the negative community narrative and the confirmation bias effect.

[Lily from anim.o.v.e]

this isnt about impatience, this is mostly about effort and return. A lot of things have cost frontier a lot of time to develop, but if they had taken somewhat more time to do a better design things wouldn't need later changes again to such a degree the yneed now. And the later in a software development stage you change stuff the more expensive it is. Just looka t the mission boards and tell me how cna one make missions appear youc annot accept becausse they go over 50M and some pay less than 1k credits. THIS is seriously such an elemental flaw that shouldn't even appear if you have some basic cases designed.

And sorry, maybe you see these things positive, but they aren't. if the game is WIP, why do we have to pay addons (aka season passes) for new features if old ones are still WIP?

I word in software development and i am gaming now since around 20 years. and neither is frontiers progress somewhat ok (it's abyssimal slow) nor is the outcome some good quality. The only proper quality we have is that the game rarely crashes.

I mean sure I can say HEY, look, thats a car at leats, and oh wow good Job it even has 4 ties and a steering wheel. But no one says thats a good job because these are mandatory things. Except for the visuals of this game and some combat emchanics there is nothing really great in ED. The art and modelling department does a great job, the rest si just mediocre. And i am not going to celebrate medicore outcome. Frontier wasted a lot of time into redesigning a flawed mechanic into another flawed mechanic. Think about how often they altered missions and their payouts and yet nothing is still right about it. The loophole just swapped form A to B.
Honor to who it deserves, but thats much for Frontier outside their graphical department.

The impatience came from years old improvement suggestiosn which haven't even made it into the game and dopn't even require much effort. There is then the point where peopel just swap tactics in how they give their feedback.

 

[Valorin]

watch this -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOjIAiJCNIk
Simply put,

I'm getting tired of frontier can only do wrong narrative. On everypage of the forum there are a 2-4 complaits threads, and has a couple of megathreads
From "this update is not space legs nor atmospheric landings",
to they have implemented only 1/4 of what this feature could offer.

From stop adding features and just fix the base game, to
why are you trying to fix the base game, we need more features.

and of course anyone who tries to just try to knock the hyperbole on the head and bring the complaints to some rational sensible feedback,
automatically get attacked that we're FD-lovers / Defenders.

Basically, the complaints boils down to a frustrated feeling of impatience. The only fact that is relevant to this feeling is the game people imagined at the kickstarter, is not in their hands right now.

The game has things that need to be done. FD are working on that.
you might not agree with the prioritising, but credit given to where it's due.

We got a game that works and is a lot of fun to inhabit.

From a massive procedurally generated galaxy, to a working political and background simulation, that ticks away quite nicely.
It works.
Yeah, there are bugs and issues, but for the main part, you have to agree, stuff actually works and works well enough to be enjoyable.

But it's taking so long, the impatient complain, and even some of the patient people who have waited for a couple of years now for space legs.

Sure it's simple to knee-jerk and think Beyond is not giving us space-legs nor atmospheric planets.
However it *is* the path that leads us there.
Having things like atmospheric *dead* planets, detailed enough to fly around, drive around and walk around - requires "2018's beyond" update.
But even the ushering in of the beige plague of 2017 was due to developmental increments in terrain rendering that had atmospherics in the design process.


People are suddenly realising like a simple idea of mining "Just blow up some rocks and collect the goods and that's mining done",
Actually requires way more work, and many many many iterations, and each iteration is based on player-based feedback.

Suddenly adding in these features, takes time, effort and then even more time. And it's daunting. Yes. Development *is* daunting. And getting the rough versions that land roughly in the ballpark takes a long time, refining it can take even longer.

Some features like the crime-and-punishment really needs to feel it's way forward - (and please use the relevant discussion forum HERE for that )

Frontier Are listening, and they want *you* to be a part of the development process to really *nail* the careers and the base game as they move forward in parallel with new features and storylines, missions and ships.

So please engange your brains, think before you type and adding more chorus to the conformation bias, and keep this negative narative rolling.

The game *is* work in progress, and ergo it *is* underdeveloped in certain areas and it requires your help and patience to get it in place.
And you get a say in this process too, unlike other games with development going on behind doors with aspirations they will hit the mmo ball out of the park straight off the bat.
*you* get to steer the game to where *you* want.

