Isn't it 12.48% (if you're going for the last two weeks worth of data from Steam)?
Players in the last 2 weeks: 101,060 ± 8,102 (12.48%)
The 7% was concurrent players yesterday I think.
Last edited:
The Science of David Braben
- Thread starter deckroid
- Start date
Isn't it 12.48% (if you're going for the last two weeks worth of data from Steam)?
Players in the last 2 weeks: 101,060 ± 8,102 (12.48%)
The 7% was concurrent players yesterday I think.
It makes no difference what the active player base is from Froniter's point of view. What matters is how may copies they have sold.
How many people here have a massive collection of steam games that you never play? Quite a few I would imagine.
There is an active player base playing that game, we dont know what that no is, but of course that no will go up and down due to various factors. I would be willng to bet that on average there is around 10,000 active players a day. Thats reasonably healthy in my book. But what keeps the lights on is actually selling copies of the game, and Frontier are still doing that regardless.
How many people here have a massive collection of steam games that you never play? Quite a few I would imagine.
There is an active player base playing that game, we dont know what that no is, but of course that no will go up and down due to various factors. I would be willng to bet that on average there is around 10,000 active players a day. Thats reasonably healthy in my book. But what keeps the lights on is actually selling copies of the game, and Frontier are still doing that regardless.
This.
You can look at metrics for games of comparable owners from the same year and it has a higher active play base than most. But that doesn't matter due to variables like time of year, updates, sales, and things like GameCon or other things that draw attention back to it. So, yes. Healthy.
It still remains too subjective to gauge any meaningful point. Depending on one's point of view that person will always side with their bias either through ignorance, to preserve their own job security, prejudice towards or misunderstanding of the 'other side' (sometimes all four).
As to your point about movies; ever heard of a movie so historically bad it's considered good by general consensus? Subjectivity is alive and well and ever fluid. It will always be a part of any conversation concerning society.
Objection.
1. And when an Engineer cannot immediately find a job specific to their expertise, i.e. they must go the McDonalds route? Or because of either socio-economic recession or job market saturation? Hath society deemed them unworthy? Or is it perhaps the result of a badly managed economy. Society's decision = minus 1
2. Nowadays pretty much everybody that isn't a footballer or hasn't been born into wealth, celebrity status or have influential or otherwise company/asset owning parents (from which to provide a future job for their offspring) is expected to stomach working menial "McJobs" no matter the level of their education, intellect and qualifications. Judging by this factor it seems society clearly wants none of us around unless we are of specific origins. Society's decision = minus 2
3. A successful filmmaker with an Arts degree is also considered a person with a "good" job with a "high" socio-economic standing. So really it's all just about how successful an individual becomes irrespective of their area of expertise or of society's apparent decision to cull them from the pack. Society's decision = minus 3
I do agree that collectively society does play a part in influencing the "status" of certain fields of interest/occupations (how could it not) but upon closer inspection and comparison with what life shows us it's not a convincing enough argument to say that society and society alone knows exactly what is and is not useful in terms of humanity's progress. Sometimes it takes individuals to show society what is useful, what might be useful in future and what was useful before that can be useful again.
So true of any field of education then, not only the Arts.
There is however always an innate "value" to education, at least that's what i believe. The "value" of the education is to the individual - they will be the ones using it to better themselves, their children and thus society. The "useful purpose" to society is when/if it allows that individual to grow and flourish rather than simply attempt to survive. This is one of the major problems of why we've witnessed such a decline of great thinkers, creators and genuine intellectuals - everyone is encouraged to be too busy surviving rather than being concerned about developing as a person and progressing as a species towards something better. That's why, as you said, the 1950s were such a different time to ours and we've seen a decline in terms of certain human potential since then.
Well yes, it does. As I said before education is never a wasted resource.
I don't disagree with the point you're trying to make - i.e. it's not possible to be a "self-taught" engineer (except for the first human to ever build something
). I just don't see the relevance. Are you saying too many people are getting educations in fields other than Engineering and the Sciences? In which case that's a symptom of a field people flock to when they are sufficiently interested in it but also when there are sufficient accessible opportunities to fund an education and make a living out of it. For example, you can have someone who loves science and astrology, loved it since their school days but where are the opportunities to secure sufficient funding to go to a quality University or to find gainful employment as a scientist? They're certainly not advertised in schools or colleges by experts in the field. No visiting employment councillors for budding young scientists. That's not the fault of the Arts community (they also don't exactly whip out the Steven Spielbergs or Chris Nolan's to come visit), it's entirely the fault of the Scientific community's lack of initiative.
You're so gracious, thank you sir!
(Apologies but I simply had to make fun of the brazenly "superior" tone).
That is a very silly and derogatory assumption to try and pass off as some kind of imaginary fact.
