No Single Player offline Mode then?

[Matt]

Do FD realise that some of us don't even need this whole rich experience they keep mentioning.

+1 to this.

So far, I've not seen anything that makes me think "wow - this is just so dynamic!" Sure prices change a bit but not in a way that didn't make me think it was random!

Yes yes, the eternal cry of "this is just beta!" well yep, only for a couple more weeks and I cant see them springing huge untested wads of functionality out on release day when they have 100,000 QA testers sitting around ready to try it out.

 

[1500]

Every time someone criticises the "game" on another thread, there's always someone who will shout "It's only a beta! You're not playing it! You're testing!". It's quite often the same people who are telling us here that it is indeed a game. Make your minds up.

What are you talking about, and how does that apply to my post?

 

[Foxis]

I understand people are unhappy, and I agree FD have been a bit terse and rigid in their communication regarding offline. I also agree they should have offered a proper apology directly.

However, the life of a developer is not that easy. It is impossible to keep everyone happy and it is extremely hard to deliver more complex projects without sometimes sacrificing features. And yes, they are sometimes features that you may have said you would deliver.
As a developer, I am personally wary of Kickstarter and to some extent even Steam Early Access for the very reason exhibited in this forum: People do obviously want to back developers directly and they do want access to the product before it is ready. However, in doing so there is little leeway given to the developer and little respect given to the fact that game development is a complex process and a project is often a moving target.

Kickstarter backers pledged money to FD to remake Elite according to their vision. It is mostly the same as investing in a company; you trust your money with a third party in the hopes that they will deliver according to your expectations. Sometimes they do, sometimes they do not. In neither case do you really have grounds for a refund. You have a right to be disappointed, sure, but not much more than that.

Pledging on Kickstarter, or buying in in early access or beta/alpha access is a risk. Life for everyone would be much easier if this was considered more in this discussion. All parties took a risk (yes, FD too). It mostly panned out, but not to the satisfaction of all backers. That is simply the nature of commercial software development.

So, please, do give FD the benefit of a doubt. I do not believe they are the bad guys some here paint them to be.

 

[neos]

-1 customer

Not interested in joining a debate, I just want to be counted as another disappointed customer who feels let down.

I work maritime security, and I only really game when I have those LONG hours to kill. I was looking forward to this more than any other game. Now I'm not.

That is all.

 

[1500]

Except, in my case ... I did not ask for my Kickstarter pledge back, have never downloaded anything (didn't buy the Beta), and simply asked for a refund of the Elite: Dangerous - Lifetime Expansion Pass which I bought from their shop.

All I got was a reply stating I was not entitled to have my Kickstarter pledge refunded, so my request was being refused.

I wonder how many others have had refunds they were entitled to refused, using the catchall, Cut & paste Kickstarter Funding reply, as a convenient excuse... perhaps hoping the person would not inquire again? .... I have put another. more insistent refund request in. Lets hope that one doesn't get refused.

Then what I stated and what I was replying to does not apply to you. Why would you respond to my post when it has nothing to do with your situation?

 

[xxThe_Dice_manxx]

Well, if there comes a court-ruling that Frontier must refund, it'll most certainly depend on the number of hours you've sunk into the game sofar. Mins is less than 2 hours at this point, as I barely played the game. But I fear that people who have over a hundred will have a hard time getting a refund on the 'there's no offline' reason. At any rate, those hoping for a refund through legal means better stop playing the game right now and hope that they still fall within any limit set.

Prove it, show a screen shot of your stats screen.

 

[Zenicetus]

Well, if there comes a court-ruling that Frontier must refund, it'll most certainly depend on the number of hours you've sunk into the game sofar. Mins is less than 2 hours at this point, as I barely played the game. But I fear that people who have over a hundred will have a hard time getting a refund on the 'there's no offline' reason. At any rate, those hoping for a refund through legal means better stop playing the game right now and hope that they still fall within any limit set.

IANAL, but I'm not sure number of hours played is a factor. Those with access to the Beta have not been given a complete game. Taking just one example, and probably the most salient one, the main site's marketing right now says "The Milky Way galaxy features 400 billion star systems; each one can be explored."

Can we do that in what they've allowed people to download so far? There is other current marketing language on the main site like "take part in alliances to bring down planetary economies" where it would be a stretch to call the Beta a complete game. We've only seen a few of the ships, and so on. But the fact that players have only been given access to a closed playing area and not the full Galaxy, may be enough to hang a refund claim on.

 

[bsolar]

The EULA is aligned exactly with EU law on sale of digital goods. It's hardly trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.

As far as I know the EU law states that the digital content provided has to meet its description, otherwise the customer is entitled repair, replacement or, if not viable, money refund even after the content was downloaded.

So if a customer downloaded the content which was promised to offer a given feature but the provided content does not offer the feature, I guess the customer has the right of receiving repair, replacement or money refund.

 

[littleminxundr]

Ignorance is not a defence against the law, but might work against contractual clauses. If the clause is not presented prominently enough in some countries it might be ruled null and void. If the clause is worded in an exceedingly complex and incomprehensible way it might be ruled null and void. In some countries if the clause is too unbalanced against the customer it has to be acknowledged explicitly, or it might be declared null and void.

It's most likely not the case at hand, but as you said it's the duty of any citizen to inform themselves and knowing your rights is very important.

And that's not even hinting at the fact that the Court might even slap you with 'Gross Ignorance', which is a criminal act. (Silly I know, I always laugh when I hear it... but there's such a thing as being criminally ignorant.)

Of course, anything can be contested and a novum can always be achieved, even in tried and tested clear cut cases. In this case I think a class-action is called for over individual pursuits... and then, after years of being in court, be happy of whatever is left of the summ after legal fees. (And not being surprised that you might have to pay still over getting money back.)

 

[reload]

So far, I've not seen anything that makes me think "wow - this is just so dynamic!" Sure prices change a bit but not in a way that didn't make me think it was random!

I have to say that when trading, I've seen plenty of occasions where the prices offered for goods at the top of the best return trade routes on Slopey's calculator has fallen over time, as I and others have been hammering them. Pretty neat, I thought.

 

[littleminxundr]

Prove it, show a screen shot of your stats screen.

I don't have to prove you anything.

 

[Joe Spivey]

Some people are at the point of saying "Gladly, when we get our money back", some like myself looked at David's answer session and saw yet another puff piece and are still pondering what to do, others like yourself are still on board. That is your good right. It's not going to change much. The fact that FDEV are not intent on honouring refunds it seems makes my mind fairly crystalline on what I will do if they don't honour a refund if I ask for one mind, your idea of people just shrugging their shoulders and walking off?

No. People deserve closure and remedy, if they can't get that in a civil and calm manner, then they should become grit, and contact consumer protection groups, contact gaming media, issue chargebacks, whatever it takes within the law to make it clear that this kind of conduct isn't acceptable. Letting FDEV just take your money and walk off laughing is nothing short of theft, and that should be called out as such.

What is all this about 'honouring refunds'? If you are not entitled to a refund then you are not entitled to a refund. To 'honour' a refund there first of all has to be an agreement that you are entitled to a refund. This is not the case. And before you try and argue that, go and read the terms and conditions that you agreed to by making the payment.

 

[ianw]

Some people are at the point of saying "Gladly, when we get our money back", some like myself looked at David's answer session and saw yet another puff piece and are still pondering what to do, others like yourself are still on board. That is your good right. It's not going to change much. The fact that FDEV are not intent on honouring refunds it seems makes my mind fairly crystalline on what I will do if they don't honour a refund if I ask for one mind, your idea of people just shrugging their shoulders and walking off?

No. People deserve closure and remedy, if they can't get that in a civil and calm manner, then they should become grit, and contact consumer protection groups, contact gaming media, issue chargebacks, whatever it takes within the law to make it clear that this kind of conduct isn't acceptable. Letting FDEV just take your money and walk off laughing is nothing short of theft, and that should be called out as such.

Oh come off it - it isn't theft just the same at isn't fraud. Your anger appears to be clouding your judgement.

It's a civil dispute that according to the terms you agreed to you may be on the wrong side of..

 

[Joe Spivey]

As far as I know the EU law states that the digital content provided has to meet its description, otherwise the customer is entitled repair, replacement or, if not viable, money refund even after the content was downloaded.

So if a customer downloaded the content which was promised to offer a given feature but the provided content does not offer the feature, I guess the customer has the right of receiving repair, replacement or money refund.

If this was an actual released game and not something in development you just might have a leg to stand on. As it is though... have a chair.

 

[Jorlin]

One thing i don't understand:

When people said how disappointed they were with the offline-desicion the were told:
"Then go for a refund and stop whining, problem solved"

Now when they say they are disappointed the will not get one they are told:
"Stop whining, you were never entiteled to get one".

Sometimes this community has an alien touch to me...

 

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

What is all this about 'honouring refunds'? If you are not entitled to a refund then you are not entitled to a refund. To 'honour' a refund there first of all has to be an agreement that you are entitled to a refund. This is not the case. And before you try and argue that, go and read the terms and conditions that you agreed to by making the payment.

I can easily make the argument that I'm entitled to one, it's up to them if they agree and honour it, if they don't, I hit them with a chargeback and leave them to clean up the mess. That's how I'll deal with it in this instance. Simples. I'm still somewhat saddened at how David has chosen not to delve into the technical areas of the decision because THAT would have helped settle a lot of minds, and I'm saddened at the fact he chose to ignore a lot of pertinent questions and instead focussed on more spin and PR sales speak.

 

[elkar]

On the plus side, at least I have learned a valuable life lesson;

I will not, ever, use Kickstarter to support any independent/small shop software development effort. Never ever, never again.

So, thanks for that, FDEV. I appreciate you poisoning the Kickstarter well for me, for all time.

So you made an investment and it failed. Therfore you wont invest ever again. Sound logic.

 

[Joe Spivey]

I can easily make the argument that I'm entitled to one, it's up to them if they agree and honour it, if they don't, I hit them with a chargeback and leave them to clean up the mess. That's how I'll deal with it in this instance. Simples. I'm still somewhat saddened at how David has chosen not to delve into the technical areas of the decision because THAT would have helped settle a lot of minds, and I'm saddened at the fact he chose to ignore a lot of pertinent questions and instead focussed on more spin and PR sales speak.

And I'm saddened by the fact that you can't just let this thread slide down the page into the oblivion of old news where it belongs. But hey-ho, as long as you keep trying to delay the inevitable we'll keep hitting you with the facts.

 

[littleminxundr]

I can easily make the argument that I'm entitled to one, it's up to them if they agree and honour it, if they don't, I hit them with a chargeback and leave them to clean up the mess. That's how I'll deal with it in this instance. Simples. I'm still somewhat saddened at how David has chosen not to delve into the technical areas of the decision because THAT would have helped settle a lot of minds, and I'm saddened at the fact he chose to ignore a lot of pertinent questions and instead focussed on more spin and PR sales speak.

Well, did you expect him to say things that can come back to bite him when it actually comes to the point where, by example, Liqua goes to court over it?

 

[Erna Jedermann]

The Dark knight returns...
Sorry white knights but I can't leave because they refuse my refund...but please not forget to -rep me....I need your bad emotions .... and to the rest of you wich cant leave...come to the dark side I have some legal not exploit not cheating Ideas how we can play in this wonderful Living Galaxy.

I really dont understand why they still believe that all will be good.....you will see ads...and then F2P....microtransactions.... you don't believe.....why? Ah FD/DB said so....They also said refund/offline mode......btw with ads/f2p it is clear why not offline....offline they cant send me ads...and offliner never f2p.....and offliner seldome make microtransactions because they get free mods....AND that is the secret they will hide.