--------------------- extra post lost in the flotsam --------------------------
Demanding change (constructively) is something I encourage.
I myself said the game was underdeveloped since it is being continously developed on and admitted certain aspects of the game are functional to a degree but miss the mark.

You'll see posts of mine asking for material, station facility filtering in the system maps.
I've made multiple posts and added my voice to the posts about having heat-sinks to be synthesized, and how I believed it could be implemented (over time) as to not be exploitable.

Because "nice to haves" are logged, and if other likeminded people discuss rationally about the same feature gathering momentum behind that quality of life change, the more that feature bubbles up on the developer radar. If people try to mentally debug the feature on the forums, before it gets coded and play-tested, all the better.


And having been a developer, and a QA tester (and being a massive Valve fan hunkering down fruitlessly I might add, on Forum 81 (the official steampowered half life 2 episode 2 disccusion forum) waiting for the 3rd half life chapter - I've learned a thing or two about the length of time it takes to develop something successfully)

I know that complaints and suggestions can be enthusastically logged, and fixes can be in the pipeline: either they are already implemented by an enthusiastic developer or planned to be implemented.

Whether or not that code is actually scheduled for release, is a different story. It might never be shipped, it could fail QA by causing a catastrophic bug in another part of the code.

If all goes well, It might be months from a "hitting the nail on the head forum comment", to that specific bug fix or feature actually shipping, because there was scheduled maintenance or a planned overhaul of that area for or it makes sense to pack that micro-patch with some other patches that serves the narrative of that specific large update well.

I just want people to use their voices well, and help develop the game, not add their voices to a harmony of discontent - as that creates a bias that others players base their own discontent in when voicing the issue they wish to discuss.

Everyones opinions are valid, and tell a part of the story from a certain perspective (even if the language can be colourfull at times)

That's about what happens in almost any gaming forum. Usually I don't even care, but I really like this game, which is why I contribute and counter some of the unqualified angry and demanding feedback. Mostly actually to oppose that behavior, since I know that discussion is completely useless in most cases. Also because people immediately feel attacked when opposing their opinion. I guess many just don't get that their feedback can't even considered feedback the way they present it, it's more like an angry mob holding angry signs with single minded demands. And in exact this moment some of those people will paint another sign with their counter attack on my outrageous accusations... If you don't mind a read, read this for more on this really interesting topic:

In short: why the hell do I feel attacked by different opinions and why keep I defending stuff I know it's nonsense when I think about it.
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe

 

[Valorin]

My my. Aren't we impatient. Surely our over-active imagination is all to blame, and not game developer over-promising things when they badly needed money - which they later can't deliver. /s

Question: how much did you pay for the main game plus dlc so far, and when?

 

[Enderby]

If the game was better there’d be less criticism. And then less need for fanboys to get all defensive.

Blame the game not the posters.

And besides, it’s only a forum. Do negative coments really bother you? They don’t matter. None of it matters.

 

[iFred]

watch this -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOjIAiJCNIk
Simply put,

I'm getting tired of frontier can only do wrong narrative. On everypage of the forum there are a 2-4 complaits threads, and has a couple of megathreads
From "this update is not space legs nor atmospheric landings",
to they have implemented only 1/4 of what this feature could offer.

From stop adding features and just fix the base game, to
why are you trying to fix the base game, we need more features.

and of course anyone who tries to just try to knock the hyperbole on the head and bring the complaints to some rational sensible feedback,
automatically get attacked that we're FD-lovers / Defenders.

Basically, the complaints boils down to a frustrated feeling of impatience. The only fact that is relevant to this feeling is the game people imagined at the kickstarter, is not in their hands right now.

The game has things that need to be done. FD are working on that.
you might not agree with the prioritising, but credit given to where it's due.

We got a game that works and is a lot of fun to inhabit.

From a massive procedurally generated galaxy, to a working political and background simulation, that ticks away quite nicely.
It works.
Yeah, there are bugs and issues, but for the main part, you have to agree, stuff actually works and works well enough to be enjoyable.

But it's taking so long, the impatient complain, and even some of the patient people who have waited for a couple of years now for space legs.

Sure it's simple to knee-jerk and think Beyond is not giving us space-legs nor atmospheric planets.
However it *is* the path that leads us there.
Having things like atmospheric *dead* planets, detailed enough to fly around, drive around and walk around - requires "2018's beyond" update.
But even the ushering in of the beige plague of 2017 was due to developmental increments in terrain rendering that had atmospherics in the design process.


