Anyone else thinking of asking for a refund?

I thought the Engineers was as low as it was possible to go in bad game design, but here FD is thinking about changing the basic nature of the game after we bought it.
Not that i really care whether pp is open only or not, but just on the principle that FD shouldnt be rewarded for changing the basic nature of the product from what was advertised and sold, I am thiniking about asking for a refund. This sets a precedent i dont want to see play out.
A vendor removing basic features from a product after its sold and the money is in the vendors pocket seems unethical, maybe fradulent, and possibly illegal.

You can't please everyone.

I guess you could ask for a refund if you really want, but they'll probably say 'no'.
 
I thought the Engineers was as low as it was possible to go in bad game design, but here FD is thinking about changing the basic nature of the game after we bought it.
Not that i really care whether pp is open only or not, but just on the principle that FD shouldnt be rewarded for changing the basic nature of the product from what was advertised and sold, I am thiniking about asking for a refund. This sets a precedent i dont want to see play out.
A vendor removing basic features from a product after its sold and the money is in the vendors pocket seems unethical, maybe fradulent, and possibly illegal.

As far as I paid for the Original release and subsequently the Horizons "season", I think I've had my moneys worth from that and won't be claiming a refund. To do so for me I feel it would be unfair to FD, as I've somewhere near 1000 hours in the seat. I can see why some would want to though, and they have a decent chance of doing so if you go through the UK system.

As far as the £130 I paid for the LEP? Since it hasn't been activated yet and I've been waiting 3 years, at the end of the year if Beyond continues to be a half-baked marketing exercise...absolutely. I'll be moving on to other games and leaving them to it, therefore will be cashing it in and saving myself the bother of encouraging these people not to move toward developing EVE 0.5. I have zero interest in playing EVE in an Elite setting. I bought the game for Solo Mode primarily, with an eye on how Open Mode could be developed into a benchmark for MMO's, not a return to 1999.

Beyond for me is FD's statement they wish to finally take this game seriously as "what comes next". Thus far it's just been an exercise in getting Frontier Developments up and running and Braben up the rich list. Which I think is something of a regret for the institution that is Elite. I have an idea of what I'd expect to see realistically by Christmas. If only some of that is done, we'll see. All that's been put right this year is some of the UI weirdness, and extra things that weren't needed (still no "sell all" button), with Missions being slightly better but cumbersome and Passengers being all but nuked. Limited ships, limited gameplay, too much grind and now the morality of sociopathy seems to be taking centre stage instead. For me the game is going backwards, as far as the ideology and design approach is concerned.

It's almost funny if you didn't love the potential of the franchise.
 
Last edited:
I thought the Engineers was as low as it was possible to go in bad game design, but here FD is thinking about changing the basic nature of the game after we bought it.
Not that i really care whether pp is open only or not, but just on the principle that FD shouldnt be rewarded for changing the basic nature of the product from what was advertised and sold, I am thiniking about asking for a refund. This sets a precedent i dont want to see play out.
A vendor removing basic features from a product after its sold and the money is in the vendors pocket seems unethical, maybe fradulent, and possibly illegal.
I probably wouldn't. Not worth it, but on the other hand, I didn't (luckily) invest that much in ED. And I never cared about PP that much after I've saw that its very static and simplistic, ground some modules out (mainly just wait) and that's it.

And yes, I get that "they are free to change MMORPG whenever they want", but not all products are like that. And I think the issue that ED was actually advertised a lot as being "not MMORPG", with quite clear promises of "all modes equal", etc. It ultimately will be up to court to decide (if it comes to that, e.g. good ol' US class action) - if customers had reasonable grounds to believe they are getting more or less immutable product which only can get expansions/upgrades (ALA buying a car or standard old fashioned software program) vs paying for some kind of online service without clear bounds on how it will become in the future (ALA MMORPG)
 
Last edited:
You may want to look up the UK version of that. ;)
In UK normally you entitled to instantly get out of service contract if they change conditions significantly, regardless of initial cooling down period (without reprecussions and only owing for amount of services you've received according to *original* stipulations).
There is limited period to return physical/one-off purchases, but also you don't expect these purchases be mutable and subject to manufacturer significantly altering them long after you've bought them (and your initial return window expired).

Now - what is ED? On the other hand paying model kind of like one-off purchase. On the other hand, its kind of functions like a service subscription.
 
Last edited:
Now - what is ED? On the other hand paying model kind of like one-off purchase. On the other hand, its kind of functions like a service subscription.

It's a product, not a contract. You have no more chance of getting money back than you do from Apple on a five-year old phone that's now obsolete.
 
