InBlack wrote on Apr 18, 2014, 06:04:Tom wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 16:57:
I thought Elite: Dangerous was primarily a single-player game with traditional multiplayer? Am I wrong about this, have they gone down the MMO route? (Please say no, please say no, please say no)
It's primarily single player but they have a neat multiplayer system.
You can choose to play the game completely alone just like previous Elite games disconnected from the internet. choose to play alone In a shared universe. The advantage of the shared universe is that events will be generated based on the player community actions.
Or choose to play with other players in the shared universe.
They use a group system that allows players to tailor the multiplayer system to their likening. You can read the full details on this at the flowing URL
[url=]http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6300[/url]
.
Tom wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 16:57:
After recent events I could no longer refrain from trying the alpha to see for myself. Make no mistake. Elite: Dangerous is the real deal. This is the first worthwhile space combat sim in decades. It's still only an alpha and there are a bunch of rough edges. But, looking at what they've accomplished so far and the design decisions they've made, I can tell they have the capability to execute. This capability is something that must extend from top to bottom in order to produce a result like this. It's there and it's real.
They may need some help on the netcode/back-end. That's probably the biggest potential trouble spot I see.
It's going to be very interesting to see how things play out between this and Star Citizen. I certainly didn't expect this a year ago. Now, perhaps in another year the tables will have been turned again. Wow! To have such exciting times, after decades of just nothing.. it's amazing.
Stormsinger wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 21:35:
Fixed that for you.
Sho wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 20:27:Fixed that for you.
... From a business perspective you want your projects to be financially sound independent of context, andspread the risk instead of having to spend/gamble your own last penny every time.privatize the profits while making sure any losses accrue to other people's pocketbooks.
Orogogus wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 12:57:djinn wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 10:48:Cutter wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 09:42:
The name doesn't have that much cache.
http://www.tubechop.com/watch/2558713
The word is "cachet."
Zyrxil wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 18:44:
I don't think you understand how the world works. The people/companies doing Kickstarters are not broke hobos with 0 assets and an idea. They are people with jobs, and (hopefully) plenty of development experience. The broke hobos with an idea and nothing else are exactly the people you shouldn't be funding. Frontier Developments has 210 employees and plenty of published games on their resume. While not a huge AAA studio, it's safe to say they have some cash. They did the Kickstarter because they can't risk their survival by completely self funding a $1.5 million+ project with no guarantee of a return. People who live in nice homes and have employees depending on them not to fuck the company up don't do business that way.
Cutter wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 17:13:Bard wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 17:00:
hmm.. seems to be that crowdfunders think they are paying for development of the thing they give money for (ie a product), only for increasing portions of the money to be used for all sorts of extra stuff like posh offices and non developmental related things.
But that's the thing. The KS only raised 1.5M pounds so where is this all coming from?
nin wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 16:07:Cutter wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 15:31:
Yeah, yeah, I know. It was a typo. I had just woke up. IRregardless - while known to older players it doesn't mean anything to most younger gamers. Otherwise it's a rather large waste of money unless whatever those other assets are are pretty sweet.
3...2...1...
Bard wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 17:00:
hmm.. seems to be that crowdfunders think they are paying for development of the thing they give money for (ie a product), only for increasing portions of the money to be used for all sorts of extra stuff like posh offices and non developmental related things.
Cutter wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 15:31:
Yeah, yeah, I know. It was a typo. I had just woke up. IRregardless - while known to older players it doesn't mean anything to most younger gamers. Otherwise it's a rather large waste of money unless whatever those other assets are are pretty sweet.
Orogogus wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 12:57:djinn wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 10:48:Cutter wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 09:42:
The name doesn't have that much cache.
http://www.tubechop.com/watch/2558713
The word is "cachet."
CJ_Parker wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 13:32:
It's funny how he is almost the exact opposite of Chris "Showboat" Roberts who went from a pale, chubby, grizzled nerd in a jumpsuit at the start of the KS to a change-jingling nouveaux riche yuppie in a suit with dyed hair as the millions kept rolling in.
Braben on the other hand has managed to stay grounded with his humble British understatement where actions seem to be much more important than words to him.
loomy wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 11:47:
Either way, hostile takeover. David Braben does seem cut throat and spiteful to me. He got his wish thanks to the backers. And his good work!
Wildone wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 12:49:I am sure SC won't disappoint either but we will have to wait a lot longer for that game to be ready with all the bells and whistles those guys wants to have in that game.
ED FTW..
djinn wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 10:48:Cutter wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 09:42:
The name doesn't have that much cache.
http://www.tubechop.com/watch/2558713
The Half Elf wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 12:50:
Ok I have a question: 1.6 million shares at 260 bucks a stock...(roughly the market value of the stock) is roughly 390 million right? Am I missing something or could he have payed for the development right out of his own pocket?
Again if I'm missing something please let me know.