People are suddenly realising like a simple idea of mining "Just blow up some rocks and collect the goods and that's mining done",
Actually requires way more work, and many many many iterations, and each iteration is based on player-based feedback.

Suddenly adding in these features, takes time, effort and then even more time. And it's daunting. Yes. Development *is* daunting. And getting the rough versions that land roughly in the ballpark takes a long time, refining it can take even longer.

Some features like the crime-and-punishment really needs to feel it's way forward - (and please use the relevant discussion forum HERE for that )

Frontier Are listening, and they want *you* to be a part of the development process to really *nail* the careers and the base game as they move forward in parallel with new features and storylines, missions and ships.

So please engange your brains, think before you type and adding more chorus to the conformation bias, and keep this negative narative rolling.

The game *is* work in progress, and ergo it *is* underdeveloped in certain areas and it requires your help and patience to get it in place.
And you get a say in this process too, unlike other games with development going on behind doors with aspirations they will hit the mmo ball out of the park straight off the bat.
*you* get to steer the game to where *you* want.

--------------------- extra post lost in the flotsam --------------------------
Demanding change (constructively) is something I encourage.
I myself said the game was underdeveloped since it is being continously developed on and admitted certain aspects of the game are functional to a degree but miss the mark.

You'll see posts of mine asking for material, station facility filtering in the system maps.
I've made multiple posts and added my voice to the posts about having heat-sinks to be synthesized, and how I believed it could be implemented (over time) as to not be exploitable.

Because "nice to haves" are logged, and if other likeminded people discuss rationally about the same feature gathering momentum behind that quality of life change, the more that feature bubbles up on the developer radar. If people try to mentally debug the feature on the forums, before it gets coded and play-tested, all the better.


And having been a developer, and a QA tester (and being a massive Valve fan hunkering down fruitlessly I might add, on Forum 81 (the official steampowered half life 2 episode 2 disccusion forum) waiting for the 3rd half life chapter - I've learned a thing or two about the length of time it takes to develop something successfully)

I know that complaints and suggestions can be enthusastically logged, and fixes can be in the pipeline: either they are already implemented by an enthusiastic developer or planned to be implemented.

Whether or not that code is actually scheduled for release, is a different story. It might never be shipped, it could fail QA by causing a catastrophic bug in another part of the code.

If all goes well, It might be months from a "hitting the nail on the head forum comment", to that specific bug fix or feature actually shipping, because there was scheduled maintenance or a planned overhaul of that area for or it makes sense to pack that micro-patch with some other patches that serves the narrative of that specific large update well.

I just want people to use their voices well, and help develop the game, not add their voices to a harmony of discontent - as that creates a bias that others players base their own discontent in when voicing the issue they wish to discuss.

Everyones opinions are valid, and tell a part of the story from a certain perspective (even if the language can be colourfull at times)

Nice try. But you are wrong.

When the "narrative" means to add a community goal or two, some weapons and nothing else there´s only one valid conclusion: They have nothing to release. Nothing has been done in the last months. And that´s why the community is pretty toxic at the moment. The content of 2.4 can be played in 2 hours (Hey, that´s more than the current CoD-Singleplayer-campaign ), but to celebrate 2.4 as a "release" is a slap in the face of the community that puts hundreds of dollars into that game.

my 2 cents.

 

[FudePoof]

watch this -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOjIAiJCNIk
Simply put,

I'm getting tired of frontier can only do wrong narrative. On everypage of the forum there are a 2-4 complaits threads, and has a couple of megathreads
From "this update is not space legs nor atmospheric landings",
to they have implemented only 1/4 of what this feature could offer.

From stop adding features and just fix the base game, to
why are you trying to fix the base game, we need more features.

and of course anyone who tries to just try to knock the hyperbole on the head and bring the complaints to some rational sensible feedback,
automatically get attacked that we're FD-lovers / Defenders.

Basically, the complaints boils down to a frustrated feeling of impatience. The only fact that is relevant to this feeling is the game people imagined at the kickstarter, is not in their hands right now.

The game has things that need to be done. FD are working on that.
you might not agree with the prioritising, but credit given to where it's due.

We got a game that works and is a lot of fun to inhabit.

From a massive procedurally generated galaxy, to a working political and background simulation, that ticks away quite nicely.
It works.
Yeah, there are bugs and issues, but for the main part, you have to agree, stuff actually works and works well enough to be enjoyable.

