No Single Player Offline Mode then? [Part 2]

[Vlodec]

But what's the point of that? There are enough offline games out there but ED clearly sets its focus on multiplayer. The first Elite game is 30 years old... Back then it was impossible to create a game like this and play it with thousands of players. If it had been possible i bet they would have done that.
Welcome to the 21st century.



I'm sorry if my first post sounds a bit harsh. I'm german and i didn't really know how to express myself so i chose the short way, lol. What i meant to say was that i can't understand why people are complaining about the fact that an internet connection is required when they buy a game online and discuss about it online while playing it online for weeks/months...

My apologies if this seems blunt, but......we don't have to explain why we like what we like, or justify it. It's quite enough that we like it.

And yes,we are all online as we write our posts. This is beside the point. There are various reasons why this is beside the point and, *sigh*, I don't feel strong enough to explain them all. But I'm sure if you sit and think about it you can think of them yourself.

 

[mbpoblet]

But what's the point of that? There are enough offline games out there but ED clearly sets its focus on multiplayer. The first Elite game is 30 years old... Back then it was impossible to create a game like this and play it with thousands of players. If it had been possible i bet they would have done that.
Welcome to the 21st century.

I'm sorry if my first post sounds a bit harsh. I'm german and i didn't really know how to express myself so i chose the short way, lol. What i meant to say was that i can't understand why people are complaining about the fact that an internet connection is required when they buy a game online and discuss about it online while playing it online for weeks/months...

OK... it's not like one more repost really matters in the vastness of the threadnaught(s)...

As one of the most strident "off-liners", I don't have any intention to hurt Frontier.

Certainly nothing I could do could ever come any close to hurting them as much as they have hurt and continue to hurt themselves, no matter how much I tried.

As far as resources go, however, those cost money. No offline mode means less sales (we've already seen many backers ask for refunds), and therefore less money (unless Frontier switches to a freemium or subscription model, and even then those would probably quickly kill any interest in the game and reduce the revenue even further).

Frontier claims they intend to keep the servers up by selling cosmetic elements like ship skins; those could have as easily been sold to people playing offline; I find it hard to believe that this model will be sustainable for long, particularly given the loss of that clearly not insignificant sector of potential buyers.

The servers will eventually (and probably sooner rather than later) become economically unsustainable for Frontier, and without an offline mode or third party servers the game will die, and be forgotten.

However you look at it an offline mode would have meant more revenue for Frontier, and more resources for those hypothetical expansions, and a much longer life for the game.

Not only that, but even without Frontier directly supporting modding the community would have found ways to enhance and customize the offline game, thus increasing its appeal, and sales, and lifetime.

It's precisely because I care(d) about the game, that this incomprehensible and unjustifiable decision angers and saddens me so much.

And I doubt I'm alone in feeling this way.

Dammit, I go to sleep for a few hours and we get a whole new thread!

I hope it's not much inconvenience if, for ease of quoting (why won't the forum let us quote posts in closed threads?) I repost a couple bits here.

First and most importantly, a lot of people seem to wonder why we want an offline mode when we already have solo online.

Let me just quote the replies to Braben's same question:

Have you played the game? Why is the offline (as opposed to single player, which I understand) mode so important to you?

For many of us, we pledged a large amount of money because we believed we'd still be able to play the game if FD went under. I personally would not have pledged to that level without such an assurance. Also, the premium box set reward is now worthless to me on those terms. In short, I haven't received the game I pledged for.

I'll continue to support the game, I'll definitely be playing it, but I do feel that it's important that you understand why some of us are unhappy with the situation.

If I may say this for myself:

Now, I know MMOs are popular, fancy and lucrative these days, but don't you think that you are pushing it just too far with your MMO only (tunnel) vision?
I am not an online multiplayer game player, never have been and never will be.

Sometimes i need to check the baby, answer the phone or door or do some work. And now I can not even pause or save the game and continue the battle in progress later. I want an immersive experience and that doesn't include other gamers.

I also want to play the game where I don't have an internet connection, and when the FD servers are down (or have been shutdown, or FD no longer exists). I don't want to rent my game, I want to buy it, no forced authentication, no DRM, no server connection. Reason ??
Except from constant bullying and incomodating your customers?!
Simply for long term assurance the player will be able to play the game long into the future regardless of what happens to FD, without wishing to sound horrible but if the company folds one day (as many games studios sadly do over time) the game can still be played for many years to come, and maybe even be modified and supported by the community if the developer is no longer in a position to do it themselves, there is many such games still being played today with this exact scenario where the original developer & publisher have long
gone but the game still lives on supported by a dedicated community, having a game which is solely dependant on the survival of either makes me very nervous, history proves this sadly. Not to mention server overloads, connection failures, high ping or simply lack of internet access while we are on the trip or somewhere where internet is not available.

So that is why offline mod is important for many players

For me personally it's not about the multiplayer - but about SAVE GAMES.

Roguelike / 1-shot play is fine for some games, but not long term rpg sims. Imagine spending weeks building up something and then crashing during docking or a glitch / drop in connection / PC crash and losing everything? No save game to go back on...

Also, if the game is so vast and to be played over many years...what happens when your servers go down? remember Gamespy?

I'm sorry to jump in on this, but I hope I can throw a few answers in:

- Offline allows me to have a self-contained galaxy that is "just mine" - sounds selfish, but this is why I love games like Skyrim, Frontier: Elite 2 etc.
- Offline worlds mean I can leave the game world, and not play for a week or a month and come back knowing everything is as I left it.
- Offline worlds (from an emotional level) feel more 'vast' to me personally, because I know everything out there is untouched.
- An offline game is 'mine' forever, and I know I will still be able to play in it 30 years from now (just as I can with the original Elite).

All of the above are very important to me, and are why games like Skyrim and Frontier: Elite 2 are at the top of my favourite games of all time.

I'm going to let this guy answer it because he put it better than I ever could. But it's true, real, and touching.

Been told to post this here, fyi I'm not angry only regrets, but I'd like this post added to this big heap.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do I want to play a game I own and have a right to play but through no fault of my own I sometimes can't?
Do I want to play a game with some corporate monstrosity looking over my shoulder watching my every move?
Do I want to play a game where I can be bullied or ripped off by some quick fingered 12 year old (either directly or indirectly)?
Do I want to play a game where arbitrary rules and conditions are injected into my world that will dictate my freedom to chose what I do and when I want to do it?

I am surprised just how strongly I feel about it, but as an 84er it can't be some sudden snap reaction.

Like many I've also thought long and hard about why I regret the sudden loss of Elite D offline and my reasons actually feel strangely deep and personal, almost spiritual you could say .

Call me mad (yes I'm mad) because I'm not even sure if my regrets are entirely rational:
~
I have regrets because I still think I look cool dancing to Spandau Ballet, but I secretly know I don't.
I have regrets because I still think it's great to have big hair, but when I'm honest, I know it's not.
I have regrets because I still find Blondie absolutely stunning but some now say she isn't.
I have regrets because I still believe I have no responsibilities, but the wife says I do.
I have regrets because I still think I'm young, but my kids keep saying I'm not.

I have regrets because I still hoped that I could be that geeky, sleep deprived teenager playing space games on my own late into the night in my own universe surrounded by a reality that only I commanded, no rules, that felt free from an awful, commercialised, bullying world, that was fresh and that as a young frustrated adult was the only true space in my life that was truly mine (all mine!) and the only place that at this point (or that point) in my life I could affect or influence in any meaningful way, it was my escape, it was selfish but it was mine and I was the only one watching and the only damn one in it.

So now 30 years later, I'd hoped, as an old(ish) man, when the discos over and younger one's gone, even after the lights and servers finally dim, that at least I'd be there sat, left all alone playing in the dark but as happy as Larry in my own bit of space, that I'd thought was all mine.

And now after this week I think that this my last little personal fantasy has gone too.

An offline mode insures that, no matter what happens to Frontier or the servers, the game will still be playable.

It also allows for the game (in its offline version) to be modded. This enriches the community and the game with content beyond even that which the developers themselves can produce (just look at Betheda's games), and ensures a long life for the game.

Look at Freelancer for an example of a similar game whose servers closed years ago, but which is still kicking and keeping a loyal community thanks to private servers and modding.

An offline game also lets it be DRM free (no matter the intent always-online is, by its own nature, a form of DRM, and even if it's not perceived as such by the developers, it is by a lot of potential customers).

An offline game would probably allow you to pause, thus allowing people who sometimes need to take care of children or other urgent issues to play without risking a loss of progress.

An offline game means, thus, more sales for Frontier (both from people who don't support online-only games, people who don't support DRM, and people who simply don't have a constant or reliable connection), and a much longer life for the game.

While I can't answer for the other guy, I can answer for myself and why I personally asked for a refund of my £105 pledge once you told us you ditched offline.

I have plenty of online games already in my library. I used to be a hardcore raider in WoW and frankly got disillusioned with the attitude and inherent behavioural patterns that emerge in people when they see things as an 'online race' or 'online competition'. I want to be able to just relax when I play my games, and the ability to actively pause and do something else (like painting some of my miniatures, or pet my cat that suddenly wants attention) shouldn't impact on my ability to enjoy a game. It does impact in the 'need to be online' games, especially when you can't pause them (which is kinda natural for online only games).
Add that the game feels incredibly punishing with no way of 'starting over from an old save', and your product is just plain un-fun to me if it needs to be online.

Also, I have several games in my collection from years gone by that required connecting to servers to work, and these games simply don't work anymore because the company(ies) behind them either ceased to exist or decided that it was simply not profitable anymore to carry the luggage that those games were. A noteworthy 'poster child' in this kind of thing is "Hellgate London" which I bought at release. The guys behind that particular game were noteworthy and had decent experience while they created a nice game. Their desire to keep a persistent online component running all the time eventually meant that they couldn't cover running costs, though, and the company went bust. Even so, I am still able to play that game in its offline mode if I want to (and it's actually a nice game in that mode), but if they had forced the consumers to only be able to play online, that too would have been a 'dead' game for all intents. The offline mode keeps it alive for me to be able to play.

So basicly my reasonings are twofold.

I want the ability to play at my own pace, with saves and reloads, without being forced into some ratrace that playing with others will naturally put me into (I seem tor ecall you even said yourself that resources would dwindle in areas in the online version as players took them)

and I want to be sure that I can always pick up the game and play it again later on, when everyone else forgot about it, because >I want to play at that time< (and not when some guy running your servers think it is opportune).

A purely online version is just inaccetbale to me, especially as the originals were offline.

These are my feelings about offline mode, too.

There are three things about offline mode being important:
1. making the game moddable. Not every modder wants to cheat. Some want simply to enjoy the game in another way than intended.
2. being independent of server issues and even network availability. I have a rig powerful enough for gaming at my workplace and enough time at hand sometimes, yet I couldn't run anything over network. If there was network traffic from games I might be in trouble, so I unplug the cable.
3. it's an emotional thing. If I buy something I don't think about renting a license or such, I want to own the game! I love my shelf with old game boxes. In the recent light of content removals from, e.g. GTA Vice City and GTA San Andreas: those games on my shelf still have the music, those on Steam have not.

I might possibly have missed some, but this should give you a good idea.

 

[DarkWalker]

People will just hack the code and use whatever ship paint job they want to in offline mode...ohh wait

Which is why devs don't sell this kind of DLC for anything that is not a MMO anymore... ohh wait

Well there a ton of games across a multitude of platforms from consoles, pc's and iOs/Tablets that require internet connection to play, even if just for log on and authentication and they do prettttty well.

Which is why I don't purchase any of them. I get, instead, the games that allow me to be completely offline if I so desire.

BTW, had a laugh today. If you go to SimCity's page on Origin, the top caption now reads "Your city. Your way. Now offline."
(And "Play Offline or Online" is the first among the listed features.)

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

DRM is DRM. It doesn't matter wether you sue DRM scheme X or DRM scheme Y (although some of them are way more malicious than others like rootkits).

If the software on the disk requires you to utilize a DRM scheme to get access to the product, then the software on the disc is not DRM-free.

If you are talking about 'Always-on DRM' then you may find it all boils down to the reasoning for the persistent connection. The reason given for the persistent connection in Elite Dangerous, even for solo-mode, is for updates, not for checking who you are and whether you have access to that product or not. Signing on for a subscription does not validate the software installation, it enables you to use the software no matter where you are.

You want to make a statement to the contrary for the reasoning behind the persistent connection, without proof or a whistle-blower, then you may find down the line that your on-line comments will stand against you in the unlikely case that you are counter-sued for defamation of character or libel.

 

[SalsaDMA]

My apologies if this seems blunt, but......we don't have to explain why we like what we like, or justify it. It's quite enough that we like it.

And yes,we are all online as we write our posts. This is beside the point. There are various reasons why this is beside the point and, *sigh*, I don't feel strong enough to explain them all. But I'm sure if you sit and think about it you can think of them yourself.

Yeah, it gets tiring that we have to defend our right to want what was promised.

We all have different reasons for why we backed and those reasons are really not up for debate in any way or form. The only thing up for debate is that Braben promised one thing, took our money on that promise, and then one month before release told us that he changed his mind but wouldn't refund our money.

WHY we gave him our money to get what he had promised doesn't really matter.

All that matters is that he promised something and we gave him money based on that promise.

 

[Iconoclast]

Allow me to explain... Again...

[...]

Yeah but that's life. It's their game so they can do what they want. And if they think that this is the best experience than it is like it is. Blizzard said there would be PVP in Diablo 3 but there isn't, IW said there would be ranked dedicated servers in MW3 but there aren't and so on...
Maybe it's a little sad for some people but it doesn't make the game bad or something. Besides people are connected to the internet 24/7 anyway.

 

[SalsaDMA]

If you are talking about 'Always-on DRM' then you may find it all boils down to the reasoning for the persistent connection. The reason given for the persistent connection in Elite Dangerous, even for solo-mode, is for updates, not for checking who you are and whether you have access to that product or not. Signing on for a subscription does not validate the software installation, it enables you to use the software no matter where you are.

You want to make a statement to the contrary for the reasoning behind the persistent connection, without proof or a whistle-blower, then you may find down the line that your on-line comments will stand against you in the unlikely case that you are counter-sued for defamation of character or libel.

Braben stated in the kickstarter that the offline version would be more static. People were fine with that (we gave him our money on that statement, after all).

You have an issue with that? It kinda blows a hole in your claim

 

[mbpoblet]

If you are talking about 'Always-on DRM' then you may find it all boils down to the reasoning for the persistent connection. The reason given for the persistent connection in Elite Dangerous, even for solo-mode, is for updates, not for checking who you are and whether you have access to that product or not. Signing on for a subscription does not validate the software installation, it enables you to use the software no matter where you are.

You want to make a statement to the contrary for the reasoning behind the persistent connection, without proof or a whistle-blower, then you may find down the line that your on-line comments will stand against you in the unlikely case that you are counter-sued for defamation of character or libel.

Here's my reasoning for why Frontier's excuses (which you might remember from games like SimCity "let's not say it's the 5th" or Diablo 3) are, in my opinion, probably hogwash, just like the last couple of times they were used (by the cited games' producers).

Of course that reasoning depends on the assumption that Frontier's programmers are, at the very least, competent, which could possibly be wrong.

---

people are connected to the internet 24/7 anyway.

That statement is as false as it is shortsighted.

There have been dozens of posts on this threads by people who can only connect to the internet for very limited periods due to various circumstances (which are not relevant anyway), from people who have bought the game on behalf of friends or family without an internet connection (and who now won't be able to play it), from people without a constant or reliable connection, and from people with dozens of other perfectly valid reasons why they won't be able to play the game they bought.

Sometimes it's really difficult not to post something that might get me banned, seriously.

 

[Demosthien]

[...]

Yeah but that's life. It's their game so they can do what they want. And if they think that this is the best experience than it is like it is. Blizzard said there would be PVP in Diablo 3 but there isn't, IW said there would be ranked dedicated servers in MW3 but there aren't and so on...
Maybe it's a little sad for some people but it doesn't make the game bad or something. Besides people are connected to the internet 24/7 anyway.

Not sure exactly why you are telling me that... Maybe you should read my quote again, you don't seem to have caught the gist of it.

Also, I don't recall anyone saying the game is "bad"... On the contrary loads of off liners have said it's really good, just not what they were told it would be and subsequently paid for.

 

[Vlodec]

[...]

Yeah but that's life. It's their game so they can do what they want. And if they think that this is the best experience than it is like it is. Blizzard said there would be PVP in Diablo 3 but there isn't, IW said there would be ranked dedicated servers in MW3 but there aren't and so on...
Maybe it's a little sad for some people but it doesn't make the game bad or something. Besides people are connected to the internet 24/7 anyway.

I'm sorry but once again this isn't true. If you make a promise and take someone's money on that basis it simply won't do to say "I changed my mind".

Would you show the same tolerance if FD pulled the online game instead? "Sorry guys but we felt that multiplayer was just too complicated etc etc".

 

[kwh]

This is the XXI century.

I expect people not to have to work whatsoever.

A whuffie-based economy would probably be a good compromise, though.



It's free publicity.

And if I'm getting it for free (and if people want something that can be infinitely copied for free no amount of DRM is going to stop them) it'll be because I don't think it's worth more (or because I'm not given the opportunity to pay what I would consider a fair price).

In any case, I'll share Gaiman's video again:

[video=youtube;0Qkyt1wXNlI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI[/video]

And in this context, offline gameplay, even if the ED client containing the offline mode is ripped off by everybody & his dog and literally nobody pays for it, is an incredibly powerful sales tool for the online game. 90% of the work, all the digital assets & the flight model & AI behaviour etc, are assets that form part of the online game they want to sell. They have complete control of the online version of the game, and de-facto DRM by controlling who can play in the live ED Universe. And for those who don't ever want to play online, or can't play online, they are never ever going to sell them an online only version of ED. For people who cannot get online, it doesn't matter that an offline version of ED isn't going to be as rich & complex as an online version, because it's not a choice for them, they play offline or they don't play at all. I imagine that for them a re-implementation of FE using all the sexy bling & game mechanics that the ED client can offer them would be the best version of Elite they would ever expect to be able to play, and the fact that it exists and that they get a copy would meet their objectives. But one day, they will have access to a decent network connection, and then they might be happy, even enthused about jumping aboard the richer and different online universe, with its implicit DRM ensuring that ED has been paid for their efforts.

For those who might be interested in both online & offline play, the absence of the offline mode is a big loss & a breach of trust, as discussed at incredible length. With it they could chose to play either online or off, depending on their mood and what was occurring in their lives. Online play requires a commitment of time & attention that offline play doesn't - if the baby starts crying during your jump into Lave offline, you hit pause and go deal with it. Online, you come back ten minutes later and your expensive ship & cargo are gone... I can certainly imagine players who play online in a squadron the same evening every week, and spend the rest of their more ad-hoc play time buzzing around in the single player game just doing the sort of stuff that people have always done in Elite games passim, with no lack of enjoyment. But the big thing there is that again, Frontier will have their money before they are able to play online. But the fact that they can't play offline at all does make it less likely that they will stick with the game if there's a period where they can't get online to play for some reason. After a couple of months of not having the time or ability to play ED at all, you get out of the habit, and if/when you finally do log in again 3 months later, you can't remember how to fly, the known galaxy has expanded to a point where it'll take you 2 hours of jumping to get back to unexplored space to resume exploration or the asteroid belt you were mining is now exhausted and you have to spend 2 hours finding somewhere to resume mining, and you get shot down by a pirate en-route while you are still trying to remember how to deploy your hardpoints, lose your ship, ragequit & never go back. Or encourage anybody else to get involved. That's a net drain on the player community, which is unsustainable for a game like ED that needs a growing player base to fund continued development, and it's not clear where it will come from.

For those who are only interested in online play, beyond the tutorial missions, whether the client has an offline mode or not is of supreme irrelevance most of the time. But how do they spread the word if they are having fun & want their friends to join them? 'Come round to my house, sit at my gaming PC, you can have a fly of my fully loaded Anaconda to see how much fun it is, and I'll laugh along with you when you accidentally shoot something inside the station while trying to raise the landing gear & cost me my ship'? No, I think not... so, beyond Youtube videos, how are more people going to experience ED for themselves and be recruited to the game without Frontier having to advertise & market & sponsor YouTubers to publish content about the game for the next forever? I'm going to say that they aren't... so, another downside of no offline play is that unless the hype + nostalgia has already encouraged you to pay for the game, the vast majority of sales are likely to be earned by paid for advertising & marketing from Frontier.

So, here's what they should do. They won't, of course, but they should, in their own interests about ten different ways...

Build a stand alone offline game using the universe & as many of the high level gameplay mechanics of FFE as are currently implemented in ED (so planetary landings can come later), and use all the digital assets, UI & micro-gameplay of the ED online client to build a stand alone game. The plaster it in ads for the full monte online game, and release it as adware, a freely distributable free download from the Frontier Website. Stick it on mag cover DVDs, hand it out on free ED USB sticks at games conventions, share the URL, but make sure the game reminds you whenever you dock that you could be doing this online in a much bigger universe, with your friends, etc etc... so if you are lucky the adware offline version of ED Lite goes viral, and keeps feeding you new players. And if you are an online only player who wants to get your friends into it so you have somebody to fly with, without expecting them to pony up forty quid without ever having any hands on at all with any version of Elite to have a clue why they might want to) to give the full ED experience a try and decide whether they even enjoy it, you can send them the download link & say 'check this out & buy the full online version if you like the idea of an epic MMO version of this...'.

If they did this, it would meet FD's kickstarter obligations, defuse a lot of illwill & mistrust that has developed, and work as a persistant self-powered viral marketing tool for the paid-for online MMO version of the game.

Put like that, it sounds like something of a no brainer... but if DB was planning to make ED online only from the beginning and just trying to snare funding from nostalgic Elite fans by talking about an offline mode then I suspect he will test that theory of his to destruction. Which is probably where it will end up unfortunately :-(. If he has evolved nearer the Gaiman position, an adware offline only ED/FFE hybrid would only make sense...

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Braben stated in the kickstarter that the offline version would be more static. People were fine with that (we gave him our money on that statement, after all).

You have an issue with that? It kinda blows a hole in your claim

Seeing we are talking about the 'DRM free' issue, which is the linchpin behind many claims that a reward was not given as promised, there is is no hole. It is not nice to switch arguments mid discussion. David also stated that an on-line connection would be required 'from time to time' but it was not part of a reward, which IS the issue.

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

I'm sorry but once again this isn't true. If you make a promise and take someone's money on that basis it simply won't do to say "I changed my mind".

Would you show the same tolerance if FD pulled the online game instead? "Sorry guys but we felt that multiplayer was just too complicated etc etc".

Er, we'd still have a game. So... no. (Not sure that analogy worked somehow... confused.)

 

[Demosthien]

And in this context, offline gameplay, even if the ED client containing the offline mode is ripped off by everybody & his dog and literally nobody pays for it...snip...

Good stuff.

Just one thing though. It has been paid for...

Both KS and pree-sales will be highly likely to have paid for the development of the final product and provided a reasonably healthy bit of extra cashola to seed another project.

So, this hypothetical seed money could then be used to start a new project off and create a new KS along with further pre-sales. All that goodwill generated by the previous project will feed into any new project and help boost/finish funding it.

 

[Vlodec]

Seeing we are talking about the 'DRM free' issue, which is the linchpin behind many claims that a reward was not given as promised, there is is no hole. It is not nice to switch arguments mid discussion. David also stated that an on-line connection would be required 'from time to time' but it was not part of a reward, which IS the issue.

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



Er, we'd still have a game. So... no. (Not sure that analogy worked somehow... confused.)