Forgive the assumption but here you assume the manner of someone who knows no practical experience of working in the creative industry and yet deems it worthy to confidently assume there's no expertise that goes in or comes out. That it's some kind of stereotypical easy street for less individuals because that's what you heard one day but never endeavoured to dig deeper. And particularly the comment about "an actual job" makes your words sound like a textbook caricature stereotype of the types we can all imagine yelling, "get a real job ya bums!". Because it's not a "real job" (whatever that means) unless it's approved by you/somebody/anybody, correct.
I'm sorry but there was no amount of intelligence put into this part of your post.
From my point of view; we should not become a society completely controlled and led by a notion of "superior endeavours" and "inferior endeavours" - as if "these endeavours" are fit for the master race among us and "these other endeavours"... well they're for the less developed plebs filling our streets. Excellence in any field should be encouraged. If we want to encourage more excellence/interest in a particular area then as a society we need to demand better standards of general public education and the equal representation of subjects/fields of endeavour.
That is an interesting observation. I would ask; Can you truly "excel" in a field you do not truly enjoy?
Sorry, but I'm calling you out on this one. You're completely missing my point that "subjectivity" is not a free-for-all where anyone's "opinion" has equal validity. Engineering is considered "hard" because it is, same as how most Liberal Arts educations are considered "easy" because they are. Same with movies, a movie like Aliens or Terminator 2 are considered classic sci-fi films that were tremendously influential, they are quite simply "good" movies by any standard. Sharknado or Eight Legged Freaks are both terrible movies, by any standards, even if people "enjoy" them for pure comedy value because they're "so bad they're almost good". That doesn't suddenly mean that you can put Shardnado or Eight Legged Freaks on par with Terminator or Aliens, the quality of the acting talent, script, special effects, plot, directing and impact on the movie industry are on completely different levels that they almost can't be compared to each other. You don't get to use "subjectivity" to make claims that are simply not justifiable.
Objection noted.
And overruled.
Yes, economic "viability" is not the only measure of success or value to society. At the same time, ask any Liberal Arts grad what he or she will "do" with their education. They usually have no "plan" or even a clear "idea" of what their education will "do" for them. They never did, it was simply a wasteful way of indulging their "need" to go to college without considering what, if anything, that was going to achieve for them personally or professionally.
That is completely untrue. I have worked some "menial" jobs as way of earning money during summers if a career-specific job I wanted wasn't available (mostly during my first undergraduate year) but only until I had better options available, which basically meant I only worked those jobs for one summer and then moved to jobs that might have paid no better but gave me valuable work experience in technical fields. I never considered working menial jobs as part of a coherent "career path" nor did I consider it my only option even when I was looking at various types of summer work. If you think that menial jobs are inevitable unless you're "born into wealth" then you clearly don't understand the various options available to university students and high school graduates who apply themselves. I was born with no wealth or college fund and I have achieved everything I wanted to achieve with my education without feeling "trapped" or "limited" by this lack of wealth in any way. I simply did not see it as a barrier to my success.
That filmmaker did not get that job based on their Arts degree, in fact, they usually had tremendous talent and the Arts degree was only a very minor stepping stone to their career. Completely unlike Science, Engineering, Medicine or Law where you simply cannot practice in your field without about 8-10 years of post-secondary education and usually formal certification by a regulatory agency of some kind (medical licensure, passing the bar for law, professional certification for engineers, etc). The filmmaker in question didn't succeed because of the Arts "education", they often succeeded "despite" the education offering little to no practical skills or training.
If they are applying themselves dilligently to a rigorous and coherent field of study? Then yes, I would agree with you. The issue here is that taking 6 years to get a degree in Communications or Liberal Arts or General Studies, accumulating $50k of debt, while taking a 60% full courseload and still getting only mediocre grades is not really what I would call meaningful "personal growth" or development for those students. Usually for these students the goal is to prioritize their social life, going to frat parties, etc., while doing as little actual work as possible without having their grades drop so low that they are required to withdraw. That is unfortunately what many college students aim for with their college "experience", it is essentially a glorified "extended adolescence" for them with very little responsibility or learning at all.
I don't disagree with the point you're trying to make - i.e. it's not possible to be a "self-taught" engineer (except for the first human to ever build something
No, I'm saying that having objective and rigorous standards ensure that certain field will be more well-regarded and respected than others that have a simply subjective measurement of "achievement". I'm assuming here that you understand why fields like Engineering, Science, Medicine and Law are heavily regulated, right?
First, define "creative industry"? Many aspects of scientific research require tremendous creativity to understand principles that are still being discovered. The idea that having a subjective "opinion" is creative yet endeavours in Science/Engineering/Medicine are not is a major problem for people who don't understand technical fields and how much creativity and flexibility they often require. Second, simply being "creative" is no excuse to have poor critical thinking ability or a lack of technical knowledge, in fact usually the most creative people I've met have only been able to use this creativity to it's full potential after becoming technically proficient in their field. This is where the importance of having rigorous standards and qualifications in your field becomes relevant.
Not quite, the types of "education" that I'm referring to are more often viewed as a way of avoiding reality for several years. It's actually not a good use of time or resources and as a result many students actually CLOSE doors as a result of their attempts at this type of an education, either because they did so poorly in their courses that they couldn't successfully pursue other educational activities or because they "wasted" time that employers see as a "warning flag" in terms of their motivation or work ethic. It's not that anyone really views it as an "easy street" path to actual success in their career or life in general, it's mostly viewed as the equivalent of the delinquent pot-smoking kid in high school who had no responsibilities and lacked motivation to improve their life until they were eventually required to actually get a job and realized they had limited options.
You most certainly can. My favourite example here is Bobby Fischer who suddenly stopped paying chess in the 1970's because he no longer enjoyed it despite being considered the best chess player in the world at the time. There are also many Olympic athletes who enjoyed their sport tremendously but did not enjoy the accompanying politics or demands it placed on their life, and so they decided to leave their fields. Similarly you can enjoy something tremendously and be terrible at it, there are many examples of people who wanted to pursue fields but accepted that they would never become successful in those professions and decided that they would pursue these interests as hobbies instead. Talent or skill in a field and personal enjoyment of that activity are really two different concepts.
Last edited:
Whilst i didn't contain much science, it was written in machine code on an 8 bit processor in 32k of memory (somebody correct me please). I'd say that is science.
It also went against the gaming establishment to produce the first immersive game. Shame FD are now turning their back on that innovative legacy.
Well that will teach whatever civilization was there previously to muck around with spaced-based particle accelerators
near their sun won't it!
Captured planet? Someone re-enacting Interstellar? More checks on habitable zone formation in Stellar Forge needed? Loads of possibilities.
Mate....
But the 'two week audience' is up from 70,000 a few weeks ago (and had been constant at that for several months), to 110,000 now. The concurrent figures have also increased from ~5000 to ~8000, so, whether that's healthy, sustainable, short-term spike of people coming back to Elite after NMS, or checking Elite out because of NMS, or coming back because they hears SpaceMagic™ was a thing, or whatever, it's a sizable increase in current players in a short space of time.
Actually that is simply considered computer programming, or, if you're feeling really generous, you might call it "software engineering". It's not science in the same way that building a bridge based on engineering principles isn't science either.
Scientists didn't/con't design rocket ships. Engineers design rocket ships based on knowledge from scientists.
I have a feeling we can keep arguing back and forth from now until forever. We are clearly not going to agree on some key points so I'll attempt to wrap up my position on matters in a nutshell and after that we're probably going to have to agree to disagree.
And I don't know what graduates you're referring to but most University graduates from Film, TV and Animation that I have known have had a serious dedication towards making a professional career out of their education/career path so it really is strange to me to read such sweepingly generalised denigration.
Advertising
Architecture
Crafts
Design
Film and Television
Music
Writing
Publishing
and Video Games into one economic activity/industry. Very good point that scientific research for example does need creativity. Likewise many aspects of Filmmaking require tremendously disciplined methodical thought and in the case of special effects an understanding and knowledge of practical scientific and engineering principles.
Ok, on the point of movies I can agree. And I can agree that something like Engineering is considered as a more rigorous field of study than certain Arts and Humanities fields. But getting back to the original statement from which this mini-debate deviated from:
This still remains a subjective viewpoint in my opinion. Largely because it attempted to place a very nebulous notion of "value" based solely on the perceived "difficulty" of certain fields of education. I mean if we were talking about how Steven Hawking as a person is of more value to humanity as a species than Donald Trump then I'd be inclined to agree because Steven Hawking has done more to benefit and improve humanity than El Trumpo. But you're essentially saying that the subjects Steven Hawking studied inherently, somehow by osmosis, makes him a superior human being. I disagree with that specific notion. The fact that Steven Hawking applied himself and worked hard makes him a better man, not the names of the subjects on his educational CV.
Lawyer cat eh? Go get 'em Attorney Dog!
Define what you mean specifically by a "Liberal Arts grad" because Liberal Arts can encompass a whole host of subjects (at least from my perspective in the UK). You'll need to be specific otherwise you're blanket addressing anything and everything from Literature, Philosophy, Film, Animation, Games, Photography, General Studies and Social and Physical Sciences.
And I don't know what graduates you're referring to but most University graduates from Film, TV and Animation that I have known have had a serious dedication towards making a professional career out of their education/career path so it really is strange to me to read such sweepingly generalised denigration.
