So I bought Elite: Dangerous

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

if I burden the reader with the task of imagining explanations for what I present him, instead of actually giving them to him (or at the very least suggesting them), I'm doing my job all wrong.

Perhaps, but you would not be the first author/writer to do that - making the audience think about what is being presented to them is actually sometimes intentional. It is not always a good thing to lay everything out on a platter for the audience.

In the specific context of X4, Egosoft cut ALOT of corners with the X4 material - the incomplete in-game encyclopaedia is one of those areas that still needs to be fleshed out and there are even discrepancies between the Data Vault Timeline recorded material and the on screen text/timeline. No-one is saying Egosoft nor X4 are perfect but their overall approach to X4 is actually consistent with the X-lore that has been developing over the series: X-BTF, X-Tension, X2, X3:R, X3:TC, X3:AP, X-Rebirth, and X4.

[Kadatherion]

if I burden the reader with the task of imagining explanations for what I present him, instead of actually giving them to him (or at the very least suggesting them), I'm doing my job all wrong.

Perhaps, but you would not be the first author/writer to do that - making the audience think about what is being presented to them is actually sometimes intentional. It is not always a good thing to lay everything out on a platter for the audience.

Now I'm totally digressing, but just for the sake of the discussion - which, of course, finds me very interested and, spoiler alert, will make me go full on verbal diarrhea - indeed, but there's a fundamental difference between "laying out things on a platter" and "offering plausible explanations".

I'll take these last few episodes of GoT that have split the audience in two and have been given the lowest ratings ever for the series, to make a very simplistic example (no too current spoilers! ): let's mention for instance the oh so controverse battle of Winterfell, that Long Night that lasted... well, just a normal night .
Many pointed out how totally unsensical the battle plans were: light cavalry charging headfront spearheading a vastly superior enemy, the artillery *in front* of the barricades, no use of basic so called "annihilation zones" against an enemy that has no "heavies" or artillery pieces but is by definition cannon fodder and so on, the list would be very long and is very obvious. Fundamental errors that are mindbogglingly naive not just to Vatutin fans, but to everyone with the least bit of common sense. Heck, as gamers, many of us couldn't help but shout "come on, even Total War's AI on easy isn't THAT dumb and tries to use cavalry for flanking!". All this inside even more - if possible - stupid choices made by the characters ("Hey, we are going to be attacked by a zombie wizard who resurrects the dead to fight for him, let's protect women and children by sending them in the crypts... with, you know... the dead" ).

Now, a segment of the audience still tried to find some explanations for such a collection of silliness, plot holes, characterization retconning et cetera. About the inconsistencies in the battle plan, many pointed out that hey, even IRL it happened that generals - even pretty renowned ones at least up to that point - made a series of, in hindsight, incredibly idiotic decisions. Why couldn't the same happen to Jon and Dany in GoT? This is absolutely true. The reason why they are wrong and are actually projecting even if what they state is objectively true, though, is another: that the writing in GoT did not aknowledge such decisions and plot points as mistakes (or necessary compromises) in any way.
You, the viewer, could imagine, in your quest to salvage what once was a series with great writing, that, for instance, several rather simple defense strategies couldn't be arranged in time as all the manpower was scrambling to make the obsidian weapons, or again that the Dothraki suicide was somehow specifically meant to lure the Night King out (still kind of silly, but let's leave it at that), and so on. Problem is, the actual writing never even hints at such possibilities: testifying how the writers found nothing "wrong" with those stupid battle plans.

They didn't need to "serve on a platter", with some clichéd voice over or overly long exposition, the statement "what they are doing is stupid". The only thing they needed would have been to aknowledge what apparently made no sense, from that very acknowledgment would come the "offering" of an explanation: you don't necessarily need to go into details, it can be enough to put in the mouth of a character the exposition of doubt. Dunno, maybe a surviving Dothraki that spits at Dany's feet lamenting the useless sacrifice of his brothers. Davos who doubts the battle plans and Jon who answers a generic "we don't have any other choice", whatever. It would still not be - in this specific case - good storytelling, as the holes were way too big, but that's the concept: I can make the viewer/reader come to his own conclusion, his own interpretation, of the details of how and why a certain event comes to pass in a specific way without spelling every detail to him, keeping the evocative appeal of some vagueness and mystery, but I have to, at the very least, *offer* him the chance, a cue, a hint, a train of thoughts to follow - however he then pleases - to come to such conclusions. This is something that always happens, naturally, when a plot hole isn't a plot hole, because the writer is aware of it. When no clue, no acknowledgment is there in the text, then the writer either was truly clueless (like GoT's writer have lately proven to be) or didn't care.

In the specific context of X4, Egosoft cut ALOT of corners with the X4 material - the incomplete in-game encyclopaedia is one of those areas that still needs to be fleshed out and there are even discrepancies between the Data Vault Timeline recorded material and the on screen text/timeline. No-one is saying Egosoft nor X4 are perfect but their overall approach to X4 is actually consistent with the X-lore that has been developing over the series: X-BTF, X-Tension, X2, X3:R, X3:TC, X3:AP, X-Rebirth, and X4.

Yes (to a point), but you see, you are mistaking my statement as disapproval by definition. It isn't: that "or didn't care" I closed my previous digression with isn't necessarily a symptom of something inherently wrong. Just as I previously explained why shaping gameplay to narrative instead of the opposite usually is, in game development, the actual wrong course.

Imagine this scenario (again, overly simplified, for obvious reasons): we are switching to a new engine that, given the new graphics, cool mechanics and kind of assets we have to make - many of which from scratch - only allows us so much room. Because of that, we can't have more than let's say 50 sectors in game and a certain number or variety of ships around without facing either too much work to realistically get to release in time and/or too high minimum sys specs to guarantee a fluid enough experience.

- "Hey boss, I see, but the lore says we should have like 300 sectors, all these ship classes and type, and these techs, and then this, and that".
- "I know, but this are the limits we have right now, so there's no other way. Find me a narrative explanation for that, Dave".
- "Uhm... ok... let's say that the gate system shut down because... reasons™, shit™ happened, and let's leave it at that".
- "Heh, a bit weak but that's all right, we are making a space sandbox, not the next Witcher game, it's enough Dave. After all, as usual the real shit will be thrown at Bill the UI guy anyway".

This is a perfectly legit and arguably the best way to go, in the correct order. The actual stupidity would have been, because the lore previously implied it, to try at all costs to have those 300 sectors. Making the game in the new engine unplayable, or, worse, forsaking the potential of the new engine to keep the chance to have that many sectors. Even more absurd would be to think, since we did get the 50 sectors galaxy, that they COULD have made a 300 sectors one even in the new engine, but they opted not to do it because someone had previously written a narrative that talked about only 50 sectors (or only the Albion sector if we talk about Rebirth) and, you know... lol lore . That'd be completely silly.
Sure, more narrative and involved explanations couldn't be but welcomed, everything that adds to the experience and immersion, no matter how marginally, is, but these are not by definition essential in this context.

Of course we know then an issue came up: many players aren't very happy that we now have 50 (ish) sectors only. Nor are they too happy with how the highways have been implemented, as many feel they contribute at making the universe feel even smaller than it actually is, an universe where you often *drive* instead of *fly* around. But this is an issue that does not come from, in any way, and such neither is "explained by", the lore and its necessities. Lore came after, it tries (very little, but, again, it's just a sandbox game) to roughly and briefly justify the BIG changes, not going into details, but doesn't justify - nor it tries to, nor it could be its responsibility - the negative side effects of such gameplay choices. Highways themselves have been a gameplay mechanic chosen - as stated - as an alternative to jumpdrive to offer what was thought to be a good evolution of the formula, in an environment that changed fundamentally with the engine switch.

The same goes for ships or (virtually non-existent) weapons variety: the lore doesn't even try to explain why suddenly, yet again ship building and styles changed a lot in a relatively short timespan, or weapons technology shrinked to 1/8th of its previous breadth. We can come up with any explanation we find more plausible (the limit is really just our imagination), and then debate among us which one would be the most plausible, but it doesn't really matter as the game itself doesn't even try, doesn't - as stated - care. This is all I stated at the beginning of the discussion: they don't even care enough to justify it with such things done and done, it makes no sense to believe such lore justifications and "reasons" could have had any relevant, primeval role in actually sparking the decision itself to make them.

Of course, the argument itself wouldn't surface at all if those changes were all clearly for the better, well received by the community. Some, if not many, of these changes are controversial to say the least. Only at this point the lore starts getting called up to the witness stand as well, as people complain and, inevitably, the complaint tends to go "I don't like this thing here, and we are not even given any real narrative explanations, nor it makes much sense given that in year XXXX the lore stated that blahblahblah I'm a nerd and Rei shouldn't be able to backflip a Tie Fighter because blahblahblah" ( ). Which is often true, and an understandable approach to reinforce the argument you're trying to make, but shifts the point further away from what is the real issue at hand, whether lore is called to further attack or justify a mechanic.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

Perhaps, but you would not be the first author/writer to do that - making the audience think about what is being presented to them is actually sometimes intentional. It is not always a good thing to lay everything out on a platter for the audience.

There's a fundamental difference between "laying out things on a platter" and "offering plausible explanations".

In the case of X4, the explanations are there - it is just it is not clearly laid out.

Just as I previously explained why shaping gameplay to narrative instead of the opposite usually is, in game development, the actual wrong course.

I disagree with your assertion - what you are saying is true to a point but IMO the argument lacks ANY validity in the case of X4.

Of course we know then an issue came up: many players aren't very happy that we now have 50 (ish) sectors only. Nor are they too happy with how the highways have been implemented, as many feel they contribute at making the universe feel even smaller than it actually is, an universe where you often *drive* instead of *fly* around. But this is an issue that does not come from, in any way, and such neither is "explained by", the lore and its necessities. Lore came after, it tries (very little, but, again, it's just a sandbox game) to roughly and briefly justify the BIG changes, not going into details, but doesn't justify - nor it tries to, nor it could be its responsibility - the negative side effects of such gameplay choices. Highways themselves have been a gameplay mechanic chosen - as stated - as an alternative to jumpdrive to offer what was thought to be a good evolution of the formula, in an environment that changed fundamentally with the engine switch.

Your argument is largely a pot-ae-toe/pot-ah-toe subjective point of view - to me (and seemingly others including ES) the highways do not make the universe feel smaller at all. The justification for their introduction is covered by the lore events in X3:AP and X-Rebirth and explained to at least some degree via the Data Vault Timeline. The lack of jump drives is explainable through the lore too since the gate network shutdown and other than for community developed mods generally required the jump gates to work.

The same goes for ships or (virtually non-existent) weapons variety: the lore doesn't even try to explain why suddenly, yet again ship building and styles changed a lot in a relatively short timespan, or weapons technology shrinked to 1/8th of its previous breadth. We can come up with any explanation we find more plausible (the limit is really just our imagination), and then debate among us which one would be the most plausible, but it doesn't really matter as the game itself doesn't even try, doesn't - as stated - care. This is all I stated at the beginning of the discussion: they don't even care enough to justify it with such things done and done, it makes no sense to believe such lore justifications and "reasons" could have had any relevant, primeval role in actually sparking the decision itself to make them.

If you compare the weapon availability in X4 versus that in X-Rebirth then they are roughly on par and similar in variety/types - X4 is slightly more varied perhaps. The variety of weapons is roughly comparable to X2 on balance, and weapon variety in itself is actually moot and should not need to justified one way or the other.

Of course, the argument itself wouldn't surface at all if those changes were all clearly for the better, well received by the community. Some, if not many, of these changes are controversial to say the least.

Let's see - universe size in terms of number of sectors and the variety of weapons/ships are both moot in essence, the lore explains the generalities of the situation but there are also other more practical developmental cost v. product cost considerations. The level of content provided at release is fair and reasonable for the price we paid for it. There are always going to be some that will find an excuse to complain about feature X or Y in a new game (be it part of a series or not) and the vast majority of those complaints is generally speaking unjustified and unjustifiable IME/IMO. Sure, the relevant complainers will try to justify their complaints but invariably there are holes in their arguments that they fail to acknowledge even when pointed out to them.

Ultimately, what happened was X-Rebirth effectively rebooted the series with lore placing the situation some time after the events of X3:AP. X-Rebirth in itself was subjected to (IMO) an undue level of criticism but it was still in essence going to be the basis of any future X-series game developed by Egosoft. X4 attempted to address some of the complaints regarding implementation decisions made for X-Rebirth and also to re-introduce mechanics that were part of the X-Series essentially from X-Tension to X3:AP. Unfortunately for us, Egosoft rushed out X4 before it was truely ready for one reason or another and the resulting mess is still undergoing the process of being addressed - it has been a slow and painful process and will probably continue to be for the foreseeable future based on progress to date. IMO The level of content is not at fault, but rather the issue is with the quality of the content that is there - more in terms of bugs and incomplete work (not variety/diversity/quantity considerations).

