No Single Player Offline Mode then? [Part 2]

[Michael Brookes]

I must not have expressed myself clearly: it was not my intention to suggest that you wanted to hide it. I meant what I said when said I have no reason to think that anyone at FD had less than honest intentions about the game. What I am puzzled with is the fact that in the newsletter, the news was reported as one would comment the cut of a minor feature, thus giving the impression that you did not expect it to be important to so many players, so what I was wondering is: is that actually the case? Were you expecting fewer people to be affected, and were you not expecting those who would be affected to be so passionate about it?

Anyway, I realize you have already answered one of my questions and you cannot engage in personal exchange with everyone, so I will understand if you will not reply any further.

Thank you for your time.

If you're suggesting the wording could have been better then that is possibly true. It seemed obvious to me when I read it, but I have more context. We fully expected that some people would be unhappy with the news. Although to be honest I've received complaints when we add features as well!

Michael

 

[Scharnhorst]

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

Will be gone and regretting the day we every looked this way.

 

[Magic Man]

I think many people need to brush up on what alpha/beta programs are...

You paid to be part of the program. You paid to have early access to the code and help with fixes/suggestions etc.

Being part of an alpha/beta program guarantees you nothing. Those mentioning Trading Standards etc. in the UK. This is nothing to do with them - you haven't bought a commercial product, you bought entry into a testing program. You've had exactly what you paid for.

 

[Michael Brookes]

The thing is, we thought that offline mode had been established as one of the core pillars of the game.

If you look at the Kickstarter page (which can't be edited once it is finished) it's clear that the evolving galaxy and multiplayer are the key pillars from the game. We did want to support offline play as well though and back then it seemed like something we could support without harming the rest of the game. Unfortunately that didn't prove to be the case.

Michael

 

[Phelix]

I've played plenty of games where they changed things after purchase making it not the game i bought. Can i claim refunds on all those as well?!

EU is looking at GTA San Andreas after the patch that removed several songs from the game, and people who bought that might be entitled to a refund as long as you are from the EU. Since the game no longer is the game you actually bought... So I'd say FD is on shaky grounds here...

 

[Adept]

I have very limited time for playing (and I hate it). I specifically want to make that time count. Having a separate off-line commander would not help in this at all. I want to live the life of my main character, seeing the changes in the living galaxy. Playing off line on the side when I can't get online would not motivate. I want the real thing, even if it is in small doses.

Other people's mileage may vary, of course.

Actually I think it's a good idea I just didn't want to be forced to play that way all the time for a number of reasons listed below, I planned on having seperate off line and online single player commanders to try it out:

1) I have a busy job and a young son, I get very little gaming time and I need to be able to play when I get the chance regardless of if Frontier have planned server maintinance or are having server capacity issues, I am not reassured about this as every single online game I've ever played has suffered these issues.

2.) I have as I've said very little play time any more, when I do get the chance I was most looking forward to playing as an explorer, since the game syncs exploration data with the living galaxy in online single player (the only single player mode now) and given that I assume we will all start close together in the Galaxy or players would never find or influence each other I'm unlikley to ever find a system the 24/7 early 20's players haven't beaten me to.

3.) Despite assurance of server archiving should Frontier adandon the game or shutdown in the future it does give me concerns if the game will be playable in 10 years time, add to this my concerns about there plans to support the servers through Microtransactions and how this will impact the game and their ability to maintain the servers. Will they introduce subscriptions or make Micro Transactions so necassary it becomes pay to play like many Android and Apple games.

4.) The other reason for an off-line mode modability, you talk about the Elder Scrolls the best thing about those games they gave you your own world you could mod to your hearts content without having to worry about impact on fairness or other players the online only model would make signifigant modding impossible as opposed to only possible in your off-line Elite universe.

The living galaxy model sounds interesting as I say I don't hate it very happy to give it a try but also badly wanted the off-line mode as an alternative and wouldn't have backed it if I'd know that wouldn't be an option because of bad experiences with basicly every online only game I've ever played.

My biggest issue as someone who will only be able to play infrequently, I don't feel the evolving galaxy on-line only model will fit me very well, so you may not care and feel it doesn't matter but to many of us it is I assure you a very big deal that the promise off-line mode has been dropped and has very much influence my decision not to spend any more money with Frontier in the future.

 

[Drexen]

As David as mentioned it wasn't dropped purely for technical reasons. There is little that is impossible, but impractical is a different issues as is not achieving the core pillars of the game.

Michael

Thank you for your reply. I note that you did not give a response to my request for the exact date that the decision to drop offline was made so I will assume this information forms part of the legal deliberations that are obviously still taking place regarding refunds.

 

[Roylepython]

Wouldnt care but......

I wouldnt care a less about the offline mode apart from this statement from a offical reviewer (source eurogamer) which well sums up this problem in 1.

Looking further ahead, we're faced with the possibility that Elite: Dangerous will become unplayable if Frontier ever stops supporting the game and shuts down the servers.
​

Which is being seen more and more in this day in age.

 

[Ecks Theory]

As I say - the refunds policy is being reviewed - I can't add anything beyond that I'm afraid.

Michael

I dont usually play this card, but I feel quite angry about the whole affair. So I want you to know who your dealing with. Im disabled. Ive been disabled for almost 17 years of my life. I dont have a lot of money, as being disabled has limited my ability to work and save. So when I do spend money on a product I take great care to do so knowing that it will block me from spending money in other areas.

So when looking at your policy. I want you to remember that should you decide not to refund our money, that from that point on you will have stolen money from a disabled person. And no matter what else you do in life, youll always have done that.

And with that said you can now watch me being abused for this post.

 

[Drexen]

Their KINDNESS? I was mugged by a bandit wearing a Frontier shirt who robbed be of $75 and kicked me in the gut and now I must rely on their kindness? Thieves do not desire to return money they "acquired".

I agree with him over this. If they refund Alpha and Beta backers there will be some who take the refunds and then buy the game for £35/£40. However, that is not our problem. It's Frontier's.

 

[badsector84]

Hello Michael

Can I ask you how many people worked on the integration of offline mode?
Is there a team specially worked on the issue?

 

[phlOgistOn]

Their KINDNESS? I was mugged by a bandit wearing a Frontier shirt who robbed be of $75 and kicked me in the gut and now I must rely on their kindness? Thieves do not desire to return money they "acquired".

If you are not entitled legally to a refund then yes you are relying on the goodwill of the company involved to offer you one outside of the normal terms - that is what I meant by kindness. Please continue with your indignant rage though.

 

[klinky]

Wonder how many protesters (from the refund liberation party) there will be at the premier, looking forward to the Monday morning papers.

 

[Michael Brookes]

I wouldnt care a less about the offline mode apart from this statement from a offical reviewer (source eurogamer) which well sums up this problem in 1.

Which is being seen more and more in this day in age.

David mentioned that the servers could be archived and the archive released if we closed the servers for whatever reason.

Michael

 

[Magic Man]

I dont usually play this card, but I feel quite angry about the whole affair. So I want you to know who your dealing with. Im disabled. Ive been disabled for almost 17 years of my life. I dont have a lot of money, as being disabled has limited my ability to work and save. So when I do spend money on a product I take great care to do so knowing that it will block me from spending money in other areas.

So when looking at your policy. I want you to remember that should you decide not to refund our money, that from that point on you will have stolen money from a disabled person. And no matter what else you do in life, youll always have done that.

And with that said you can now watch me being abused for this post.

So why play that card now? Money has not been stolen from you. Your situation is entirely irrelevant to the facts of the matter.

You didn't buy a product, you bought access to a testing program. You've had exactly what you paid for.

 

[amigacooke]

If you look at the Kickstarter page (which can't be edited once it is finished) it's clear that the evolving galaxy and multiplayer are the key pillars from the game. We did want to support offline play as well though and back then it seemed like something we could support without harming the rest of the game. Unfortunately that didn't prove to be the case.

Michael

Indeed, but these were established and understood from the start. Offline mode was a pillar established by those who didn't want to part with their money without that assurance.

Pillars haven't been added, but one has been knocked away.

 

[Toumal]

Even though probably nobody will read this given the speed of this thread, let me bring up a case I had with another kickstarter project I backed some time ago. It was a hardware device, and they promised a number of features - though they did have the disclaimer that these are planned features and may change. Some of these features didn't make the cut as they turned out to be impractical. The product, although not 100% fulfilling the original pitch, was still excellent. Nobody back then raised a storm about this.

Another example: Planetary Annihilation. I'd say that's an even worse case because they did not deliver several key functions, and the game doesn't really do justice to what the kickstarter trailer promised. Sound familiar? Now, PA is still quite a fun game, but it's by no means better than Supreme Commander, which it sought to surpass. Am I happy with that? No. They spent too much time on balance stuff while effectively killing some of the game's most fun strategies. Several units like the orbital catapult are still missing. But do I think even for a moment that anyone is entitled for a refund? Hell no. They did deliver a lot, even though IMHO it did not reach the lofty goals they set for themselves.

Frontier's Elite Dangerous is objectively way, WAY better off than Supreme Commander. Yes the metagame is a bit stale at the moment but let's wait for release and the time after that, shall we?

As for offline mode, Michael, I completely understand your stance. I think you're not gonna win this though. Even though I myself am not at all affected by a lack of offline mode, from a PR standpoint I strongly recommend you guys rethink this. Of course a pure offline mode would be rather limited. The people who want this know, and they don't care. Give them this. Tell them it will be limited. Deliver it down the road, in a few months time, doesn't have to be now or "really soon" either. Everyone will understand that, and people will see this as a hugely positive move by Frontier. Right now people and the media are hanging on your throat, rightfully so or not, and you need to get out of that spot ASAP.

 

[foxpur]

I wish to applaud the mods and FD management for spending some detailed and quality time to help answer our questions. No matter the side you are one these people ARE trying to work with us here and it's in a time of great stress. I, for one, want them to know I appreciate the effory they ARE putting into a great product under the circumstances.

 

[Space Dandy]

If you look at the Kickstarter page (which can't be edited once it is finished) it's clear that the evolving galaxy and multiplayer are the key pillars from the game. We did want to support offline play as well though and back then it seemed like something we could support without harming the rest of the game. Unfortunately that didn't prove to be the case.

Michael

QFT


I gather that during the alpha/beta stage you guys though offline was possible so refunds should be too even if someone took part of alpha/beta testing.

 

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

specially as in this case, what you are doing is borderline. both visa/mastercard have a 6 months chargeback timeout, many uk banks only 90 days after statement, they will not go beyond that. and auctioning a chargeback will always result in the other party (FDEV) having their say, too. in this case you are outside the eu directive (that is very pro-consumer) on chargebacks with your claim. for one thing chargebacks beyond EUR 150/GBP100 are not possible anyway.

You must have missed the bit where I already discussed it with my card processor and already submitted my evidence. They're happy to submit and tell FDEV to take a run and jump, basically. As far as they can see unless FDEV can provide some amazingly brilliant evidence like oh, I don't know, they've made good will efforts (they haven't yet), or they've made a goodwill attempt to rectify they situation (ditto), then they're SOL. You're incorrect about the chargeback cap as well, for reference, but it's irrelevant, the single unit chargebacks I need to make are inside the 100 GBP mark so, yeah. Keep talkin'