DLC? Are You Kidding Me? CONTENT PATCHES!

[Graaf]

I'm sorry, but multiplayer is vastly overrated. We saw that other game from 2013 which prioritized multiplayer over gameplay and well, the game studio is now closed. Farewell MAXIS.

"But X4 is just what the name says: A Foundation."
Well, I my line of work the foundation is only 20% of the end product. And seeing that this foundation is a continuation of Rebirth, I'd say a weak and unreliable foundation to continue work on.

As for Egosoft's finances? I don't really know, but if I have to guess they had to pay employees for working on the wrong part of the game, namely building models of ships and stations just for the annoyance of a shallow and uninteresting part of game: the walking inherited from Rebirth.
And they already wasted a lot of their money on the failed Rebirth.

[Buzz2005]

all of this comparisons are so pointless , witcher 3,gtav,rdr2 all need decade of dev time and hundreds of devs you can guess why

terraria, factorio, rimworld dont need all of the above, and nobody is playing them bc of graphics its all for gameplay

then in the middle is ego that has to and needs to have somewhat good graphics and has to and needs to have gameplay and they dont have decades of time and money

the only one I can compare ego to is hello games (no mans sky) and they are apsolutly the same, except all the lies

[adeine]

Lmao what? X:R was A LOOOOOOOT worse than X:4.

X:3 R was also a total broken mess on release XD.

If you honestly claim X:4 is in a worse state on release than X:R....then you go against every professional review site and probably also against the majority of players.

I'm not saying X:4 doesn't have a huge range of issues...but it's by no means in a worse state than X:R was on launch.

Here's what I'm curious to know, and maybe you (or someone who stuck with X:R) can answer this for me:

It's clear X4 is largely based on X:R; looking at the interface, gameplay systems etc. it's clear the engine hasn't changed that much, and apparently the backend is similar enough that some fixes/bugs in the logic apply to both games. So the question is, did X:R ever get to a 'working' state (limitations notwithstanding)? Or does it continue to be a broken mess to this day?

Because if X:R was truly fixed up, it's a fair question as to how X4 managed to launch in the state it did. I'm not talking about the things that are entirely new in X4 - I understand features like research or the more thorough economy and faction wars being janky. But some of the most basic things like music playback, pathfinding, general AI, which should be expected to carry over more or less intact and yet are seriously broken even now at 1.6.

[gschultz]

Did you read the announcement at the top of the forum, which gives a roadmap for fixes and new features that are part of the base game?

Regarding "selling release content as a DLC" we made it clear that not all races would be represented in the base game, and I explained here why this is the case.

Hello CBJ. Can you give a link to the thread you are discussing? The update thread really doesn't address many of the issues in the community such as ai, wings, combat/capital ships, war mechanics, economy etc. There isn't really a state of the game discussion, more of a general here is what we want to ADD in 2.5 3.0 etc.

[Falcrack]

Lmao what? X:R was A LOOOOOOOT worse than X:4.

X:3 R was also a total broken mess on release XD.

If you honestly claim X:4 is in a worse state on release than X:R....then you go against every professional review site and probably also against the majority of players.

I'm not saying X:4 doesn't have a huge range of issues...but it's by no means in a worse state than X:R was on launch.

Here's what I'm curious to know, and maybe you (or someone who stuck with X:R) can answer this for me:

It's clear X4 is largely based on X:R; looking at the interface, gameplay systems etc. it's clear the engine hasn't changed that much, and apparently the backend is similar enough that some fixes/bugs in the logic apply to both games. So the question is, did X:R ever get to a 'working' state (limitations notwithstanding)? Or does it continue to be a broken mess to this day?

Because if X:R was truly fixed up, it's a fair question as to how X4 managed to launch in the state it did. I'm not talking about the things that are entirely new in X4 - I understand features like research or the more thorough economy and faction wars being janky. But some of the most basic things like music playback, pathfinding, general AI, which should be expected to carry over more or less intact and yet are seriously broken even now at 1.6.

X:R was fixed up, I just could never get excited about playing it because no matter how much they fixed it up, you were still only ever limited to flying in The Skunk.

[Tomonor]

But some of the most basic things like music playback, pathfinding, general AI, which should be expected to carry over more or less intact and yet are seriously broken even now at 1.6.

1. Music playback: if you are reffering to the new tracks oddly playing for a little while, it's a completely different system. XR had constant music playback split by zone per highway per zone. X4 has a completely new situational playback system.
2. Pathfinding: it's the same. The broken ai wasn't this obvious in XR though due to stations being static and bigger (easier to avoid), physical docking limited to only M class transport ships, no direct control over other of your NPC ships, zone layout handmade to support traffic and avoid ugly clipping, and ships being vastly slower in general. There seemed to be also more fixated paths that the NPCs might have taken instead of free pathfinding.
3. General AI: once again, same, but wasn't obvious due to rarer trading, minimal docking action, etc.

That's why we can sum up X4 as an almost completely new game. Things that weren't rewritten/remade are the ones that are usually broken.

[Ghalador]

I see people crying about all the missing content....but no one sees the financial side.

We do. We just don't give a damn. Because if your reasoning is valid, then within 15 years time we will pay for the full price game and get only the graphics library.
Increased difficulty in creating an asset can not be a valid reasoning for cutting the game's actual content short.

We do... But most of the people realised that it's pointless to reason because everyone sticks to their own smelly opinion anyway. This thread is just the same story all over again.

It's really not a matter of opinion, just extrapolate the situation we will face in 15-20 years if that tendency continues.

That's mostly why the games with "sufficient" looks are crazy successes.
Take Terraria - that game is not new but the community is actually GROWING!
https://steamcharts.com/app/105600

While this here ... well, not so much:
https://steamcharts.com/app/392160
Such a huge investment in looks and you get practically raped by something that looks like it comes straight off an old Nintendo console.

Apples to oranges.

You are literally comparing a pixelgraphics 2D MULTIPLAYER (it is a big focus) minecraftian game to a 3D Singleplayer game with complex economy simulation.

Singleplayer games will always see a sharp decline in playercount after a while...one of the few exceptions being games like Skyrim that can be played indefinetely.

Terraria also has the advantage of being so low-end that anyone with a potato can run it. Not to mention even Terraria has a drop from 160.000 players down to 20.000 players. That is MASSIVE..yet they recovered a good bit of it. X4 can do the same.


But let's be honest here...if Egosoft had just released X4 as an indie-looking title with more content to it...it would've just been put together with all those other indie-space sims that actually exist.

It's fine if your opinion differs...but at least make fair comparisons. Multiplayer games always have more longevity if not actively being murdered by the devs solely based on the social aspect alone already.


Rather compare it to THIS:

https://steamcharts.com/app/292030

Of course a VASTLY more succesfull genre and game...but the TREND is the same.

The singleplayer game has strong initial playerbase that then drops of sharply only to rise again during sales and releases of DLC.

I am comparing sandboxes. The Witcher isn't one.
It really doesn't matter what kind of sandbox it is. It just has to have a lot of sand in it to carry - which X4 doesn't.
I picked Terraria for the crappy graphics more than anything else. Plus the fact that it has a huge amounts of sand ... of course.

[Shehriazad]

You ignored the quintessence of my post.

You compare a simplistic 2D multiplayer game with a singleplayer one.

Multiplayer ALWAYS has more longevity than singleplayer. You were ranting about player numbers in your original post...yet multiplayer will always be different.

And like I said before..even Terraria went ahead and at some point shrunk down to 1/8th of its playerbase after its personal best for a while.

You also don't take into account that a 2D side scroller can be developed WAY faster....if X4 was one of those with the same budget that they had used...then yes... you'd easily have the same amount of "content" as Terraria.


It is FINE that you are unhappy with the result that is X4...MANY are...but that comparison is straight up unfair and at least somewhat nonsensical.

At least compare it to other singleplayer universe sandbox Sims that are 3D...

[Nafensoriel]

You ignored the quintessence of my post.

You compare a simplistic 2D multiplayer game with a singleplayer one.

Multiplayer ALWAYS has more longevity than singleplayer. You were ranting about player numbers in your original post...yet multiplayer will always be different.

And like I said before..even Terraria went ahead and at some point shrunk down to 1/8th of its playerbase after its personal best for a while.

You also don't take into account that a 2D side scroller can be developed WAY faster....if X4 was one of those with the same budget that they had used...then yes... you'd easily have the same amount of "content" as Terraria.


It is FINE that you are unhappy with the result that is X4...MANY are...but that comparison is straight up unfair and at least somewhat nonsensical.

At least compare it to other singleplayer universe sandbox Sims that are 3D...

The longest running games in HISTORY... are single player... Due to mods.
True story.

Multiplayer does not equal longevity. In fact, it generally kills a game earlier due to the "Next Big Thing" issue that comes along with multiplayer titles.

[Ghalador]

I think it really doesn't matter. It's just an example for efficient use of your manpower.
Compared to a different company who says that they can only deliver halve a game now because creating that was more labor intense than the whole previous game.
You surely see where that will lead if you project it into the future. You will get an engine and will have to buy the content as DLC.

[Shehriazad]

The longest running games in HISTORY... are single player... Due to mods.
True story.

Multiplayer does not equal longevity. In fact, it generally kills a game earlier due to the "Next Big Thing" issue that comes along with multiplayer titles.

I'm not sure why people are so hell bent on this single thing now...original reply of that dude was trying to compare singleplayer 3D with complex calculations with a multiplayer 2D sidescroller in terms of playercount. Me saying multiplayer adds longevity was on be aspect of the answer.




That said I'd like to know what you define as "oldest games in history still running are singleplayer" because there are still MUDs running with active playerbase that are from the 80s.

And it is UNDOUBTEDLY true that the AVERAGE lifetime of a game gets extended by multiplayer because it adds a social aspect...but in the end...can we stop fighting about such a detail as it is rather pointless?


I'd rather see new points and suggestions being made for the FUTURE of this game instead of going more off the rail.

So if you want to add anything constrictive on this topic I will happily read and maybe even agree with it. But I'm done arguing "semantics".


Because in the end my opinion stands. I support and trust their DLC practice as Egosoft has used paid content rather sparingly so I trust them to not overdo it and leave people with JUST the main game in the dust...and I even threw out the idea that "base gamers" would probably still get their hands on split ships due to ventures...which would be a really cool thing of the to do imho.(even sales wise this could be a smart move)


And that half the game is missing I ALSO understand. They had to redo almost everything because people would have hated rebirth 2.

X3 and it's 2 standalone games were FULL of copy paste content to the point where some of it was even community content...and people keep saying "Look at how much content they had back then"....well yes if you give a company a DECADE to just shovel on more content that is what we get.

Now they redo everything to be more X3 while also being more modern...with limited resources and an engine they only used in one game so far while also adding a bunch of new systems...of course SOMETHING will be missing.


Are they to blame? Who knows. But when he dev says it's the best they could've done with he money and sincerely hoped that players would like their decision...then I think we can cut them some slack and try to help them improve if we actually like the base product...which most seem to do.

[Graaf]

And it is UNDOUBTEDLY true that the AVERAGE lifetime of a game gets extended by multiplayer because it adds a social aspect...but in the end...can we stop fighting about such a detail as it is rather pointless?

To be honest I have spend far more time "socializing" on the forums of singleplayer games then I have spend playing multiplayer games.

I'd rather see new points and suggestions being made for the FUTURE of this game instead of going more off the rail.

So if you want to add anything constrictive on this topic I will happily read and maybe even agree with it. But I'm done arguing "semantics".

I can offer you my old point & suggestion of getting rid of the limiting factor that is Walking.

Because in the end my opinion stands. I support and trust their DLC practice as Egosoft has used paid content rather sparingly so I trust them to not overdo it and leave people with JUST the main game in the dust...and I even threw out the idea that "base gamers" would probably still get their hands on split ships due to ventures...which would be a really cool thing of the to do imho.(even sales wise this could be a smart move)

I for one will not be buying base X-game (and even Rebirth) content as DLC. And I don't give a turd about the ventures. Also one aspect they shouldn't be putting more time in. Online and Multiplayer is overrated and unnecessary.

And that half the game is missing I ALSO understand. They had to redo almost everything because people would have hated rebirth 2.

Yet that is exactly what we have now. It just ins't sold to us as such.

X3 and it's 2 standalone games were FULL of copy paste content to the point where some of it was even community content...and people keep saying "Look at how much content they had back then"....well yes if you give a company a DECADE to just shovel on more content that is what we get.

Most of the content of X3:R/TC/AP is indeed copy & paste. Yet I find the base content of X2 a lot more interesting then Rebirth and X4 combined. I prefer to play X2 and X3 (the real X-games) over this fake X4 wannabe.

Now they redo everything to be more X3 while also being more modern...with limited resources and an engine they only used in one game so far while also adding a bunch of new systems...of course SOMETHING will be missing.

But the started with Rebirth. And there lays the flaw in the future of this project. They should have started from scratch with X4 to make that real successor for X3. Now all we have is Rebirth 2.

