Talk:Elite Dangerous/Archive 1

some links about elite 4

Elite 4 is coming (but you'll have to wait)

Game quality has "skyrocketed" - Braben

Mikachu42 (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

still on the drawing board —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.157.148.187 (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

More information

someone should extend this article with all available information. the elite games were the best i ever played. they were more fun as todays mmorpg games. --84.59.88.251 10:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, Elite was -- and still is -- the best space sim. Ever. Further, to blame the communications industry when the reality is that one is simply being a lazy programmer is the worst cop-out I've read .. like, ever. How much stuff is Braben sending over the 'net? C'mon, Conflict: FreeSpace and the likes did flawless multiplayer space combat in 1997/98. That's pretty soon a decade ago. Ridiculous. --Tirolion 12:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

---

• Uh, it does include all available information. That's why it gets called vapourware.

There is an interesting interview with David Braben over at http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6162140.html?tag=latestnews;title;2 that has some new information that should be put into the main article.

---

• While I am the first to admit that software can take a long time to develop, I'm just wondering whether there in 2012 will be any interest amongst the general game playing populace -- with an average age of 13 -- in a title that initially came out 15 years before they were born. --Tirolion 08:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Why do you think the average age should fall? I expect it instead to rise, as more and more people who grew up playing video games don't stop playing when they are adults. -- Bhaak 09:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Nah, I wasn't implying that the average would fall, I'm merely -- in a roundabout way -- pointing out that there's a 28(!!) year gap between the first and last part in a series. Twentyeight years. Unless there will be some "unforeseen events that will postpone the release date". BENOFTMUE and that, y'know. --Tirolion 18:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The generally acknowledged average age of gamers is 33 years of age, and it is steadily rising. In 2007, 92 percent of computer game buyers and 80 percent of console game buyers were over the age of 18. See for yourself at http://www.theesa.com/facts/top_10_facts.php. I have no idea where the "13 years" statistic came from, I've never heard of that as an average age on anything. Icemotoboy (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• The only reference to the "13 year average age" is from a Your Sinclair article that came out at the same time as the original game. 128.214.133.2 (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

removal

"According to Braben, features under consideration for Elite 4 include "Newtonian gravity", realistic star systems and the "ability to land on planets"."

All these features were in Elite2, I think this is from an interview for that game and must have been added in error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No, those were also announced features of Elite 4. But who cares. If Braben still intends to bring the game for PS3 and X-Box 360, he has to hurry up a bit. Development was first announced 1998, 14 years ago. If the game progresses that way, it will be difficult to find some of the devices even on garage sales, when the game is finished. --92.79.150.6 (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Elite: Dangerous

So, it has been announced if someone wants to edit the wiki entry?

See this BBC article also a link to the kickstarter page. EvilMonkeySlayer (talk) 09:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

"due to the over-cautious nature of the traditional publisher model"

Is there an independent source for this? The current link (http://www.incgamers.com/2012/11/david-braben-publisher-model-prevented-development-of-new-elite/) quotes the developer himself and that's fair enough but obviously if you're talking about yourself there's an incentive to blame someone else --86.178.194.184 (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Braben has repeated the claim many times, but I've not seen any comment by anyone else on the matter. The full explanation makes it clear he doesn't see this as assigning blame to any individual, but a design flaw in the business model that nearly scuppered the original Elite too. I erred on the side of using exact language in the header and explained in more detail in the "Funding" section - would it be better to replace "over-cautious nature" with something like "risk management strategy"? AESayers (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't even suggest that publishers were averse to funding the project, merely that Braben's perception was that they'd try to control the direction of it. It's a stretch to go from that to saying that publishers are too risk averse. You could equally blame Braben for being too controlling Deltaflux (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've now changed the relevant text to "Having been unable to agree a funding deal with a publisher for many years". The "Funding" section attributes the claim to Braben and mirrors the explanation in the article as best I can. AESayers (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Elite Novels

A number of Elite novels have been confirmed and are under development, related to the successfully funded Elite:Dangerous game. These range from traditional publisher driven books, established independent authors and enthusiastic fans. They will be officially licensed novels, subject to Frontier Developments' approval and become part of the established 'canon' of the game when released.

Is it appropriate to have a section on the E:D page referring to these and links to individual entries for specific novels? Many have established websites and press articles for notability. (Drewwagar (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC))

I considered adding a section about the novels, but couldn't quite see where it fitted - is it a thematic issue that's part of the setting? Will the the books be the primary source for the game's background story? Will knowledge of story-relevant trinkets affect gameplay? I've left it until now because most public details about the books concerned the Kickstarter campaign more than the game itself, which seemed a bit iffy for Wikipedia.

This is the only Wikipedia article I've really taken ownership of so I can't give you an official answer, but personally I'd be happy for you to put something in and chat about the best place for it to go. AESayers (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: it seems more sensible for this page only to discuss the novels as they pertain to the game itself - something like "Novels set in the Elite: Dangerous universe" would belong on a page of its own (or one page per book if you prefer). I'd be more comfortable with this page containing a section like "Backstory" or a paragraph in the "Setting" section, telling you about the game by reference to the books. If you prefer to go down the route of separate pages, we can look at adding a section to the navbar (or making an extra navbar just for Elite: Dangerous) AESayers (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'm not au fait enough with wikipedia to create/edit a page and I've also got a vested interest, so probably not appropriate. Regarding the impact the books have on the game, certainly in game events and locations will be aligned with the books. We are awaiting Michael Brooke's 'Writers' Bible' to give a definitive view of where the fiction fits with the game. (Drewwagar (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC))

It occurred to me today - most people visiting this page in 2013 will be interested in how the game's coming along, so I'll have a go at a "Development" section encompassing information about the design discussion forum, books, bible, etc. AESayers (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Interpreting Kickstarter comments

This article seems to be stretching a lot of information out of WP:PRIMARY sources, by taking Kickstarter comments from the developers and attempting to interpret them to say something which the sources don't quite say. (For example, a couple of comments about Dangerous having a "sense of scale", no fast-forwarding of time and requiring small hyperjumps is used to source "space flight will be more like the original Elite".) This is WP:SYNTHESIS, and risks misrepresenting the game - this article should really only be using secondary sources, where the developers have made explicit statements in interviews or articles. --McGeddon (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Four months later, I've gone ahead and boldly cut the details which were only sourced to Kickstarter comments and forum threads. Per WP:PRIMARY, Wikipedia should not "base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them" - it may be acceptable to fill some gaps using primary sources, but a Wikipedia article shouldn't try to be a summary of forum postings. --McGeddon (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will disagree, and thus why I undo it. That information is NOT stretched, it has been confirmed multiple times. Fact that it uses forum as medium should not make any difference. Fact that there's no secondary sources is due of the fact that game is IN DEVELOPMENT. Some developers don't spread lot of information trough about game except final stages of testing. This is also is a crowdfunded game, and thus flow of information is way different before reaching stable release. Therefore using primary sources is justified here. --Pecisk (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

But the fact that the information uses a forum as its medium does make a difference under Wikipedia policy. WP:SELFPUBLISH tells us that forums are "largely not acceptable as sources" and that "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so". If there's not a lot of reliably-sourced information out there, that's just how it is, and it's what the Wikipedia article should reflect - editors shouldn't rush to pad the article out with what they personally think is important, from their reading of primary sources.