You seem to have misinterpreted my meaning somehow because I never wrote anything akin to "menial jobs" being a serious coherent career path for a College or University graduate. What I was saying is that it's not a serious career path but for many graduates it is a way to pay the bills while they hunt for the job they specialised for. Through no fault of their own some graduates could spend 3 or more years doing these menial jobs whereas other graduates can bypass menial jobs altogether through either wealth or connections - i.e. one type of graduate has certain options that the other does not. I was not referring to feeling "trapped" or "limited" by lack of wealth - that's something you brought in.
This has nothing to do with your original statement though:
I'm saying society apparently values Engineers and Filmmakers equally well, which is contrary to your point that society values Engineers more than Filmmakers (filmmakers as just an example). You haven't actually addressed what I wrote.
All I can say is; your description of these scenarios are wildly different to my own experiences of College and University then.
Now that you've explained I understand. Although, 'well-respected' for Lawyers? I mean they are Lawyers - I jest
'Creative Industry' is an albeit general term used to pigeonhole the professions of:
Advertising
Architecture
Crafts
Design
Film and Television
Music
Writing
Publishing
and Video Games into one economic activity/industry. Very good point that scientific research for example does need creativity. Likewise many aspects of Filmmaking require tremendously disciplined methodical thought and in the case of special effects an understanding and knowledge of practical scientific and engineering principles.
Please elaborate on the types of "education" that you're referring to because we may not be on the same page.
Last edited:
Yes, my mistake. 12% ... But of people running the launcher. Whether they played or not.
A "healthy, sustainable, short-term spike"?? Ho ho.
A short space of time in which there has been no significant sales of the game. ED history shows this is followed by a decrease in a short space of time.
Fact is, despite many short term spikes (usually on an FD announcment) ED player (launcherer) numbers remain about the same as a year ago.
Looks pretty healthy to me, is that just Steam figures?
You call RNG used in Engineers attention to detail! RNG was an extremely lazy way to code Engineers and certainly was not paying any attention to detail. They used RNG just so they could release Engineers as quick as they could rather than delaying the release and coding it correctly.
Of the previous releases and patches since Dec 2014 that they have later had to come back in and make more patches and updates just to fix stuff that they broke on the last release attention to detail?
Last edited:
like how fighter pilots need to go out and mine resources instead of buying them and having them shipped? Did Amazon not go into space? Or how the most minute and cheap parts can't be bought at a store, and we need to murder to acquire them? Makes perfect sense.
I am all for scientific accuracy. And my biggest pet peeve with the game is that some of the nebulae (Messier 57, Eta Carinae) are many light years away from their associated stars. M57 should contain a white dwarf in its center, but the last time I checked the white dwarf was some 20-30ly sway from the nebula. It is even worse for Eta Carinae where the nebula is about 250ly away from the Eta Carinae star.
I was quite disappointed with this when I discovered it. I used to be able to find M57 on the night sky with a telescope when I was a kid, and I was really excited when I realized I will be able to visit it in the game. And I did, but it was a fail. Not a total letdown, I still play the game, but if I could correct one thing in the game, it would be syncing the nebula and star positions.
I was quite disappointed with this when I discovered it. I used to be able to find M57 on the night sky with a telescope when I was a kid, and I was really excited when I realized I will be able to visit it in the game. And I did, but it was a fail. Not a total letdown, I still play the game, but if I could correct one thing in the game, it would be syncing the nebula and star positions.
Ermm... yeah, Elite 84 was fun, but it wasn't the first immersive game. Not by years.
It was the first to really convey an impression of 3D first person spaceflight, and Frontier: Elite 2 continued that tradition, surpassing even the most optimistic expectations of what might be possible. If the triumph of aeronuatical science was Neil Armstrong's moonwalk or the Shuttle program, FE2 was the climactic arrival of modern virtual reality.
Part of the intrigue around projects like ED and NMS is that, thanks to this arrival of modern gaming technology, there's already the implicit expectation that such gameworlds are possible, and thus would be conspicuous by ther absence. An obvious market niche to be fulfilled.
But Elite1 and 2 were true 'black swan' events, bolts from the blue, revolutionary, paridigm-changing, far exceeding the wildest expectations of what might be possible.
So maybe it's a victim of its own success, but ED doesn't quite meet the bar raised by its predecessors, when all expectations were that it woud similarly raise it by another slew of milestones. Worse, it's a major reversal, and big step back on the previously-set benchmarks. It's Elite '84 with a Milky Way backdrop and modern razzmataz. A lowest common-denominator strapped-down 3D shoot-em-up.
We've gone from a 'fizix is phun' framework to low-budget Hollywood blockbuster. Anyone remember Comic Strip's The Strike? This project's been George Lucased. Sci fi genius, it seems, it something transient and passing, and we may never again see the likes of a Frontier: Elite game worthy of the title..
Last edited: