![[VR] wi03016](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/172/172660.jpg?1591551126){kind=avatar}
It seems so :-(
Why can we only Land on Barren Planets after almost 5 years?
- Thread starter Cosmo
- Start date
Kestrel Airfighter over a Desert World 
. VR Lense shot,, FD give us atmospheric worlds!
. VR Lense shot,, FD give us atmospheric worlds!
Agreed
Lets look at it this way: It took rockstar, CPR and such years upon years and piles of money to make a relatively tiny gameplay area fully fleshed out. Anyone who thinks any game studio can deliver fully fleshed out planets needs to take a step back, or a whole bunch of steps.
LOL, do you have a macro for this quote? You should just put it in your signature like I did with EBL.
Getting the atmospheric physics right for atmospheric worlds is going to take some doing, not to mention expanding the amount of content by a lot when it comes to worlds with life on them. Otherwise it'd be planets you could land on, take a look at the pretty trees/animals/hostile life forms and go "Oh, that's nice." And then take off to never look at again. Gameplay and game mechanics needs to be developed so there's actually things to do there, far beyond what we have today's content. I have no problem with waiting, myself.
Plans and priorities change, unfortunately for us.
Now, on the other hand, if the leaks would turn out to actually be true and Frontier would really prioritize space legs over atmospheric flight, then "why" would be an excellent question there. After all, they've pretty much always said that it would be a distant future feature, as it would constitute almost a whole new game.
Of course, they could shut down such speculation at any time, if they wanted to.
Now, on the other hand, if the leaks would turn out to actually be true and Frontier would really prioritize space legs over atmospheric flight, then "why" would be an excellent question there. After all, they've pretty much always said that it would be a distant future feature, as it would constitute almost a whole new game.
Of course, they could shut down such speculation at any time, if they wanted to.
He has a point though, nobody above the age of seven or so should ask the question in the title sincerely.
Q:"Why is feature X not in game Y from developer Z?"
A:"Because every company has limited resources, and Company Z decided to spend those resources not on X but on something else instead, because they thought that was in the best interest of the company."
The end. There is nothing left to discuss beyond some incredibly immature "but I like X!!!!!", to which the only answer is: "Okay, duly noted, thanks for sharing. Again.". Usually there is the final desperate:"But if there is no X I quit!!!!!", to which the answer, again, is:"Okay, duly noted."
I personally don't understand why people want to play a spaceship game just so they can get back to planetside gameplay ala 99.9% of games. I have plenty of fun in space and would prefer FDev spends it's dev time on fixing bugs in the current state of the game and expanding on the spaceship part of the game.
The major concern for me is if we consider that huge technically impressive addition of (non atmospheric) planetary landings, IMHO nothing has come close to it since, in FOUR YEARS!
It almost feels like the wind left the sails of the management or designers with little/no significant technical developments of note being undertaken. And then add to this features like Multicrew being given the greenlight and developed, seemingly all the time with the community raising their eye brows, only for it now to be collecting dust for most of the community due to how ill considered it was.... You really have to scratch your head!
The latest Mining 2.0 showed some promise, but even there it has frustrating balancing issues and clear needless issues and oversights in its mechanics, once again (IMHO) seeming to demonstrate FD's continued questionable management and design efforts with ED...
I dearly hope the now much hyped big update in 2020 is more akin to 2015's planetary landings in technical bar raising efforts, than the list of mediocre, ill considered, unbalanced, shallow plug ons that has all but plagued the years since.
But the fear is, with the same people, with the same ethos, why would next year prove any different to the past four? Can but hope for some truely deep, involved, impressive, well considered, bar raising mechanics at long last!
Last edited:
However, I faintly remember that a bigger variety of landables was originally set out to happen at some point.
Are you calling 'Doom' Ducky?
Very melodramatic...
Counter pep talk: The key 'ethos' change is still the end of seasons for me. More time to do additions justice before hitting a delivery wall.
Guess we'll see. I'm off to play NMS in VR until something juicy actually drops either way
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Ah yes, sounds about right. Was about time we had another sneaky Elite is doomed (tm) thread hijack.
Last edited:
Counter pep talk: The key 'ethos' change is still the end of seasons for me. More time to do additions justice before hitting a delivery wall.
Guess we'll see. I'm off to play NMS in VR until something juicy actually drops either way
Sure, with each expansion some change in direction can be expected. But seriously, if you didn't enjoy the last four years at all, you dont need a new direction, you need a new game.
And I'm stuck waiting for steam to get its stuff together, lucky you. :/
It isn't very difficult to understand: people want ED to be more than a spaceship game. People have wanted that for thirty years, including David Braben. I am not sure what is so puzzling about people wanting that. You don't have to agree, but to not understand it...
Umm, don't think I said anything that black or white Sleut. Not sure anyone did really.
Considering Next Era has significantly more manhours spend on it than 2.0 that doesn't seem an unreasonable hope.
Not aimed at you, but at the people who frequent this forum after uninstalling years ago.
Because Priorities.
I would assume it's a matter of motivation. According to FDev, ED remains a strong source of income for the company. This community continues to be active in the game and in their online cosmetics store despite the years of half baked updates and lack of meaningful change. If I'm a developer who has a strong source of income for a game where the playerbase is so loyal that despite the glaring flaws, the game is consistently generating strong revenues, then where is my motivation to improve? I can keep introducing small changes and stringing the community along because I know they are basically addicts clinging to the hopes of their next "fix".
This community complains a lot, but never votes with their wallets or play time. Without motivation in an existing space, It makes absolute sense for the developer to look for opportunities in new and underdeveloped spaces (i.e. park sims) and invest resources in them. New games generate sales at premium prices, old games do not.