There's also the problem of WP:SYNTHESIS, as stated above - a knowledgable player sifting through Braben's forum quotes and summarising the separate statements "sense of scale", "real time" and "small jumps" as "hmm, this sounds quite like the original Elite, to me" and writing the authoritative statement that "space flight will be more like the original Elite" could very easily turn out to be wrong. It's also problematic to announce "developers have responded positively when asked about..." from a couple of polite boilerplate "No, although this may be a direction we explore for the future." reddit responses. We should be looking at secondary sources instead of daring to summarise and explain primary ones. --McGeddon (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

But I will also note that as soon as there's secondary sources, we will update this page. Sorry for being harsh previously, I didn't saw your comment on talk page. We just started to update this page recently, some problems with it are on our todo list to fix. --Pecisk (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Given that the two primary sources I happened to check were both misrepresented by Wikipedia, I don't think we're doing the reader any great favours by offering a WP:SYNTHESIS of Reddit and Kickstarter threads. If the article has to be a bit shorter until secondary sources pick up, that's just how it is. --McGeddon (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I will disagree. Lot of readers look up this article to see if they want to back this game or follow any news on it. This includes clarified list of features from developers, which mostly means using primary sources. We have line of secondary sources which will add as soon as possible, we just started to clean up article in last two days, so bear with us. --Pecisk (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A fan page interpreting and summarising the Kickstarter and Reddit comments, and comparing them to older games in the series, certainly sounds useful to potential backers, but Wikipedia isn't the place for it. It looks like the Wikia FAQ - already linked at the end of this article - is already doing this job, but in the clearer, casual context of "fans summarise forums" rather than the set-in-stone "encyclopaedia states fact". I'd say that a shorter Wikipedia article with that link at the end would do readers more of a favour. --McGeddon (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that it's a good idea to shorten the article, I would suggest to at least get rid of most stuff in the prior development section, that right now overshadow the whole article. Just keep it brief to to a sentence or 2 should be enough, we don't need every interview and article with Braben about Elite 4 throughout the decade, since Elite: Dangerous is a new game. However I do agree with Pecisk that the forum sources should stay as it's the only info we got. Also a mention of the fact that the game uses a 1:1 scale Milky Way with proper distances should get a mention somewhere. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You're not concerned that the article is misleading backers by making statements like "space flight will be more like the original Elite" (a Wikipedia editor's conclusion from various statements, not an announcement from Braben) and "developers have responded positively when asked about some day including expansions such as player-owned space stations" (sourced to a polite but negative "no space stations, but we wouldn't rule it out" Reddit comment from Brookes) in the authoritarian voice of an encyclopaedia? Both of these seem like textbook misuse of WP:PRIMARY sources ("do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself") - the article is taking small, ambiguous comments, grouping them together and deciding - possibly wrongly - what they might mean for the final game. At the very least, these should be unpacked to quote their sources accurately and neutrally. --McGeddon (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

While I remember that the old Elite 4 FAQ many years ago mentioned that the space flight would be more like the original Elite and Elite: Dangerous indeed handles quite like original Elite in flight assist on mode (if you take away yaw/vertical/lateral thrusters and backward flying) and supercruise is almost like the Torus drive but with acceleration, I do however see your concern on how it misrepresents the scope of the flight model. About player owned space stations those are confirmed to be coming in an update, see the inflatable asteroid station link in the wikia FAQ HyperspaceCloud (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

That link just has Braben talking very briefly about players being able to buy and deploy an "inflatable space station" device - it's not clear whether the resultant station would be "player-owned", or just a way to create a new NPC station. Any time we use a primary source, we should repeat it as directly as possible. --McGeddon (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It is very clear that it is a "player-owned" space station as Braben said that players will "Buy" the station. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

He says players can "buy essentially an inflatable space station" and goes onto describe a piece of tech that you carry in your cargo bay, and which you can attach to an asteroid to inflate that asteroid into a space station. He doesn't say anything about how that station would then operate - the cargo bay item spawning an NPC station seems as plausible as anything else. We shouldn't second-guess whether or not it suggests that Braben is "positive" about the idea of "some day including expansions such as player-owned space stations". --McGeddon (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If it was NPC owned, the player wouldn't have to buy that tech. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It could very plausibly be a one-shot device to create a space-station (complete with NPC staff) when you need it, either for emergency repairs or to add a step to a trade route. This seems as likely as it giving you ownership of the station - maybe more likely, given Braben's comments elsewhere about how Elite shouldn't become a "management" game. Point is that we shouldn't be describing what might seem obvious to us from bits of interviews, we should just be quoting them almost directly and leaving it unanalysed. If the article would benefit from some analysis of whether or not the overall interviews suggest that players will own space stations, we need to draw on a secondary published source that gives an opinion about it, we shouldn't make the call ourselves. (And if the gaming press haven't cared to speculate, this suggests it's not of relevance to an encyclopedic understanding of the game's development.) --McGeddon (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a mention that players will be able to build small stations or better yet, a direct quote is fine by me too. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what User:Pecisk's "our todo list" refers to, or what plan editors have to clean up the article, but if the current version of the article contains factual errors about the game (and it worries me that of the two I picked at random to check, both involved the presumptuous interpretation of a source), it may be better to clean it out and build it back up from scratch, using the previous version as a reference. As raised in a section further down, it looks as if all of the Kickstarter references might be broken and uncheckable anyway. --McGeddon (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The forum links and wikia FAQ have more up-to date info anyway and yeah a build from scratch makes a lot of sense, are you up to it? HyperspaceCloud (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm completely out of touch on the new game (the last one I played was Frontier), but sure, happy to help. --McGeddon (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're completely out of touch with the new game, then you shouldn't be editing/removing sections, also this game is classified and recognized as MMO, it has sections on major MMO sites like http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/963/Elite-Dangerous.html and http://massively.joystiq.com/category/elite-dangerous/ and Braben even called it like MMO in a recent interviews http://www.edge-online.com/features/frontier-developments-elite-dangerous-the-rebirth-of-a-legend/ (Note that the article mentions "shards", but that is wrong, they are instances as the devs said so in other sources), The term MMO wasn't used before because it had a negative stigma, but technically it is a full on MMO, because persistent galaxy server http://elite-dangerous.wikia.com/wiki/Elite:_Dangerous_FAQ#Is_.22Elite:_Dangerous.22_an_MMOG.3F also right now the earlier developments section is again overshadowing the whole article, I hope you won't forget to massively shorten that one too. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Guys, can we agree on one thing - let's discuss changes here before implementing them. Sure, it is good to have healthy criticism about sources, but this is close to splitting hairs. Article so far didn't have any wrong information, and all it needs is fresh dose of good secondary sources. You McGeddon seem to be little obsessed with references, which is good thing for Wikipedia, but if article doesn't have any useful information because sources can be disputed, then I would point out that most of secondary sources on this will also have factual problems, as gaming media is not known for fact checking quality. So if anything big gets improved or removed, let's discuss it here, before doing so. Pecisk (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I think what's needed is a brief description of the game based on the wikia FAQ: http://elite-dangerous.wikia.com/wiki/Elite:_Dangerous_FAQ#What_are_the_main_features_of_.22Elite:_Dangerous.22.3F with an emphasize on the astronomical detail and dynamic society/economy of the game and the confirmed freeform seamless planetary landings and walking around expansions. We need an even briefer early development section shorted to 1 or 2 sentences based on what's there now. And an updated logo. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Value of Free Updates?

Minor point, I know, but:

"For example, free updates have been promised to backers at about half the value they would demand at retail."

Are they free? What's half the value of free? Does it mean backers get them free... but that others have to buy them for double the price of free? Should I remove the word 'free'? (I genuinely don't know what's been offered with regard to the probably inevitable DLC packs.) - Coldwind825 (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

History of Elite

User:HyperspaceCloud makes a fair point in the thread above that "we don't need every interview and article with Braben about Elite 4 throughout the decade, since Elite: Dangerous is a new game" - given that Braben's largely talking about a hypothetical game, this is more about the history of the series than Dangerous specifically. Is it maybe worth making an Elite (video game series) article that can cover this in detail? --McGeddon (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Kickstarter references broken?

I've tried clicking through on a few of these to see if they verify the statements they're sourcing, and in no cases can I see a comment that relates to the statement. Are Kickstarter's "comments?cursor=1971711#comment-1971711" URLs relative to the most recent comment on the project, meaning that as new comments are added, the URL refers to a different chunk of comments? --McGeddon (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Is Dangerous an MMO?

Splitting out the thread above, is Dangerous an MMO? The VG247 interview has Braben explicitly saying "This isn’t an MMO. You’ll be able to load and save your position, and you’ll be able to choose who you play with." User:HyperspaceCloud says that "Braben even called it like MMO in a recent interviews", but the link given doesn't seem to have a direct Braben quote on the matter (just Edge magazine saying they consider the game to be "somewhere between the Dark Souls multiverse and a full-on MMORPG"). We can say that the gaming community considers it to be an MMO, if that's what's happening, but does a clear Braben quote exist? --McGeddon (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It is an MMO (Note that the article wrongly mentions "shards", they are "instances" as the devs said so multiple times in other sources and interviews) also the grouping or even solo options are additional, they don't take away the from MMOness, that's the reason why the game is classified as MMO on major gaming sites, just like Star Citizen is, please do us a favor and get informed about the game, follow all the links/videos of the MMO section of the FAQ http://elite-dangerous.wikia.com/wiki/Elite:_Dangerous_FAQ#Is_.22Elite:_Dangerous.22_an_MMOG.3F and do a forum search on one of the devs http://forums.frontier.co.uk/member.php?u=22712 on "instance" aka "session" these therms have been used to refer to the same thing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperspaceCloud (talk • contribs) 12:32, 25 April 2014‎

Sure, like I say, we can say that the gaming community considers it to be an MMO if that's the case, and if there have been clear statements on how persistent the world will be, those should go in. It just seems striking that Braben has said, in his own words, "This isn't an MMO." - if there's a clearer quote where he says otherwise, where can I find that? --McGeddon (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said before, negative stigma, the Star Citizen devs also said in the beginning that it wasn't MMO, but later on when they saw that the stigma wasn't that bad, they openly called it MMO. I think I may have heard Braben say the word instance in a more recent interview. Anyway, all the MMO/Not-MMO mentions in the press is all about Frontier managing public perception, while it technically is an MMO and many other MMOGs work on the same principle. Also that Call of Duty reference can easily be misinterpreted (Blame Braben for misrepresenting his own game or maybe the press, same with the shard thing) as it only applies to the twitch combat and Call of Duty has nothing like a singular persistent evolving galaxy. Also MMO doesn't imply using virtual dice roll, as opposed to MMORPG. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long, but here is the relevant part of where David Braben talks about the single galaxy and instancing. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I can barely hear what he's saying on these speakers - would you mind transcribing the relevant sentence and putting it in a "quote=" field on the source you're using? And if we only have a primary source, we should be careful to attribute it in the text, for the full benefit of the reader - "In a March 2014 video, Braben said that Dangerous would be" rather than "Dangerous is". --McGeddon (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Original launch date

We need a source if we're going to declare that "the developer failed to make this target". All we've got in current sources is some vague press stuff about the plan being for the game to be "out" in March 2014, which could mean almost anything, and it's not up to us to decide what that meant and whether the devs failed to achieve it. If Braben specifically promised a full public release by March 2014 and didn't meet that, I assume this would have gotten some press coverage at the time. What have we got? --McGeddon (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"The game is planned to be released on the PC in March 2014. ... We have a long track record of delivering high quality games on time and to budget .... David Braben" https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous . 67.223.120.208 (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

And did the games press have anything to say about this when March 2014 rolled around? --McGeddon (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Braben being late on delivery is hardly news, is it?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.223.120.208 (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Then it's hardly encyclopedia material either. --McGeddon (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. WP is more than news. 67.223.120.208 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

But not much more. --McGeddon (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Braben said

This has been reverted as "unjustified" a couple of times, perhaps I'm not being clear enough in edit summaries. We can't say "David Braben was unable to give a delivery date, but said "it will be this year for sure"." from a journalist writing "Braben couldn't give me a date but he said it will be this year for sure". The journalist didn't use quotemarks and was paraphrasing, so we have no idea what actual words Braben used. But by writing that Braben "said" some words in quotes, we're telling the reader that he opened his mouth and spoke these words.

Writing a quoteless "Braben said it would be this year for sure" in the article here would be inappropriately chatty for Wikipedia - I intended "Braben said that the game would be available on Windows some time that year" to be formal but equally definitive. If there's a problem with that wording, what is it? Is it important to somehow convey Braben being "sure"? --McGeddon (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"The journalist ... was paraphrasing" You've presented no evidence for that. "so we have no idea what actual words Braben used." False. The article says he said. Indeed without quotes it would look like WP being chatty. With the quotes it shows accurately that these words are Braben's not WPs. 67.223.120.208 (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It's convention that framing quotemarks are used when words were actually spoken, and a lack of quotemarks is a paraphrase - the same article includes the line "My handler said I should head to a mining facility" when the reviewer was told to head to a mining facility, but the handler did not literally say the exact words "I should head to a mining facility".

Wikipedia:QUOTE#Comparison_with_paraphrases explains this. By taking a paraphrase and putting it in quotemarks we're effectively fabricating a quote. I've reverted to the boringly literal "his response was summarised by a journalist as" because presenting a quotation that was never actually spoken is a weak (but still serious) WP:BLP issue. If you've never heard of the quote/paraphrase distinction and think I'm stark staring mad for drawing it, that's fine, but I'd appreciate if you could hold fire and ask for a quick third opinion sanity check before adding the words back as "Braben said exactly this". --McGeddon (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear to those who weren't following the revert fight, we're talking about this article. The author does not indicate he is quoting Braben at all. He is just conveying what Braben told him. It's exactly what McGeddon said; he's paraphrasing. What does paraphrasing mean to you, 67.223.120.208? If you want the quotes to show that we're quoting the article, that's fine. But it will have to be reworded to indicate that. But I don't think the author's wording is particularly golden and rewording it to Wikipedia's standard is a good choice. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Paraphrasing means "a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words." People here have claimed these words are paraphrase, and that they were "never actually spoken". No evidence for either claim has been given. And "The author does not indicate he is quoting Braben at all." is false. The author says "Braben said". 67.223.120.208 (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Although it's quite possible that Braben did use the exact words "this year for sure", we have no evidence for this claim either. As you say yourself above; without quotemarks it reads like the quoter giving their own chatty description of what was said, with quotemarks it "shows accurately that these words are Braben's". The Escapist journalist did not use quotemarks. --McGeddon (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Again I agree with McGeddon here. The journalist did not put Braben's words in quotes. The article itself is the evidence you say is lacking. I really don't understand what you're missing. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Pre-beta / premium beta

User:HyperspaceCloud thinks it's "confusing" for Wikipedia to talk about the game being in "Premium Beta", and prefers the term "pre beta" based on a thorough reading of the dev forums. But PC Gamer source we're using is headlined Elite: Dangerous "Premium Beta" now available and contains Braben saying "the start of the Premium Beta phase is another exciting moment in our development—from today we have over 10,000 additional people playing the game". If the press thinks the game has been in "Premium Beta" since May, Wikipedia must reflect that - it would be more confusing to have Wikipedia contradicting its own PC Gamer source. --McGeddon (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

As I explained in my and your talk page, it's confusing, because Frontier seems to have their own definition of premium beta which isn't feature complete, so prefixing Premium in front of beta version is confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperspaceCloud (talk • contribs) 17:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

If it's an idiosyncratic use of language, we can put it in quotemarks, but if that's what they're calling it, that's what they're calling it. We can (and do) explain what their "Premium Beta" means in the body of the article. Again, it is much more confusing to (as is currently the case) present the reader with "it's a pre-beta" in the lede and "it's a premium beta" in the body and the cited source. --McGeddon (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Another solution would be to also mention in the header, that Standard Beta aka Beta 1 will begin 29 July. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Instead of mentioning the pre/premium beta at all? --McGeddon (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Early crowdsourcing plans

Braben being interviewed about crowdsourcing and saying that he had "thought of doing something along those lines" for Elite does not support the statement that Braben had "considered crowdfunding earlier" in the lede (the BAFTA video itself has Braben comparing crowdsourcing to simple pre-ordering). This is perhaps worth noting in full context (the actual quote, and when he said it) in the "Development" section, but when I did that, User:HyperspaceCloud reverted it back into the lede. --McGeddon (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The header already mentions crowdfunding, so it's really important that it doesn't look like he just plucked the idea out of thin air HyperspaceCloud (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

But the source doesn't tell us anything about where he plucked the idea from, only that he had "thought of doing something along those lines" at some point before March 2012. Maybe it was just a pre-order campaign he discussed in the 1990s that went nowhere. The source doesn't give us any details. --McGeddon (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

With no response in a couple of weeks I've cut this WP:SYN from the lede and put it into the article body with the "something along those lines" context. I've also moved the minor and primary-sourced "a few days after Kickstarter went live in the UK" out of the lede. --McGeddon (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

FPS

So what source specifically supports "walk around and do first-person shooter combative boarding"? Boarding, yes, concept art of some boarding happening, yes, but I can't find the phrase "first person shooter" in any of the three references attached to this sentence. (And does it make any sense to say that the player can perform "combative boarding inside ships and space stations", or is that just a sentence being built up piecemeal?) --McGeddon (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The developers said multiple times that the Elite experience is first-person only (there are no 3rd person game play videos on youtube), with your own twitch skills (it's not a dice rolling RPG), both of which Braben emphasized and so will the walk around and on-foot combat part, which implies first person shooter. Also I just found a recent Q/A with Braben talking about first person walking http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/13/live_chat_david_braben/ HyperspaceCloud (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It is WP:SYNTHESIS to add together "I haven't seen any third-person videos", "there are twitch skills in some parts of the game" and "Braben mentioned first person walking" and conclude that this implies that Dangerous will have "first-person-shooter" boarding gameplay. It might not even have guns! Wikipedia shouldn't promise future FPS gameplay until a source has explicitly said this. --McGeddon (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

But it will have guns, it's even shown on in that image and mentioned in the Elite lore. You aren't going to do Walking around interiors and combative boarding of other ships and Combat and other interactions with other players and AIs in the internal areas of star ports in the future without guns. Also Of course walking round your ship will be nice, but it is the just springboard for a very significant expansion of gameplay – you will be able to experience the inside of starports and interact with other players and AI characters, and even board other people’s ships in space and take them by force, as shown in this concept piece. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it might have guns! But "haven't yet seen any third-person gameplay", "twitch skills", "first-person walking", "picture of someone dropping a gun" and "I would expect to have to use a gun if I was boarding a spaceship" are not enough for us to announce that Dangerous will have FPS elements, if Frontier Developments have never explicitly said this. Maybe it'll be third-person, maybe it'll be directed AI combat, maybe it's all psychic kung fu or whatever's going on in that concept art. We should just say what the sources say, not what we think they probably imply. --McGeddon (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It won't be directed AI (that's anti-Elite gameplay philosophy) and it won't be psychic kung fu (that was a Zero-G push and a holographic visor). There was a gun in the image and that implies FPS, same as Star Citizen. This doesn't need explicit mentioning, same as how Braben doesn't like to call Elite a space simulator, yet it's classified as that and we've had this discussion about MMO before remember. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

This is all speculation. WP:SYNTHESIS is straightforward enough: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." That Dangerous will have FPS boarding gameplay is not stated by any of the sources.--McGeddon (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not speculation. It is implied clearly in the image shown. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

And implication is not enough. --McGeddon (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"Chasing big dinosaurs around"

We seem to have gone from Braben chatting about "chasing big dinosaurs around" as an experience that he would enjoy as a player, to something that updates to the game "will allow". Has this been announced, or are we misrepresenting sources? (A lot of the current sourcing is unclear - one simple fact about the number of star systems had 11 reference footnotes at the end of its sentence, many of them YouTube videos, when it only needed one.) --McGeddon (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Almost all sources has Braben obsessively talking about big-game hunting, and there is an example of big-game hunting dinosaur-like creatures in Elite lore as well. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

And you've applied the personal WP:SYNTHESIS of "Braben loves the idea" plus "there was a canonical short story about it in the 1990s" to get "will 100% definitely be implemented in an update to the game"? Please stop doing this. Just say exactly what the sources say, and don't try to infer any outcomes or conclusions from them, however likely they may seem to you: presenting personal conclusions as facts misleads the reader, and I'm sure Frontier Developments wouldn't appreciate Wikipedia announcing future updates which are not actually planned at all. --McGeddon (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

People might have rearranged my sources. Braben mentioned big-game hunting wildlife multiple times, and implementing a dinosaur is the same as any other wildlife and makes no difference, if it bothers you, quote it yourself before flagging, also vehicles driving around the surfaces is a confirmed feature in multiple sources, so I suggest you first check all the sources and familiarize yourself on the subject before touching it. (as I told you multiple times before) HyperspaceCloud (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The "Elite: Dangerous Stage Demo - E3 2014" video has Braben saying that "what I want" is big game hunting, and "IGN Live: Gamescom 2014" mentions the developers currently "looking at" the idea. I can't see anything else in the sources. We shouldn't describe the developer's hopes and intentions as something that "updates to the game will allow", and "big game" plus "gun-for-dinosaur story in canon" plus "dinosaurs must be as easy to render as anything else I think" does not equal "Elite: Dangerous confirmed to feature dinosaur hunting". --McGeddon (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There are more than these 2 sources. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The other three sources are text articles, and none of them appear to confirm that future updates will allow big game dinosaur hunting. Have I missed something? --McGeddon (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is another big-game hunting source http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/07/16/elite-oculus-rift/ Braben talks about it all the time HyperspaceCloud (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, a new reference with Braben explicitly saying that "big game hunting will come", that's better than anything we've got in the article so far. I've added it to the paragraph and put the dinosaur quote into context. --McGeddon (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's better to just quote what was said in the E3 talk, instead of expressing enthusiasm for the idea, because it now looks as if it wasn't his idea in the first place, which is misleading. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, a direct quote is usually best. --McGeddon (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

External links

Per WP:ELBURDEN, disputed external links are excluded until such time as there is an active consensus to include them, often via WP:ELN. In this particular case it is fairly clear that the Wikia link under dispute does not meet the guidance of WP:ELNO, with less than 100 total editors ever. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere do those links state that a wiki has to have 100 total editors, also this game isn't super popular, so of course it doesn't have 100 editors any time soon, also we already discussed this link months ago and it was fine then, while it had significantly less editors than it has now. Some of the editors and admins are veteran Elite community members and official Elite lore writers. The founder is from the Elite: Dangerous podcast http://laveradio.com/ which hosts the official yearly Elite conference, Lavecon (endorsed and promoted by Frontier Developments), where the official Elite developers, writers and fans gather together. The wikia has also been mentioned by Frontier themselves https://twitter.com/EliteDangerous/status/436080033757925376 HyperspaceCloud (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The links do say that wikis are excluded unless they have a substantial number of editors - 65 for all time is not considered a substantial number, regardless of the popularity of the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You need a clear definition of substantial, because 65 is very substantial to me, considering the game hasn't been released yet. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on what has and has not been accepted at the relevant noticeboard, 65 would not come close to qualifying. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is *under guidance* of WP:ELNO, not an iron clad rule. Rules can have exceptions, can't they? It seems it is very solid case to have one, especially when quality of source matters - and that page is vetted at much higher level than huge amount of Wikipedia articles.Pecisk (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm only seeing 37 editors, only 18 of whom have been active in the last month. WP:ELNO requires both "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors": a stable wiki with a small number of editors is effectively just a fansite. --McGeddon (talk) 09:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There are many anonymous edits too. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Frontier: First Encounters

User:HyperspaceCloud says that "I really think it's important that FFE is mentioned in the header especially when there is no proper Elite series article". The name of the immediate prequel does not seem more important than the MMO nature of the game, the Kickstarter context or the fact that the player flies a spaceship. That the game is the latest instalment in the Elite franchise is significant, but namechecking the third game in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE seems an unnecessary amount of detail.

There's a thread further up the page, from April, suggesting that a separate article be created for the Elite series. --McGeddon (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that until the Elite series article is created, it should be made very clear in the header somewhere which game specifically it's succeeding. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This is actually the same disagreement as you had at Talk:Elite_(video_game)#Lead_paragraph, isn't it? You think the Encounters sequel is sadly underrated and would like to see it mentioned very, very prominently, and here would like it to be in the opening sentence. Consensus over at Elite was that going into detail about sequel titles in the lede was inappropriate - it's the same deal at the other end of the franchise. The best possible way to explain Elite: Dangerous in one sentence does not include seven words explaining what the immediate prequel was called. --McGeddon (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not about being underrated, it's to ensure that it's instantly clear to people where Elite: Dangerous comes from. It doesn't have to be in the first sentence as long as it's in the header, especially because there is no elite series article yet. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Elite series article

Speaking of which, I see you did start a draft of an Elite series article here, HyperspaceCloud. If we all pitch in, we could finish it and move it to article space, which would render this whole argument moot. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did start that as a test. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think I've done all the damage I can to this draft. Does someone want to look it over and decide if it can moved to the Article space? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Have given it a bit of a polish; I think it needs at least one-paragraph sections about each of the games, a bit about the game universe and how consistent (or not) it's been, and maybe a source that talks about the "series" being a significant entity by itself. Another series article like Grand Theft Auto might be a useful model. (And it looks like Elite (series) would be a more appropriate title than Elite series.) Maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games could give some input? --McGeddon (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, McGeddon. It reads better now. Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about the series, having played none of the games. Someone else will have to flesh out the article. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I am a member of the Video Games WikiProject, McGeddon, so thanks for the suggestion. I brought it up there. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the consensus (here) seems to be that:

• The series does need an article
• It doesn't have to be perfect before going live, BUT
• It needs to establish it's notability before being moved to article space

Anyone want to take a crack at establishing its notability? Then we can move it to the general article space and millions of people worldwide can admire our beautiful work. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"Complex and controversial"

I cut back a lot of unreadable "as scientifically accurate as possible[13][15][17][18][19][20][21] in a spaceship" over-referencing in the lede, but if it's "complex and controversial" that the fourth game in a series is the sequel to the third, is this sentence trying to say something more meaningful, and failing? --McGeddon (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not certain wether or not the single player mode will be a sequel to the third game. I remember hearing something about that somewhere. I think it's safe to say that it's a spiritual sequel? Escapevelocity (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I see why. Braben had decided to release First Encounters as a seperate game rather than an extension of Frontier, thus denying the guy who held the royaties any payment for the "extension"/"sequel." It's in the Further Reading section, the interview with Ian Bell, Q8.Escapevelocity (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Elite: Dangerous is a proper sequel to Frontier: First Encounters. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Elite: Dangerous isn't a proper sequel to Frontier. But that interview with Ian Bell that I read made it clear that there's disagreement as to whether or not First Encounters is a separate game rather than an extension on Frontier. And... why are we having this discussion? Why is this critical to the integrity of the article again? Escapevelocity (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Because I see you mention spiritual sequel, which is incorrect. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Citation rework

Is there a requirement on wikipedia somewhere that states how exactly to cite the date that an article was created and/or retrieved? I'm noticing that many are using DD Month YYYY or YYYY-MM-DD. Escapevelocity (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed this as well, but don't videos, such as those from Youtube posted by IGN, have their own citation format? For example, "event occurs at blahblahblah or "this is what he said insert speech here?" Escapevelocity (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking into these citations, we're going to have to do some clean up of the links. And get dates onto stuff...Escapevelocity (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I've noticed some forum posts being used as citations, we can use citations from forums if it's said by staff, yes?Escapevelocity (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Forum posts by staff fall under WP:SELFPUB, and can be used so long as the material isn't "unduly self-serving", makes no claims about third parties and we're sure it was really made by a significant staff member. We should be careful about how we interpret and present this, though - earlier versions of this article had a lot of "Illudium Pu-37 space modulators confirmed, say devs!" sourced to a polite and generic Kickstarter response of "uh, sure, we wouldn't rule that out" to a backer's question. --McGeddon (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, we don't need 7 citations for a single fact, maybe two or three.Escapevelocity (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed: User:HyperspaceCloud was at one point adding a lot of reference articles and let's-play videos on the basis that these references themselves were interesting or "important", rather than because we needed them to source any particular statement. I'd cleaned out some of this overreferencing in September, but we can still stand to lose a lot. --McGeddon (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanked you for recent ref cleaning edit. Good work.Escapevelocity (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:HyperspaceCloud is now shuffling references around and dropping a secondary source in favour of a primary newsletter because it's "more appropriate" and there's "no reason to bring the offline refund stuff into the MMO sources".

The geek.com reference uses the phrase "massively multiplayer gameplay in a persistent universe" and confirms that single player is online only, so can neatly be used as a single source to verify all three facts. We do not need a reference soup of "important" links to source these three basic facts. Article references are not a carefully curated magazine of further reading, they are simply links to confirm that the article is backed up by reliable sources. --McGeddon (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I was wrong, I now see it mentions massively multiplayer, but it's not complete as it does not state where the offline mode request actually came from, it's also unnecessary to have a title like "Elite: Dangerous drops offline mode, angry backers demand refunds" for every part of the article that mentions MMO or singleplayer. That's a separate issue that should be confined to the development section. That source also talks about a 5000 pound refund by a certain backer, but it has since been retracted. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The geek.com source was being used for the sentence "Elite: Dangerous features a massively multiplayer, persistent universe, with an online-only single player mode" and MMO/single-player fields in the infobox. Nothing else. That's all it needs to cover, and it covers it. If you want to replace it with another single, secondary source that covers the same three basic facts, then by all means do that, but replacing it with three separate primary sources (the ED web page, their newsletter, and a Braben video interview) is of clear detriment of the article. --McGeddon (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The geek.com source is also out of date and incomplete with respect to the refund issue, which overshadows the whole article. I added two primary sources and one secondary source. I thought the interview counts as secondary. You could have removed one, because I added one extra for redundancy. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Interviews are considered primary sources. You can swap the geek.com article out for a different secondary source for whatever personal aesthetic reasons you like, so long as that source does the same job, but don't get too hung up on this erroneous idea that references are a curated magazine that the reader is going to print out and read in full, and which should be as up to date and interesting as possible. One reference headline in a small font in a dry reference section near the foot of the page is hardly "overshadow[ing] the whole article". --McGeddon (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM words

Per WP:CLAIM, we should not say that Braben "mentioned" removal of single player and then "claimed" to be offering refunds; these are loaded terms suggesting that the announcement was deliberately off-hand and that the refund offer may not have been true. (The announcement did seem offhand, but if that's worth emphasising then we should quote a clear secondary source that comments on how offhand it was, rather than putting our own WP:OR spin on a primary source.) --McGeddon (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think that 'mentioned' is far more accurate than 'announced': no update was posted to Kickstarter, no specific announcement, email to purchasers or previous piece on their forums at all. It was mentioned in a roundabout way in a single para buried in the relevant newsletter. It seems to be difficult to get a secondary source to give an opinion on the more accurate word here - I'm guessing Kickstarter commenters or forum posters (lots!) wouldn't be acceptable?

On the refund announcement thing - considering the sizeable ding-dong occurring over that (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=60257 http://www.elitedangerousrefunds.org/ http://www.reddit.com/r/elitedangerousrefunds) and the fact that people are taking legal action, I think 'claimed' (they would give refunds) is *entirely* neutral/appropriate. I notice from the wiki guide (thanks) that 'claim' is not forbidden, merely that care has to be taken with it's use.

As to the term 'played the game' in reference to alpha/beta builds, it rather puts the spin that users were enjoying a fully playable, release-quality game. In fact, they were rather limited pre-release 'builds' full of bugs that users were exhorted to report. In this context, 'accessed early builds' would seem entirely accurate, and convey what they were actually using. (Not trying to get into an edit war btw!) User:Splodger999

Hexus says "announced", Kotaku doesn't describe the announcement. If we can't find a secondary source commenting on the derisory nature of the initial announcement before it was press-released and clarified, then that's a sign that "initial newsletter announcement of this was poorly written" shouldn't be part of an encyclopaedia entry about the game. Surely some gaming press sources have covered the absurdity of announcing this (however loudly) a month before launch, though?

If you think Wikipedia has good enough reason to "call [a] statement's credibility into question" by labelling something as a WP:CLAIM, we should go all the way and explain to the reader why this is being seen as a spurious claim. Have we got secondary press sources for the legal action, or that question the truth of Braben's "claim"?

To a reader unfamiliar with the game or the industry, "accessed early builds" could be read as being some sort of genuinely meagre "here's a screenshot for you, backers!" level of access, and would actually make the reader wonder what all the fuss was about when single-player was dropped. There was a game and people were playing it, we have plenty of sources using both of those words. --McGeddon (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, the sources refer to people "playing" the alpha rather than "testing" it ("[Frontier] at first said refunds would only be given to those who have never played the game before") - I'm sure you feel you're making some useful point about the gameplay experience of alpha and beta customers, but this just risks confusing the reader into thinking there might be a subgroup of backers who cheerfully played the game for months but weren't part of the core "testing" group and they all got refunds. Which obviously isn't the case. --McGeddon (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Offhand method of announcement: "The newsletter mentions... " or "Needless to say, if Frontier Developments were hoping to minimise damage by quietly announcing the removal of offline play in their newsletter, they were unsuccessful."

