The lack of communication

[Daniel Cloudsifter]

Sub-Nautica does some neat stuff with sharing their roadmap as well, and they don't over-hype it. Often hype is just teenager/ young adult foolishness in thinking what they imagine in their head is somehow going to be exactly like that in a video game running on their PC.

Doing something like the Trello development roadmap for Subnautica might be an improvement. Or it might just start even more flame wars as the playerbase further fragments and argues over which future features should be prioritized, which ones should be delayed, and which ones should be dropped.

I think he devs are doing a better job communicating on the development of this game than most I've seen.

All that being said...

Please PLEASE do not look to Star Citizen for how to make this game better. While SC may turn out to be a fantastic game, if it ever reaches a release point, it has marred by over hype, an unrealistic development timeline, and bad choices like all their pay to win ships sales.

I came to THIS game EXTREMELY wary/reluctant because of the whole Star Citizen mess. My cousin had been chattering about SC for years, until it became a joke. He also backed this game in beta, and has a lifetime pass to ED... and he still hadn't played it by December 2015. He finally got me to try it, using his account. Within 48 hours, I was hooked on this game/game world and I bought the game myself a few days later (and then he started playing as well).

This game hooked me, over the stench of the SC development process (again, the game may be great someday, but everything surrounding it is toxic right now), and over my experiences with the original Elite (which on my Apple IIc decades ago, were not great). Everything about Elite Dangerous seems mature - from the development roadmap to the universe itself. For example, the cockpit GUI and cockpit design is functional and nice looking, without looking like it's there for show.

Anyway, I don't know what else to say other than please don't look to SC for how things should be done in ED. Star Citizen may be a great game if/when finished; I truly hope so (even if I don't play due to the pay to win mess). I don't want to bash SC or go off on a which is better tangent. ED is unique and good and... playable right now. SC may be good someday. Just please don't look to the SC development team for what to do here.. please.

 

[Bacalao]

SC is in the kickstarter phase (perpetually), ED is not. ED should not be compared to a kickstarter game, compare it to a released Activision or Ubisoft title update schedule.

 

[Daniel Cloudsifter]

A prediction. Revisit in a year.

Lots of folks called ED a still-birth, but it has only grown better and sold more copies and cosmetics since.

All the angst over NMS seems also misplaced to me. The game to me is about as close to what I thought it would be as a developer could make it. Nothing's perfect and gamers should always set their expectations lower than they really want and dream some CGI / words on paper make them desire. Then they won't suffer big disappointment every time they play a game and it isn't just like the pre-rendered trailer or what was in their head. Hello games is a really, really small studio that put their hearts into NMS and for the size of the team I think they did a great job. Time will tell if is a huge hit but I'm sure it has already more paid for itself in sales. Great to see such a game promoted instead of only the latest EA re-badged sports or FPS game.

No Man's Sky has suffered from the wrong type of publicity: it was hyped like a AAA title when it has the resources/team size of a indie game. I haven't played it yet (I'll get it when it's on sale), but most of the criticisms I've seen leveled at it are due to it not meeting a lot of expectations that people erroneously had. If you're expecting a lot of unique, in depth, and variety in something that is massive due to procedural generation, you've only yourself to blame. I love ED, but the missions in this game are no where near as detailed as pre-scripted missions in something like GTA.

One thing I like about the devs of this game is that they aren't vulnerable to feature creep. ED may one day have us engaging in walking around/fighting in first person, but they didn't hold everything up to add that feature. They focused on the core game play they want the game to have, and put in the place holders/hooks/whatever to add the other stuff later. While they aren't publicizing their full road map years in advance, they due seem to have a long range plan/vision. And they are doing it in steps, not trying to do it all at once. Kudos.

 

[Lestenio]

Fair point...+1

However, I do wish we got more on game design earlier...if they have been struggling for so long trying to figure out instant vs timed txfr...why couldn't they have just asked us?

They are not struggling, it's just some people don't like their choice. Had they chosen timed there would still be people arguing about it being wrong. Devs have to go with what they think is the right choice.

Out of curiosity, do other games consult players? Were Witcher 3 players consulted about the expansions, are The Division players informed about future updates? Serious question. I don't participate in other forums so curious if it's case of lack of communication or unrealistic expectations.

 

[Red Anders]

They communicated, listened to lave radio? Sandro REALLY communicated, loud and clear.

Oh BOY did he communicate. In ways that made it clear that the wailing and gnashing of teeth was an "acceptable price to pay" for a better game and he's "Really excited management are giving him the go ahead"

Sounds almost like Sandro was something of a prime mover behind this idea and he's been told 'OK Sandy, you called it and we're going to back you'.

Which is interesting because I've seen that happen before at work on many occasions. Sometimes it means exactly what it seems to mean. Sometimes it means 'oh you want more rope? Sure, help yourself...'

I think it's fair to say that the launch of Engineers wasn't exactly a high point in the development of the game. I'd really be fascinated to know who was the prime mover behind the original concept for that, which was subsequently changed to be much less of a timesink, just because if it was the same brain that gave us instant ship transfers as a concept I'd be far more inclined to think we're seeing the 'have some more rope' process in play here.

On the other hand, if that person was a lone voice in the wilderness saying 'players won't like this because it all takes too long' it's far more likely that what we're seeing is someone being empowered by the positive feedback on the changes to Engineers to make it less of a time sink and basically deciding to apply that mindset to the rest of the upcoming content.

 

[Monk]

Out of curiosity, do other games consult players? Were Witcher 3 players consulted about the expansions, are The Division players informed about future updates? Serious question. I don't participate in other forums so curious if it's case of lack of communication or unrealistic expectations.

No, but Frontier has already set the precedent that they will take our feedback on several items. Passenger missions (or Engineers after much hand-wringing and forum warrioring), for example. Why not this, too?

 

[Lestenio]

No, but Frontier has already set the precedent that they will take our feedback on several items. Passenger missions (or Engineers after much hand-wringing and forum warrioring), for example. Why not this, too?

I see them listen all the time. SRVs didn't need fuel until some people started complaining. I'm sure they will take the feedback onboard, just because they are not vocal about it a few days after working the weekend at a show doesn't mean they are not listening.

For what it's worth, I'm not in favour' of instant either.

 

[Deleted member 94277]

Sub-Nautica does some neat stuff with sharing their roadmap as well, and they don't over-hype it. Often hype is just teenager/ young adult foolishness in thinking what they imagine in their head is somehow going to be exactly like that in a video game running on their PC.

In some cases, maybe. But NMS? Not a chance. They clearly promoted a different build of the game and lied to our faces. I never expected or imagined more than what was shown, I just expected to get the game being sold to me, not some stripped build. That was EA/Ubisoft levels of doucheness, they lied to our faces and what, they expected to get a free pass because they're a 'small dev house'? Here's proof that HG and Murray are just full of it. We did not hyped ourselves. We were tricked.

All the angst over NMS seems also misplaced to me. The game to me is about as close to what I thought it would be as a developer could make it. Nothing's perfect and gamers should always set their expectations lower than they really want and dream some CGI / words on paper make them desire. Then they won't suffer big disappointment every time they play a game and it isn't just like the pre-rendered trailer or what was in their head. Hello games is a really, really small studio that put their hearts into NMS and for the size of the team I think they did a great job. Time will tell if is a huge hit but I'm sure it has already more paid for itself in sales. Great to see such a game promoted instead of only the latest EA re-badged sports or FPS game.

I totally and entirely disagree with this. Why "gamers should always set their expectations lower than they really want"? In what consumer/company relation you're supposed to expect to get less than you were promised? Personally, I believe that we must overcome that mentality and have some self respect. I demand to be treated with respect and I suggest my fellow gamers do the same. Just because our hobby is reaching the mainstrem only recently, it doesn't mean it's a 'garage' industry, filled with ragged misfits and dreamers. They don't get a free pass to con us. It's a damned multibillion dollar industry, filled with moguls and magnates, and they better work for our entertainment. If there's anything to be learned from Gawker's demise, is that there's no place for the little man anymore in the technology business - including gaming - and, make no mistake, HG were in it to make a profit, not for some 'vision'. They are the latest EA type game, Sony just rebranded it behind an indie house to fool us.

And what motivates me is that some people really did got that NMS fell way shorter than promised.

NMS has gone from peak 200k players to 20k peak. It lost 90% of its player base in less than a month, the same amount The Division lost in a different time frame. Steam reviews are horrible, even from respectable reviewers. Regardless of the fact that these games had strong launch days, the reality is that we're not idiots anymore. We don't play bad games. Why would they promote better games than what they have, otherwise? As it's writen in countless anarchy stations across the bubble, "Rise Up Now", friends. We're the reason this industry exists and we have a voice, that will not be silent.

 

[Monk]

I see them listen all the time. SRVs didn't need fuel until some people started complaining. I'm sure they will take the feedback onboard, just because they are not vocal about it a few days after working the weekend at a show doesn't mean they are not listening.

For what it's worth, I'm not in favour' of instant either.

I'm not normally so hot about this stuff. I think it is just Sandro's bullish nature with this. Maybe my red zone has me ignoring something but it seems like Sandro does NOT want feedback on this and is not going to change it.

 

[Kylby36]

Yes I saw the demo. 10-FPS glitchy graphics and all. And yes, I have seen their send-us-money-now-for-spaceships-later website. I have also seen websites for organ-enlargement medication, websites explaining how signing my name in CAPITALS means I don't need to pay taxes, and websites selling pills which make a car run on tapwater. If that sort of thing rocks your boat, fine - but personally I buy games based on what they deliver, rather than on vague promises that they are going to do something-or-another at some indefinite time in the future.

If you did research, you would see that there is new netcode coming in that is supposed to eliminate any FPS issues that it currently has. It is the netcode that is the problem at the moment. In single player offline mode I get 70FPS. If you don't actually know anything about the game, I suggest you just not even try to post about it. I play both games on a daily basis, as well as surf around on their websites. I know how both games work and what is upcoming. Nice try though.

I love ED, but I defend the other game when someone tries to insult it.