But it's taking so long, the impatient complain, and even some of the patient people who have waited for a couple of years now for space legs.

Sure it's simple to knee-jerk and think Beyond is not giving us space-legs nor atmospheric planets.
However it *is* the path that leads us there.
Having things like atmospheric *dead* planets, detailed enough to fly around, drive around and walk around - requires "2018's beyond" update.
But even the ushering in of the beige plague of 2017 was due to developmental increments in terrain rendering that had atmospherics in the design process.


People are suddenly realising like a simple idea of mining "Just blow up some rocks and collect the goods and that's mining done",
Actually requires way more work, and many many many iterations, and each iteration is based on player-based feedback.

Suddenly adding in these features, takes time, effort and then even more time. And it's daunting. Yes. Development *is* daunting. And getting the rough versions that land roughly in the ballpark takes a long time, refining it can take even longer.

Some features like the crime-and-punishment really needs to feel it's way forward - (and please use the relevant discussion forum HERE for that )

Frontier Are listening, and they want *you* to be a part of the development process to really *nail* the careers and the base game as they move forward in parallel with new features and storylines, missions and ships.

So please engange your brains, think before you type and adding more chorus to the conformation bias, and keep this negative narative rolling.

The game *is* work in progress, and ergo it *is* underdeveloped in certain areas and it requires your help and patience to get it in place.
And you get a say in this process too, unlike other games with development going on behind doors with aspirations they will hit the mmo ball out of the park straight off the bat.
*you* get to steer the game to where *you* want.

--------------------- extra post lost in the flotsam --------------------------
Demanding change (constructively) is something I encourage.
I myself said the game was underdeveloped since it is being continously developed on and admitted certain aspects of the game are functional to a degree but miss the mark.

You'll see posts of mine asking for material, station facility filtering in the system maps.
I've made multiple posts and added my voice to the posts about having heat-sinks to be synthesized, and how I believed it could be implemented (over time) as to not be exploitable.

Because "nice to haves" are logged, and if other likeminded people discuss rationally about the same feature gathering momentum behind that quality of life change, the more that feature bubbles up on the developer radar. If people try to mentally debug the feature on the forums, before it gets coded and play-tested, all the better.


And having been a developer, and a QA tester (and being a massive Valve fan hunkering down fruitlessly I might add, on Forum 81 (the official steampowered half life 2 episode 2 disccusion forum) waiting for the 3rd half life chapter - I've learned a thing or two about the length of time it takes to develop something successfully)

I know that complaints and suggestions can be enthusastically logged, and fixes can be in the pipeline: either they are already implemented by an enthusiastic developer or planned to be implemented.

Whether or not that code is actually scheduled for release, is a different story. It might never be shipped, it could fail QA by causing a catastrophic bug in another part of the code.

If all goes well, It might be months from a "hitting the nail on the head forum comment", to that specific bug fix or feature actually shipping, because there was scheduled maintenance or a planned overhaul of that area for or it makes sense to pack that micro-patch with some other patches that serves the narrative of that specific large update well.

I just want people to use their voices well, and help develop the game, not add their voices to a harmony of discontent - as that creates a bias that others players base their own discontent in when voicing the issue they wish to discuss.

Everyones opinions are valid, and tell a part of the story from a certain perspective (even if the language can be colourfull at times)

Too long didnt read.

It's one of those complaining about complainers threads. Well guess what's even more pointless than complaining? it's complaining about complaining!

Nothing has ever come from complaining about complaining, but things do happen when people complain together. Just look at EA currently or UBISOFT during for honor, complaining got crap done. Complaining keeps the devs on their toes, reminding them that the best way to make their shareholders happy is by keeping the stakeholders happy and spending.

Complaining makes games better because what people think about the game affects sales and active players. So please, everyone, keep complaining. It is your duty as a consumer to hold whole industries accountable for their actions and inaction.

To hell with your confirmation bias. You're drinking the cool aid if you don't complain, and drinking the coolaid if you do complain. Might as well complain, you might even get something out of it.

 

[Lily from anim.o.v.e]

Question: how much did you pay for the main game plus dlc so far, and when?

What does that matter? people were even told to get an offline game, so "running server costs" can't even be an argument since no one asked for these.
I got a lot of games for a lot less who were done a lot better and by a lot less devlopers. And this is why I am not going to eb positive towards frontier as with what they have available is not doing compareabel good. I have of course also paid more for even more poopy games, but we do not measure ourselfs towards the bad examples. Wurm online for example has a crawling slow development but it exists since 2006 and started beta in 2003 and it basically had only 2 devs where one even left in 2007. That left devloper started hiring people in 2011. But form the very beginning the design of the mechanics in Wurm were done VERY well and working. They didn't had major flaws and if they were fixed quickly. thats how the game survived that long, because it was a good game made well. But here in ED, broken mission payouts, how long do we have them now? When will they be fixed? how can this for a professional software developing company with so much staff fail so often? How can this be good or be seen positively? Sure we can say "hey at least we go missions" But come on these people are professionals and they are doing no good job for being professionals. This is just a rather neutral fact and it is only "negative" because of what they delivered, not because we see that negative. If you get a D thats not good, just because if could also be an F. You cna also nto go to the teacher and say, "Hey, that D sound so negative, don't be so negative". This isn't how objective judgement works. Objectively the game has a lot of flaws. Shallow repetitive tasks with some clear inferior choices because no one ever considered costs of opportunity into payouts of missions. in the case of ED, yes there is a lot to blame on the game design choices. Surely feedback with insulting devs is always a no go. But saying they did a bad job when we can clearly show examples (and still find them after 2 years) is not negative thats just really bad.

I wish so much that the 2018 core feature updates will make the game great. But simply seeing how much they oculd deliver in the past I doubt all these planned imporvements can even proeprly done within that time. They better make like 1 core part each 6 month. That could work. Economy on it's own is a HUGE task. design that properly is a big one, after that you need to test this and tweak it to generate a proepr stable economy flow in the game. but without economy trading, mining and most PP related things and the BGS will never be simproveable substantially. If I were frontier I would dedicate the entire 2018 into setting a proper basic economy including trading. Then from 2019 + that can be enhanced by improving mining into it. PP and factions would be the next ones.
What frontier definately proofed with Horizons and multicrew and that arena thingy that I already forgot how it was named, is that they make too quick updates which are deisgn wise unfinished and then neglected by their players. This comes from mostly being very isolated features not having a connection to the remaining game. PP, Multicrew, they both should have massive effects on those who participate and PP into the systems it happens. But they hardly affect anything vital.

Another good example is slime rancher, go to the steam forum. theres nearly no negativity, the most you find is people posting about technical issues. Why is that? well because the game within what it is is free of major deisgn flaws. There is hardly any mechanic to rant about.

Edit: a lot of types, can't hit the keys in the right sequence today

 

[Valorin]

What does that matter? people were even told to get an offline game, so "running server costs" can't even be an argument since no one asked for these.
I got a lot of games for a lot less who were done a lot better and by a lot less devlopers. And this is why I am not going to eb positive towards frontier as with what they have available is not doing compareabel good. I have of course also paid more for even more poopy games, but we do not measure ourselfs towards the bad examples. Wurm online for example has a crawling slow development but it exists since 2006 and started beta in 2003 and it basically had only 2 devs where one even left in 2007. That left devloper started hiring people in 2011. But form the very beginning the design of the mechanics in Wurm were done VERY well and working. They didn't had major flaws and if they were fixed quickly. thats how the game survived that long, because it was a good game made well. But here in ED, broken mission payouts, how long do we have them now? When will they be fixed? how can this for a professional software developing company with so much staff fail so often? How can this be good or be seen positively? Sure we can say "hey at least we go missions" But come on these people are professionals and they are doing no good job for being professionals. This is just a rather neutral fact and it is only "negative" because of what they delivered, not because we see that negative. If you get a D thats not good, just because if could also be an F. You cna also nto go to the teacher and say, "Hey, that D sound so negative, don't be so negative". This isn't how objective judgement works. Objectively the game has a lot of flaws. Shallow repetitive tasks with some clear inferior choices because no one ever considered costs of opportunity into payouts of missions. in the case of ED, yes there is a lot to blame on the game design choices. Surely feedback with insulting devs is always a no go. But saying they did a bad job when we can clearly show examples (and still find them after 2 years) is not negative thats just really bad.

