No Single Player offline Mode then?

[RGS]

It was never an implication. It was a straight out feature that was even confirmed in the FAQ and many times later.

Not sure about that yet. It could be that they are only offering refunds for those that purchased it in the shop (not Kickstarter) AND have never participated in the tests.
That excludes a whole lot of people.


But they did exactly that.
The information was buried in a wall of text of marketing speech combined with additional promises. It was buried so deeply that many people didn't even realize it was in there. And they did it pretty much in the last minute before release.

How should they have handled it?

Once the possibility, that offline may have to be removed, was first discussed in earnest within the company, they should have mentioned it in the forums. And they should have mentioned the possibility as Kickstarter updates and on the webpage to prevent possible future mispurchases.

When the decision was finally made, it should have been announced in a sincere apology article, not in a spin-doctored marketing flyer.
In the same apology article, they should have offered total refunds for those who pledged for it or purchased it, regardless if they played it up to that time.

If it happened like that, I would just be disappointed, but not angry.

I completely agree with you here (and have posted similarly myself).

FD have handled this terribly. Aside from not mentioning it at all, I can't see how they could have done it much worse.

 

[Jason S]

Not that it seems to have anything to do with Single Player Offline being removed but those claiming that Log In authentication is not DRM need to actually go and re-read the current defination of Digital Rights Management which by the way is what D.R.M stands for. You can just go do a google search if you want and shock you'll get the same answers from places other than Wikipedia including the likes of News Papers, the BBC, University's, Computer Groups and even Digital Publishing groups.

D.R.M is considered to include any methods built into an Electrical Product or Service with the aim of controling the use of the product or device after sale, including but not limited to preventing resale or use of the product in a manner different to that which the original developer intended.

Simply by having you forced to LOG IN to the launcher Elite Dangerous has D.R.M, while yes it is a core part of the game if the game was originally published as intended with an OFFLINE component then you wouldn't need to login and thus there would be no D.R.M. How is the Launcher Log In DRM? Because it checks to see if you OWN the game, it authenticates it against the store and if you do not have it on your account then you are unable to login, hence D.R.M.

The reason DRM has such a bad name is because its seen as being a limitation forcing people who have brought a product to use a product the way the author wants them to and only that way. In most cases it does not prevent piracy as can be seen by the near next day cracking of most AAA games even with complex DRM management or heck even the piracy of games that use Steam or other platforms.. To most end users it is seen simply as a company saying we don't care that you've paid for the product you'll use it how we want or not at all and you most certainly will not resell it or anything like that.

In some countries certain aspects of it's use have caused legal challenges the same as EULA's have as most EULA's try and say you only 'loan' the software and do not have the right to resell, however most Countries have laws which allow the reselling of goods that you have purchased and software is considered a 'Good' this is in part why 2nd hand console games are traded and sold. In the few cases where such has gone to court the software companies typically have lost and been forced to allow the user to sell their product, this includes companies such as Adobe, Microsoft and yes even Blizzard (who have tried to prevent players from reselling things like Star Craft 2 accounts, WoW accounts etc).

Despite that aspect of DRM (login checks) Always Online technology started in the market, it's seen as hey look if you have to be online we can CHECK and see if you have the right to be on our product.. and it has not been taken well by the consumer base at all, Microsoft tried it with the X-Box One.. and they faced that large of a backlash that they quickly backpeddled and changed their minds on it and (unsurprisingly) the producer who was unwilling to at first budge suddenly 'retired' days after the backpedal.

Electronic Arts was forced to issue refunds, and eat a lot of humble pie over Sim City, they ended up patching in an offline mode and actually changing the entire way that Origin works allowing the 'Great game' gaurentee.

Blizzard was forced to issue refunds and actually taken to court in a number of countries and had it's South Korean offices raided by the Government over Diablo 3's.

Steam is in court over certain aspects of it's DRM and refund policy.

So yeah DRM is in the game and the removal of Single Player Offline means that DRM free versions of it can no longer be shipped.

Thankyou for the info

 

[beelbeebub]

If not delivering a feature that was always promised (not because of technical necessity but because of a design decision) is not something that requires an apology, what does?

If that is not a reason for an apology, nothing is.

So you have never set out on a project (I'll paint the kids room with Disney animals!) only to decide that you have to scale back your ambitions (I realised my drawing of Pooh bear would give the kids nightmares). Do you do every single thing you ever say you will do? "I'll start running more this year", "Time to lose a few pounds", "I'll stop smoking". Sometimes we don't manage to achieve everything we set out to do (right now I should be a billionaire who has set foot on the moon and is building a mars mission - sorry 10 year old me)
-
MB had a hard decision to make. To ditch one of the early design goals or scale back the online experience. Not an easy decision but one he had to make. I'd say that he doesn't have anything to apologise to us for. So far FD have delivered a solid game, sure there are bugs, big ones in some cases, but the progression from Alpha to where we are now is impressive.

