No Single Player Offline Mode then? [Part 2]

[Anne Otherplayer]

Sometimes a person HAS to do what is morally right and not what is legally necessary. A company should do this too because it reflects directly on the people that run it. Or in this case run it into the ground.

 

[phlOgistOn]

Elite: Dangerous - Beta FORC-FDEV-D-1002 1 $75.00
Elite: Dangerous - Lifetime Expansion Pass FORC-FDEV-D-1006 1 $50.00
Subtotal $125.00
Grand Total $125.00

So as per this receipt, after the beta ends we are entitled to nothing more and the contract was fulfilled? ! It was sold with the pre-order of the final game as it was written on the sales page. That part of the contract is still unfulfilled and cancel able. At least a pro rated refund is due, and the way to pro rate it is time the game is promised to be alive minus time beta was active. They said they will make sure the game will stay alive in perpetude so what is infinity minus 2 months? Well that's the percentage of the paid amount that is due as a refund.

See that to me looks like you'd be entitled to a $50 refund for the lifetime pass - but not the $75 for the beta

 

[Anne Otherplayer]

Lucky you to live in a country determined to protect their consumers. Australia on the other hand is the well known dumping ground for third rate and obsolete technology and products simply because our comsumer rights follow the corporate centric American model of 'we have the power to stall your complaints in the courts until you go broke and the government will back us to the hilt'.

Valve is being sued by Australia's consumer rights commission, the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission), over its cumbersome refund policy on Steam.

The ACCC alleges that Valve's refund policy indicated the following:

Consumers were not entitled to a refund for any games sold by Valve via Steam in any circumstances.
Valve had excluded, restricted or modified statutory guarantees and/or warranties that goods would be of acceptable quality.
Valve was not under any obligation to repair, replace or provide a refund for a game where the consumer had not contacted and attempted to resolve the problem with the computer game developer; and the statutory consumer guarantees did not apply to games sold by Valve.
These draconian rules didn't jibe well with Australian law.

"It is a breach of the Australian Consumer Law for businesses to state that they do not give refunds under any circumstances, including for gifts and during sales," stated ACCC chairman Rod Sims. "Under the Australian Consumer Law, consumers can insist on a refund or replacement at their option if a product has a major fault."

"The consumer guarantees provided under the Australian Consumer Law cannot be excluded, restricted or modified," he added.

Unlike many consumer right advocacy groups, the ACCC is in cahoots with the Australian government. According to its official site, "appointments to the ACCC involve participation by Commonwealth, state and territory governments" and "the ACCC currently comes under the portfolio responsibilities of The Treasury." That sounds pretty official.

As a result, Valve is willing to comply with Australian law here. In a statement to Kotaku Valve said, "We are making every effort to cooperate with the Australian officials on this matter, while continuing to provide Steam services to our customers across the world, including Australian gamers."

 

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

A good metaphor would be that someone sells you a conservatory that costs £8000.

However, upon inspection of the receipt you find out that the actual breakdown is that what you've paid for is £8000 of design and sketchwork, parts, and labour, but listed as individual items. The actual conservatory will be delivered to you as an item valued at £0.00. If the conservatory ends up defective, then the seller turns around and says "Sorry, no refund, you agreed to the terms and conditions and we supplied you with everything you asked for, the Conservatory is the result and as you will see on your receipt, has no remedial value."

Now naturally this is applied to a physical good, and not a digital one, and law has yet to really catch up with digital goods as quickly, because digital goods are still evolving way faster than the law is able to keep pace, but a judge would apply the same mentality to it, and come to a similar conclusion. It wouldn't end well for FDEV. You don't play those kinds of shenanigans unless you're REALLY REALLY sure nobody is going to call you out on it.

 

[Phelix]

That is horrible, here the law says that anything you should expect to last longer than five years automatically has five years warranty, how that came to include cell phones beats me... But it includes pretty much every household appliance, laptop and so on... So we're pretty safe....

 

[Anne Otherplayer]

Picture this. In a room of investors and partners. You see and overview of what they hope to make. So you say, good idea, here's my cash, build it. So they build on the idea, but one of the parts doesn't want to work, and if you force it the whole idea is messed up... for the idea to be ready to sell that chapter of the plan has to be edited out... which is not fun, it has potential but just can't work.. shame that... BUT... the idea is sent out.

But what if the part will work and other companies have made the same product with that part working fine but they just don't feel like going to the trouble of making it work, or making it work goes against their true idea that was not divulged to you. What if what they told you was simply untrue in order to get you to bankroll the idea they really had but never mentioned?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

This company clearly has no ETHICS at all. They just scammed all of the offline supporters. There is no other way to put it. You can sugar coat it all you want. We got SCAMMED.


The future is not well with frontier development.

They are hiring, I wonder why no one is rushing to go work for them?

 

[phlOgistOn]

This company clearly has no ETHICS at all. They just scammed all of the offline supporters. There is no other way to put it. You can sugar coat it all you want. We got SCAMMED.


The future is not well with frontier development.

The trouble with bending over to help one group of customers is that there will almost certainly be another less savoury group of customers standing behind you waiting to take advantage of your kindness.

 

[Anne Otherplayer]

The trouble with bending over to help one group of customers is that there will almost certainly be another less savoury group of customers standing behind you waiting to take advantage of your kindness.

You should bend over to help out ALL of your customers, you are only as strong as they (the customers) are friendly.

 

[Ruffgenius]

I'm quite surprised with how the situation on a whole has been dealt with. It even made BBC/Sky news.

They have taken a big chunk of the game away which people backed for.

Lets not kid our selves, they can call it a "beta" all they like it was early access! No one pays to bug hunt. They pay to play.

They have not even offered any kind of compensation or anything.

I know if you rang your bank, pay pal and diverted them to news you would get you your refund it might take some time but you'll get it.

Me personally, I backed the game because I liked the sound of a new space sim which I could play online or offline. Same reason I've back SC.

If people want a refund give them one, show your player base you have just as much good faith in them as they had shown you by backing this game and hell you might get some of them to stay or even come back to the game, offer them some form of compensation and just admit you were wrong and this should have came out 10 months ago.

Also you are only going to offer a refund if people haven't played it? What person buys Beta (early access) to a game to then sit on it for months until release?

Me however will not be asking for a refund. I like the game and I am in part of world where I have internet coming out my ears whether it be wifi or my 152mbs internet connection, but I know there are people that don't have that and I wish you all the best in trying to get your refunds.

I truly hope you get them.

Let this be a wake up call to all those that offer things as beta(early access) and then change the game at the last minute and just hope it will all blow over.

 

[phlOgistOn]

You should bend over to help out ALL of your customers, you are only as strong as they (the customers) are friendly.

Giving blanket refunds is pretty much never a good idea for a business - goodwill gestures can temper the reactions somewhat but at that stage it really is a business decision, how much should we give to assuage the anger vs how much will this affect future relations.

"A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

http://inaneexplained.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/fight-club-car-recall.html


'Business Ethics' is an oxymoron btw

 

[Jonbe54]

Valve is being sued by Australia's consumer rights commission, the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission), over its cumbersome refund policy on Steam.

The ACCC alleges that Valve's refund policy indicated the following:

Consumers were not entitled to a refund for any games sold by Valve via Steam in any circumstances.
Valve had excluded, restricted or modified statutory guarantees and/or warranties that goods would be of acceptable quality.
Valve was not under any obligation to repair, replace or provide a refund for a game where the consumer had not contacted and attempted to resolve the problem with the computer game developer; and the statutory consumer guarantees did not apply to games sold by Valve.
These draconian rules didn't jibe well with Australian law.

"It is a breach of the Australian Consumer Law for businesses to state that they do not give refunds under any circumstances, including for gifts and during sales," stated ACCC chairman Rod Sims. "Under the Australian Consumer Law, consumers can insist on a refund or replacement at their option if a product has a major fault."

"The consumer guarantees provided under the Australian Consumer Law cannot be excluded, restricted or modified," he added.

Unlike many consumer right advocacy groups, the ACCC is in cahoots with the Australian government. According to its official site, "appointments to the ACCC involve participation by Commonwealth, state and territory governments" and "the ACCC currently comes under the portfolio responsibilities of The Treasury." That sounds pretty official.

As a result, Valve is willing to comply with Australian law here. In a statement to Kotaku Valve said, "We are making every effort to cooperate with the Australian officials on this matter, while continuing to provide Steam services to our customers across the world, including Australian gamers."

HA! That is a work in progress - it's very wording is ambiguous and open to a number of interpretations, a deeply legalistic statement designed to confuse and allow stalling room. We will see how it plays out, I've been around the block a few times and I have little faith in our legal mechanisms or the backbone of our politicians.

 

[foxpur]

Well, I've also been told the same about steam games. That you don't own them but you rent them, just read the EULA... But that is just it, the EU law says that to sell anything to EU customers, your EULA is trumped by EU law every time, and so is every other sneaky work around to try and diminish our rights. Apple has been burned quiet hard from that here in Norway, since here it is even more severe... We have a 5 year warranty on our cell phones by law... Our consumer rights are paramount...

Edit: and we're not even properly part of the EU...

This isn't a game yet... the Steam products are complete. consumer rights do not apply to KNOWN incomplete products, those are 'as-is' and exempt from refund. You see that all the time on ebay.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Sometimes a person HAS to do what is morally right and not what is legally necessary. A company should do this too because it reflects directly on the people that run it. Or in this case run it into the ground.

With the company as young as it is they are financially, they haven't got the capital to cater to morality.
However, the companies that have a firm legal leg to stand on very rarely choose moral path.

(I don't agree with it, but law is there to allow them to keep afloat too)

 

[foxpur]

This company clearly has no ETHICS at all. They just scammed all of the offline supporters. There is no other way to put it. You can sugar coat it all you want. We got SCAMMED.

I completely disagree.
You knew it was an unfinished product subject to needed changes to be able to complete the final product. No scam, you bought early before all the eggs were in the basket (to mix a metaphor), now an egg is cracked so they tossed it and you are mad... doesn't actually matter to the overall basket.

A scam is a implied cheat from day one. Since they didn't, you say they did is slander and subject to legal action, so I'd be more careful... after all, you know they follow the letter of the law.

 

[Jonbe54]

This isn't a game yet... the Steam products are complete. consumer rights do not apply to KNOWN incomplete products, those are 'as-is' and exempt from refund. You see that all the time on ebay.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Haven't got the capital to cater to morality . . there's an interesting accomodation to corporate greed.


What a crock of sh@t.


With the company as young as it is they are financially, they haven't got the capital to cater to morality.
However, the companies that have a firm legal leg to stand on very rarely choose moral path.

(I don't agree with it, but law is there to allow them to keep afloat too)

JEEZUZ that is without a doubt the biggest load of rubbish I have ever read.

If a company - ANY company cannot AFFORD to be run in a moral and legal way then it shouldn't be allow to operate - PERIOD.

I myself have been a small business man in the transport sector for close on 20 years and understand the exingencies of the open market. I wasn't given a 'get out of free jail' card when I first started operating and had to wait for the monthy cycle of billing roundabouts to come my way. If I had crossed that legal line and attempted to shaft my suppliers or customers I would have been dealt with faster than a cut cat.

........... but then again I'm ONLY a small businessman ............. and undeserving of corporate considerations eh??????????

 

[Papa Smurf]

I, and I imagine most others against always online DRM, would be more than happy to shut up if we could just get our refunds.

You are 100% correct! Give people their refund and most of us if not all will be gone!

 

[foxpur]

But what if the part will work and other companies have made the same product with that part working fine but they just don't feel like going to the trouble of making it work, or making it work goes against their true idea that was not divulged to you. What if what they told you was simply untrue in order to get you to bankroll the idea they really had but never mentioned?
?

Well, 2 answers here:
A) They didn't find a way, regardless of how or why.
B) The last line can be considered a legal attack on the company since you can't prove it. I more suspect they can prove what is needed that did try, in which case you could be looking at civil court against you. I can't imagine a lawyer taking that kind of case for you.

(In case you wonder, I work with legal contracting in media)

 

[Jonbe54]

Well, 2 answers here:
A) They didn't find a way, regardless of how or why.
B) The last line can be considered a legal attack on the company since you can't prove it. I more suspect they can prove what is needed that did try, in which case you could be looking at civil court against you. I can't imagine a lawyer taking that kind of case for you.

(In case you wonder, I work with legal contracting in media)

Yes it shows.

 

[Space Dandy]

See that to me looks like you'd be entitled to a $50 refund for the lifetime pass - but not the $75 for the beta

I bought the beta for 75$ and that includes beta access AND the the mercenary edition of the game. You are paying 25$ for beta access the other 50$ is for mercenary edition.

At least that was the price break down WHEN I bought into beta.


Regardless though HOW they handle this matter shows their ethics or lack of and how they view their clients.

 

[Papa Smurf]

Decision and communication that "off-line" mode is going to be removed should have happened long before beta-testing. If this was communicated to everyone and refund option was offered FD would not be in this mess! *****<<<< Like it or not they only have themselves to blame >>>>*****

 

[CMDR Don't Shoot]

Give people their refund and most of us if not all will be gone!

I bought the beta and played the HECK out of it, I'm bored now Oh! also! I'm outraged at the offline issue, I want a refund!
I was a kickstarter backer and spent a lot of money on my pledge, now some bills have come in and ... oh! hang on! I'm outraged at the offline issue! I want a refund!
I played the original Elite, I got the beta straight away, but now it turns out I don't have enough time ... oh! hang on! I'm outraged at the offline issue! I want a refund!
I love the game! I pledged a LOT, but I'd rather just have paid the final price, unfortunately I've already paid for ... oh! hang on! I'm outraged at the offline issue! I want a refund!