I wish so much that the 2018 core feature updates will make the game great. But simply seeing how much they oculd deliver in the past I doubt all these planned imporvements can even proeprly done within that time. They better make like 1 core part each 6 month. That could work. Economy on it's own is a HUGE task. design that properly is a big one, after that you need to test this and tweak it to generate a proepr stable economy flow in the game. but without economy trading, mining and most PP related things and the BGS will never be simproveable substantially. If I were frontier I would dedicate the entire 2018 into setting a proper basic economy including trading. Then from 2019 + that can be enhanced by improving mining into it. PP and factions would be the next ones.
What frontier definately proofed with Horizons and multicrew and that arena thingy that I already forgot how it was named, is that they make too quick updates which are deisgn wise unfinished and then neglected by their players. This comes from mostly being very isolated features not having a connection to the remaining game. PP, Multicrew, they both should have massive effects on those who participate and PP into the systems it happens. But they hardly affect anything vital.

Another good example is slime rancher, go to the steam forum. theres nearly no negativity, the most you find is people posting about technical issues. Why is that? well because the game within what it is is free of major deisgn flaws. There is hardly any mechanic to rant about.

Edit: a lot of types, can't hit the keys in the right sequence today

You didn't answer the question. Also it does matter concerning the cost/gain factor.

 

[Goose4291]

You didn't answer the question. Also it does matter concerning the cost/gain factor.

I also note you didnt answer Valorin's.

Why does it matter what they paid for the main game and supporting DLC, and when?

 

[Enderby]

I bought ED as game in development.

I was waiting for it to be developed nicely, fleshed out and become good.

But now, 3 years later, I conclude that so far they have developed it poorly.

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

I see it all as just passion being shown by both sides and a desire to have the best game they can think of...

However, many people, white knights and the like included (Sorry for the use of the term, no offence meant) want it all now. Software is like baking a cake, time, care and a lot of love are needed by everyone in the team, not just the developers.

I see this 'love' in the live streams, it's all I need to confirm my believe that Frontier are still passionate about Elite and all the promise it holds.

That said I do have some reservations which perhaps I'll start a thread on so as to not derail this one.


+Rep OP, always good to see that video!

 

[RidingTheFlow]

Question: how much did you pay for the main game plus dlc so far, and when?

I paid during Kickstarter. The exact figure is not exactly your business.

All it matters now that I didn't quite get what *was promised when I paid*. In fact they've started "adjusting" these promises quite quickly and goalposts moving as soon as two-three month time (but after they've already got the money). I only didn't request immediate refund because dev still promised they *eventually* will deliver so I still decided to give them benefit of doubt. However, as years go by, the likehood appears less and less likely (after all its all happened so far in the past, so who cares).

What I also know is that I surely wouldn't pay as much as I did if I knew what I actually will be getting and when. And maybe wouldn't pay anything at all infact.

 

[Valorin]

I also note you didnt answer Valorin's.

Why does it matter what they paid for the main game and supporting DLC, and when?

Because the entitlement shown by many people on the forum implies that they at least paid half the development costs of the game, or perhaps a monthly fee or something. Even in that case it doesn't excuse the way some people state their demands or voice their criticism. But actually we pay once for a game that is being developed on and on. And when I look at what games cost nowadays I really think Elite is even cheap for what it offers.
And don't get me wrong: criticism is a good thing, if you deliver it with respect and in a constructive way, and don't rant about what you demand or even state to know what went wrong or has to happen with a development process you are not part of because you are not a Frontier employee who is part of the dev team.
I said that a lot, perhaps I should just copy paste one post over and over again, but you bought a long term ticket for the funpark, you didn't buy the funpark or even own parts of it. But that's how many people behave.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

...

In short: why the hell do I feel attacked by different opinions and why keep I defending stuff I know it's nonsense when I think about it.
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe

That is some form of confirmation bias itself. If you've invested into a thing, you're just likely to stick to opinions that confirm and agree that it was a good investment (time, money, whatever). A dissenting opinion threatens that belief about the good investment and that's what makes people go defensive. Can't be you potentially made a bad call.

 

[sollisb]

Because the entitlement shown by many people on the forum implies that they at least paid half the development costs of the game, or perhaps a monthly fee or something. Even in that case it doesn't excuse the way some people state their demands or voice their criticism. But actually we pay once for a game that is being developed on and on. And when I look at what games cost nowadays I really think Elite is even cheap for what it offers.
And don't get me wrong: criticism is a good thing, if you deliver it with respect and in a constructive way, and don't rant about what you demand or even state to know what went wrong or has to happen with a development process you are not part of because you are not a Frontier employee who is part of the dev team.
I said that a lot, perhaps I should just copy paste one post over and over again, but you bought a long term ticket for the funpark, you didn't buy the funpark or even own parts of it. But that's how many people behave.

A gaming mindset; They'll eventually deliver the game they promised..

How much is a student version of Microsoft Office? 80 bucks? The same price as ED + Horizons?

You don't see so many blatant amateurish coding bugs in Office as you do in this game!

Fdev deliver releases, half-coded, half-tested, and without any kind of quality control, and they do it, time after time.

If it weren't for the graphics; E.D. would be dead in the water.

 

[Valorin]

That is some form of confirmation bias itself. If you've invested into a thing, you're just likely to stick to opinions that confirm and agree that it was a good investment (time, money, whatever). A dissenting opinion threatens that belief about the good investment and that's what makes people go defensive. Can't be you potentially made a bad call.

I think there's always more than one factor. Social structures are pretty complex.

 

[Valorin]

A gaming mindset; They'll eventually deliver the game they promised..

How much is a student version of Microsoft Office? 80 bucks? The same price as ED + Horizons?

You don't see so many blatant amateurish coding bugs in Office as you do in this game!

Fdev deliver releases, half-coded, half-tested, and without any kind of quality control, and they do it, time after time.

If it weren't for the graphics; E.D. would be dead in the water.

That's your opinion and I guess nobody but a dev could prove you wrong here because nobody other is able to take a look into the code, which includes you. That whole thing might be as well much more complex than you think and perhaps they make a really good job. We don't know, and actually I don't really care. I like the game as it is, not saying I wouldn't take improvements, but usually you pay much more for what it offers.

 

[Lily from anim.o.v.e]

You didn't answer the question. Also it does matter concerning the cost/gain factor.

because I don't remember what the regular price was and if the current one isstille the one when stuff came out. and form a cost/gain factor elite didn't do well at all comapred to how much better other games did at a much cheaper price. You know what was a ripoff? Terraria for 2,50€ felt bad about paying such low for such a great game. before the price I paid for elite gets this cost/gain ratio it has to MASSIVELY improve

That's your opinion and I guess nobody but a dev could prove you wrong here because nobody other is able to take a look into the code, which includes you. That whole thing might be as well much more complex than you think and perhaps they make a really good job. We don't know, and actually I don't really care. I like the game as it is, not saying I wouldn't take improvements, but usually you pay much more for what it offers.

so wait, you cannot see the bad coding within what results the missiosn baords give?
You don't need to see the code to know with what comes out of it, that the code is bad. if it were properly done fixing such trivial things would be easy. Other games did similar stuff years ago. So it isn't hard either.

But actually we pay once for a game that is being developed on and on.

if that would be true, horiizons would have been free, so we constantly have to pay further for some of this "on and on devlopment"


btw terraria did that, gave multiple very good updates for FREE.

 

[sollisb]

That's your opinion and I guess nobody but a dev could prove you wrong here because nobody other is able to take a look into the code, which includes you. That whole thing might be as well much more complex than you think and perhaps they make a really good job. We don't know, and actually I don't really care. I like the game as it is, not saying I wouldn't take improvements, but usually you pay much more for what it offers.

NPC AI = bugged
Missions = Bugged
Message Boards = bugged
CMDR Messages = Bugged
Docking = Bugged
Bounty System = Bugged
MultiCrew = Bugged
Navigation = Bugged


And no, you don't pay much more for what it offers!!! Go buy Flight Sim and see how much you get for less than E.D. + Horizons.

For sure, every bit of software has 'some' bugs. E.D. is riddled with them. In fact, I have a hard job thinking of any part of E.D. that is not buggy.

The Graphics Dept are the real heroes tho.

You are correct, I cannot look into the code, but I can make a very well informed and qualified opinion about it.

 

[RidingTheFlow]

You are correct, I cannot look into the code, but I can make a very well informed and qualified opinion about it.

Its standard "bad/amateur developer excuse" - "but man, you don't see whole picture, it all makes sense from code standpoint - its so complicated, etc".

Who cares, it all matters how *user* experiences it. They can't give a squat about internal things and how clever it is and how much effort you put into coding it - they can't see it and it shouldn't matter. Good developer eventually understands this and codes to please the users, not to please his inner coder.