Are you suggesting that the onliners would be happy with a purely offline game?

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Here's my reasoning for why Frontier's excuses (which you might remember from games like SimCity "let's not say it's the 5th" or Diablo 3) are, in my opinion, probably hogwash, just like the last couple of times they were used (by the cited games' producers).

Of course that reasoning depends on the assumption that Frontier's programmers are, at the very least, competent, which could possibly be wrong.

And someone immediately after your post looked at it and said the opposite. But I do not get the link between reposting old posts and the current exchange. I am usually quite good at comprehension, but it does depend on the other party explaining himself reasonably well. Would you mind going at that again?

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

And in this context, offline gameplay, even if the ED client containing the offline mode is ripped off by everybody & his dog and literally nobody pays for it, is an incredibly powerful sales tool for the online game. <snip>

I was going to say should I drop my pants... but that's too close to the edge. Are you seriously suggesting that we plan for piracy? Although, saying that, there is one train of though that says Kickstarter is good for covering your losses through piracy, because people 'subscribe' up front. I can see a circular argument here and that means that the logic is faulty. (Search crowd funding in Here)

So to be clear: You want DRM free, so you pay for KickStarter, but you want your money back now because it is not going to be pirate-able?

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

Are you suggesting that the onliners would be happy with a purely offline game?

Onliners? No I can't talk for everyone. Me! Hope that's okay to say.

 

[mbpoblet]

And someone immediately after your post looked at it and said the opposite. But I do not get the link between reposting old posts and the current exchange. I am usually quite good at comprehension, but it does depend on the other party explaining himself reasonably well. Would you mind going at that again?

Um... could you link to this alleged post stating the opposite as mine? I can't seem to recall it or find it, sorry. Thanks in advance.

As for your question, you asked for "a statement to the contrary for the reasoning behind the persistent connection", and I provided you with mine, simple as that. *shrug*

---

Are you seriously suggesting that we plan for piracy?

It would be quite silly not to...

“Piracy, while frustrating, can contribute to game evangelism,” he said. “It can also help you reach new territories. For example, we are huge in China now. In the old days of silver discs, it would have been impossible to break the whole country. We would have needed an office in every province but through piracy, our games are circulating and fans are now seeking us out.

“Piracy goes hand in hand with sales,” he continued. “If a game is pirated a lot it will be bought a lot. People want a connected experience, so with pirated games we still have a route in to get them to upgrade to real version. And even if someone’s version is pirated, they might evangelise and their mates will buy the real thing.”

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Um... could you link to this alleged post stating the opposite as mine? I can't seem to recall it or find it, sorry. Thanks in advance.

As for your question, you asked for "a statement to the contrary for the reasoning behind the persistent connection", and I provided you with mine, simple as that. *shrug*

Ah, I see. Gosh, how high was that penny dropping from? A 747?

Right, but this is your statement and reasoning to counter what FDev are saying. Reasoning is all well and good, but not as good as proof. I'll look for that post. It could be a long night...

 

[DarkWalker]

When you enter a user agreement with a company you take on all sorts of rules that define the way you play said game. Everything from the way you can use chat to the use of content and of course the ability to sell said product to another person.

Funny thing about contracts, they always lose to laws. Which is why the European Court of Justice ruled that UsedSoft was authorized to purchase second hand software licenses, and re-sell them, even though the EULA explicitly disallows that. And there was some case law about this in the US too.

(There was something in that line here in Brazil too, but our legal system does not rely on case law, thus this kind of legal precedent isn't as important here.)

With consumer protection laws getting better around the world, expect to see EULAs and similar documents become even less important in the years ahead.

 

[kwh]

I was going to say should I drop my pants... but that's too close to the edge. Are you seriously suggesting that we plan for piracy? Although, saying that, there is one train of though that says Kickstarter is good for covering your losses through piracy, because people 'subscribe' up front. I can see a circular argument here and that means that the logic is faulty. (Search crowd funding in Here)

So to be clear: You want DRM free, so you pay for KickStarter, but you want your money back now because it is not going to be pirate-able?

Uh... I think you should probably read my post again...