Whetheer we are talking about ED, X4, or any other game there are always going to be those that are not happy with aspects of the given product (despite how things may have been explained prior to release - X-Rebirth is a prime example of this) - sometimes the complaints are justified, but most of the time they are not. However, unlike alot of (if not most) games, the X-series games by Egosoft have one major advantage - official support for community modding. That means that we have the ability to address some of the aspects such as gameplay/content variety, via developing our own mods or tweaking what is already there.

[Kadatherion]

In the case of X4, the explanations are there - it is just it is not clearly laid out.

No, they aren't. The very example this discussion came out from, "why aren't highways set up in a more useful, sensible way?" isn't touched in any form in the lore the game offers you. You came to an explanation for that that would make sense and which I mostly agree with - it could be debated, but since we are effectively talking about air anything is valid - but the game does not care (nor it should).

Just as I previously explained why shaping gameplay to narrative instead of the opposite usually is, in game development, the actual wrong course.

I disagree with your assertion - what you are saying is true to a point but IMO the argument lacks ANY validity in the case of X4.

Are you joking? Seriously, now you are just stating the absurd just to not admit a point *you yourself* came up with and which I just countered. You are basically saying the equivalent of thinking in the case of X4, the reason why there's wars between spacefaring races could be because of lore, and not because, you know... it's a space *game*, that without spaceships to shoot down and watch shoot down each other wouldn't be much fun.

Come on, mate, really, next thing would be saying the Split expansion will come because of the lore, not because the game could take advantage of... an expansion to make it bigger, better and more fun (and make another influx of money for the devs, obviously). The only effect lore has in this is that it's going to be the Split and not some other new random alien race, just because screw everything.

Your argument is largely a pot-ae-toe/pot-ah-toe subjective point of view - to me (and seemingly others including ES) the highways do not make the universe feel smaller at all. The justification for their introduction is covered by the lore events in X3:AP and X-Rebirth and explained to at least some degree via the Data Vault Timeline.

It. Doesn't. Matter.
That for many people they feel that way is *a fact*, whether you or me like it or not. The very existence of these people, in pretty undeniable relatively large numbers, complaining about them is the fact itself. What the hell are you trying to deny? You are grasping at straws now, going in circles and completely avoiding the point of the discussion.

The in-universe justification for their introduction is in game and is this: "the gate system shut down. Because yes. So now we have highways, ktnxbai". The end. But there is hardly any justification offered for why *they are set up in a certain specific way*, that very specific set up you went out of your way to try and justify with what you think could be plausible (again, as aforementioned) in such a situation. And even if it were, justifying a controversial gameplay choice "because lore" is just silly. A mechanic either works for you or it doesn't. When it works for most all is good, when it doesn't, the more people find it not working for them, the bigger the issue is.

You can defend as much as you please the fact you find it fun and absolutely ok (great!), but switching the point to lore when people complain such mechanic is not fun nor feels "right", you are not dismissing anything, you don't have a valid point by definition. Because, as said multiple times, videogames, as opposed to books or movies, are tactile experiences first and foremost. And X4, yes, this X4, more than pretty much any other game imaginable: we are not talking a Telltale game here (that would even be fairly hard to consider 100% a "game"), we are talking a sandbox without even any main narrative plot, it's the epitome of something that's based on and made for gameplay over anything else.

If you compare the weapon availability in X4 versus that in X-Rebirth then they are roughly on par and similar in variety/types - X4 is slightly more varied perhaps. The variety of weapons is roughly comparable to X2 on balance, and weapon variety in itself is actually moot and should not need to justified one way or the other.

You keep trying to approach the discussion as a complaint against ES that you have somehow to defend. There are 6 different weapon types in X4. They can come in bigger/smaller variations, but that's it, SIX weapon types. In X3 there were 30+. 30 *different technologies* for weapons, mind me, not just "weapon XY a bit bigger", some of them had similar roles and uses of course, as they were ratially defined, but many also did not only look but also worked in fundamentally different ways, both conceptually and from gameplay perspective.

Inbetween the engine switch we lost 80% of weapon variety, technologies. How could that need "less justification" than any other major evolution (or, in this case, involution) in the universe? Granted, that's totally fine by me, I'm the one who's saying a videogame like X4 doesn't necessarily *have to* justify everything with lore, the one saying these justifications are in and even somehow are the reason itself for the changes is you. That wouldn't sound so great here though: "We've given you 80% less weapons, but that's because you know, the gate shutdown, the isolation, technology was forced to make some steps back, this is plausible which means this was a good development decision, right? Right?".

To me it sounds you bring lore (or supposed interpretations of it) on the table only when you think it serves reinforcing your defense of a mechanic you like, but when that mechanic is impossible to defend even for you, as numbers can't lie and aren't subjective as "the highways been fun or not" can be, then suddenly that very lore plausibility "is actually moot and there should be no need to justify it one way or the other". Way too convenient, mate!

Of course, the argument itself wouldn't surface at all if those changes were all clearly for the better, well received by the community. Some, if not many, of these changes are controversial to say the least.

Let's see - universe size in terms of number of sectors and the variety of weapons/ships are both moot in essence, the lore explains the generalities of the situation but there are also other more practical developmental cost v. product cost considerations. The level of content provided at release is fair and reasonable for the price we paid for it. There are always going to be some that will find an excuse to complain about feature X or Y in a new game (be it part of a series or not) and the vast majority of those complaints is generally speaking unjustified and unjustifiable IME/IMO. Sure, the relevant complainers will try to justify their complaints but invariably there are holes in their arguments that they fail to acknowledge even when pointed out to them.

Roger, I get it, you like the game even though you don't deny at least some of its faults (didn't I see even you lose your patience and say it was unacceptable in very harsh words just a few weeks ago though? Might be confusing you with someone else), but whether you find it's a fair game or I find it's not, that's what moot, our opinions. You know what isn't? That mixed score on Steam. That mixed score that keeps going down, and is at 43% favourable at the current trend (fun fact: I'm counted in that score, but as a favourable vote, guess that!). There's nothing else to discuss here, the game isn't being that well received, and what we mentioned here is among the many recurring things a lot of players complain about. That's, once again, an undeniable, albeit unfortunate, fact.

Whetheer we are talking about ED, X4, or any other game there are always going to be those that are not happy with aspects of the given product (despite how things may have been explained prior to release - X-Rebirth is a prime example of this) - sometimes the complaints are justified, but most of the time they are not. However, unlike alot of (if not most) games, the X-series games by Egosoft have one major advantage - official support for community modding. That means that we have the ability to address some of the aspects such as gameplay/content variety, via developing our own mods or tweaking what is already there.

