This game is not for you.

[Muthax]

Hostility noted and your negative rep as well, you don't have to like what I say and live in your fantasy world, (Happy Christmas to you too) , but FD is a real-world business, that makes games and in the real world, with real people who depend on an income.

A real world business who chose to go the KS way to avoid having to do exactly what you are saying

 

[anikaiful]

If someone says they want an open PvP game, player owned structures, a player economy, and territory control, then I think it is reasonable to tell them this game is not for them.

Aye, indeed. Same with crafting.

 

[Ryder35]

I would much prefer Call of Duty if it were a turn based tactical shooter. If I went on the COD forums demanding it was changed to such I suspect people would tell me the game was not for me (probably not as politely as that though)

 

[CMDR Canaris]

I would much prefer Call of Duty if it were a turn based tactical shooter. If I went on the COD forums demanding it was changed to such I suspect people would tell me the game was not for me (probably not as politely as that though)

But nobody is making such demands.

 

[Muthax]

I would much prefer Call of Duty if it were a turn based tactical shooter. If I went on the COD forums demanding it was changed to such I suspect people would tell me the game was not for me (probably not as politely as that though)

Yes or going to Gran Turismo's forums saying that he game is a failure, it will never attract players because unlike Ridge Racer YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TO DRIVE?!?
I think they'll SWAT you

 

[Icarus1]

A real world business who chose to go the KS way to avoid having to do exactly what you are saying

The Kickstarter did exactly what its name says "kick starts" something, but doesn't guarantee a continuous flow of income.
They chose kickstarter, because what is involved by trying to find an publisher and secure funds to pay for the developers and expenses until the game is released.
When it's released, the publisher depends on the popularity of the game (sales) to make up for the expenses incurred during development and hopes to make profit, by selling more than just braking even.
With the Kickstarter, FD saved the hassle of looking for a publisher and secured enough funds to develop the game and not to slide into a negative balance. Again, the funds were enough to develop the game. The kickstarter pledgers and the beta backers - since they have already paid for the game - do not count as a source of income anymore, FD will have to depend on future sales, if they want to stay in business and further expand the game.
Again- the initial money gathered on the Kickstarter doesn't guarantee a steady income for years to come, because this amount is almost nothing.

 

[Tradesman]

The problem isn't people wanting a feature or expressing a preference - which is perfectly reasonable. The problem is when they DEMAND it, or say Frontier MUST implement it, or exclaim that the game is BROKEN without it. Or also when they DEMAND something that's fundamentally opposed to the design ethos of the game. Doesn't make their preference unreasonable, but it does mean they're playing the wrong game if that particular feature is so critical to them.

Absolutely. Something I want to point out too.
Lets see them try it with star citizen

 

[Muthax]

The Kickstarter did exactly what its name says "kick starts" something, but doesn't guarantee a continuous flow of income.
They chose kickstarter, because what is involved by trying to find an publisher and secure funds to pay for the developers and expenses until the game is released.
When it's released, the publisher depends on the popularity of the game (sales) to make up for the expenses incurred during development and hopes to make profit, by selling more than just braking even.
With the Kickstarter, FD saved the hassle of looking for a publisher and secured enough funds to develop the game and not to slide into a negative balance. Again, the funds were enough to develop the game. The kickstarter pledgers and the beta backers - since they have already paid for the game - do not count as a source of income anymore, FD will have to depend on future sales, if they want to stay in business and further expand the game.
Again- the initial money gathered on the Kickstarter doesn't guarantee a steady income for years to come, because this amount is almost nothing.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with Braben's pitch for the project and the Decision Documents Archive because I have a feeling you don't know anything about them

 

[Gortron]

It's the tone of the posts that causes these responses. The regulars have seen it all before and are already numb to the toy throwing.

 

[Muthax]

It's the tone of the posts that causes these responses. The regulars have seen it all before and are already numb to the toy throwing.

Yeah especially after Premium (beta 2.0)

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

The Kickstarter did exactly what its name says "kick starts" something, but doesn't guarantee a continuous flow of income.
They chose kickstarter, because what is involved by trying to find an publisher and secure funds to pay for the developers and expenses until the game is released.
When it's released, the publisher depends on the popularity of the game (sales) to make up for the expenses incurred during development and hopes to make profit, by selling more than just braking even.
With the Kickstarter, FD saved the hassle of looking for a publisher and secured enough funds to develop the game and not to slide into a negative balance. Again, the funds were enough to develop the game. The kickstarter pledgers and the beta backers - since they have already paid for the game - do not count as a source of income anymore, FD will have to depend on future sales, if they want to stay in business and further expand the game.
Again- the initial money gathered on the Kickstarter doesn't guarantee a steady income for years to come, because this amount is almost nothing.

Even at the expense of changing the game which was what kick started InThe 1st place?

You can pull that kind of a bait and switch once but the old adage springs to mind


Fool me once shame on you.
Fool me twice.............

Thankfully I believe FD have more integrity than you think.

 

[Muthax]

Even at the expense of changing the game which was what kick started InThe 1st place?

You can pull that kind of a bait and switch once but the old adage springs to mind


Fool me once shame on you.
Fool me twice.............

Thankfully I believe FD have more integrity than you think.

Yeah removing a feature for technical reasons is one thing, walking over the whole passionate pitch... ehr I think that's a bit more serious, like career destroying serious
And, integrity aside, this is the game he wanted to do for 30 years and couldn't for technical limitations and the sorry state of the games industry

 

[Jockey79]

Of course they did not get what they pledged for, and when they stated it got banned.

Many times when someone has something occur that is just odd, Faction going wrong, Shooting at someone who is shooting at you and you become Wanted and so on.
these 3 things are said.

You are WRONG.
It is part of the "vision". The way it supposed to work. Then come up will a defense that makes OJ's look clear and simple.
All will be fixed at release, ummm Next Patch will fix all, what did you really think it was a finished game?

It is like clockwork.

Rabid fanboi drowning out issues does not help the game, running off folks who are trying to play the game does not help it.

Let us see, apart from being COMPLETELY off topic, you cover a few bits here plus include an insult, so let me break it down and answer each part.

1) "did not get what they pledged for" - That is a matter of opinion, not a fact. Some people pledged for a single player, offline game (it is a shame things changed and I hope one day they get the gaming experience they were looking for) Others just pledged to have a new version of Elite (which we now have) and are not bothered by having to be connected to the internet. So, while "some" of the backers didn't get what they want, "some" of them did.

2) "something occur that is just odd, Faction going wrong, Shooting at someone who is shooting at you and you become Wanted and so on." - Anyone who has ever had any experience with online games (or persistent worlds hosted by another person) will see bugs / problems. It has been the nature of the beast for a long long time. Even today, after many years, World of Warcraft still has bugs from a long time ago (just to name 1 game). I'm not excusing the lack of focus fixing problems, but if people act like the world will end because they have had a bug / problem in a fake world, with fake items and fake money - that person has bigger issues than a game bug.

3) "Rabid fanboi" Insulting people defending something they enjoy does not make you look smart - every game has its fans and its haters - this is also the nature of the beast. Some people are on these forums for the sole reason of derailing threads / bad mouthing the game / being as obnoxious as possible - it is hard some days to single those trolls out from those with genuine problems and after seeing the same type of threads over and over, regular fans get a bit snippy. Also, please remember, terms like "fanboi" and "carebear" are considered derogatory terms in a lot of forums - using them will undermine your post and all its points and make you look like a child with nothing better to do than troll.

4) As you did not cover the point of the thread in anyway, I will leave a quick reminder that the thread is about those who tell people complaining about Elite Dangerous that the game may not be they type of game they want / need. I fully support the idea of saying to someone that they may be better of playing another game (as long as it is done politely and "another" game is suggested for that person to check out). Not everyone will like Elite Dangerous, not everyone will understand it - and that is ok, it is nothing to be ashamed of. I don't get the GTA range of games, when people tell me the latest GTA "is not for me", then that is fine. I won't buy it and I wont go on the forums for it and try to have it changed to what I think makes a good game.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I take it that was all you read and not the full post?

I read the whole post, and largely agreed with you. However, i only commented on the "You are WRONG" part because of the capitalization and strength of the statement which kind of implied, since this is a discussion, there is no room for alternative opinions.

 

[Cosmo Bozo]

The Kickstarter did exactly what its name says "kick starts" something, but doesn't guarantee a continuous flow of income.
They chose kickstarter, because what is involved by trying to find an publisher and secure funds to pay for the developers and expenses until the game is released.
When it's released, the publisher depends on the popularity of the game (sales) to make up for the expenses incurred during development and hopes to make profit, by selling more than just braking even.
With the Kickstarter, FD saved the hassle of looking for a publisher and secured enough funds to develop the game and not to slide into a negative balance. Again, the funds were enough to develop the game. The kickstarter pledgers and the beta backers - since they have already paid for the game - do not count as a source of income anymore, FD will have to depend on future sales, if they want to stay in business and further expand the game.
Again- the initial money gathered on the Kickstarter doesn't guarantee a steady income for years to come, because this amount is almost nothing.

They did have publisher interest, they didn't go down that route because they didn't want to compromise their game with a publishers demands (which are more than likely the same demands they are getting from some posters on here...make it more like <insert game here>)

Also you seem to be missing the fact that the game is getting good reviews and selling well as it is.

 

[Nightdragon]

What, you mean complaining about not getting the game that was promised when I backed it with a large amount of money? Bit different, eh? You'll also have noticed me expressing my thoughts, moving on, and not demanding anything.

ah yes, the "Kickstarter" I backed it thus I have 'invested' idea.

Hate to say the whole "Kickstarter" thing is more you just giving money to people, nothing else, its not an investment. You don't have any rights to the game other that what was promised in the orginal kickstarter.

The major complaints I have seen so far are as follows.

Super Crusie too slow/too boring. I have to admit sometimes it is, explecly with systems with 2 stars in it and they are like 500kls apart. Or when the stations are like 100kls out and you are trying to use it as a base of operations.. But the whole SC mechanic is there so people can get around have freedom. And people/NPCs can stop you to kill/rob you. People wanting "Instantaoius travel" honestly the only thing you can say to those people is, this isn't the game for you. Your looking for something like X-wing, TF, and the like where missions start and stop or Freespace2.
Trading and how the ingame is pretty much useless for this. And even to make a decent profit you need to use a 3rd part program. I've run into a lot of stations with the whole low demand, High surplus on the same items. So I would like to see an improvement in the Map system or at least someone giving a good explaination of the trade system ingame not showing going out to a 3rd part browser or exe.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

The problem isn't people wanting a feature or expressing a preference - which is perfectly reasonable. The problem is when they DEMAND it, or say Frontier MUST implement it, or exclaim that the game is BROKEN without it. Or also when they DEMAND something that's fundamentally opposed to the design ethos of the game. Doesn't make their preference unreasonable, but it does mean they're playing the wrong game if that particular feature is so critical to them.

Indeed Noodle.

I understand the OPs post but believe the deciding factor, like you do, to be FD : its their game and though the DDF they have expressed their vision of the game and outlined various aspects of it. They're reluctant, for instance, to provide external views as it no longer represents their vision (man in spaceship, not floating ghost outside) and its when people start to proclaim like they know better it gets tiresome.

--

Taking the spirit of the OP in mind then I guess people can express their dislike of posts in a more constructive way

 

[Muthax]

ah yes, the "Kickstarter" I backed it thus I have 'invested' idea.

Hate to say the whole "Kickstarter" thing is more you just giving money to people, nothing else, its not an investment. You don't have any rights to the game other that what was promised in the orginal kickstarter.

The major complaints I have seen so far are as follows.

Super Crusie too slow/too boring. I have to admit sometimes it is, explecly with systems with 2 stars in it and they are like 500kls apart. Or when the stations are like 100kls out and you are trying to use it as a base of operations.. But the whole SC mechanic is there so people can get around have freedom. And people/NPCs can stop you to kill/rob you. People wanting "Instantaoius travel" honestly the only thing you can say to those people is, this isn't the game for you. Your looking for something like X-wing, TF, and the like where missions start and stop or Freespace2.
Trading and how the ingame is pretty much useless for this. And even to make a decent profit you need to use a 3rd part program. I've run into a lot of stations with the whole low demand, High surplus on the same items. So I would like to see an improvement in the Map system or at least someone giving a good explaination of the trade system ingame not showing going out to a 3rd part browser or exe.

Good post, just one thing: no one is saying the 'bakers' own the game, I suppose they just want to see DB vision and promises come to life. Some of the suggestions (like the ones you highlighted) clash with both of those so 'fanbois' (how I hate that word) try to explain that no, sorry, that isn't that kind of game

No one is saying backers are more right. They just remember WHAT this game is about and WHAT DB said