Lawyers being dragged in: "Whatever the case, the debate over the lack of an offline mode rumbles on. Last week I was contacted by Mr Andrew Mace, a partner at law firm Gowlings and an Elite: Dangerous backer, who told me he was helping people get their money back."

Refunds not forthcoming: "Well, Frontier now have some vague policy on refunds, and it’s questionable: if you’re played at all, you can’t have one." "Particularly in the face of Frontier Developments’ refund process, which at the time refused to offer refunds to players if they had downloaded the alpha or beta, never mind if they played it." "Kickstarter backers and active testers are not eligible."

Controversy/uproar: ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR.

Early access alpha/beta was for developmental builds: "The idea of paying for early access to a developmental build is a relatively new concept in modern gaming." "test builds" User:Splodger999

Thanks, some good sources there. Make sure to frame quoted phrases so that we know who said them (Braben having "quietly announced" something sounds like oddly those were his own words); if a sentence ends up being too elaborate, consider splitting it out into another sentence. --McGeddon (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't see anything to support "Many having waited weeks without a reply from Frontier have resorted to either their payment providers or other legal avenues" - Eurogamer actually contradicts it by saying "No-one's taking legal action at this stage, but there remains an air of inevitability that Frontier will be dragged into a messy battle with some players if refunds aren't handled well." and the Blues News article doesn't mention any legal action. --McGeddon (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The Eurogamer article does sat "Whatever the case, the debate over the lack of an offline mode rumbles on. Last week I was contacted by Mr Andrew Mace, a partner at law firm Gowlings and an Elite: Dangerous backer, who told me he was helping people get their money back." - hence 'legal avenues'. The same article relates the case of a refund seeker waiting weeks without satisfaction.

The slashdot article references that the 480 page thread took only three days.

Thanks for tidying up my sloppy editing! User:Splodger999

If Eurogamer hasn't told us the nature of Mace's "help", we shouldn't assume it's a "legal avenue" - as he's a backer, it might just be forum chat and boilerplate trading standards advice. Since Eurogamer says in the very next sentence that "No-one's taking legal action at this stage", we shouldn't summarise their take on the whole thing as "many have resorted to legal avenues". --McGeddon (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Closing threads

To continue the discussion on this. I don't see the point of including the bit about moderators closing threads about offline mode as it doesn't give their reason for doing so. Due to the large response they were simply containing new posts to the thread dedicated to offline mode and had no malicious intent. The section of the article makes it sound like their reason for doing it was unfounded which is simply not true. Stargazer71 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I find the removal of 'offline' as a separate topic, and the removal of quite neutral and well sourced information a little worrying - self interest would seem to be at work here. The offline subject is clearly deserving of it's own section. As to moderators forbidding further threads on what was hitherto a commitment all through development, that does not strike me as normal behaviour, and more like an attempt to stifle discussion on the matter just before launch. The fact that the BBC were interested enough to report the matter shows the level of unrest it evidently caused.-User:Splodger999

Forum threads about offline being closed "at this point in time" is old news and is the standard procedure when there are duplicate threads and personal attacks and harassment. There have been made new threads about offline just fine. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

No reason not to include some "old news" in a four-year history of a game's development, but this does seem something of a footnote. So long as the paragraph conveys that many customers were angry about the change, we don't need to dazzle the reader with "X comments on Y pages in Z days" with no context for normal thread traffic. --McGeddon (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If you spend some time around the official forums of popular games you'll see that containing discussion to a single thread is a common practice and not unusual at all. If it wasn't done the forum would be overrun with new threads about the same topic. To stifle the discussion would be to ban all discussion on the matter entirely which is the opposite of what they did. Elite is an icon in the UK so it isn't out of place that the BBC would do a report on it. I can only gleam from this that are including this in that section because it is a personal problem for you. The majority of players have moved on from the offline mode discussion and accept the decision that the developers made. The activities of their forum moderators does not need to be mentioned especially in the way that it is worded right now as it is misleading. Stargazer71 (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This sounds rather apologetic on behalf of the developer. Elite may be an 'Icon', but so what? Are you suggesting special treatment here for a favourite game? You suggest that to stifle means to ban all discussion on the matter entirely. I agree. How is the official forum moderator's post saying "We kindly ask that you do not create new threads/discussions about this moderation action or the offline issues at this point in time. Thank you for understanding." unambiguous. That was the last word on the subject there. Further discussion on the topic *is* banned. User:Splodger999

"at this point in time" which is a long time ago, all these new threads also became a maintenance burden. Here is an active offline mode thread https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=59287&page=10 HyperspaceCloud (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@User:HyperspaceCloud You've rather proved my point. The thread has been shut down - I've just had a look at that thread, and it looks like it escaped a previous merge. A single new comment in there brought it to their attention, and they've caught up and closed it down!--Splodger999 (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

There is already another big active thread relating the issue HyperspaceCloud (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@User:Splodger999 Are you going to make a further comment? If not I think the point that HyperspaceCloud was making is proved. Stargazer71 (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@User:Stargazer71 Well I didn't realise I had to be on 24hr standby over the festive period to answer to you personally, however I don't think you understand: User:HyperspaceCloud suggested Frontier were not stifling debate on the offline topic (despite clear evidence to the contrary). In an attempt to 'prove' his point, he referenced an old thread on the subject that had been overlooked for closure. A single recent comment there brought it to the attention of the moderators again, and it was closed. Ergo: Mods are closing threads there regarding 'offline'. The claim that 'there is already another big active thread' discussing the removal of the 'offline mode' is unreferenced, and as far as I can ascertain, non-factual. --Splodger999 (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Single player offline mode / refunds

User:HyperspaceCloud has twice added the primary-sourced newsletter observations that we should be "considering that offline support was not one of the original aims of the project" and that it is "not out of the question" that single-player offline mode will be added in the future. Both of these would appear to cross the line of "unduly self-serving" per WP:SELFPUB, by giving Frontier's own spin on their announcement, and the entirely empty statement that a feature hasn't been 100% ruled out forever.

The same user has blanked all mention of alpha and beta testers not being eligible for refunds, claiming that "the refund policy has changed" - is this "Elite: Dangerous refunds now being judged case-by-case" (which would still belong in the article), or has it changed again since Monday? --McGeddon (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering about that too. I request that User: HyperspaceCloud give a citation for the "backer-requested" single-player mode being promised on the Kickstarter FAQ. Let us learn from the case of "dinosaur hunting." Escapevelocity (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

With no response and two concerned editors, I've reverted the edit. I've brought the alpha/beta refund policy up to date from the above source. --McGeddon (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@User: HyperspaceCloud How does canceled make it sound as if the whole game had been canceled? I don't care if you use scrapped or canceled, but you don't always have to have the last word. It's not even possible to have the last word on a responsible and current wiki. Escapevelocity (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It does seem a little too casual in tone, and I don't see the "whole game" problem. But the given source's chosen verb is "removed", and this seems better than either as it makes it clear that the feature existed and was taken out, rather than being considered but abandoned before being developed. --McGeddon (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Hyperspacecloud has again added a quote of Braben saying "We're still going to look at how to do [an offline mode]. You know, It's not off the table. We just can't promise it.", this time sourced to a WP:NEWSPRIMARY PC Gamer interview. Another take on the same decision which Hyperspacecloud chose not to quote is a BBC article saying "Asked if offline mode would ever be implemented, Mr Brookes replied: "Probably not."" A company refusing to 100% rule something out in the future is not remarkable. --McGeddon (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of refunds, have indicated (with ref to Eurogamer article) the developer's initial decision to deny refunds: "The community is waiting, now, to see how Frontier deals with these refund requests - refund requests, remember, it had initially denied." Adds context to refunds/complaints topic. --Splodger999 (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean the initial decision to offer full, no-questions-asked refunds, but only to players who'd pre-ordered the game without playing it? I've made this context clearer in the article, since it seems to have been overlooked. --McGeddon (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes - The only group of buyers getting eventual full refunds were a small subset who purchased shortly before launch, and who were not eligible to take part in the prior testing. Those who had tested (earlier and larger backers) were initially denied a refund entirely. I note that any reference to this has been scrubbed. --Splodger999 (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Massively Multiplayer

Per this video description [1], I would not consider this game "Massively Multiplayer" but "Multiplayer". Each game instance is limited to a maximum of 32 players. Each Player vs. Player game is limited to 16 players per side. There are may game instances within one persistent world. This is quite different than most MMO type games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casimir (talk • contribs) 13:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Instance size has no bearing on MMOness as most MMOs are instanced. Also an instance in Elite: Dangerous is not static and not a fixed location in space. It's a dynamic bubble around the player based on sensor range. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree, it's a multiplayer game by all accounts and definitions. Instance size has an immediate bearing on "MMOness" and 32 players per instance is a classic multiplayer number.82.149.182.235 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Number of players is severely limited by the peer-to-peer networking model used by the game. By all means, it's still 'multiplayer' in the absolute strictest sense, but 'massively' is probably pushing it somewhat by all accounts. Suggest removing 'Massively'. --Splodger999 (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

As said before instance size has no bearing on MMOness as most instanced MMOs have low limits. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for a 'Reception' section

As the reviews are now coming in, I'd like to suggest that a 'reception section be created. However due to the consistent nature of contention in the posting process I'd like to put forward that we create it here, flesh it out and post it in agreeance?

The general tone thus far seems to be of a positive nature ranging between 70% through 90% so a Generally positive reviews would be reasonable as a factual beginning? Subsequent to this I believe that it's important to not drag the conversation into the controversy around user reviews giving zeros and perfect tens in a tit for tat nature. An attempt should be made to equate player experience with legitimate review (metacritic seems to have an algorithm that does this in one way or another - seemingly eliminating the perfects and zeroes for the most part) Reference should also be made to some key points represented in the majority of the reviews - i.e. A lack of guidance, Broad but not deep, recognition of it being the start of development, reference to the lack of multiplayer support. Finally there should be some reference to the reviews themselves - possibly selecting the score plus the summary as per each reviewers results. We should avoid lending opinion or attempting to broadly summerise anothers opinion.

As the game progresses and further releases are made, it should be kept track of in a timescale citing client/server version, user and critical reception.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Reviews from critics are too thin on the ground at this point to really justify a reception section -yet-, but definitely worth keeping an eye on. Maybe once there's some scores in from a few of the other major sites (gamespot, polygon, giantbomb), the ones Metacritic tend to use as their primary weights, that'll give people a much better sense for where the MSM has put the game and will give a much more accurate and evidence based approach for the reception article. LostPackets (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

PCGamer, IGN, EuroGamer, Games Radar, Trusted Reviews, MMORPG, Yahoo, US Gamer, INC Gamers, - All pretty reputable review sources wouldn't you think? Either way, it seems odd to discredit all the other review sites based on waiting for Gamespot, Polygon and Giantbomb. Those review scores are not going to drastically change the overall critical reception are they? But hey, if the general consensus is to sit tight, then sit tight I will.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Metacritic is only showing ten critic reviews at present, that's not to say that you're incorrect, but I'd rather that we have everything lined up correctly and all our sources are neatly arranged before going into the reception section with the numbers. Metacritic has a wonky weighting system which means that yes, some review scores will tilt the overall score up or down by several notches. Therefore it may be worth waiting for metacritic to pick up on those and for the aggregators to get their acts together. LostPackets (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Then perhaps as a start, referencing the reviews as they stand alone could be a reasonable way forward without supplying an overriding 'tone' to the discussion. I think that this article could live with a bit more fleshing out and productive material so as to move away from what are going to be 'relatively' minor incidences in the history of the game (unless FD keep getting it wrong...)Spotlesssunshine (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I've no problem with a 'Reception' section (was going to suggest it) - other than it does seem rather early (10 days after launch?) to be looking back to see how the thing was historically received. Do we really need to start cluttering up this page (yet) with numerous early to market reviews? --Splodger999 (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Splodger999 Maybe if we break down the reviews into reputable sources by agreement? Such as PCGamer, IGN, EuroGamer, Gamespot, Polygon and possibly reference to metacritic? If we avoid the more obscure review sources (by agreement) and post those that are reputable (again by agreement) then adding as the reviews come in? Or we could wait till after the Christmas/NYs break when the eMagazines come back on board in anger and see what comes of it. I'm not trying to skew anything here - just add to the article as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotlesssunshine (talk • contribs) 01:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm honestly inclined to say that we need to wait for more reviews to come in and for metacritic to aggregate them so we have the information all collated, as well as more time to elapse before I'm comfortable with putting in a reception section. It's too early right now. I'd suggest mid to end of January, then we should have a much clearer picture once the dust has settled. LostPackets (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@LostPackets I'm happy with that. I'm also curious to see what the reviews will say once the rose/nostelgia tinted glasses come off.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I made the structural changes as agreed in the "Controversy" conversations above. This means that there is now a separate "Reception" section for all related content. The existing content is pretty much as it was, I just rejigged it a little to fit the new structure. However, please check the content to ensure I haven't changed the just of the text by moving stuff around. I also added a review block and a couple of reviews, although the PC Gamer one just won't appear for some reason (feel free to fix that if you know how). I figure this change should finish up the conversations we've had in the "Controversy" part of the Talk:Elite: Dangerous and any further conversations about sections should be held under the specific section titles from now on to avoid confusion. Cheers all. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Development

As it stands, the current 'Development' section seems to contain a lot of irrelevant material, and is far to long and waffly. Post launch, it seriously needs a haircut. Any thoughts? --Splodger999 (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, have trimmed Development section down and tentatively split the Funding stuff out into its own section, as it was a bit tortuous before. --Splodger999 (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)