It's a product, not a contract. You have no more chance of getting money back than you do from Apple on a five-year old phone that's now obsolete.
I distinctly remember when Apple last tried to cripple their phones just because "its our phone and we can push whatever updates we want" (actually, twice, first slowing them down and second trying to cripple third-party screens).
Both times they quickly backpedalled due to massive public backlash and threats of lawsuits.

Its fine for phone to become obsolete. As long as manufacturer does not mess with it so phone actually suddenly becomes worse than it would be if they would just left it alone.
 
Last edited:
I know they would never offer it but IF they did I would ask for a refund. Just to many choices they have been making has really turned me off of the game which is a shame I really love space sims.
 
In UK normally you entitled to instantly get out of service contract if they change conditions significantly, regardless of initial cooling down period (without reprecussions and only owing for amount of services you've received according to *original* stipulations).
There is limited period to return physical/one-off purchases, but also you don't expect these purchases be mutable and subject to manufacturer significantly altering them long after you've bought them (and your initial return window expired).

Now - what is ED? On the other hand paying model kind of like one-off purchase. On the other hand, its kind of functions like a service subscription.

I wonder...as a legal point of view...if there is any legs in premise, that if you have predominantly spent most of your time in Solo, you treat the game as a direct relationship with the supplier? If you spend most of your time in Open, you automatically subscribe to the subscription model?
 
Last edited:
I wonder...as a legal point of view...if there is any legs in premise, that if you have predominantly spent most of your time in Solo, you treat the game as a direct relationship with the supplier? If you spend all your time in Open, you automatically subscribe to the subscription model?
I think it would be mostly how vendor advertised it (based on which people would've made purchasing decisions).

I know they would never offer it but IF they did I would ask for a refund. Just to many choices they have been making has really turned me off of the game which is a shame I really love space sims.
You know they kind of "offered" KS refund. Very quietly - so people mainly had to rely on word of mouth that, yeah, if you asked for refund they just give it to you. But they certainly didn't advertise it on a front page ;)
 
I thought the Engineers was as low as it was possible to go in bad game design, but here FD is thinking about changing the basic nature of the game after we bought it.
Not that i really care whether pp is open only or not, but just on the principle that FD shouldnt be rewarded for changing the basic nature of the product from what was advertised and sold, I am thiniking about asking for a refund. This sets a precedent i dont want to see play out.
A vendor removing basic features from a product after its sold and the money is in the vendors pocket seems unethical, maybe fradulent, and possibly illegal.

Sorry, I pretty much have to disagree in opinion. The new Engineers and C&P have been great new updates and changes. Most players didn't care about PP except for the modules anyways. If it goes to open for the haulage, solo/pg cmdrs can still do the same thing which is, pledge, wait 4 weeks, then try to sneak through a few hauling trips (which is actually a lot easier since interdiction is so rare in open anyways), then back to solo. Almost no real change outside of powerplay, and no, Sandro said this was just for pp, so the bgs and everything else in the shared mode persistence of the galaxy model stays the same so it was never intended to be a "precedent".
 
Last edited:
Not quite sure how you can get a refund from an free update to the game?

Powerplay was formally announced to launch as the third major free content updates for Elite Dangerous. It was released on June 5, 2015.
 
I thought the Engineers was as low as it was possible to go in bad game design, but here FD is thinking about changing the basic nature of the game after we bought it.
Not that i really care whether pp is open only or not, but just on the principle that FD shouldnt be rewarded for changing the basic nature of the product from what was advertised and sold, I am thiniking about asking for a refund. This sets a precedent i dont want to see play out.
A vendor removing basic features from a product after its sold and the money is in the vendors pocket seems unethical, maybe fradulent, and possibly illegal.


A refund for a game I've owned and played since 2015.

Yea sure why not.
 
Not quite sure how you can get a refund from an free update to the game?
Its not free, its part of initial game package - you pay in advance, then you get certain amount of stuff over couple of years. You know, season pass model (be damned).
It only would be "free" if you can actually get it for free by itself.
 
FD have the right to change the game at any time they want. All they are trying to do is make money by providing entertainment to their players. It might be a good change if it makes room for something better, let's wait and see.
 
I wonder...as a legal point of view...if there is any legs in premise, that if you have predominantly spent most of your time in Solo, you treat the game as a direct relationship with the supplier? If you spend most of your time in Open, you automatically subscribe to the subscription model?

No. No, there is not. We are not paying subscriptions.

And it's an entirely pointless line of discussion - hot air - unless someone actually puts their hand in their pockets and pays a lawyer to write a letter.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom