No Single Player offline Mode then?
- Thread starter Brandon31
- Start date
- Status
1. I think he's been pretty clear it is. I think that's possibly your own interpretation, rather than what he has actually said. Can only suggest re-reading.
2. Even if they believe it will damage the product, which is what Michael is saying? Again, it sounds like you have too much hope when there probably isn't a place for it.
3. That's really not the same thing. Listening to something that won't do what we're saying in #2, isn't listening to what would.
Hope that explains a bit. I feel it's been made perfectly clear: No offline. If you wanted offline, they've suggested asking for a refund. That is clear. However upsetting that is.
Maybe I do have too much hope and faith in FD to realise this is a mistake, if that is the case then we will eventually part ways without too many tears being shed by either party I guess
full refunds?
Sad to say that since this topic has slowed down (relatively) the mods will be slapping themselves on the back thinking the 15minute cool downs have worked, I beg to differ, I think with a fairly mature player base most people have realised that there's no much more to add that hasn't already been said, the point has been made not to dismiss/ignore or try to fool this community again, let's hope we can move on and find a solution because we all want this game to be a massive success.
but as you see there are people there reading all our posts
Forum access =/= access to their payment servers...most likely reading them from home PCs
they have to, their store "rules" are only text on a website.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
but as you see there are people there reading all our posts
Again kinda obvious, they are not at work but reading posts from home.
Forum access =/= access to their payment servers...most likely reading them from home PCs
? thats just nonsense dude
they have to, their store "rules" are only text on a website.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
but as you see there are people there reading all our posts
UK Distance Selling Regulation cover it. They haven't actually supplied you with a product yet. All you have, as many are fond of telling you, is "only a beta". In addition, as alpha and beta backer payments were charged as one block amount (meaning each component was not itemised on the invoice/order page), I think they'll have a hard time justifying giving those people anything less than the full amount.
It was a theoretical example that FD may one day find themselves in, I wasn't trying to suggest it as a description of their current situation. I tried to make that clear in the brackets, obviously I failed :/
Have you played the game?
They have to apologise because they took payment. That money has been held by them for up to a year. That money could be earning interest in a bank account.
As a kickstarter backer totally unaffected by these developments I am astounded at Frontiers decision and chosen method of announcement on this issue. I have held fire for a couple of days on posting on this issue because I really wanted to let it sink in and post a measured response accordingly.
As to the reasons the decision was made, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that, however, as others have said, I am struggling to believe that it only became apparent that Single Offline wasn't viable in the last few days and this close to release. Surely it must have become apparent sometime ago that this was going to be the case, and as such, it should have been communicated to us, via the forums, and in the appropriate newsletter, as soon as it was so much as a possibility, let alone a 'tough decision made'.
Whether or not anything was 'promised' is fairly moot at this point, the point is that Frontier staff, (at least some culpability), and moderators, (not their fault), and the community at large thought there was the option of Single Offline still at 15:40 hours on Friday just gone, this is unacceptable. Whilst some of the people claiming they will take x, y or z legal action, report the issue, or in some way derail Frontiers launch event are, in my opinion, overeating, some of the people defending Frontier on this decision are equally as lamentable.
@ Frontier - You must realise, (and surely do), that crap sticks and becomes hard to wash off, some of those that have posted in this thread and others have been your most ardent backers and supporters, many of them have defended your policy and track record, sometimes rightly, sometimes not so much so. It was never their job to do so, nor was it requested by Frontier, however, do not underestimate what the good 'word of mouth' aspect has done for your name, your brand and your game. Also, do not underestimate how damaging it is or how long it will take to wash the stains out of the laundry from this mess of an announcement.
The omens are worrying to say the least now, we learn that the statement 'we are making the game we want to play' now actually reads, 'we are making a platform that may, one day, become the game we want to play'. We learn that a decent sized part of the proposed features may well permanently be on the cutting room floor, and, we have our faith shaken that if something as fundamental as an entire game mode can suddenly be 'not viable' then what next? It seems if something like that can be dropped then no proposal is safe, like it or not, some trust has gone Frontier, of course not from all, but from a percentage of fans, some heavily involved financially, be it in shares, pledge level or just 'word of mouth positives'. The problem is Frontier, that this is starting to smell like you are in a bit over your heads, be it financially or simply from an overreaching point of view, 'we will release when its ready' seems to have gone out of the window, it wasn't 'ready' before Fridays announcement and is even less 'ready' if fundamental features are being canned.
To those of you that cannot play without offline mode, or are at least affected by it, to a larger or smaller degree, you have my empathy and hopes that Frontier will change their minds on this, to posters arguing with those affected, some of you should take a step back and think, you really should. Many of us are backers of Elite Dangerous, very nearly all of us are supporters of Frontier, we of course can have differing views on Supercruise and mining, without doubt, but the rug being pulled out from under the feet of some of us affects us all, it may be you or me next, it may be a feature we consider vital next, it may be us asking for a refund if this happens again. We should stand as one here, a community united, because this has the potential to hurt us all.
As to the reasons the decision was made, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that, however, as others have said, I am struggling to believe that it only became apparent that Single Offline wasn't viable in the last few days and this close to release. Surely it must have become apparent sometime ago that this was going to be the case, and as such, it should have been communicated to us, via the forums, and in the appropriate newsletter, as soon as it was so much as a possibility, let alone a 'tough decision made'.
Whether or not anything was 'promised' is fairly moot at this point, the point is that Frontier staff, (at least some culpability), and moderators, (not their fault), and the community at large thought there was the option of Single Offline still at 15:40 hours on Friday just gone, this is unacceptable. Whilst some of the people claiming they will take x, y or z legal action, report the issue, or in some way derail Frontiers launch event are, in my opinion, overeating, some of the people defending Frontier on this decision are equally as lamentable.
@ Frontier - You must realise, (and surely do), that crap sticks and becomes hard to wash off, some of those that have posted in this thread and others have been your most ardent backers and supporters, many of them have defended your policy and track record, sometimes rightly, sometimes not so much so. It was never their job to do so, nor was it requested by Frontier, however, do not underestimate what the good 'word of mouth' aspect has done for your name, your brand and your game. Also, do not underestimate how damaging it is or how long it will take to wash the stains out of the laundry from this mess of an announcement.
The omens are worrying to say the least now, we learn that the statement 'we are making the game we want to play' now actually reads, 'we are making a platform that may, one day, become the game we want to play'. We learn that a decent sized part of the proposed features may well permanently be on the cutting room floor, and, we have our faith shaken that if something as fundamental as an entire game mode can suddenly be 'not viable' then what next? It seems if something like that can be dropped then no proposal is safe, like it or not, some trust has gone Frontier, of course not from all, but from a percentage of fans, some heavily involved financially, be it in shares, pledge level or just 'word of mouth positives'. The problem is Frontier, that this is starting to smell like you are in a bit over your heads, be it financially or simply from an overreaching point of view, 'we will release when its ready' seems to have gone out of the window, it wasn't 'ready' before Fridays announcement and is even less 'ready' if fundamental features are being canned.
To those of you that cannot play without offline mode, or are at least affected by it, to a larger or smaller degree, you have my empathy and hopes that Frontier will change their minds on this, to posters arguing with those affected, some of you should take a step back and think, you really should. Many of us are backers of Elite Dangerous, very nearly all of us are supporters of Frontier, we of course can have differing views on Supercruise and mining, without doubt, but the rug being pulled out from under the feet of some of us affects us all, it may be you or me next, it may be a feature we consider vital next, it may be us asking for a refund if this happens again. We should stand as one here, a community united, because this has the potential to hurt us all.
yes and so? i already had a full refund on minecraft (xbox) as i discovered that some functions were restricted on my system. we are not all americans here
I feel betrayed and it's a fact that a promise wasn't kept.
The (real!) offline mode was and is a key feature of the game for me. The reasons for that are my own business.
Frontier shouldn't underestimate the consequences of lies. People have good memory and "the web" even more so.
No matter how good the reputation was until now, the damage is done and it won't go away.
The (real!) offline mode was and is a key feature of the game for me. The reasons for that are my own business.
Frontier shouldn't underestimate the consequences of lies. People have good memory and "the web" even more so.
No matter how good the reputation was until now, the damage is done and it won't go away.
Bottom line no server released as it "contains the secrets of the universe", in other words, not sharing our server , it would give you too much control and goodness knows what may happen, basically intellectual property paranoia...
? thats just nonsense dude
Really? Yet you and I both have access to their forums but (hopefully) not their refund controls...
I feel sorry that you're forced into demanding a refund because of this situation - but I think you're not really sounding reasonable at demanding an instant response on a Sunday evening.
I have not played the game. I have helped test it.
Again, I am just answering your question. Hope that is ok.
From what I gather - specifically from -
a) I don't care about the intent for a shared universe.
b) I don't care if someone spills the secrets of the universe.
c) I am much more willing to tolerate a worse experience for both than I think I am being given credit for as part of this generalisation, specifically I have a high tolerance for things that work at all and little for things that, well, don't, at all.
In fact the things that seem to be the stumbling blocks are things I would find it hard to care any less about, especially given that solo is about the best shot at getting a game. It's 100% drawbacks for features that I think are some truly misguided concepts - seriously - it is apparently totally critical that I get up to the minute commodity prices and my generic $station and $bounty missions are specifically the right degree of utterly forgettable filler? Wait, that's undeliverable online? Oh no! SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING.
I'm curious as to whether "refunds" were the only metric considered here. Not "lost future sales". Not "cost of looking like another shifty kickstarter project to customers". Personally I'd be double checking just how expensive it would be to, you know, deliver the thing they said they were.
- Status