no challenge.
Of course it does. It's a new layer of game-play between needing a mineral for an upgrade and driving around aimlessly on a planet surface. It's the very definition of adding depth to the game cycle. It's not the fix-all but it's a layer that's badly needed.
Last edited:
And the promises only engage those who listen them
Last edited:
I don;t know. I don;t see how FD can make the expansions any other way. If they make them as point release and sell each one individually, people will pick and chose what they want to buy, which will lead to less revenue for FD. I know I'd not be buying 2.3 cos this multi-crew telepresence actually makes the game worse for me, not better.
In addition, it'd mean that each point update would need to be a self standing addition, meaning decreases inter-dependency between game systems. Which would reduce the value of each update as Elite would feel more and more like a sequence of stitched together mini-games.
I just don't see a model that works better for Elite and FD than the season model.
Last edited:
There isn't one. You're on point. And it's not an issue because the cost of a season is less than what most games charge for a single point release.
If you can't fork out £15 every....well, so far about a year and a half....well, I don't believe you. Not if you have a PC even capable of running Elite.
Why the first thing what i got on mind was No Man's Sky?
Maybe Sean moved to FDev
What we should learn from these lessons?
NEVER PREORDER
And not support any KS actions. If someone does not have money for a business, then he should not do a business. Good product will sell itself, however a good promise is not a good product.
People is a creature who will working better if they get a money after work done, than before.
Let imagine a situation - You are leaving a car at a mechanic. Do You pay after he do his work or before?
If you are buying a milk, then you pay before the cow is milked, or after you take it from the shop in bottle?
Well, there are services you pay for before you get the service, ho's and beer, and it always end up as a disappointment
Ah, you must be American
LMAO! righty then .....
*Disclaimer - not as an assessment of character, but because everyone I know that's visited America likens their beer to gnat's urine.
The problem seems to be:
- there is nothing to do in supercruise, the presence of even one player on a ship is overkill (see: netflix).
- combat is too fast for "indirect" roles (like engineering) to make any sense.
- trading is trivial and generally has no real potential for additional roles.
Hence, MC only really works for combat activities, and even for combat it's basically restricted to sitting at a RES/CZ. You wouldn't actually hunt a pirate lord with multi-crew.
IMHO, for 'crew' to work, a bunch of core designs need to be revisited:
- supercruise needs functionality (notably system scanning/plotting & navigation).
- combat should be different for larger ships, with little (or no) focus on navigation.
- trading should be a case of 'exploiting risky opportunities' rather than taking biowaste a bajillion lightyears.
But I'm not sure that Elite is intended to be that game.
Last edited:
Getting rich might well be the goal for FD, but in order to do that they have to keep the playerbase happy. If they stick to the current seasons model of hinting at loads of wonderful features which entice people to buy the season, then delivering half baked pap, how long do you think people will keep buying seasons for?
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
imo it will be BIG DLCs... so essentially seasons but all in 1 go.
and in fact i wonder if that is one of the reasons for the stretching out of horizons.... staff taken out of S2 and put onto S3 to speed up S3 so it will be complete to release in 1 job lot, with fewer people working on S2, but with an extra 6-12 months to get it done.
if this is true, it could mean by the end of this year, FD will be "back on track". DLC #2 will release winter 2017, largely complete, then for the next 12 months updates will be tweaks and fleshing out of the game, but no big ticket new features, being done by 1 team of devs, with the lions share working on DLC#3/S4
Why the first thing what i got on mind was No Man's Sky?
Maybe Sean moved to FDev
What we should learn from these lessons?
NEVER PREORDER
Ubisoft has taught me that lesson
Ubisoft has taught me that lesson
Watchdogs or AC?
It's amazing that alot of the same people on the forum create threads like this, digging up past discussions of planned features and using them as a basis for holding FDev to ransom for not delivering on their promises, whilst at the same time, those same posters will complain about why FDev is now so vague about their development plans...
I mean, we can't have it both ways, folks.
We either be mature enough to realise that sometimes things change in game development and accept that, allowing FDev the freedom to talk openly about their future plans for the game without fear of reprisal...
... or we continue to doggedly hang off their every remark and see every miniscule public mention of of an idea concerning ED as a signed-in-blood covenant of what they promise to deliver, and simply accept the fact that FDev will only tell us what's coming when they can be sure that it will very very unlikely to change prior to release.
I mean, we can't have it both ways, folks.
We either be mature enough to realise that sometimes things change in game development and accept that, allowing FDev the freedom to talk openly about their future plans for the game without fear of reprisal...
... or we continue to doggedly hang off their every remark and see every miniscule public mention of of an idea concerning ED as a signed-in-blood covenant of what they promise to deliver, and simply accept the fact that FDev will only tell us what's coming when they can be sure that it will very very unlikely to change prior to release.
It's true we can't have it both ways, but right now, we're not getting it either way. FDev is very vague and tight-lipped, and have made it a habit of half-implementing the few things they DO let slip.
Well there have been hints dropped that the model of future expansions is due to change.
If you think of this season other than Planetary landings are any of the updates dependent on each other?
I think 2.1, could have been sold separately if people have 2.0 (since some Engineers require you to land on planets).
2.2. and 2.3 I don't think contained any content you needed to land on planets for so could have been sold separately.
I think the lack of revenue from people not buying certain DLC will be weighed against people not buying a Season 3 pass since FD have done such a poor job this season.
I actually think DLC would be good for the consumer in this regard as FD would have to produce something people want to pay for rather than tricking people into buying a season pass without telling people what will be in it/telling people it will contain X and delivering the bare minimum to tick a box.
Last edited:
Well they can be open and honest, tell us what's coming, keep us informed of it's progress, let us know when things don't go to plan, tell us the reason why they can't deliver what they said they would deliver and things would be fine (as long as the reasons are good and not "money").
What they're doing now is selling a product that you have to pay for up front, not really tell you what you'll be getting for your money, the things they do tell you we are getting change (and they always change for the worst, they get slimmer and crapper, never better, weird that isn't it), they don't inform us of the progress, they don't tell us why things change (other than time/resource issues, but why are there time/resource issues? Wasn't the £40 people paid for Horizons not enough to fund the team to work on the updates???), they don't seek any input from the customers until after an update is developed and won't change in any meaningful way.
Can you see the difference?
Last edited: