Talk:Elite Dangerous/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Problems following release

As suggested previously by Spotlesssunshine and others, I've created a 'Problems' section now that we have a couple of external sources reporting the many and various crashes/bugs. --Splodger999 (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

24 hours of database glitches over new year described by Frontier as affecting "a relatively small number of commanders", with no contradiction of this in the sources, doesn't sound very significant. Have any stronger sources covered this? --McGeddon (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This does not need a new section as problems happen all the time in every MMO. Also why is there not a mention of the smooth launch after release, why isn't there a general release section instead? HyperspaceCloud (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this does not need a new section. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree - it seems a little premature to be posting this in here when the basis for it are two articles, one of which now has a statement from Frontier in it (the INC article) that states that only a small number of players were affected. Are we going to be posting every single issue as it arises off the backs of articles that clearly haven't made the effort to research? We're waiting on a number of additions to this Wiki article based of clarification and better sources. We should probably stick to that as a tenant for posting this stuff?Spotlesssunshine (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There's articles which qualify under WP:RS/WP:SECONDARY appearing, and this *was* your suggestion @Spotlesssunshine, at the risk of stating the obvious, it seems we now have enough information to merit the subsection existing under "Release" > "Early server problems" as per Matthew at WTF4Photography's restructure. Or would you rather us revert to the original layout with just the offline removal being the only element of note? (as per the original document it would be the only item of note that truly is article worthy). LostPackets (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@LostPackets Nope, I'm perfectly happy with the current edit, more so because it feels balanced rather than a long list of negative observations. If there were any additions to be made, I'd consider dating and versioning the initial scoring, as subsequent releases/versions may well present different reactions however again I think we can sit tight with this till the first major DLC comes online. I like that the initial response of 'broad but shallow' is reflected, that is reasonable and IMO reflective of the true nature of the game and an overall opinion of both gamers and reviewers. The only other thing I might consider is fleshing out the review synopsis a little, separate the reviews into paragraphs and give them a little more individual weight. I'm looking forward to seeing this come together as a good even handed article :) Spotlesssunshine (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I made the structural changes as agreed in the "Controversy" conversations above. This means that I move the "early server issues" stuff into the new "Reception" section. The 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 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) 19:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is it only that negativity is highlighted in sections? HyperspaceCloud (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@HyperspaceCloud I would argue that the reviews do not qualify as negativity. However the other two sections are what was already in the article and as I said all I did was adjust the structure. I did not add or remove content. If you have some positive content to add to the "Reception" section than by all means get it in. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@HyperspaceCloud Perhaps you would like to include the competition Frontier is running, isn't there some pretty big prizes in the offering, has there been any articles about that? Would that be something worth adding to "Reception"? Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

May I point out that there's probably enough doubt and uncertainty over the smoothness or otherwise of the launch period to look at removing the 'relatively smoothly' description? That's not the universal opinion, and something that appears less unconditional although not critical seems warranted. How about something along the lines of 'Within weeks of the launch'? That would appear to be a more neutral phrase. --79.71.113.235 (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to see a pattern here with Mr Sharwood and his 'reporting'... Shall we be a little more circumspect about 'doubt and uncertainty' before we spiral into another 'Refund Quest' situation. One article is not even close to sufficient evidence for a broadly speaking opinion. There are significantly more articles to the contrary elsewhere where reviewers have experienced no issues at all. I really hope that we're not going to populate this wiki article with negative views based of the say so of a single reporter with dubious perspective. Find some other citations and then I'll agree with you, till then can we PLEASE maintain some perspective. Although I have a sneaky suspicion that this is going to become a trend - hiccough with ED - well researched and perspective bound 'reporting' from Mr Sharwood followed by - it's The Register - it's Legit! Just for reference here - Mr Sharwood has NEVER reported on gaming (http://www.theregister.co.uk/Author/2488) except for three instances, all negative, all targeted at Elite Dangerous. I'd put it to you that there is something rather suspicious about these rather specific changes in direction from him that would make me seriously question his neutrality. Spotlesssunshine (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:Spotlesssunshine Conspiracy theories again? The Register is a perfectly reputable IT source, and were reporting significant server problems in a product that they've been happy to heavily promote and indulge in the past. Examples: ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR. You will also notice more than one of the very positive articles were written by the author you now have a problem with. I'm assuming WP:GF on your part of course, but it could be taken that you are only interested in material that paints the developers and the game in a good light, and anything perceived as 'negative' (no matter how factual) is to be fought, and preferably removed. As you suggest, a sense of perspective would be helpful. --Splodger999 (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Splodger999 No conspiracy theories, just pointing out an obvious trend. 8 Articles over 2 years (4 of which in the last 2 months directly aimed at slating the game and FD) is not 'heavily promoting' anything and the two from Mr Sharwood are positive indeed and stand in stark contrast to his latest 'efforts'. It still doesn't add up in my mind that someone who over two years wrote two articles over two years suddenly feels the need to go on a full on onslaught against it and FD. However - in regards to my own motivations - I'm not attempting to remove negative articles, and never have. What I have tried to do is avoid hyperbole and irrelevant references that do nothing to improve the quality of the article. My perception is that anything that is positive has required overwhelming citation before it's accepted and even then it's attempted to be downplayed - I've merely attempted to hold a level playing field. As for my personal investment in the game, I wasn't a backer, I barely play it at all as I find it boring in its current state and frankly couldn't care either way if it succeeds or not. What I do care about is factual and even representation of a wiki article. I still struggle to see how one persons petty and vindictive game bears any 'relative' reference to the offline issue (it's an extreme example of someone with no capability to maintain perspective) so I weighed in on it, especially considering the creators glee at seeing it referenced here and repeated reference to the number of viewers. I never attempted to remove offline altogether as it's a legitimate grievance and survives on its own without the need for hyperbole. In this case, it was a 'relatively' smooth launch, there are hundreds of thousands of people regularly playing the game, there are reviewers all over the internet that have not reported a single issue and the forums are not flooded with hundreds of thousands of complaints. Anyone with a critical eye should be able to apply critical thought to the situation and garner an overall understanding of the big picture. Instead what is happening is that we're identifying an issue and then trolling the internet for any apparent reference to it (for which Mr Sharwood is obliging) and then using that SINGLE reference as citation, something that I've been chastised over in other positive references and yet here it stands. Frankly this is the extent of my energy and time for this, I'm tired of the back and forward and the hiding behind WP:GF when arguing the counter rather than addressing the facts and I'm not nearly invested enough to bother. I've said my bit and attempted to represent the middle ground, been dragged through the Adjudication process which was duly thrown out and been accused of Bad Faith at every turn. It just doesn't matter enough to me to keep at it so I'm not going to. I hope you end up with something to be proud of from an educated perspective but I'm not seeing that element here at all. Leave you to it - Spotlesssunshine (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@SpotlesssunshinePlease refrain from use of hyperbole and framing opinions as facts (Hundreds of thousands of people playing the game - Citation?) and implying bad faith of other editors, again. Whilst you're not accusing anyone outright, what you're saying on one hand and what you're implying are two different things. Please stop this. We're trying to build consensus and the conspiracy-theory-cum-tirade is not conducive nor beneficial to constructive discussion. I've been on break because I've had to go take care of some other matters, but coming back to this was not what I had hoped to see. I was hoping things had settled down and the article was taking shape, not for more arguments. The matter of RQ is pretty much settled, and by your suggestion other sections have been added, moved about and reframed, in some areas, I have ended up disagreeing with the structural changes as they have "Salami-sliced" certain factual material and made it harder to collate topical information into easy to read sections, as well as made it misleading if you were to skim read the chronology of the article from a holistic perspective. So much so I am considering proposing some parts are reverted for the sake of actually putting information back in logical sections because breaking it up seems to have weakened the information and diluted it by spreading it out. I understand this game has engendered a lot of emotion and opinion, both positive and negative but for a moment can people please take a deep breath and just relax. LostPackets (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder whether this section is noteworthy? It smacks of being alarmist in some ways. Online game experiences server problems - they all do. If they become a bigger problem over the next few months then it would of course be of note but presently I'd expect it to be more noteworthy if there were no problems whatsoever? I'll check the entries for some other games to see how they handled it and report back. Flumpaphone (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's alarmist to be reporting the ongoing activities of the game as they occur (and as reliable sources appear). I suspect if there was some sort of super amazingly positive thing to report then there would be far less resistance to reporting that? As it stands a quick and dirty google search shows that server problems get reported in different ways on different game Wikipedia entries but they do seem to get reported... Heck, in the SimCity (2013 video game) entry it's pretty much the entire third paragraph of the entry as well as further mentions in the article. You are right to say that online games suffer from server problems, however these early issues are made even more relevant to inclusion in the article by the insistence of Frontier Developments to push the game as solely online and the hype they created about it, not to mention the ongoing issues related to support (which I'm not advocating for entry as there is no good reference material for such an entry but that doesn't mean it should be completely ignored by us in editing this article). Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems overemphasis to give a full section for a problem which we currently describe as affecting a "relatively small" number of players, and which the tense implies was temporary - the Sim City flap and the similar problem with GTA V multiplayer are both described as making the game entirely unplayable for pretty much everyone for an extended period. Have any clearer sources arisen since on the scope of the problems in Dangerous? --McGeddon (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Project Funding

Created new section for the funding details that were a bit of an eyesore in 'Development'. --Splodger999 (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This gives us two short and almost sequential sections, which doesn't seem ideal. WP:VG/GL suggests "History" as an alternative section title for "Development", which would comfortably cover both funding and development here. --McGeddon (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely fine with me - just trying to make the thing more readable. --Splodger999 (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

So, it'd be "History" (2nd level) with "Project Funding" and "Development" (both 3rd level)? That seems appropriate. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that they're both quite short sections, a single "History" section with clear paragraphs seems enough. --McGeddon (talk) 09:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Reassessment request

Responding to reassessment request made through the project template here. Bumping this up to C-class from Start-class; it's got a solid framework but needs work. Some points to work on; this is not a thorough review:

• Gameplay is critically underdeveloped- it tells me almost nothing about how you play the game, just the short advertisement blurb from pre-release. It should tell me more than "you fly a ship around (1st person? 3rd-person?) and dock at stations and take missions".
• History should be "Development", and needs to be written in a "looking back" manner, not "every sentence was written as new information became available". It also should actually tell me who developed the game- who's Braben? Did he make the game? Alone or with people? Did he work on previous Elite games? Also, either here or in Gameplay it should talk about how the game fits into the Elite series.
• Reception right now is just "IGN gave it an X/10 and said it was fun". There's no details- did IGN like the graphics? Did anyone? What about the game was fun/boring? Try organizing the section by topic, rather than just a list of reviewers with one pull-quote.
• The two sub-sections of Reception have nothing to do with "Reception", so they'd be better off with "Future Updates" in a "Post-release" section.
• There's a lot of 1/2-sentence paragraphs throughout the article- try to organize the information into 4-8 sentence chunks. The article as a whole needs a good copyedit as well, but after more information is added.
• No gameplay image?
• The lead is not summarizing the whole article

Don't be discouraged; this article is already better than most VG articles, it just needs more work to keep moving up the ratings! --PresN 20:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Just saw that you'd wanted a ruling on the importance rating as well- Keeping as low. For individual games/series, Mid means "Achieved wide commercial success, critically acclaimed or had wide sub-culture effect outside of their country of origin" - E:D has gotten middling reviews, no sales information is available (but it's not exactly selling millions of copies) and doesn't seem to have a wide cultural effect outside of the niche of "space-trading game players". Keep in mind that almost all VG articles are "Low" (~29300/31800), it's not a snub. --PresN 20:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@PresN Thanks for the feedback.

Gameplay

It strikes me that now the game is actually launched, the gameplay section could do with being radically tightened up, and rather than containing a series of wistful 'would like to's', should probably have the speculative expansions split off into a separate section. Maybe 'Potential Expansions'?. Hopefully, we will be able to avoid massive walls of text and sniping... --Splodger999 (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the gameplay section should only contain features "as is". Synthesis of current reviews should provide a good cross reference as to current feature-set along with a good set of citable sources from which to draw from, that would also tie in to the generation of the "reception" section as well. As for potential features, no, I see no valid examples in other MMO's where they discuss features hitherto unknown or in gestation as being citable fact and therefore valid as wikipedia material. That kind of speculation should remain the realm of game forums. In short, the Thargoids *MAY* be coming, but they're not here, so they merit no mention in the article as regards current gameplay. LostPackets (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Also agreed: we should not be using the developers' comments from as far back as December 2012 to describe a game that was released in December 2014, we should be using sources which explicitly talk about that released version. I don't see a problem with summarising future speculation so long as it's drawn from strong secondary sources, but it should be in a separate section. --McGeddon (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Those developers' comments from 2012 are still valid today. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There's newer and more accurate citable sources, which therefore means the gameplay section should be updated accordingly. If there's enough citable sources that satisfy WP:SECONDARY/WP:RS for a space with "future expansions", that's reasonable, but developer wishlists are not going to be enough now the game is released. I'd suggest working the section into place along with the initial round of "Reception" for mid to end January, and see if there's enough in the citable sources to even support justifiable space for future expansions (there might not be, if the most up to date and accurate information is reviews and fairly recent press information just before the release, they'd be focussing on what -is-, and not what might be some distance down the line). LostPackets (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The dev speculation about how players could maybe one day "affect the narrative story", or use the in-game police as an anti-griefing measure, or how they considered allowing players to play in "small trusted groups" is over two years old and pre-dates even the alpha. If any of this was in the final game, we should rewrite it in that context. If it was never implemented, it's not part of the "Gameplay". I've moved it to the "Development" section and framed it for what it is, but devs saying "maybe it'd be nice to include X" and ultimately not including it doesn't really seem worth keeping in the article.

I've moved the planned future development out as well. I've left the Thargoid line in - can someone confirm whether the Thargoids made it into the game, or if they're perhaps one of the "future expansions"? --McGeddon (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Players are already affecting the narrative story of the game, check the recent newsletters and GalNet newsfeeds on their site. Also because of this ongoing story, it's not revealed when the Thargoids will appear, but it won't be an expansion, because it affects the global story of the game. The expansions are only for the stated features. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Newsletter and their Galnet feeds do not satisfy WP:RS and are a highly biased and press managed WP:PRIMARY and therefore should not be deemed reliable information in any way shape or form. Do you have any WP:SECONDARY grade citable evidence that backs up your claims? LostPackets (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A simple google search turns up plenty of sources. http://www.polygon.com/2014/12/16/7402069/elite-dangerous-launch-campaign-single-player-story | http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/12/elite-dangerous-hits-1-0-is-now-available-to-the-public/ | http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2015/01/03/elite-dangerous-is-the-ultimate-water-cooler-pc-game/ Are you familiar with the subject matter? HyperspaceCloud (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Read those three articles, very nice, but none of them support your arguments at all. They're all pretty light on information beyond the fact that the game released, and are less defined than the actual reviews that are hitting metacritic. I asked for citable sources that back up your arguments, please present those. LostPackets (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The gameplay section should stay as is HyperspaceCloud (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The gameplay section should not include four quotes from the developers about what they hoped the gameplay would be like, and what they think it's like. This should either go in the "Development" section, be replaced with review quotes about the gameplay, or be dropped. --McGeddon (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

My vote goes with replaced with review quotes/dropped, on the basis of working with better quality evidentiary sources. LostPackets (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Have had a go at tidying up the bloated gameplay section, removing dev natter and adding stuff that actually happens, such as docking at space-stations, trading, missions. --Splodger999 (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User HyperspaceCloud seems to have a problem with the phrase 'text-based' in respect to missions, and is unilaterally removing it despite a citation. To be clear: all missions are given as generic text on a 'bulletin board' screen, and are acknowledged/completed in the exact same way. There is NO interaction with NPC avatars, and NO voiced mission instructions. The fact that you fly from A to B to complete a mission does not remove the fact that they are wholly text-based. The same user is also removing a citation request for the assertion that missions are received mid-flight. I have reverted the changes made. --Splodger999 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You are conflating the mission with the mission description. The mission itself is not text. Also if you have played the game for more than a few hours you would have noticed that you receive missions in-flight, it's also mentioned in one of the newsletters. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, "text-based missions from station bulletin board"" makes it sound misleadingly like the player just encounters little text adventures at the station. I've replaced it with "missions from text-based station bulletin boards".

The existence of mid-flight missions should be sourced from secondary sources such as reviews, rather than personal experience or WP:PRIMARY newsletters. If no secondary source mentions them, they're probably not worth mentioning in an overview. --McGeddon (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Updated Gameplay section with information about what's expected and forbidden in Open Play mode. 67.187.119.225 (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Development team

Though there seems to be no official team listing, and only mention of some names in the related media. And this forum post which lists some https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6419 I've added some of what appears to be major team members to the infobox. As long there isn't an official team listing, suggestions to better cover the dev team are welcome. prokaryotes (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Reception section - Fresh perspective

First time looking at this page, but I gotta say, the "Removal of the offline mode" and "Early server problems" seem to me to be very... over emphasised. If a game with problems like DriveClub can have a wiki page with less than a paragraph on server issues, SimCity 2013 has hardly a mention of server issues, GTA Online hardly a mention of server issues and Diablo III hardly a mention of server issues, I don't see how the issues with E:D's launch are worth a subsection. Perhaps someone with less personal investment could take a look. Let's try to be level headed, eh? CaptainPedge | Talk 01:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Done some updates. prokaryotes (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't vandalise the page by stripping out sourced and validated content please. I don't want to have to come back here to have to police the page once more because someone decides the entry would suddenly look better minus valid information about specific events that happened over the course of the development of the game (side note, I performed the revert late, hence the typo, apologies). LostPackets (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with CaptainPedge that this issue is over emphasised. Therefore i remove it again, unless there is a consensus to keep. LostPackets, you might have overlooked the mention, at this place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite:_Dangerous#Development Mention it again would be just awkward - nobody cares today. prokaryotes (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

(cur | prev) 15:15, 4 April 2015‎ AdrianGamer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,534 bytes) (+2,248)‎ . . (Supported by reliable sources, removal of offline mode is not bias.) (undo) - That's what I'm referring to, and you're effectively vandalising the page by stripping it out. So once again, I'll revert, because this one has gone back and forth enough. You want to argue this one, take it up the chain, but sourced and reliable information that's free of bias belongs on the page and it's not your place to strip it out. End of. LostPackets (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Refund Quest

Is "frustration to this refund policy reached such levels that one customer went so far as to make... a joke!" the best note to end this section on? It's just a Twine game with a few pages. Is that really the strongest customer response that's been documented? --McGeddon (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

As it's unlikely a formal news site will disclose details of any individual's experiences (that's if anybody would even be happy to open up to the degree anyway) I don't think it's likely that there is going to be a lot of suitable references available outlining actual customer responses (beyond stuff like the joke game, the official forums and of course the sub-Reddit). As I'm not well versed in WP formalities, what would be a suitable source to cite customer responses from and what format would such an entry best be inserted into the page? Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS defines what a reliable source is. We don't want small-scale newspaper-style "customer Eric Pode, 57, said that he was 'really very annoyed about this'" stuff in the article, but if there was anything in the apparently unsourced rumours about buyers turning to "payment providers" and "legal avenues" then it'd be worth bringing that back with a source. --McGeddon (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

My concern with this section is down to the nature of the 'game' in question and the motivation toward the representation - factual it is not - emotive, potentially slanderous and poorly representative of the issue at hand it is. To represent an issue and a controversy with a (and I'm being generous here) tongue in cheek simple game is not only disingenuous to those with genuine grievances but also grandstanding. The issue exists but to represent it in this manner is in my opinion stepping away from factual content and erring toward juvenile use of a reference site.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

What would be a more constructive representation, staying true to the nature of the issue at hand? LostPackets (talk) 12:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

A more constructive representation would be avoiding misrepresentation. The game has as much relevance to the issue as baking a spaceship shaped cake and then smashing it stating that this is representative of my emotional state in relation to the absence of off line. Facts not emotive trolling nor slanderous misrepresentation of the vendor would be a great place to start. This whole thing pivots on the idea that Frontier have been deceitful and purposeful in their delivery of the game, a case that can be neither proven nor dis-proven. Until it is no longer conjecture it has no place in a factual presentation.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing the sentence on the page, I do not see any bias or slander placed within the wikipedia article. If you have a problem with the citation source being The Register, then I would suggest you improve it by finding a better source that offers a more in depth and factual analysis of the situation (it would need to offer sources from both sides of the story, not just the vendors, to avoid any issues of bias - as this does seem to be a somewhat conflicted matter). Unless there is some error of judgment on my part? LostPackets (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Would you not agree that placing the game in as a reference at all which targets a 'random developer' and then follows through a number of biased actions is not an honest representation of the situation. Moreover the 'game' is now entirely non specific so therefore should not be in there at all as it doesn't reference Elite Dangerous, or Frontier. It bears no relevance to the situation so if you agree - I think we should redact the reference as it's now entirely irrelevant.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Aren't you just a dupe of hyperspacecloud that picked up a ban. You seem to only have started after that. Why are you trying so hard to protect elite? They screwed up badly with how they handled refunds compared to how they claimed to be handling them. The actions in the game seem representative of what I've seenever of the frontier forums, even if there are elements of parody to certain outcomes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.71.51 (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I've just re-checked the game and I now have to agree with Spotlesssunshine comment, "Moreover the 'game' is now entirely non specific so therefore should not be in there at all as it doesn't reference Elite Dangerous, or Frontier.". As all reference (that I can see, correct me if I missed it) to Elite and Frontier Developments has disappeared (most likely as a legal protection, probably a good thing for the creator), unless suddenly there's an interview with the creator or some other good source where they discuss the link with Elite/Frontier, then I think the mention of the game should be removed. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The secondary source we're using clearly links it to Dangerous. --McGeddon (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Verified cite source 60's connection to cite source 59, the two are intrinsically linked and therefore the existence of both sources and their relevance to the wiki article seem justified. Cite source 59 satisfies criteria for WP:RS, this looks pretty solid if you take everything as a whole. LostPackets (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Well that's good enough for me, I guess it stays then. Thanks McGeddon and LostPackets. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the more important question is - What does it lend to the FACTUAL discussion? Absolutely nothing other than one persons ire at Frontier - is that reasonable to have it represented in a Wiki article? (Apologies BTW for removing it again - I'll put it back until we reach a consensus.) Also, IF the reference to Frontier and ED has been removed for legal reasons... perhaps the reference via The Register and elsewhere might also need to be redacted as it is still wholly incriminating and if 'secondary source' is a valid reason to represent fact then it's equally as damning as the actual game itself having the 'potentially' slanderous content. Again, is this reasonable and relevant to the factual presentation of the situation at hand? Why is there any reference to a single persons issue with FD and Elite Dangerous?Spotlesssunshine (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached, please refrain from unilateral edits and read the talk section before making such edits in future. As for the reference, until such time as The Register's source is changed or redacted it stands as a citable WP:SECONDARY from a WP:RS. That makes it reasonable and relevant in terms of it's validity, it is given as much space as it legitimately deserves within the wikipedia article (one line, fairly dry, very neutral), and the links are provided as citation references. You're the one claiming slander, which is a very serious claim to make, do you have evidence and sources to validate such a claim with? Not being difficult here but if we're to reach objective consensus then you need to put something more to the claims you make than just theory. LostPackets (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hence my use of 'potentially' - Matthew at WTF4Photography suggested that it might be for legal reasons. I have made no claim to the fact of slander at all. My question is this - what does it lend to the discussion? What point does it serve to make? What fact does it represent? That one person was angered enough to make a game which directly referenced FD and subsequently had to redact all reference from it (unknown as to whether it was forced or by choice). As you say I will refrain from unilateral edits. But I do urge you to examine the relevance of the reference with a regard to the larger picture. Standing on its own, does it lend any factual information to the reference page? Is it anything other than a single persons representative ire, and if so, should it be there at all?

Actually further to this - perhaps it would be pertinent to refer to the previous incarnation of the game having reference to FD but then having all reference expunged - just to keep it factual.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You're attempting to divorce Cite Source 60 from 59. Please stop doing that. You have to look at the two taken together to understand the context and meaning thereof. That's why it remains, that's why the two are intrinsically linked and why 60 has relevance to the overall article. Yes, 60 on it's own, divorced of any other related evidence would support your line of argument, but it's not on it's own, it's in context of cite source 59, which means you have to consider the evidence holistically. Please consider sources and their relevant context in the whole rather than trying to split them apart simply because doing so supports a specific point of view. Cite source 59 is relevant to the wikipedia article for the reasons I've already mentioned in my earlier talk points and I'm not going to keep reiterating them ad infinitum. LostPackets (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Not at all - what I'm trying to do is understand the relevance of the reference and what it lends to the article. Moreover the article on The Reg is factually incorrect - it states: less-than-pleasing response to fans miffed that Elite:Dangerous doesn't feature a single-player mode" - it does indeed feature a single player mode, just not a permanently offline mode. Further to this it finishes off on supposition and suggestions that the complainants "Any second now social media and customer service “experts”" are going to be posting vitriol to social media "will be tweeting and posting utterly obvious critiques of Frontier Developments' behaviour.". In your own opinion, is this a factual article, does it lend to the discussion and if so is it valid citation? I don't understand your rational on this point. Source 59's only claim to being a valid citation is that it's on the Register, apparently the content is irrelevant?Spotlesssunshine (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion or lack of a single-player mode is not what is being discussed, and the rest of the article is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as is the norm for The Register. That does not diminish their validity as a citable source. It lends credence to the concept that people are frustrated to a greater or lesser extent with customer services at Frontier Developments and that those frustrations are manifesting themselves. If they are manifesting themselves in more serious ways we've not seen them in citable sources yet or they are not being disclosed (presumably for legal reasons). This isn't a news site, so current information is unlikely to appear within the article, bear this in mind. LostPackets (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@LostPackets But you can't see that as a whole, the relation between a tongue in cheek article, a game created by a single person that has been effectively nullified in relevance is not fair or honest representation of the facts? My I suggest a revision to the statement to make it more factually correct. "Allegedly frustration over the perceived reluctance of Frontier Developments to willingly issue refunds led to a single person creating an online text game Refund Quest,[59][60] in parody of the company's refund process although the game itself contains no reference to Frontier or Elite Dangerous."

@LostPackets actually I retract that suggestion for an edit - I still think that the game and the reference viewed in conjunction are a pointless and spurious addition to the Wikipedia page. They lend less than nothing to the discussion are are representative of a single persons perspective on the situation. The refunds sections should 100% remain, it should be fleshed out to reflect the input of social media in affecting change in FDs refund process but that reference to that game should be gone. It's an utterly pointless addition to the page even when viewed in relation to citation. You know that as well as I do.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a more constructive approach, but again, be mindful that you'll need citable sources and evidence in order to make such changes stick. There's no point putting edits in just to support a point of view or an opinion, make sure you've got the information to hand to back up what you'd like to see altered and I'm sure consensus will come quickly. LostPackets (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@LostPackets What citable sources are you supposed to use to counter what is already just an opinion? There's currently a large issue where people are unable to dock in the open play section... perhaps I should make a game where it's just a picture of the space station and a button under it saying please let me dock followed by a response of 'Sorry you can't dock' - email the Register guy that appears to revel in 'tongue in cheek' reporting and wait for him to write another wonderful example of investigative journalism, then post it back in here citing the register as a reputable source and therefore it's relevant material for the Wiki page? The point of the above edit is to bring the information into factual line and pull it away from opinion. The game plus the source simply do not add up to fact. What is the aim for this wikipedia page? Is it to present factual information that is verifiable using reputable and factually correct sources or is it to be used as a vehicle for representing a view? Big picture view here LostPackets - are we setting a precedent for citing opinion as fact or are we going to make this page a model version of what an encyclopedia should look like? Spotlesssunshine (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Spotlesssunshine Please refrain from assuming poor faith of other wikipedia editors (see WP:FAITH) and keep commentary constructive and with a view to building consensus. We're trying to work towards the page getting built. This is not helpful nor conducive to such a process. I'm merely suggesting what the constructive approach is and how best to facilitate what you're asking for, please do not bite the outstretched hand. Thank you. LostPackets (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@LostPackets Excuse me? Where have I accused you of poor faith? I have asked you to provide factual citation above and beyond what is clearly and demonstrably ONLY opinion. "59 and 60" These are clearly one opinion being used to back up another opinion and relying on the source reputation (The Register) to give creedance to it because it is entirely unable to stand up a critical eye on its own. I'm not accusing you of poor faith, I'm pointing out that the entire representation of Refund Quest and the tongue in cheek article is flawed and without factual basis and as such cannot be viewed as lending any possible constructive information to what is an otherwise well constructed article. Please, by all means supply the factual citation that represents this otherwise it should be removed. @Matthew at WTF4Photography @Splodger999 please weigh in on this as I fail to see either factual representation or relevance.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@LostPackets To be clear - suggesting that you're wrong is not the same as accusation of ill faith.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@LostPackets @Matthew at WTF4Photography @Splodger999 I have subsequently discovered that there is intent for this particular point of contention to fuel an agenda of a refund requester (not pointing fingers). I am concerned that the placement of this section is potentially evidence of (ironically) bad faith toward the factual representation of the article and as such I would like to refer it and the references to Wikipedia arbitration. It appears that the members of this Reddit page are responsible for some of the input and as such the neutral representation is in question. https://www.reddit.com/r/elitedangerousrefunds/comments/2q6ndc/removal_of_offline_mode_has_made_it_to_wikipedia/ If you guys have a difference of opinion please voice it as so far this seems to be an addition to the page that lends little or no information or relevance to the subject at hand but is representative of a single persons vendetta against Frontier. With the further investigation into the creator of the game and the dispute between her and Frontier (which is still apparently ongoing) I'm not sure that it is neither productive or absent of emotion enough to be considered factual. I'm sure that non of us are interested in using Wikipedia to 'win a battle' between individuals and the developers.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Spotlesssunshine we've been over the concept of using people's commentary on reddit as a means of inferring bad faith or not, it's what got another user temp banned from making edits on this page as it was later deemed to be in violation of WP:DOX, unless you have concrete proof of bad faith and by this I am going to request something far stronger than a comment in reddit, this discussion terminates here and now. Attempting to push this matter further will result in me referring it up for dispute resolution. If you wish to improve the accuracy of the section in question you are welcome to find more accurate citable sources and higher quality evidentiary locations from respected news sites that satisfy WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY. But if all you can bring is speculation and a comment in a corner of reddit, it's not going to fly. That is all. LostPackets (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@LostPackets I'm happy for it to be referred if you are. Let me be very clear - I'm not accusing you or anyone else on here of bad faith. What I am saying is that I don't believe that either the game itself nor the reference used to support it are valid as reference material and as such shouldn't be included. If I may make an alternative suggestion as a middle ground. The content of the section be relegated to a Controversy section, that section be fleshed out with the events unfolding around social media and the eventual shift of FD to refunding and that Refund Quest was part of that social media campaign created by one person as representation of their personal experience. Following my own edits (which I subsequently redacted in accordance to not unilaterally removing edits) I was subject to abuse from an unnamed editor ( 11:05, 28 December 2014‎ 82.8.70.139 (talk)‎ . . (29,211 bytes) (-602)‎ . . (Just because SpotlessSunshine is butthurt about people complaining about Elite and refunds aren't happening doesn't mean the source isn't valid.) (undo)) and "Aren't you just a dupe of hyperspacecloud that picked up a ban. You seem to only have started after that. Why are you trying so hard to protect elite? They screwed up badly with how they handled refunds compared to how they claimed to be handling them. The actions in the game seem representative of what I've seenever of the frontier forums, even if there are elements of parody to certain outcomes" (again posted anonymously and accusing me of being dishonest in my intentions) and as such I believe that this is further proof of an 'agenda'. I will more than happily accept the result of dispute resolution.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Spotlesssunshine Referring to dispute resolution on two different grounds. Firstly to validate that The Register constitutes WP:RS and that therefore the line as is within the article does not pose any undue influence in either direction within the article as it stands. Secondly to refer you on the basis of generating conspiracy theories about other editors as a means of disrupting and preventing consensus with a view to infringing WP:DOX by implying that editors are acting on an agenda as per your link (this also violates WP:FAITH). Regardless of what you claim, that is the fact of the matter, it is one thing to say "I am not accusing anyone of" but then to say the opposite within your implications and suggestions and your theories as you go into detail with as evidenced within the last few talk entries. No further discussion will be entered into until I have a more senior voice able to advise me on the best course of action. Thank you for your time. LostPackets (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@LostPackets Again, in the spirit of clarity - I have accused no-one here of a hidden agenda. The anonymous poster on the other hand has been very clear in their intentions and have clearly violated WP:DOX. Regarding the Register as a source - I have no dispute with the Register as a viable source, however the content of the supporting article I do as do I the validity and relevance of the game Refund Quest. The supplied citation is clearly hearsay as evidenced here "It's obvious the game is about Elite: Dangerous, as the game mirrors the saga of the trading game because it explains the non-appearance of offline mode and, once you're deep inside, offers a chance to log a support ticket with unpleasant results:". This is not factual evidence. There is a fundamental difference in my opinion. Any implication of an external agenda has been clearly evidenced by the previous post. I await the outcome of a more senior voice. Spotlesssunshine (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@LostPackets @McGeddon @Matthew at WTF4Photography @Splodger999 Guys, in the spirit of not having this spiral into an endless argument I would like for you all to weigh in on this subject and let the end result of it be the end of the discussion. You can read my above contention, primary of which is that the game is just not relevant when placed in context with "Removal of the Offline Mode". We have a well reported and cited case of there being a 'significant number' of complaints from customers. We have a brief synopsis of the refund process which could well do with some more fleshing out including the fact that people are now receiving refunds albeit at a slow pace. Then we have Refund Quest, a game created by a single person about a single experience which does not refer to Elite Dangerous, or Frontier Developments and relies on a single citation that states "The game's a choose-your-own-adventure affair that leads you into a dungeon of despair on “A journey to get a refund from a random developer.” It's obvious the game is about Elite: Dangerous, as the game mirrors the saga of the trading game because it explains the non-appearance of offline mode and, once you're deep inside, offers a chance to log a support ticket with unpleasant results" which is clearly hearsay. Why is a single persons experience given more weight than any others? If I may bring your attention to: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:RSCONTEXT . To quote "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Further to this "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." also "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis." WP:NEWSORG We're currently relying on "The secondary source we're using clearly links it to Dangerous', where in actual fact it is just the opinion of the writer that it's related to Elite Dangerous and FD. He supplies no evidence to back this up and the creator of the game is clearly not interested in having it associated with FD or Elite. . I await your input.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I've already weighed in. It stays unless The Register's article changes or is redacted. The line in the wikipedia article is as much as it deserves and offers no undue lean in either direction. There is no bias either in support or against the article and simply states that there has been an example of frustration boiling over, with a WP:RS / WP:SECONDARY source that is nicely tied together and with no loose ends. Either provide better source material or improve the accuracy of the article or stop attempting to retread old ground. That's all I've got to say on this. LostPackets (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@LostPackets If you could address the nature of the article being hearsay that would also be appreciated. Also please refrain from making overriding statements as to whether content stays or goes. It is not solely up to you, it is a matter for all to reach consensus on. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles also WP:CONLEVEL Also WP:TALKEDABOUTIT Consensus can change. This is for all of us to decide on. Further more it is not for me to provide better material but for the original poster to provide better than supposition/opinion as evidence. Thank you. Spotlesssunshine (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Spotlesssunshine You wanted my opinion, that *is* my opinion. Unless you can provide better sources or more up to date evidence, my opinion is that what is present is accurate and neutral as a representation as an example of customer frustration, and nothing more. As you say, we're waiting on others to present their views as well. As for the matter of heresay, no, I'm not going near that with a bargepole, The Register article satisfies both WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY and that's good enough to qualify it as being a valid source, with the RQ citation being intrinsically referenced by the article in question. I do not feel it justifies *more* space than it already gets, but I do not feel it deserves removal either, as it has relevance to the situation and to the topic at hand. Attempting to set the bar higher as far as evidence goes will put it into the realm of standards of evidence required for criminal court proceedings, which is over and above what is required for this particular article. LostPackets (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@LostPackets As a compromise would making an addendum to the statement to say "According to journalist Simon Sharwood of The Register, frustration for one customer drove them to create the game Refund Quest that parallels their experience with requesting a refund from Frontier developments"? or similar be acceptable? Spotlesssunshine (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Spotlesssunshine Maybe. I'm somewhat wary of WP:SYN with that, but that may be a good way to proceed if we can find a good context to put it into and retain both sources as reference. I'd still like to hear opinions from the other editors first before I say much more on the topic though. LostPackets (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@LostPackets I've realised that I made an error in the re-edit that I made a little while back in using WP:PRIMARY as a reference... I'll leave it to you if you think it should remain.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This Refund Quest thing is something to deliberately make make Frontier look bad made by someone who is well known to have done this over the past year in Elite article comments. Refunds are being handled on a case-by-case basis as stated elsewhere already. A damaging parody about this is out of place for a Wikipedia article and should be removed as is the whole offline section which is blown out of proportion by a select few people. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@HyperspaceCloud Please refrain from besmirching other editors or providing commentary on their intentions - The Offline Section is rightfully there as it was/is an ongoing issue that was significant enough to be mentioned in more than one reputable news source. It could well do with some fleshing out and I believe we also need to be able to discuss reference (but only agreed upon through consensus on a case by case basis) to refunds being forthcoming. i.e. if it is agreeable to all involved here, we accept that refund requesters acknowledging that they have received or been offered refunds on the forums as being acceptable citation as it seems that the news outlets have moved on and are no longer reporting on it.Spotlesssunshine (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Spotlesssunshine Individual cases will be *very* hard to find unless they voluntarily go to press sources such as Eurogamer and provide their story along with supporting evidence, so expect the final outcome to be something along the lines of "offered on a case-by-case basis" which has been cited I believe in a few different places and is already in the wikipedia article as it stands. Therefore there is unlikely to be any further evolution on this matter. LostPackets (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

ADDENDA : "Refunds being offered on the forums" is not citable and has no workable evidentiary support, no good. Again, consider WP:RS when thinking about such matters. That's why I can't see this matter evolving much beyond where it is at this stage in time, not unless there's some major newsworthy development. LostPackets (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@LostPackets Mmm I read the same section, however WP:Primary does state "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.". However I'm inclined to agree with you, perhaps the tense of the statement "Frontier Developments offered refunds to some disappointed customers - those who had pre-ordered the game without playing it,[55] and those who had already played the game during its alpha or beta testing phases, judging the latter applications on a "case-by-case" basis" can be altered to "Frontier Developments have begun to refund some disappointed customers..." citing WP:PRIMARY in addition to the already standing citations?Spotlesssunshine (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Spotlesssunshine I can see where you're coming from, but I refer back to WP:SECONDARY and WP:SYN as my baseline. Which means that unless there's a citable source that can verify that there's refunds actually happening and successfully being processed, then the only definitive answer we have is that they are being offered. There's no mention if those offers are being accepted, if they are offers of full or partial refunds, if there are conditions attached, etcetera. Without knowing what's going on, and -how- the refunds are being obtained unless you look at the game forums (again, we end up at a very flaky WP:PRIMARY with lots of biased sources and lots of emotive language), it means that ultimately I don't think anything beyond the current text actually works. LostPackets (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The Register ends by predicting "utterly obvious critiques of Frontier Developments' behaviour" from other sources - if that never happened, it seems better to say nothing at all and leave it at the last-strong-source point of "refunds were not being given out freely, but being assessed case-by-case". As I said earlier, "customers were so annoyed at this that one of them made a joke" seems like it could be a misleadingly weak note to end this section on. --McGeddon (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

See the two comments below, I think that's more or less where we're at with our thinking on this one. Unless the sources get redacted, what's currently stated in the wikipedia article is pretty neutral and doesn't give undue lean either way, nor does it sound either "weak" or "strong". It remains dry, references the sources correctly and leaves it to the reader to go and examine the cited sources if they so wish. That seems good enough for me. LostPackets (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like a very weak conclusion to me, to go from the ominous "as of press time, refunds were possibly being denied to most Kickstarter backers" to (once the reader has clicked through like I did to realise that oh, right, this isn't a satirical, unofficial mod of the game built and played by a team of angry backers, it's just one person's five-page Twine game that took as much time to write as a forum post) "the most significant backlash to this has been for one person to make a small, snarky Twine game". --McGeddon (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to say I'm away from home right now and keeping track of this on my phone is a nightmare. Ultimately I've already set my position on the inclusion of this game earlier and unless there is some big change in the sources I maintain that position (it should stay). That's not to say it couldn't do with a little bit of cleaning up but I can't really help for a while. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Real life takes precedence and all that. This may be why we've not heard from the other voices involved in this. That said, that means both you and I are pretty much in lockstep on this, unless there's some divergent opinion as regards policy interpretation I can't see there being any reason to alter the line as is (unless there's a change in the sources) otherwise we risk violating WP:SYN. LostPackets (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

A mile wide an inch thick in depth - Meme

A conclusion that can be found outside of cowed for-profit review sites that needs to be reflected in this Wikipedia entry; that is summarized by the Meme "A mile wide an inch deep" This Meme represents the major criticism of this "game" and can be found and supported widely on the Internet through Google search. It seems to have been originated by PC-Space Game reviewer and player blogger Scott Manley but it can be found everywhere not only on blogs such as Reddit but also in major publications. The phrase needs to be included in this entry and there also needs to be a criticism section for this software.Lfrankblam (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism would go in the existing reception section, where every review quote is already partly underwhelmed. If "major publications" have quoted Manley, then sure, we can add that to the section - what are the publications? --McGeddon (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, what McGeddon said... I did a quick Google and found lots of references to that quote associated with ED but none from any really decent source. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This was added sourced only to a Reddit post and somebody's blog - per WP:BLOGS, these aren't considered to meet Wikipedia's threshold for reliable sources. What are the "major publications" that have quoted Manley's review? --McGeddon (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

A meme is pervasive, the fact that this can be found ubiquitously is in fact the source... Scott Manley is a valid source in and of himself as a well known expert in space gaming and gaming reviews. A parenthetical reference can be found here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaDdVBTwJ9w

To omit something that is obviously pervasive, that provides balance against vested "commercial" reviewers, and that comes from an informed expert (Manley) does a disservice and represents one of the reasons why this venue Wikipedia is "mostly unreliable." The sourcing is valid if it is pervasiveLfrankblam (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but ubiquity of memes isn't enough by itself for Wikipedia. Memes with their own articles at List of Internet phenomena are there because there are enough reliable secondary sources writing about them, not because they became sufficiently, subjectively "ubiquitous".

We can quote Manley's review directly if he meets the "established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" of WP:SPS. He doesn't appear to be a published videogame writer. --McGeddon (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In the interests of trying to establish Scott Manley's credentials I found these two links (aside from his own YouTube page); an online news article about him the Kerbal Space Program and a Reddit AMA. I'm out of my depth in the field of determining if a meme is suitable for inclusion though. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In any case you have to quote the entire part, and he referred here to the early stage of the game. I do not feel that this single remark should be included, doesn't fit into the reception section. If we take his impressions, we could go on and add several others, from the other major video game testers. Maybe later. prokaryotes (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Concluding this line of discussion as it seems to have fizzled out unless any new developments surface in the next month. LostPackets (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Further reading?

Anyone think this section still belongs in the article with the current content? I thought we can either remove the section, which is basically about the Kickstarter campaign, or update it with some more Elite universe related stuff, like related to lore, or maybe more Elite community sites. Ideas? prokaryotes (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

What logical basis did you have for removing sourced and factual content out of idle curiosity? I left this page on the basis I wouldn't need to come back here and start policing it for this reason. Do I have to revert this as well or are you willing to look at compromise solutions? LostPackets (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Given enough time for an answer and nothing forthcoming. Reverting on the basis of removing factual and sourced content as per the April revert re: Offline mode. Please do not remove sourced and unbiased information that already *had* consensus built around it just because you've swept the original discussions under the rug. If you wish to look at a compromise solution that builds in your ideas, I'm all ears but remember the rules concerning WP:SOURCE, community sites aren't likely to feature. LostPackets (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Further reading is as the name suggests for just that, but since the KS campaign is part of the article already i see no reason to have an extra list of additional four more further reading links which basically all tell the same stuff. Also if you want to discuss OM use the section above, where consensus is against your edits. And the Bell interview from 2007 belongs on his page or the Elite page. prokaryotes (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You're not following, please read up on WP:SOURCE and WP:NPOV, the point of further reading is to provide completeness and detail about things like the Kickstarter campaign and any information that is salient and free of bias that can be readily provided to help improve the quality of the page by supporting and improving the accuracy of the information provided. It's not there to put lore from community blogs and the like (see WP:OR). As I said, I'm willing to discuss compromise solutions for improving the accuracy and information given on the page, but I am not going to support the removal of sourced and verified information that had, prior to your edits, been locked down. The only consensus that you had was yourself and a passer by who dropped a comment in, this stuff had been debated out at length prior and had been hashed out, agreed and finalised, then you swept the lot into an archive. So no, I do not agree on your suggestion of consensus either. I'm fine with most of the edits you've made but the two which stripped out verifiable and sourced info free of bias are going to stay, you're free to suggest a way that they can be better incorporated into the article however. LostPackets (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

These further reading links have been untouched since November 2012, the week that the Kickstarter was launched. It doesn't seem useful to end an article about a finished, reviewed videogame by suggesting that the reader might like to go back and read some samey pre-Kickstarter buzz (one article being just three paragraphs). And the Ian Bell interview from 2007 seems only very tenuously relevant for his short answer to the single question "Do you think you could have created a better successor to Elite". --McGeddon (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Not going to dispute the Ian Bell thing because I never saw the point of that being present here to begin with, but the other links are salient as they connect to the Kickstarter campaign and are informative as to how Elite Dangerous sourced funding and grew from a historical perspective. Simply because they're "older" information doesn't make them irrelevant unless you've newer information that renders them obsolete for the purpose of improving page accuracy and helping build the page in terms of informative content. That's slippery slope logic. LostPackets (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but as mentioned the campaign is already part of the article. I suggest you rather add what you deem missing to the article instead of repeating at the end of the article. There is really no point in having this information under FR. prokaryotes (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to move them from FR into citeable sources in the article itself, go ahead. I stand by what I said about the lore element, it doesn't belong under FR, at most I would suggest that linking to authors who write books about the backstory would be acceptable as they're considered "official" sources of the lore as regards the game, but that's as far as I'd go. LostPackets (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

What lore, we discuss the current version, and 2 editors try to explain to you that the current version is not the best solution. In my opinion mentioning is established, the current content is enough, the FR section is obsolete. However, i suggested you can add to the article what you deem missing. prokaryotes (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

"Anyone think this section still belongs in the article with the current content? I thought we can either remove the section, which is basically about the Kickstarter campaign, or update it with some more Elite universe related stuff, like related to lore, or maybe more Elite community sites. Ideas? prokaryotes (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)" - That. Good grief, if you're going to write something at least have the sanity to remember what you wrote *on the same page*. Otherwise this is going to get really, really circular. LostPackets (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if the suggestions confused you, but to make it clear, we were discussing the readdition of the FR section to the article not possible replacements, which are only floating ideas so far, and can be discarded at this point. Again if you think something important is missing (not already mentioned), add it to the related parts of the article. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the one who brought the ideas up, so there's nothing to be confused about from my end, but yes, discarding them seems the right route, I'll go over the article and move the FR links into the article as additional cite sources where appropriate (this may take a little while, I've other matters to tend to), the Ian Bell link will get stripped once I've finished doing so. LostPackets (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and merged the further reading section into the article as references for a couple of new statements about early development. I dropped the Ian Bell interview (which says nothing about Dangerous) and the Gamasutra piece (which is two paragraphs and says nothing that the other sources don't). --McGeddon (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Read, nicely done. Public thanks sent your way. Hopefully that should put this to bed and things can move on :) LostPackets (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Archival and Administrative update

Recent edits have been factual, on point and have been true to the Wikipedia spirit, this pleases me greatly, and means I don't have to keep coming back to check this article more than once every few months. Keep it up! I've tidied up the discussions as they've all fizzled out and there's been no ongoing discussion for the last few months now, if there's any questions or disputes, feel free to drop me a line on this thread, but so far it all looks pretty good. As long as the edits remain clean and tidy, we may be able to improve this from C to B grade in due course. LostPackets (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Spurious use of "No consensus" to generate false revert reasons

Matter resolved, user involved has ceased tampering with the page. LostPackets (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll ask politely once. Please stop doing this. It's starting to wander dangerously close to revert war territory and I don't want to have to ask an admin to intervene. Sweeping the previous discussions into archived COTs does not make them irrelevant, it merely makes them historical. It also means that the information that was built up around the page also has to be respected when you are making updates to the page, particularly when dealing with sourced and stable information that already passes quality checks (see WP:SOURCE and WP:NPOV), attempting to ignore reverts that restored information to the page and then strip the information back out, or to revert claiming "no consensus" long after it had been established prior is simply claiming falsehoods and attempting to redefine things for the sake of unilateral editing of the page, potentially violating WP:COI for whatever reason. So quit it. LostPackets (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

POV problem, and a suggestion regarding the talk page.

Let me address the first last. Collapsed talk pages are obnoxious. Whoever is doing this isn't helping anyone, but merely censoring entire conversation threads by rushing them to the archive and by having them all appear collapsed by default, that's a dick move by any standard.

Secondly the NPOV of the article is a bit iffy. It reads like it's been written by sycophantic fan boys or possibly even PR agents for Frontier. Especially stuff like this;

On 14 November 2014, one month before launch, David Braben announced the removal of the game's offline single player mode, the developers having decided that they could not deliver an acceptable offline-only experience based on the original design.[34][35] The Windows version of the game was released on 16 December 2014.[5]

Sure they SAID it was for that reason, but the only reason that companies stop offline single player modes is to stop piracy. Look at SimCity, or any other recent example of "Hurrdurr we can't make singleplayer offline because reasons." then it later comes out it was to stop piracy. There's absolutely no reason to not address this honestly though, Wikipedia isn't a PR statement, it's an encyclopedia. "On date, person announced the removal of the game's offline single player mode sacrificing availability to players wanting an authentic original Elite experience to prevent piracy." There's nothing wrong with saying that. And given the huge backlash they got for making this decision it's worth noting it, heck HEAPS of the original backers were in an uproar, which is how I found this game and this Wiki article and opted to comment because it really doesn't seem like a trustworthy article. 121.211.33.244 (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I suspect you may be confused about what NPOV means. The sentence as written is factual; this is what they did and the reason they gave for doing it, here are the sources that demonstrate this. For the lede, it's sufficient. Your suggested version absolutely does not follow NPOV. For example, it mentions being unavailable "to players wanting an authentic Elite experience"; this suggests it is only removed for those people, when in fact it's unavailable for everyone... That part of that sentence exists just to add negative emotional weight to the action discussed. As it stands, more details on the backlash and Frontier's response are in the Reception section, and while there's room for discussion on how much space should be allocated to that particular controversy, arguing that what's in the lede doesn't satisfy NPOV is far from the mark. Aawood (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Verifiability is more important than truth, and the "truth" may also be original research. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

(Have uncollapsed the talk threads per WP:REFACTOR - "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." Two of them were over a year old and of a significant length, though, and should have been bot archived long ago - I'll archive those now.) --McGeddon (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

LostPackets

Hi. Forgive my naivity, but who is LostPackets? They seem to solely be the person obsessively archiving discussions. They flag a lot of their edits with 'admin cleanup' yet are not administrators. They sound like they are running a private wiki. Their sole creation appears to be for editing this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/LostPackets&offset=&limit=500&target=LostPackets) and they seem very, very defensive about things, even offering to get into an edit war with another editor who legitimately made changes that not only appear to have been in good faith but to have benefiting the quality of the article ('I left this page on the basis I wouldn't need to come back here and start policing it for this reason. Do I have to revert this as well or are you willing to look at compromise solutions?') I'm really, really confused. I mean, I know in gaming journalism (and I use the J word loosely here) that corporate accounts are given power to have the final say on matters with their brand and ethics is transient, but does Wikipedia allow companies to operate stealth sock puppet accounts purporting to be 'admins' I mean it wouldn't surprise me in the same way it wouldn't surprise me if one of the puzzle pieces became an AOL logo or Coca Cola logo for the right price because everything can be bought - but I hoped Wikipedia had a bit more credibility than to allow companies to run stealth socks?

I mean, what's with this first post "Recent edits have been factual, on point and have been true to the Wikipedia spirit, this pleases me greatly, and means I don't have to keep coming back to check this article more than once every few months." the crap? Seriously? I didn't know we serve corporate interests contributing. As a casual 'when I'm bored at work' type fixer of things (I'd barely use the term editor, in fact I'm probably not even meant to be on wiki during work hours but meh, sh!) I thought I was serving a community driven project not corporate maintenance of rightthink (tm) of a brand or product? >_> I would probably suggest given all their edits seem to be annoyingly archiving things out of view or being dropping "Ok, well thanks guys that conversation is over! Let's move onto the next corporate agenda!" addendums everywhere perhaps this account should be banned from the article if we hope to have any form of neutrality? I mean sure apparently my understanding of neutrality is poor, but I would think a sock account made purely for single-purpose self-serving editing isn't kosher? >_> 121.211.33.244 (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User:LostPackets hasn't edited since November last year, and I undid all their overzealous hatnoting last month. I can't see that anything has been lost. I assume the user was just a well-meaning fan coming from forum-style moderation background and being unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy about how to keep article talk pages clean. --McGeddon (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll be polite, just this once. I check in periodically because I have to deal with people who -are- somewhat biased in their view (generally in favour of Frontier) making unilateral edits to the content of the page, I swing by to make sure they're not vandalising well sourced and factual areas of the page to try and whitewash what's already been agreed in the early days of the pages formation. I can assure you, there's been plenty of -those- in the past, check the user I got into the edit war with before you throw those claims around. This isn't my main account, and I've no desire to put myself out there for the likes of you. This game draws a lot of the nutcases out of the woodwork I'm sorry to say, so you'll have to deal with the fact I'm working under a ghost handle. Keep the chat constructive please, and stick to the Wiki rules, thanks. LostPackets (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elite: Dangerous. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150705012128/http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Frontier-s-Elite-Dangerous-earnings-boost/story-26396543-detail/story.html to http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Frontier-s-Elite-Dangerous-earnings-boost/story-26396543-detail/story.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://games.on.net/2014/04/elite-rights-now-with-david-braben-frontier-developments-shares-up-for-grabs/%7Carchive-date%3DOctober

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Elite: Dangerous. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150501171952/http://frontier.co.uk/news/latest/?artid=336&pageNum=3&blk=12 to https://frontier.co.uk/news/latest/?artid=336&pageNum=3&blk=12
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140921011810/http://www.frontier.co.uk/our_technology/ to http://www.frontier.co.uk/our_technology/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/DAVID-ELKS-thesentinel/story-20992380-detail/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112124335/http://themittani.com/news/elite-dangerous-release-date-announced to http://www.themittani.com/news/elite-dangerous-release-date-announced
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151210195655/http://www.idigitaltimes.com/elite-dangerous-horizons-release-date-revealed-first-expansion-arrive-next-week-496628 to http://www.idigitaltimes.com/elite-dangerous-horizons-release-date-revealed-first-expansion-arrive-next-week-496628

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

negative kickstarter backer experiences

There was a great deal of bitterness and disappointment amongst the high-paying kickstater backers, who paid >= 300 GBP and so had access to the Design Decision Forum, which was intended to be involved in design decisions during development and ongoing game-play decisions after release. It woule be nice to add this in, as the kickstarter project description in the page itself, as many kickstarter descriptions in general do, makes it seems like an unqualified success, when the reality is more nuanced; it's useful I think to show both sides of the kickstarter experience, rather than it seeming wholly problem-free.

The DDF was frantic with activity during the first few months, and then slowly was less involved, and then eventually died a death, with no more questions being asked, no more developer involvement, and very little user posting.

Also, a number of the kickstarter funding rewards have not yet been fufilled, and by the looks of it may never be - ship models and so on. 92.251.108.212 (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

As with all things Wikipedia, if you can find a verifiable, independent source backing up what you are claiming, feel free to add it in an NPOV way CaptainPedge | Talk 11:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

As an aside, as one of those high-paying kickerstarter backers, this did happen. The DDF was extremely active, and then realised it wasn't influencing anything much - the dev team would very occasionally ask for some feedback, and that was it - and it faded away, and was never heard of again. I'm sure it was intended to exist, I have no reason to think it was an outright deception, but Frontier said it would do something (DDF being integral in game development) and then simply did not. The comment about the kickerstarter rewards having problems is also true; some were done, some were *eventually* done, some were not done at all. Backing kickstarter projects is a bit like buying into a political parties manifesto. 94.103.101.132 (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Named artists on the project

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I was curious about the project artists named on the page, naming just 3 artists assumes they had major input, John Laws for example wasn't really involved in the day to day production of Elite Dangerous, Simon Brewer came on much later as a technical artist while John Roberts was artist number 1 on the project and continued until a team size of about 80 at which point there were a lot of artists, Simon included. It feels like if this is a list about the project artists it should be much longer, or if it is a list about senior team members it would also be a different list.

(apologies is this is an incorrect way to discuss this, or my ettiquette is wrong, this is my first actual attempt to get involved here)

Thanks,

(Josh Atack, Elite Dangerous team member #3 - Linkedin My Elite dangerous meet the team from 2013)

Badgeroak (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

https://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/elite-dangerous/credits lists the credits for the original release. The in-game credits will list the current credits, which have changed somewhat since 2014, but I don't think there's an external source for that as a complete list.
StuartGT (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)