Request for open development and real communication with players.

[Ian Doncaster]

However, Frontier is a mature company with its own operating model and that model precludes significant interaction with the customers outside of the CM team. We may not like it and we may think there are better ways of doing it, but Frontier are not likely to change.

And since the operating model has taken them to 8-figure annual profits and a stock market valuation of 1.25 billion pounds, in just a few years, there's a really high barrier to overcome to tell them they're doing it wrong

 

[Robert Maynard]

They are saying that 'this is our game and we are going to make it how we want it to be' which should then mean that they are not going to make changes based on player feedback, which is exactly what they then turn around and do?

One does not necessarily follow the other.

It's confusing the issue to me. I (and others it seems) am not clear on whether Frontier want feedback from us so that they can take it into consideration when making their game. If they don't want to take player feedback into consideration when making their game that's fine, we just need it to be clear, either way.

It seems to be quite clear that Frontier actively seek feedback when they want it.

 

[Factabulous]

Direct from one of the dev team and there for all to see.

Q: Finally, how important is the upcoming alpha?
From my perspective, I'm interested in player feedback on the economy - how much is a bounty worth for example. When players start playing it, they'll quickly establish where we need to tweak things. There's also things like weapon balance that we'll be looking at, and we'll have time to take that on board and react.

Tweaks, balance. Not a lot about redesign ...

 

[LeoBartlet]

It really has been a banner day on the forums.

I look forward to a petition, open letter and a survey monkey poll later on.

@OP Frontier is beholden to its shareholders not us and the sooner some here figure that out the better.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Exactly my point. They are saying that 'this is our game and we are going to make it how we want it to be' which should then mean that they are not going to make changes based on player feedback, which is exactly what they then turn around and do? It's confusing the issue to me. I (and others it seems) am not clear on whether Frontier want feedback from us so that they can take it into consideration when making their game. If they don't want to take player feedback into consideration when making their game that's fine, we just need it to be clear, either way.

Okay.

Frontier have the final decision on how the game is made.

Frontier want their game to be commercially successful.

Information on how players are experiencing the game is useful to them in deciding how to make a commercially successful game.

While most player-suggested ideas are terrible (including mine) some of them are not, so they're worth collecting even if most of them are then quietly rejected.

There is no contradiction here.

They want feedback. They've said this repeatedly, they've often acted on it. That is not the same as committing to always (or ever!) follow the apparent numeric majority of some subset of the vocal player base in terms of which direction they go in.

If you find this confusing and would rather therefore not give feedback, that's entirely up to you.

 

[WR3ND]

...Frontier is beholden to its shareholders not us and the sooner some here figure that out the better.

Bearing in mind that there is some minority here who are both.
But yes, what's best for Frontier isn't typically viewed as what's always best for the game. I suspect some devs would silently agree with that as well. Some may not even be working on the game any more.

 

[Bigmaec]

View attachment 222309

Seemed like a good place for this!

Can someone print this and mail it to Chris Roberts?

 

[LeoBartlet]

Bearing in mind that there is some minority here who are both.

They can bring any concerns up at the AGM.

 

[WR3ND]

They can bring any concerns up at the AGM.

It goes both ways. You know, problems with some of the player base and what their expectations and desires for the game are getting in the way of things and being a bother.

 

[Logan Terrick]

One does not necessarily follow the other.

Okay. I'm just confused then why you would reply with "Frontier have previously reminded us that the design of their game is not a democracy - it's their game and they change it / add to it as they see fit." to me when I was saying that the player feedback with the majority behind it would become most prevalent?

That reply in context to what I was saying seems to indicate that what Frontier had said was relevant to Frontier taking notice of player feedback. This is what started the whole conversation on whether or not Frontier actually want the feedback. If it wasn't meant that way then this whole part of the conversation is pointless and I would suggest more careful use of Frontiers words in future.

It seems to be quite clear that Frontier actively seek feedback when they want it.

That's what I thought. Your post from earlier is what confused me, it appeared to me to be saying that Frontier was going to do what they want regardless of feedback.

 

[Logan Terrick]

So... we have established that Frontier is willing to listen to player feedback and make changes accordingly, should they wish to.

Getting back to what I was originally talking about - essentially what I am saying is that Frontier taking on board player feedback during the initial design period would save them having to redo the work that they have already done, which is what they seem to do, over and over again.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Okay. I'm just confused then why you would reply with "Frontier have previously reminded us that the design of their game is not a democracy - it's their game and they change it / add to it as they see fit." to me when I was saying that the player feedback with the majority behind it would become most prevalent?

That reply in context to what I was saying seems to indicate that what Frontier had said was relevant to Frontier taking notice of player feedback. This is what started the whole conversation on whether or not Frontier actually want the feedback. If it wasn't meant that way then this whole part of the conversation is pointless and I would suggest more careful use of Frontiers words in future.

It's a distinction between the design direction of the game and changes made to already developed features in response to player feedback.

That's what I thought. Your post from earlier is what confused me, it appeared to me to be saying that Frontier was going to do what they want regardless of feedback.

Asking for feedback does not commit Frontier to making changes to all of the game elements mentioned by those giving feedback.

 

[WR3ND]

So... we have established that Frontier is willing to listen to player feedback and make changes accordingly, should they wish to.

Getting back to what I was originally talking about - essentially what I am saying is that Frontier taking on board player feedback during the initial design period would save them having to redo the work that they have already done, which is what they seem to do, over and over again.

Part of the issue may be that Frontier doesn't seem to have been entirely able to do what Frontier wanted to do with the game either, so in this regard player feedback seems less likely to help, making for disappointment.

 

[Logan Terrick]

It's a distinction between the design direction of the game and changes made to already developed features in response to player feedback.

Curious. So if I am understanding you correctly - Frontier is willing to listen to feedback and make changes to features that they have already developed but they will not listen to feedback and make any changes to the features whilst they are being designed? Is that correct?

Asking for feedback does not commit Frontier to making changes to all of the game elements mentioned by those giving feedback.

Of course not. Well aware of that.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Curious. So if I am understanding you correctly - Frontier is willing to listen to feedback and make changes to features that they have already developed but they will not listen to feedback and make any changes to the features whilst they are being designed? Is that correct?

They don't announce features at the design stage, i.e. by the time we heard about Odyssey I expect the design was fixed, so there's no window of opportunity to affect the design of features we don't know are in the process of being developed.

Frontier are free to take on board, or not take on board, feedback as they see fit.

 

[Logan Terrick]

They don't announce features at the design stage, i.e. by the time we heard about Odyssey I expect the design was fixed, so there's no window of opportunity to affect the design of features we don't know are in the process of being developed.

True, that is actually part of the subject of my post in the first place, requesting that they change how that is done and that they start to take feedback at the design stage rather than after the work has been completed. I guess my question is then - would Frontier be willing to listen to feedback at the design stage if they had a way of receiving player feedback at that stage?

Frontier are free to take on board, or not take on board, feedback as they see fit.

Of course they are. Doesn't really need to be said. As far as I know nobody is saying that they aren't.

 

[Robert Maynard]

True, that is actually part of the subject of my post in the first place, requesting that they change how that is done and that they start to take feedback at the design stage rather than after the work has been completed. I guess my question is then - would Frontier be willing to listen to feedback at the design stage if they had a way of receiving player feedback at that stage?

Given the reactions of players when previously pre-announced features did not arrive as expected, I doubt that Frontier would go down the route of opening up features (again) for discussion at the design phase. Even if they chose to, there's no guarantee that particular feedback on the design would be taken on board.

 

[Logan Terrick]

Given the reactions of players when previously pre-announced features did not arrive as expected, I doubt that Frontier would go down the route of opening up features (again) for discussion at the design phase. Even if they chose to, there's no guarantee that particular feedback on the design would be taken on board.

Understood. If that is their choice then that is their choice. It's just so wasteful of their dev's time. Creating features that have a reasonable chance of being removed or having to be re-done. It also takes much longer (sometimes years!) for players to get the features working in a way that they are satisfied with and Frontier has to suffer all that time through the negativity of having produced something that players don't like.

The way they are doing things at the moment is like this:

• Years of development designing and building features.
• DLC Releases.
• Feedback is received and if mostly negative some of it is taken on board.
• Features are removed or changed, more development work - months?
• DLC is updated.
• Feedback is received again and if still mostly negative some more of it is taken on board.
• Features are removed or changed, more development work - months?
• DLC is updated.

...and so it continues until the majority of the player base is satisfied, which can be a year or more after the first release of the DLC content (Engineering?).

What I was suggesting would go more like this:

• During the years of development Frontier receive player feedback on features and adjust as they go (still being their decision on whether or not they listen to specific feedback), from iteration to iteration at the design stage until the majority of the player base is satisfied with the features.
• DLC is released and Frontier already know that the majority of the player base will be satisfied with what is coming.

Done. Much less dev time for Frontier, much less hassle for Frontier, much less negativity towards them, players get a DLC that doesn't disappoint the majority of them and they don't have to wait extra months/years for work that was already done to be re-done.

To say that I don't understand Frontiers decision on this is an understatement but, as has already been pointed out, it is their decision.

 

[Robert Maynard]

What I was suggesting would go more like this:

• During the years of development Frontier receive player feedback on features and adjust as they go (still being their decision on whether or not they listen to specific feedback), from iteration to iteration at the design stage until the majority of the player base is satisfied with the features.
• DLC is released and Frontier already know that the majority of the player base will be satisfied with what is coming.

Done. Much less dev time for Frontier, much less hassle for Frontier, much less negativity towards them, players get a DLC that doesn't disappoint the majority of them and they don't have to wait extra months/years for work that was already done to be re-done.

To say that I don't understand Frontiers decision on this is an understatement but, as has already been pointed out, it is their decision.

What is omitted from this version is the complaining of those who don't want the feature to be developed at all and want something else entirely.

There's no guarantee that the complainers would be in the minority (of those who engage with the forums and other Frontier social media presences).

... plus there's the assumption that Frontier would adjust the design as they went in response to player feedback - leads us back to the old reminder that the game design is not a democracy.

 

[Logan Terrick]

What is omitted from this version is the complaining of those who don't want the feature to be developed at all and want something else entirely.

There's no guarantee that the complainers would be in the minority (of those who engage with the forums and other Frontier social media presences).

In the case of the majority of their player base not wanting a feature that Frontier wants to put in the game then Frontier would have two choices, either bend to their will and change/remove what they are planning to add or stick to their guns and add the feature regardless. If they choose to add the feature regardless then they are going to alienate the majority of their player base.

This really doesn't come into the differences between what Frontier do now and what I am suggesting though, which is why it wasn't listed. It's still there just the same either way. The way Frontier does things now they just wouldn't find out that the majority of their player base didn't want the feature until after it was released. My way they would find out during development. Either way they are still in the same situation at that point, just my way they are actually in a better situation to do something about it, should they want to.