Are they to blame? Who knows. But when he dev says it's the best they could've done with he money and sincerely hoped that players would like their decision...then I think we can cut them some slack and try to help them improve if we actually like the base product...which most seem to do.

Yeah, they are to blame. No, I do not like the base product (Rebirth) nor do I like the it's spawn (Foundation). Rebirth was a bad decision. Continuing on Rebirth is another bad decision. When will they understand?

[Shehriazad]

TEXT

You said in your post you wanted them to start from scratch...as in use an entirely new engine again? That would have just been insanity. With the limited funds and time we would've gotten even LESS of a game that way.

That said...they DID pretty much start almost all aspects from scratch...I see engine-bound things that are somewhat similar, but the game itself? Nothing aside from a few assets is Rebirth here (imho).



And if you don't buy DLC and also don't care about online...then that is up to you, of course. But you will STILL get a load of free content patches namely 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 and whatever follows after that. So ships, some stations, new features and functionalities...and yes even expanded venture that you don't have to use, expanded and improved missions.

You get all that.



PLUS people saying they don't pay for BASE GAME content...this makes me feel that they ignore Rebirth entirely.
While X3 had a HUGE selection of Split and Boron ships and unique sectors/buildings...did X:Rebirth have that?

Noooot reallllyyy.

Split in X:Rebirth were like what...2 BAD ships and a base? If you want THAT back instead of a full faction we will agree to disagree.

Boron in X:Rebirth? Not reaaaally.


X: Rebirth in general was just a power-fantasy about humans in space pretty much. So in that regard X4 is already past X:Rebirth.


So people saying "I don't pay for half the BASE game missing" completely disregard the entirety that is X:Rebirth.



If you take X3 as point of your argument and say "give us all that"...then yes...it's not half of the game missing...it's them actually having to develop that half of the game.

And if you refuse to buy the DLC but it ends up being so awesome that your nipples would go up in flames upon trying it I will force it upon you by gifting it to you, a holy promise I make today XD

[Nafensoriel]

Some points.

1] About engines...

Everyone seems to completely lack an understanding of what an engine is and what it does. Please stop.
Also, I highly doubt X4 is using x-rebirth directly. No game engine survives its first game. Engines are reused now because it's asininely stupid not to use an asset you spent millions of god damn dollars on. It would be like building a sports car and then only driving it once before sending it to the wrecking yard.

Old engines were built mostly to task and their level of interconnectivity made it very difficult to overcome the tech debt(spaghetti code) when transitioning between titles. The fact that graphics technologies over the last 40 years have progressed at such a stupendous rate also made ANY TITLE you made between 1980 and 2015 graphically obsolete the instant you started. Oh, you decided to use DX9? Well, 1 year into your 5-year development DX10.1 became a thing. Sorry.

Today engines are heavily modularized because we can now HANDLE the performance impact to gain FLEXIBILITY of design. Now its entirely possible for an engine to start with say... one physics and lighting engine.. and then replace it without selling the farm to do it. We also exist in a time where the HARDWARE side of things is finally reaching hard limits as to where it can go. This means each generation becomes just a powerful copy of the one before. This means you can develop around a predictable feature set and be fairly certain you are going to be "up to date" with what gamers demand graphically.

In short, the day of replacing an engine every 5 minutes is LONG GONE and will remain LONG GONE until someone kicks the sandcastle over and discovers a way to beat certain physical law issues with hardware design. Reused engines is the norm. Live with it. Stop arguing about it. Accept that 95% of you will always think an art asset is an engine anyway.

2] About features...

X4 is more feature rich than x3 was at launch. !!GASP!!
The difference is in what you perceive as a feature. Most of you are still stuck on the "gameplay" and "graphics" part of features. Don't feel bad. It's a very common problem with long-running titles and new releases these days.

Did... X3 have?
PBR?
Accurate physics?
A complex lighting system?
Transparency?
Nonsprite based explosions?
Modern 3D positional sound?
Significant parallelism improvements?
A complex, searchable, multitiered GUI map? (oh boy, folks this one took more pie than you think... and its awesome)
An actual station building GUI and an actual station operations GUI?
Should I list dozens more?

The reality is you did get a feature comparable game. Actually considering x4 as it is compared directly to 1.0 reunion(YES, REUNION NOT TERRAN CONFLICT NUBLETS) X4 is less buggy, works out of the box(reunion really didn't), and has more features.
What you DID NOT get.. was the features you FEEL you WANTED. That's fine. Opinions are GOOD. Just please stop skewing the data to paint good people into lazy moneygrabbers. If you wanted more gameplay and world content then say so. Egosoft may or may not agree with you. At the end of the day you, the consumer, can vote with your wallet. I personally agree with egosofts choice of direction. The world they have created has the potential to be relevant for twice as long as reunions world. If they invest a little more in parallelism they might even be able to extend that even farther.

[pref]

Continuing on Rebirth is another bad decision.

Have you played X4? It's much closer X3 games then to rebirth. Really have no clue where did you get this idea.

What you DID NOT get.. was the features you FEEL you WANTED. That's fine. Opinions are GOOD. Just please stop skewing the data to paint good people into lazy moneygrabbers. If you wanted more gameplay and world content then say so. Egosoft may or may not agree with you. At the end of the day you, the consumer, can vote with your wallet. I personally agree with egosofts choice of direction. The world they have created has the potential to be relevant for twice as long as reunions world.

Yep, after years of content and patching this can be way better then X3 ever was. If they started like this instead of trying to fake a mass effect story without the million bucks budget as in XR it would already be better then X3.

[kobayashimaru]

In my opinion as a professional software developer, comparing a new project (because that's what X-series games are - and always will be: multi-year projects, not just games) to years of development of X3 is a mistake. I understand the expectations, but still it is a mistake, especially after all these years (that means, as CBJ told us, assets created in the past are obsolete now).
I'm even a bit surprised this sort of critics are coming from the players of previous versions of the game - I mean, the project - knowing how Egosoft works (constant patches to resolve issues / bugs, perhaps insufficient testing if you really want some malice?) and knowing what is capable to deliver (thanks to the community feedback, too).

It's not an incomplete game, it's a new project growing week after week and patch after patch.

And yet some users make this kind of posts that are more similar to pre-teen whine than criticism (that is often useful, even if sometimes "badly" written).

Oh please! I'm a software developer too and I don't release incomplete and buggy products to my customers, especially not at a full price. Otherwise I would get a backlash like this, and rightly so. Call this game a project or whatever you like. Anyway, a project HAS TO BE FINISHED BEFORE YOU SELL IT'S FINAL RESULT ON THE MARKET!!! Further support during the lifetime of the product is just that- support. It includes fixing occasional bug that your testers couldn't detect, NOT patching up 50 % of the product that is missing and you knew was missing! For God's sake, there are actual placeholders for crucial features that are missing in this game and will be missing for a long time! That implies intent. Don't complicate things with fancy terminology and pointless philosophies further. The fact is it was falsely advertised, released utterly incomplete at a full price, players (customers) are cheated into becoming testers (for free) and any additional significant content will be further charged to those same customers. It's a dishonest and devious modern practice that more and more game companies adopt. Spare me the bullcrap excuses.

[Helmut_AUT]

I'm honestly surprised that in 2019 there is a still a discussion or surprise about modern games having less content.

I've been critical of Ego, even did a refund because TrackIR isn't yet implemented. But besides the bugs and features not working as planned, from a content perspective I find it really hard to understand how people could expect an even larger game. I'm also fairly sure I haven't seen another Space game on the market that delivers more content for 50 bucks.

[kobayashimaru]

I'm honestly surprised that in 2019 there is a still a discussion or surprise about modern games having less content.

I've been critical of Ego, even did a refund because TrackIR isn't yet implemented. But besides the bugs and features not working as planned, from a content perspective I find it really hard to understand how people could expect an even larger game. I'm also fairly sure I haven't seen another Space game on the market that delivers more content for 50 bucks.

So you're saying we should just give up and make peace with the fact that modern games are crap?

[Helmut_AUT]

No. I'm saying to face the reality that content for modern games needs more manhour investment per asset, and that this reflects in either smaller games or steeper prices (via DLC).

The 70EUR collector editon includes two DLCs, so for 70 EUR you get quite a large game with five races and dozens of detailed ships and stations.

Now, if you want to feel entitled to the same amount of content as years ago from a game that was in its third re-release, patched and community-expanded, then thrre's really no need to blame your personal misconceptions on the developers.

[EmperorDragon]

I can offer you my old point & suggestion of getting rid of the limiting factor that is Walking.

If you don't like the walking, why not try running instead?

Joking apart, getting rid of it will piss off a whole lot of people. It's not going anywhere. Sorry.