 

[stephen_usher]

The first purchase applies to books and to software but not to services (AFAIK). As most software is not sold now but licenced as a service (which is particularly true of online games) the FP doctrine wouldn't apply as you are purchasing a licence to use a service (the FD servers to power your game) rather than a product.

As I said, in some countries, not all, this is illegal.

Also, Frontier Developments have been marketing this as a "product" that you "purchase" and not a "service" that you "subscribe to".

 

[eeps]

This might be an over simplistic idea .. but ..

Offline Mode worked in Beta 2.0x

So why not package that and give it to the offliners ?

And maybe patch it for them when FD has more time?

 

[A300]

Well since ED started FD got floated on the stock exchange and I guess their priorities changed. Its now all about the profit. Its currently £2.70 on the original price £1.20. Guess what of the back of our kickstarter contributions the company has done well with out even bring a product to market. With intent to being Xbox and ps4 in the business strategy is evident.

 

[stephen_usher]

At the time of the assertions by FD I stood up for the offline people - FD gave back assurances / promises / changed the KS FAQ / Mentioned it in the Reddit AMA / Magazines have quoted DB as saying an offline version would be available - and now it's not.

"Ask for a refund" was the attitude .. so I have. On the assumption that I am not banned I will let you know the outcome - original KS backer & namer of the Founder System.

Angry, upset & disillusioned by FD .. and things were going so well last week

Ouch! Sad to see you go Liqua. I wonder how many more of the £5K Kickstarter club will do the same.

 

[Laocoon]

This might be an over simplistic idea .. but ..

Offline Mode worked in Beta 2.0x

So why not package that and give it to the offliners ?

And maybe patch it for them when FD has more time?

This, exactly! It's quite obvious that an offline mode wouln't be as coherent and detailed as an online mode supported by a cluster of servers working 24/24 massaging data for the players. Or just ship the game with a simplified local server, this way we have an offline mode, simpler than the online one, and everybody's happy.

Just don't ditch an initial selling point of the project, it's just a serious lack of integrity toward the people who believed in the project.

 

[Globusdiablo]

....Angry, upset & disillusioned by FD .. and things were going so well last week

I agree. I think the "hidden" announcement of removing off-line mode one week before gamma says alot about what FD thinks of their backers. I'm gutted myself, and am actually having trouble enjoying this game. So much promised in-game content is still missing, grouping mechanics are non existant and so on, and so on...

My naive enthusiasm and trust in FD has turned sour.

I'll be playing something else for a while. I bought E: D, and will play it on and off, but I no longer have any expectations. Which is probably a good thing I guess...

Good luck FD.

 

[Windsaw]

So you have never set out on a project (I'll paint the kids room with Disney animals!) only to decide that you have to scale back your ambitions (I realised my drawing of Pooh bear would give the kids nightmares).

I am a software developer.
There are are two kinds of features.
A) Promised features
B) Nice-to-have features.
If we say that "this feature will be in" then it will be in. The only exception would be technical difficultes (it can't be implemented) or financial difficultes (which would mean severe mismanagement on our part).
If nice-to-have features threaten promised features, we cut back on the nice-to-have features.

Offline play was a promised feature.
As is already confirmed, removing offline play was not due to technical problems but because of a design decision.

This would be an absolute no-go in our company!
Promised features have to be in, even if it means the whole product would not be as good as it could be because we have to cut back on the nice-to-have features.

 

[beelbeebub]

to extend your metaphor ..

if all 3 meals were part of a package, at a set price for the package, most restaurants would offer a full refund to keep the customer happy.

ask yourself, how often have you heard the term 'partial refund' ?

now ask yourself how often youve heard the term 'full refund' or 'refunded in full' ?

A lot of restaurants do offer things like that as it's often a way of handling awkward customers, often they would offer an alternative such as a posh coffee, but here is not the place for a discussion on restaurant management!. However, ask yourself this. Did you really deserve a full refund? Did you not enjoy the starter and the main? Was it the restaurant's fault that the lemon sorbet which they had when you sat down and ordered your meal was unavailable when you got to dessert (last one was ordered by another diner).
-

Spoiler

What tends to happen (and I've been through this) is that if the restaurant offers partial refund and the diner threatens to go to court (and the restaurant believes they will) even though the court will probably agree that the partial refund is fair, the cost of getting that decision far outweighs the full refund, so it is cheaper to give a full refund to shut the diner up. I have come across a person who does this on a regular basis (hence my distaste for it). He will pitch his claim in for far more than he would be due in law but just below the level that it is cheaper to pay up than fight.

-
I stand by my statement that IMHO those that have bought into ED so far and cannot use the game online should be due up to the pre-order price of the game.

 

[Spook]

Hypocritical not to.

Refund requested.

 

[Erna Jedermann]

Lets wait all until 16.12 .... than ALL will play and we will see Match more posts like:
Can not join Open
All is Soooooo laggy
can not connect to server

Diablo 3, SimCity and much more has connection problems in the beginning and and P2P has the problem that it also depend with EACH Client.....
After that many more will understand why offline will be good.
And that who claim that ALL new Games come ONLINE prevered....Sirry guys ...online mode is mostly for PVP.....if they offer PVE than offline or REAL Solo is a must ......Diablo 3 is such a Real Solo.

 

[OriginalBadBoy]

Well since ED started FD got floated on the stock exchange and I guess their priorities changed. Its now all about the profit. Its currently £2.70 on the original price £1.20. Guess what of the back of our kickstarter contributions the company has done well with out even bring a product to market. With intent to being Xbox and ps4 in the business strategy is evident.

Being a shareholder I can tell you now, no shareholders had a say in any of these decisions. The fact that FD is no publicly trading has got nothing to do with it. But crack on and believe what you want.

 

[bassman]

Dear offline dissapointees, the reality is you are just the latest in a procession of sacrifices to the great gods of bling and "huge galaxy". Now while I sympathise with your predicament, those of you who dismissed (for example) coop multiplayer fans for complaining about the lack core enabling features, might want to reflect on how this tacit acceptance of gross under delivery possibly helped get us to where we are today.

 

[stimutacs]

Lets wait all until 16.12 .... than ALL will play and we will see Match more posts like:
Can not join Open
All is Soooooo laggy
can not connect to server

Diablo 3, SimCity and much more has connection problems in the beginning and and P2P has the problem that it also depend with EACH Client.....
After that many more will understand why offline will be good.

That seems too predictable and ordinary - I mean, we all see this coming, right? How many launches have we all been through, all following the same script?

No. What I hope is that FD really reach for the stars. Announce, out of the blue, just before the end of gamma, that the vision they have for the game is no longer possible without a 3DO Blaster addon card installed. What do you mean, you don't have one of those? Peasant.

 

[enbeekay]

I am a software developer.
There are are two kinds of features.
A) Promised features
B) Nice-to-have features.
If we say that "this feature will be in" then it will be in. The only exception would be technical difficultes (it can't be implemented) or financial difficultes (which would mean severe mismanagement on our part).
If nice-to-have features threaten promised features, we cut back on the nice-to-have features.

Offline play was a promised feature.
As is already confirmed, removing offline play was not due to technical problems but because of a design decision.

This would be an absolute no-go in our company!
Promised features have to be in, even if it means the whole product would not be as good as it could be because we have to cut back on the nice-to-have features.

So you're contradicting yourself with your two exceptions.
Clearly it's a technical difficulty i.e. they've made it very hard to implement which would require a lot of work which would lead into the second exception ---> financial difficulties i.e. how would a small independent developer be able to afford to implement it when it would require a huge amount of work? They don't have blizzards resources.

 

[eeps]

A lot of restaurants do offer things like that as it's often a way of handling awkward customers, often they would offer an alternative such as a posh coffee, but here is not the place for a discussion on restaurant management!. However, ask yourself this. Did you really deserve a full refund? Did you not enjoy the starter and the main? Was it the restaurant's fault that the lemon sorbet which they had when you sat down and ordered your meal was unavailable when you got to dessert (last one was ordered by another diner).
-

Spoiler

What tends to happen (and I've been through this) is that if the restaurant offers partial refund and the diner threatens to go to court (and the restaurant believes they will) even though the court will probably agree that the partial refund is fair, the cost of getting that decision far outweighs the full refund, so it is cheaper to give a full refund to shut the diner up. I have come across a person who does this on a regular basis (hence my distaste for it). He will pitch his claim in for far more than he would be due in law but just below the level that it is cheaper to pay up than fight.

-
I stand by my statement that IMHO those that have bought into ED so far and cannot use the game online should be due up to the pre-order price of the game.

er.. i see your point im just not sure I agree ..

they paid so they could play for years .. not a few months

in AUD i paid $100, and i expected to play for years, so why should I lose most of that for the 'privelage' of playing for a few months, considering most of that time I was bug testing, and there were lots of bugs, so the game didnt work 'properly'.

you wont agree, and thats ok, i see your point, i just think you are being unfair to a group of people to whom just got let down and mis-led
( although I prefer the term 'ganked' )

 

[VR Mr Teatime]

So you're contradicting yourself with your two exceptions.
Clearly it's a technical difficulty i.e. they've made it very hard to implement which would require a lot of work which would lead into the second exception ---> financial difficulties i.e. how would a small independent developer be able to afford to implement it when it would require a huge amount of work? They don't have blizzards resources.

It's probably more a security difficulty.......

 

[Sylv3r]

Few people have voted compared to the number of customers/pledgers but its significant that there are many who dont agree with Frontier to not have offline mode.
This cant be hided .. even by whiteknights who defend Frontier (i understand it, even if i think some deserve Frontier instead of helping them).
I love Frontier, really, its a great company, but that dont mean i can accept all they decide when this decision is deserving the community.
Hope it will be listen and take in consideration.