Anyone else thinking of asking for a refund?

No kidding? How would you say it compares to galciv 2?
I like galciv2 and was thinking about 3 but a lot of reviews i read gave the impression that it was largely more of the same with better graphics, so i started looking around.

GC2 is probably one of my alltime 4x faves and have had endless fun with it for years, but Stellaris is insanely deep as all Paradox games, and makes the depth and breadth of GC2 look like a mobile app (only by comparison). It's as much complex sociopolitical experimentation as galactic conquering.
 
The best luck i have had so far (and im not very good) is to expand quickly, do lots of military and weapons research and try to build up quickly when things turn hostile. My current game im trying to emphasize diplomacy and so far that seems to be going well, too early to tell really tho.
Im a little uncertain about how to build up planets, rather than dedicated research or production planets i have been trying a balanced approach on each planet.

I think what i like most about galciv2 is the build up phase, after the shooting starts it can get a little monotonous.

Hmm, that makes it kinda tough. The big thing GC has over Stellaris is the ship builder, which is kinda redundant if you arent into combat much. More generally speaking, IMHO GC is more 4x versus Stellaris' Grand Strategy. have you played/enjoyed other games by paradox before? IMHO, if you already have galciv, stellaris will offer more for your money than galciv3. GC3 is a mix of upgrade/downgrade compared with GC2, whereas Stellaris is simply a very different game.
 
Hmm, that makes it kinda tough. The big thing GC has over Stellaris is the ship builder, which is kinda redundant if you arent into combat much. More generally speaking, IMHO GC is more 4x versus Stellaris' Grand Strategy. have you played/enjoyed other games by paradox before? IMHO, if you already have galciv, stellaris will offer more for your money than galciv3. GC3 is a mix of upgrade/downgrade compared with GC2, whereas Stellaris is simply a very different game.

You know that sounds pretty good, i think you have helped me make up my mind, stellaris is currently on sale on steam for 60% off. Thanks :)
 
Anyone else thinking of asking for a refund?

I am not, even though I am worried about a poorer solo experience.


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.
I have no problems with the Engineers in general.
There is some stuff that needs improvement still. In game information concerning engineering needs to become better. Only being able to pin a blueprint when docked at an engineers base is a ridiculous mechanic.

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 don't see how the basic, advertised nature is changed, but perhaps I know not enough about how Powerplay is advertised.

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.

Basic features are not removed. FDev is thinking about moving PP to Open only. That is something entirely different.
I do not mind PP becoming Open only, but only if FDev adds something similar for solo gameplay that could serve a bit of personal solo roleplaying.
If PP is not replaced by something else, then my solo experience is seriously diminished and I think that is not acceptable.
Powerplay Powers are important for how I perceive and roleplay the game as a soloist.

Nevertheless I will not ask my money back.
I accept that a game project in the middle of development will change, and I think there is still a lot in the game for soloists.
FDev should make an effort to add more for soloists though. It is time we get an npc crew mechanic for example.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how the basic, advertised nature is changed, but perhaps I know not enough about how Powerplay is advertised.

Basic info: https://www.elitedangerous.com/en/story/powerplay

Trailer: https://player.vimeo.com/video/130425709?autoplay=1

Its fun to see that combat in-game now looks better than trailers back then. In any case, there is no mention of Solo mode, offline support or any of that. At best people can claim its ambiguous. Either way, its clearly not 'a deviation from what is marketed'.
 
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.

Not thinking about a refund, but I appreciate how you feel. I own lots of games I paid full price for years or decades ago, and subject to hardware and OS compatibility I can still play any of them.

I have never owned an always online game like ED before, although I have played online games and am aware of the need for all players to be using the same version of the game, and in the case of this type of game of course that means we all need to be running the latest version, so if features change we can't go back like I can with all my other games.

There is a lot of extra content that can be added with an always online game, and a lot of that is good, some of it is of no interest to some but of massive interest to others, some gets stale & isn't worth the maintenance cost to keep it in the game.

So rather than removing a feature that is maintenance high and little used, it's worth investigating whether the assets can be re-purposed. Some lose out, but others may gain. Of course it's a bitter pill to swallow when you are the one losing out, but there is still a huge amount of game to play.

I continue to play, because I know that one day I will not be able to play any of it.
 
Last edited:
Ohh yes because it was very clear from the focused feedback that they are turning off SOLO and private groups. Also removing all PP modules. Upping the Egineering requirements. Turning on fast travel....I’m out
 
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.
.
Hmm, no.
.
In a little more detail: hmm, really, no.
.
Reasoning: the game is being improved. If i quit every game the last 15 years, which was improved and thus had one or another thing changed, i would be busy finding new games. I can very well understand why PP is changed the way it is, i find it reasonable, FD made it very clear that PP is the only thing which will be changed like that in the forseeable future. And i also think that most people crying out doom now didn't even understand what is happening or never made up their mind on what the change actually means. But hey, crying doom just for the sake of doing so is fun, isn't it?
.
 
Not something that is able to be considered...considering the playtime.
But I would consider any removal of content as a violation of trust.
And believe me: I am one who does not react to that well. -When it comes to my continued support.
 
Didn't read all of it, but isn't there a line in the EULA that talks about the game being subject to changes or modifications? By buying and installing the game, you agreed to it being intellectual property of FDev, so if they want to change anything, they are in their right to do so. If you want to request a refund, you are also free to do so, as they are free to update and modify the game without restrictions.
 
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.

No. Don't be silly.
 
Not really, I mean, how many hours of the game have you played already?

How many hours do you think is reasonable for you to have gotten your moneys worth out of the product?
 
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.

no refund .. things change in games as do they in real life. I enjoy playing and a small change is going to come regardless of our likes or dislikes... keep smiling and enjoy what you have!
 
Back
Top Bottom