That's for sure. Let's be honest: X games lately are still alive for us only because we hope for mods to make them more acceptable. But that "most of the time complaints are not justified" is a pretty arrogant assertion. Let's say that "most of the time complaints made don't find you in agreement with them". Because, you see, whether a game is good or not, and as such successful or not, is made by the amount and relevance of those complaints, that translate into score aggregates, and then into sales. In the end, if a game isn't fun enough for too many of its target customers, then it's going to fail or be remade in a formula closer to what the majority finds more fun. No matter if we are in the minority and find a certain thing still fun (I for one sure am in the minority most of the time, given the AAA live service MP games that are all the rage lately and which I find totally unfun ). Coming to such an absolute dismissal about a mechanic you evidently find nothing wrong with, when it's clearly one of the most controverse (dunno if it's the *majority* of players not liking the highways much or not, we don't have numbers for that specific thing, but it sure looks like it's at the very least not well received by a LARGE chunk of the playerbase ever since Rebirth) is quite petty. You are still entitled to your opinion and tastes even if they happened to not be majoritarian, or "popular".

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

In the case of X4, the explanations are there - it is just it is not clearly laid out.

No, they aren't. The very example this discussion came out from, "why aren't highways set up in a more useful, sensible way?"

They are setup in a way that makes perfect sense for the overall environment - at least on the most part. The ring for example allows for fast and efficient travel for all the factions - essentially the M25 of X4, but without the traffic jams.

Fundamentally, the background lore does cover why things are as they are - some things are perhaps not spelled out in explicit terms (e.g. why the gate network has been reorganised as it has been) but there is no good reason why they should be. Ultimately, the general approach ES have taken with X4 is quite logical and consistent with their game lore.

While gameplay does play a part in the X-series it never really sits in total isolation, the underlying game lore in general does take precedent and the game content is defined around the background story that ES want to portray. Like it or not, while there is not much of an active story in X4 there is a consistent thread of lore and that has on the most part been true for all X-games.

ES develop the X-series games to suit their narrative and allow the community to modify the end-product to suit personal tastes - they can not be fairer than that. The complaints about "lack of content in X4" is a clear demonstration of arrogance and entitlement with little or no realistic consideration for what things cost to develop. I have seen similar complaints about ED and they are equally invalid in that case too. Such arguments in general fail to give due credit to what has been delivered - this is an increasingly common attitude I have seen expressed by the gaming community in general and is not a good thing.

Yes - I have openly complained about X4, but only wrt the on-going issues Egosoft have wrt not testing their product to a sufficient level and releasing updates in an unacceptable state. They should be concentrating more on the bugs and less on the content - introducing more content before the rest is working properly is generally a recipe for disaster since it leads to a situation where either nothing is properly tested or the whole thing becomes more expensive to test because of retesting that should happen when certain goal posts move. We do not know how Egosoft work internally, but we can judge the end-results of what they do. They have a duty of care to deliver a product that is of an acceptable level of quality - historically, they have done better with their other games than they have with X4 thus far IMO.

In brief - the overall game design of X4 is consistent with the game lore, the mechanics are in support of the game lore but do not dominate it - the lore is in accordance with the story Egosoft want to tell. As for level of content, it is consistent with most current products of the same level. The X-series consists of hand crafted system designs consistent with the vision ES have at the time, while ED is a procedurally generated model of our galaxy with some hand crafted tweaks added as FD see fit. The former is bound to be more expensive to develop on a per system basis. In additon, the two games are substantially different in focus but despite this BOTH games have had complaints about lack of content made against them - such complaints are just the usual unjustifiable screams from entitled gamers who have little or no grasp of what it costs to develop a product. More content, means more testing, which in turn means more cost - at least in the context of professional game developers. This is fundamentally why alot of games these days are delivered with the level of content they are and why additional content of substance requires a premium to be paid for it. My only complaints regarding X4 are regarding the quality of the delivered product - not the content.

[Kadatherion]

The complaints about "lack of content in X4" is a clear demonstration of arrogance and entitlement with little or no realistic consideration for what things cost to develop. I have seen similar complaints about ED and they are equally invalid in that case too. Such arguments in general fail to give due credit to what has been delivered - this is an increasingly common attitude I have seen expressed by the gaming community in general and is not a good thing. [cut...] As for level of content, it is consistent with most current products of the same level.

These two are both very bold statements. We are yet again digressing, but bear with me. Let's start from the latter, the amount of content in X4 supposedly being "consistent with most current products of the same level": and let's say that yes, it more or less might be, although some (good) games are out there with much more content, coming out in a much more stable state and so on.

Problem is, and it's a problem in the whole industry: most games on average keep having less and less content at launch. This is a well known and recognized industry issue that's especially prominent in the so called "AAA" industry: in their case, this is tied first and foremost with the awful "live services" predatory model companies like EA or Activision (just to name a few among the most hated ones) have taken. Anthem has been mentioned already, and it's just the latest prominent example, but FO76 was the same thing just a bit before (coming from a dev team and publisher that was once renowned for the ludicrous amount of content, albeit often buggy, offered in their games), and examples are nowadays countless. Games coming out clearly unfinished and lacking basic content, either because rushed or because the actual content has been stripped out to be then sold separately via greedy microtransactions, gambling schemes, season passes and "roadmaps". This while the industry as a whole keeps breaking new revenue records, there sure isn't any cash influx issue there. We all know how bleak the situation has become and how rare it is now to find a game that's perfectly good and content filled at release. There still are some notable exceptions (CD Projekt Red please save us, Japanese devs please don't follow our example), but that's pretty much it.
The issue is less prominent and systemic for indie devs, but the model is of course rubbing off on them as well, who, on the other hand, had already gone pretty deep down the "early access" rabbit hole, a beautiful idea - at its birth - to support the development of indie games which has now often become an excuse to sell unfinished products and get away with it.

So, given that yeah, this situation has become quite the norm... should this mean players shouldn't complain? They are objectively getting worse products, with less value at the same price tag (when not even higher: the "premium/legendary/collector's edition" fad that has taken root in the AAA industry is just another way to raise the average price of games. Not talking about X4's Collector's Ed. here, in this case at least it includes the two planned expansions, so that's a perfectly legit and fair model in comparison... even though these two "expansions" are mainly things that once were in the base game, but let's leave it at that). How can complaining about that be "a demonstration of arrogance and entitlement" in any possible way?

Let's even imagine (it's true to an extent and in a sense) that the cost to develop games has had a flat, systemic increase (and discard the emerging crunch time issue with dev houses' employees that's finally surfacing, or the fact the industry keeps making those aforementioned revenue records, since they come in good part from exploiting the microtransaction scam model and those very same employees), and that yeah, like it or not games can't for some reason be on average as good, as polished, or as content rich as they were a few years ago. Why shouldn't we complain?
Let's say the cost to grow, farm and ship wheat has increased. As such, our bakeries now offer us half as much bread - and often of inferior overall quality - at the same price. Should we eat our crappy half bread loaf and be happy with it, we entitled pricks? I dare say no: if you make me pay for crappy bread you can blame the wheat price crisis as much as you want, but as there still are a few bakeries (just as there still are a few developers) who offer good bread, then something is wrong not only with the industry as a whole, but with you individually too. And in any case I'm still being forced to eat crappy half baked bread, I've all the rights to say it's crappy and half baked.

These complaints "are not a good thing"? You are right, because they're not enough. As those record revenues testify, players complain but either these complaints don't translate into the only thing that could really have some tangible effect - aka stop falling for shit games and avoid buying them or falling for the MTX mobile scam - or these complaints are mostly limited to a specific age range while younger generations - that don't have the means for a comparison - just don't know how they're getting screwed and are the ones still keeping the industry afloat even in a more and more evidently unsustainable market model. Both these statement are probably partially true at the same time.

Granted, X4 and Rebirth before it sure aren't the worse examples of this issue, there's much worse out there. But it's a fact the value offered by X games at launch has decreased as well. Rebirth was a trainwreck for many other reasons, and things such as the only one pilotable ship have probably been conceptual missteps more than a value issue (srsly, Rebirth tried: it just was a bad game, but at least it tried), but let's just take some blatant examples from X4: two of the main races cut out of the game at launch, that will come later with expansions, which is new. As new is the game having no main plot: giving up on the plot should have been meant to allow Egosoft to dedicate those resources elsewhere, to the actual sandbox functionality and amount of assets for it. And yet both those functionalities are limited and buggy as they ever where in previous launches, and the amount and variety of assets has not seen any increase when not quite the opposite. X games keep getting smaller and smaller, for any new feature two old ones are lost, and what still is in the game launches as broken and bug ridden as ever. And we shouldn't complain about it? Because oh well, at least Egosoft supports their games for a while instead of immediatly running with the cash, and where they don't do their jobs modders hopefully will? What do they have to do to make our complaints legit, stab us in the gut and drink our blood?

And if you let them, they will, eh? By now I seriously doubt they'll have the nerve to really implement microtransactions for ventures in X4, the ice is already thin enough, and it's thin *because* just the idea of them stirred quite the major backlash. But in the future all might be forgotten and it will be X5's turn. If we don't complain now, if we don't state that no, there's minimum standards we demand (yes: demand), there's nothing stopping them from believing they will have the liberty to further lower the bar if they want or deem necessary. Egosoft is a better developer than some and worse than others, but no developer is your friend. They're here to make money, not friends - it couldn't and shouldn't be otherwise. It's the consumer's role to demand his money translates into enough value, nobody else's.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

And if you let them, they will, eh? By now I seriously doubt they'll have the nerve to really implement microtransactions for ventures in X4, the ice is already thin enough, and it's thin *because* just the idea of them stirred quite the major backlash. But in the future all might be forgotten and it will be X5's turn. If we don't complain now, if we don't state that no, there's minimum standards we demand (yes: demand), there's nothing stopping them from believing they will have the liberty to further lower the bar if they want or deem necessary. Egosoft is a better developer than some and worse than others, but no developer is your friend. They're here to make money, not friends - it couldn't and shouldn't be otherwise. It's the consumer's role to demand his money translates into enough value, nobody else's.

You seem to be ignoring the point that for the minimum standards some demand the retail price must be increased - more work, means more cost. Overall the point is that it is more expensive to develop software now than it was say 10 years ago - costs and overheads in general go up overtime and with increased product complexity/variety testing requirements also increase and typically not in a linear way.

That essentially means that the only way to ensure that your customers can pay for the end-product is essentially to break up the product into individual premium bundles that can be sold individually at a more palatable cost than would otherwise be possible. Not only that, but it also helps with reducing the time to market. With X4, they have the initial game plus two planned premium DLCs.

You can either have reduced content, or increased price - the point is something has to give as developers are not charities and need to make a living as does the rest of the working world.

[dholmstr]

Roger again defending the game status, just like with Carriers/guns a while ago. And they got changed. I do admire it becouse it forces people to argue and think over some ideas and views they have. But to some extend this goes on and on a bit too much.

[Kadatherion]

You seem to be ignoring the point that for the minimum standards some demand the retail price must be increased - more work, means more cost. Overall the point is that it is more expensive to develop software now than it was say 10 years ago - costs and overheads in general go up overtime and with increased product complexity/variety testing requirements also increase and typically not in a linear way.

That essentially means that the only way to ensure that your customers can pay for the end-product is essentially to break up the product into individual premium bundles that can be sold individually at a more palatable cost than would otherwise be possible. Not only that, but it also helps with reducing the time to market. With X4, they have the initial game plus two planned premium DLCs.

You can either have reduced content, or increased price - the point is something has to give as developers are not charities and need to make a living as does the rest of the working world.

I didn't ignore it, I touched the subject extensively, you just decided to ignore it at your convenience. Problem is: this whole idea falls apart the very moment you see there still are indeed some developers that don't appear to suffer from this. Even major developers, that still don't put ANY MTX in their games, and their games are renowned for still being filled to the brim with content. Both at launch and in their expansions (real expansions, not fire and forget DLCs). This proves it *is* possible to keep the quality level AND the current price tags AND avoid predatory schemes, all at the same time. You could say that CD Projekt Red and the like are an exception for who knows what reason (not that CDPR is exempt from some critique: crunch time is an issue there as well), but I also mentioned Japanese devs: somehow, in Japan the opposite happens, predatory and content lacking games are on average still the exception, while huge single player experiences even with little to no DLC models or any kind of live service revenues are still the norm, they still are going strong and being immensely successful.

Meanwhile, this side of the ocean more and more examples of CEOs syphoning millions and millions of dollars out of the game budgets for themselves are surfacing, while publishers try to flip reality upside down claiming "single player games have become unsustainable" (sure EA, sure...). Which is total BS: games sell more copies than they ever did, even with a supposed increase in dev costs that's what would and should keep the balance in check. The real, blatant issue is the opposite: the F2P and mobile game market model has slowly made the customers used to be nickled and dimed, traditional games have capitalized on this allowing themselves to lower the bar immensely to make the several times aforementioned record revenues.

It's a fact: game companies make more money than ever (and I'm talking profits, not just revenue), in the US many don't even pay ANY taxes (yep, no taxes AT ALL) and yet their games get worse, all this money doesn't go into the actual games. Where does it go then, given employees too are being more and more penalized as well, and are just now finally beginning to come together talking about the need to unionize?
If they kept making the same money then your statement could still have some plausibility and logic, but this is not the case. The live service model simply brings more profits than actual good, complete games ready at release, and as they are no charities, unless someone (us) keeps them in check, *of course* that will always be the preferred choice. They will simply keep pushing this as far as they can until the rope snaps. That's the beauty of unchecked capitalism for you. While we wait for loot boxes and the like to be formally recognized as gambling (cause they are, it's simply criminal and disgusting), and the whole unsustainable model to collapse (and oh it is starting to collapse indeed), only us customers can try to put the phenomenon in check. How? By complaining. And here we are.

[reanor]

...
6/
X4 lets you get into the action more quickly. Most of ED seams to be
being a taxi driver to earn credits to buy a better ship. And then what?
I guess to move on to P2P combat?

This pretty much summarizes the ED for me. I played it for a while but as soon as I ran into a wall of grind, I lost all my interest. ED is one of the biggest games, with very little content. And the main thing in game you can only do - is grind, or make some kind of stories out of nothing and pretend playing them. Another minus in ED is a very very slow update pace. Very small dev team, very small updates, and takes very long to release.

Anyway, both games are good. Same theme different implementation.

The X4 is vastly superior than ED. If you haven't realized it yet - you didn't play enough of either .

[Tomonor]

The X4 is vastly superior than ED. If you haven't realized it yet - you didn't play enough of either .

I'm sure it is up to personal taste and satisfaction. At least I can totally see why would someone prefer Elite over X4.

[Misunderstood Wookie]

No, Mans Sky
After Next Update
That is all.

Oddly enough, for me, I still think Freelancer with the Crossfire 2.0 mod is the best space-sim ever made still!
and the best X game X3:AP is by far in many ways a much more polished game lacks a lot of the new flashy things, the polish is not one of them and performance is so much better on today's hardware. Don't get me wrong X4 is a good step, but every time I boot this game up I cannot help but feel it is exactly what the title says.. A foundation lacking almost all substance to its predecessor.

Also, I think the OP is on meth if they think ED looks worse than X4 , Say what you like but for me, GFX does not mean shiny objects I rather a well rounded polished feel over what feels like place holders. The UI in ED is superior in every way possible in the cockpit for a start, the planets and universe spaces look a heck of a lot better.
(I backed ED and brought it for two of my friends so yea... I know what I am talking about.)

The ships are well detailed, I disagree with calling them "childish", X4's ships are the childish looking ones, I mean squares with huge boxes all over them for landing pads because of technical engine issues with Ai Pathing is the reason why docking inside hangers on ships like in X Rebirth is not present in X4... among the slew of other clear engine limitations or just plain cut ideas due to buggy ai logic.

Two whole races are straight up missing from X4 and they want to actually seriously sell us Splits!... awjeez
'finer point I am actually NOT at all happy that DLC is required to even get all the bloody races back into the game no thank you... If they charge anything over $10/ pounds whatever 10 is your country I am not paying for the DLC for Splits it is absurd it even came to that. Besides asssets for station modules and ships, I could literally add the Split myself the NPC files already exist some basic art for split exists as well some of it unused go figure. but just NO! charging for a race which had been in the X universe for every game is absurd.'

The universe in X4 generally looks unpolished, empty, and nothing happens unless you install heavy mods which tank frame-rates to get the jobs and factions to move their asses do things.
I sat my game running overnight for almost week on only a patch or so ago and I swear to you nothing jumped out at me right away as a change in the universe.
You spend most of the game time literally on the map screen micro your ships because the AI is kinda useless at knowing when to retreat or avoid incoming fleets like, oh yea its great watching a small six-man squad of small fighters fly straight into a 30 odd ship fleet with a proper composition where is the brains in that I might as well have just parked them and shot them myself.

Look X4 can be enjoyable for short bursts but I really have no reason to play for extended periods X3 offers much much more for much less and all you have to do is throw on lite cube universe and the mayhem mod and you get all the good stuff of war this does and a much better universe, if you are inclined to throw on the gfx mod as well which will overhaul textures and skyboxes. Call me crazy if you like but I even prefer X3's UI at times to X4 just due to the fact that with X3 I had proper control over everything while in X4 I am forced to find sudo hacky ways to fix basic problems I used to just run with a command fleet wide.

I never really was worried so much about the gfx in X Universe series by comparison, X4 is arguably worse in most areas than Rebirth was and in exchange we get drastically better-looking NPCs and station textures at the expense of a dark empty universe worse looking station mesh's worse ship scale and style, easily worse ai logic, I mean it all comes down to what I prev said, X4 feels to me exactly like a foundation what you are getting with X4 is right in the title because graphically and gameplay system improvements aside all of it is meaningless without substance, as Blocky as X3 was and what it lacks but for what it does and what it is, it is the better game.

[MakerLinux]

The complaints about "lack of content in X4" is a clear demonstration of arrogance and entitlement with little or no realistic consideration for what things cost to develop. I have seen similar complaints about ED and they are equally invalid in that case too. Such arguments in general fail to give due credit to what has been delivered - this is an increasingly common attitude I have seen expressed by the gaming community in general and is not a good thing. [cut...] As for level of content, it is consistent with most current products of the same level.

These two are both very bold statements. We are yet again digressing, but bear with me. Let's start from the latter, the amount of content in X4 supposedly being "consistent with most current products of the same level": and let's say that yes, it more or less might be, although some (good) games are out there with much more content, coming out in a much more stable state and so on.

Can you name a few? I'd love to know. Space games, not RPGs, please.

[EmperorDragon]

The complaints about "lack of content in X4" is a clear demonstration of arrogance and entitlement with little or no realistic consideration for what things cost to develop. I have seen similar complaints about ED and they are equally invalid in that case too. Such arguments in general fail to give due credit to what has been delivered - this is an increasingly common attitude I have seen expressed by the gaming community in general and is not a good thing. [cut...] As for level of content, it is consistent with most current products of the same level.

These two are both very bold statements. We are yet again digressing, but bear with me. Let's start from the latter, the amount of content in X4 supposedly being "consistent with most current products of the same level": and let's say that yes, it more or less might be, although some (good) games are out there with much more content, coming out in a much more stable state and so on.

Can you name a few? I'd love to know. Space games, not RPGs, please.

I would like to know as well, I'm always thirsty for space sims and I'm sure there are a few others I have missed.

Only ones I find worthwhile is the X series, Rebel Galaxy and Starpoint Gemini Warlords. Others are either yet more story-driven dogfighters or some online thing.

With upcoming sequels of both Rebel Galaxy and Starpoint Gemini having devolved into yet more story-driven dogfighters themselves, we are left with X4 only. Surely there must be others?

Spacebourne seems like it could be interesting but, it's still Early Access and I haven't researched it that much yet. Evochron with it's planetary landings is pretty neat as well but, it's also limited to fighter-sized craft. I spent enough years in the cockpit of a fighter, pilotable capital ships is where it's at these days.

[Kadatherion]

Can you name a few? I'd love to know. Space games, not RPGs, please.

Unfortunately I was talking in broader terms, about games as whole rather than space sims specifically: this is unfortunately a genre that's gone off the radar for many years now, so there's not much to choose from and newer games don't really have a high standard to compete with. A couple good current indie games have already been mentioned in the thread, and for their price they do offer quite a lot, but their price is admittedly pretty low and it's indeed a different "level".

Not surprisingly, if you look at score aggregates or "best of" lists compiled by game news outlets, older games keep being the most prominent ones, from X3 itself to Freelancer even. Among the most recent ones, one of the most positively received (if not the best one, given the enthusiastic ratings and pretty high sales on Steam) was Rebel Galaxy, but I wouldn't say it's particularly better than the average when it comes to amount of content/production value ratio (personally I found it much more average than the very good scores it has would suggest, though I admit the presentation was extremely good: it just hadn't enough depth and longevity for me). At its current price tag, though, which is less than 20 bucks, it's a real steal and I thoroughly recommend it. Won't keep you occupied for hundreds of hours, there's just not enough in it to allow that, but while it lasts it's pretty solid.
I've had some fun with the Starpoint Gemini franchise too, which is kind of an hybrid, but many of their ships haven't even been made by the devs themselves and are bought assets they then modified instead, so you can't really praise them directly for the amount of content their games offer (which isn't *that* stellar, anyway). No Mans Sky has gotten much better than the trainwreck it was at launch, but in my book it isn't really a "space sim" game, it's a survival game that happens to be space themed, there's hardly any "simulation", so... meh.

Honestly, I'm pretty much with ledhead900 here: best space/economic sim is X3:AP (better if modded, of course, things like its station complex building still are completely broken and utterly unplayable: Litcube's Universe really is how the game should be played nowadays) and looks it will still be so for a while. Best easy to get into, player friendly story driven space fight and trade sim still is Freelancer: doesn't have the depth or ambitions of X games, but in its formula it's still unbeaten (plus it knew how to do "highways" ) and it has aged surprisingly well (all things considered ofc, it's VERY old by now). Elite Dangerous probably is what came closest - but still pretty short - to match it, problem with ED is it's just spacetrucking *only*, there really isn't much else to do (or worth doing anyway). The other smaller Freelancer like games, heh, each one does something right but doesn't really manage to get the whole product on that same level, or have that same feeling.

The space themed 4X genre is in a slightly better place than proper space sims, with quite a few more noteworthy titles, from Stellaris to Distant Worlds, Endless Space, Galciv (even though Stardock has really fallen from grace, but they shouldn't be completely dismissed just because Brad Wardell is a well known prick and bullshitter, pretty much "a Randy Pitchford that didn't make it" ) to name just a few. But overall the whole space setting has lost a lot of ground in the last generation. Which is probably the main reason why so many people fell for the Star Citizen trap.

EDIT: Ninjaed by EmperorDragon while I was writing. That we both happened to mention the same titles really says a lot about the current health of the space sim genre
I've tried Evochron, Avorion and several others of the titles mentioned: some are fairly good (got bored with Evochron VERY quickly though), but still it's indie games, they can only go so far.

[EmperorDragon]

No Mans Sky has gotten much better than the trainwreck it was at launch, but in my book it isn't really a "space sim" game, it's a survival game that happens to be space themed, there's hardly any "simulation", so... meh.

Wait what? Did they turn NMS into a survival game? How did they do it?

I played the very first version and it was just a casual (and quite boring) space exploration game, never looked back at it again. Do you actually have to stay alive with only bare necessities in the early game now? Like Empyrion? And work your way up past the survival part before you can strike out into space? Anything interesting to do once you are past the survival part?

Empyrion was never a survival game to begin with, only the very early game involves some survival gameplay, is NMS any different?

Maybe I should give it another go.

[Buzz2005]

No Mans Sky has gotten much better than the trainwreck it was at launch, but in my book it isn't really a "space sim" game, it's a survival game that happens to be space themed, there's hardly any "simulation", so... meh.

Wait what? Did they turn NMS into a survival game? How did they do it?

I played the very first version and it was just a casual (and quite boring) space exploration game, never looked back at it again. Do you actually have to stay alive with only bare necessities in the early game now? Like Empyrion? And work your way up past the survival part before you can strike out into space? Anything interesting to do once you are past the survival part?

Empyrion was never a survival game to begin with, only the very early game involves some survival gameplay, is NMS any different?

Maybe I should give it another go.

they have permadeath but its not really hard to survive, VR and actual multiplayer is coming, and another big update like NEXT, there is base building and world building is better, actual stuff under the water now including base building underwater

all in all its not a survival game but a super compfy exploration game, and its getting better and better

still not comparable to x4, whole other thing

[Misunderstood Wookie]

Can you name a few? I'd love to know. Space games, not RPGs, please.

Just going to snip this here.

There are couple top down arcade like X4 aims which offer what wr have here too albiet in early days or finished csnt remember them but have them wish listed on steam they aren't perfect but a different taste.

There was a indi promising title in 2017 featuring huge fleets csnt find it anymore.

While no man's sky is basically a survival it's came along way from a broken game enough to make a measurably positive come back. Finally delivering for the most part what was promised and it indeed is getting better ever update with as another said a large multi player update is coming. But the haters seem to all agree any version post " NMS Next Update" is how it should have launched and is actually worth buying now.

Freelancer is updated with a mod called crossfire greatly improves visuals widely larger universe with more life and ships, and player economics and player owned stations. It also got a thriving persistent server if you are keen on that aspect. decompiled the exe is for crossfire mod once for the server end to host local servers. Albiet you will loose some fancy things like Faction mangement plugins and stuff but it will work for a local simple crossfire server. Even that assid the single player is amazing.

Don't forget Mayhem for X3 AP with lite cube, it adds a race called ocv which are a persistent threat to the player which behaves like the player would building and owning things and they attack in waves every so often, and however, the main part of mayhem mod is that it adds territory control and conquer game play to X3 AP so now only thing missing from X3 vs X4 are complexes which aren't bad to setup though, it overhauls them to be somewhat not useless and downside of X3 is no cockpits but I think there is with the mods installed.


StarPoint Gemini Warlords ah yes.
The devs of that game approached me actually too see if I was interested in doing language work on future titles. In case you came across mods on workshop I go by Misunderstood Wookiee over on Steam, and some what Niche but popular mod called Grammar Lord OCD Edition was my creation.

Like wise you mention Evochron, I also have both Mercenary the newer in the series Legacy. An outdated but otherwise at the time popular mod for Legacy was also my doing which was the "Evochron Community Overhaul Project" or ECOP for short.
Gained a bit of a following, probably still works but you'll want to update the ReShade binaries manually, it does have a nifty installer with modular installation.

I wanted to explore that game a bit it more than I did but somehow the learning curve for it even exceeds X3's complex maze of menus. In fairness that game also acts as a space flight sim with emphasises on flight model and economy.

However the ship building is Legacy is unique in a sense that it came before X4 and offered inter changeable chassis you could move and re size the engines and add your own other bits and bob during the design placed on the craft how you saw fit to make your own unique looking craft but also serves gameplay in the lines of some of the stat's and ships handling is directly tied to how you design the craft then you save the template for later, it also features planetary flight model and yes you do have to think it over or you'll burn up on the way in or out.

[Kadatherion]

Wait what? Did they turn NMS into a survival game? How did they do it?

Mostly a matter of different definition here, I guess. Buzz2005 already replied well, let's just say that formula in my book is called "survival" games: it's actually a common thing for such games, "survival" mostly is a real factor only at the very beginning, once you have secured basic resources it's all about exploration, base building, taming dinosaurs, whatever is the theme of the specific titles. They throw you with nothing in a hostile environment and then you have to build from that, that's why they usually are called "survival" games, even when "surviving" isn't all that hard or even that central.

Anyway, yeah, I was one of the major NMS "haters" at launch, I enjoyed making fun of it as anyone else has, but by now I too have to admit it's become a pretty entertaining game. I just still wouldn't compare it to the space sims we are discussing here, it still is a very different beast at heart, but it's a pretty fair one now.

Freelancer is updated with a mod called crossfire greatly improves visuals widely larger universe with more life and ships, and player economics and player owned stations. It also got a thriving persistent server if you are keen on that aspect. decompiled the exe is for crossfire mod once for the server end to host local servers. Albiet you will loose some fancy things like Faction mangement plugins and stuff but it will work for a local simple crossfire server. Even that assid the single player is amazing.

Oh, I did play Crossfire (even though it's been quite a while since then now for me), whenever there's a modding community behind a game, I sure am down in the midst of it

Don't forget Mayhem for X3 AP with lite cube, it adds a race called ocv which are a persistent threat to the player which behaves like the player would building and owning things and they attack in waves every so often, and however, the main part of mayhem mod is that it adds territory control and conquer game play to X3 AP so now only thing missing from X3 vs X4 are complexes which aren't bad to setup though, it overhauls them to be somewhat not useless and downside of X3 is no cockpits but I think there is with the mods installed.

I like Mayhem a lot too, all my recent AP playthroughs have been with it on top of Litcube's, but I'd argue it's not as polished as pure Litcube's is, so I don't consider it a "must have" for everyone like LU undeniably is. LU is fine tuned to work like a clock, everything is extremely polished and - in a sense - streamlined, it's famous not just for being a great mod that adds a ton of functionalities but also a lot of UI and mechanic improvements too, it does really feel like an expansion by the actual developers (well, if they were as competent as Litcube is ), when usually mods add a lot of cool things but also have to compromise a bit, given the implementation limits, and are often rough around the edges.

Mayhem is indeed a bit rough around the edges imo, the dynamic war system is very cool but a bit chaotic at times (I always play it by toning down myself a lot of customizable values to keep it from going too overboard for my tastes), and other cool features like its marine boarding missions and "ventures" are awesome but I also feel are a bit... dispersive, could have been streamlined some more (IE: their equipment system is a bit redundant imo, cool to have, but they add even more micromanagement for relatively little return, could offer a bit clearer feedback about what's more efficient and why, and, anyway, in the end there's some clearly superior setups so they become a bit of a no brainer). Still definitely worth it, but not universally for everyone I believe.

However the ship building is Legacy is unique in a sense that it came before X4 and offered inter changeable chassis you could move and re size the engines and add your own other bits and bob during the design placed on the craft how you saw fit to make your own unique looking craft but also serves gameplay in the lines of some of the stat's and ships handling is directly tied to how you design the craft then you save the template for later, it also features planetary flight model and yes you do have to think it over or you'll burn up on the way in or out.

Right, you reminded me of something I was thinking about earlier after having mentioned Galactic Civilization: some indie devs have been going that way, at least up to a point, and it's something I would so love to see in a major space sim game, the whole "design your ships" system that's not uncommon in the 4x genre. Galactic Civilization has probably gone the farthest with it, giving you the chance to create virtually anything you could imagine by smartly building up your design from the offered "lego pieces". Many other 4x games are still a bit behind giving you only a fixed chassis and some sort of space to fill with modules, but Galciv showed you can go all for it without having to sacrifice the chance of coming up with actual good looking, graphically pleasing spaceships.
When I look at the often disappointing ship designs in X4, that are often as such at least partly because of the constraints their modular system have introduced, I keep asking myself: why didn't you go the full extra mile and really made it full modular, buildable by the player? Nobody would have had anything to complain about anymore. Instead of arguing about space dildoes and bricks we'd be here sharing designs, laughing at the dildoes and in awe of that megadreadnought design made with 2000 pieces with so many polys it would burn a 9900k and 2080TI

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

real expansions, not fire and forget DLCs

Firstly, most developers do not develop and maintain their own game engine, which is a highly expensive thing to do but sometimes absolutely necessary in order to achieve design goals.

Secondly, we do not know the precise nature of the DLCs ES have planned for X4 but ES do not really have a "fire and forget DLC" reputation. The premium DLC planned does seem to be intended to be "real expansions".

Finally, ALOT of games these days have purchasable cosmetics, pay-to-win, or pay-to-play type models to supplement their income and help keep paying for on-going support. Historically, ES have kept their model as either base game only or base game plus optional expansions (often free but the gravy train had to stop sometime). Given modding, I can not see them making a success of any model but the premium expansion approach.