Backers are betrayed

[Carandiru]

What were they (FD) thinking?
The backlash from all the "backers" alone surely had to be considered by them before they made this change. Why would FD even think of putting themselves in this precarious position?
Revert it back now, you simply do NOT do this to backers irregardless of any reason you think is "balanced". It puts your respectability into question.

Respect your original game play mechanics of ship insurance reduction, don't tell your backers that after you have changed the game play mechanic that this is what you originally meant.

Are you really implying that all backers are this stupid?

Do you like betraying all the backers who backed your development?

Just stupid, and now you have a lot if angry people.

You did not foresee this? Or did you even care?

 

[adoredtv]

A month ago people were claiming that this was a tiny, insignificant bonus to backers and wasn't "pay to win". Now that it's been reduced it's suddenly a big deal? Which one is it?

 

[Uncertain]

I'm cool with it. It's not like I was saving the credits to buy a special Lego set or anything.

 

[Gremlin]

A month ago people were claiming that this was a tiny, insignificant bonus to backers and wasn't "pay to win". Now that it's been reduced it's suddenly a big deal? Which one is it?

It was an advertised feature, given for backing the idea of the game before it was a game.

Guess this is going the same way that offline mode did..

 

[xxThe_Dice_manxx]

I got the insurance bonus, couldn't care less about it.

 

[MrGambler]

A month ago people were claiming that this was a tiny, insignificant bonus to backers and wasn't "pay to win". Now that it's been reduced it's suddenly a big deal? Which one is it?

I've always supported the discount, for me personally it has meant the difference between a ship replace and back to a sidey, or a ship replace back to stock. So personally speaking, it was feature I was greatful for and made me glad I had invested money early on to be awarded this.

 

[MARPATdroid]

I'm cool with it. It's not like I was saving the credits to buy a special Lego set or anything.

I was saving for the Lego Luke Skywalker Elite : Deathstar playset with my credits, for those long trips across the galaxy. However I could go either way on this topic, the 25% total would be nice, but insurance prices aren't that much anyway, easily managable if you don't put all your eggs in one basket, or in this case all your credits in your cargo.

 

[Carandiru]

It's more about the premise than the numbers guys.

 

[zorianarki]

So, can someone please tell me where they, in advertising this reward for backing the game, specified ship + modules? because I sure as hell can't find it. I'm happy with the small bonus, I'd be happy with no bonus too, since I backed not for the bonus I'd get in game, but to be able to get in game because the game exists. So unless you can tell me where this was specified we'll never know whether they evily cheated us just to be mean, or if it is finally working as intended. Please can we stop with the ridiculously self-righteous threads about betrayal and what not, or keep being entertaining and start talking about class-action lawsuits, I'm sure that'll happen too soon enough. jeez...

 

[cowboy]

I don't feel betrayed, the devs are seriously kicking ass with this game. The Beta and then Gamma have improved steadily since I started playing, and I'm LOVING it.

Keep up the good work, Frontier!

 

[Shepard]

CIG did the same with 'Limited' ships. It looks like all the developers honor the agreement but only until there are more people start to show interest for a game. Then backers become minority and developers just throw their agreement out of the window for 'balancing' purposes. I wouldn't say anything much if it was a matter of a few hundred thousand credits. But even in ASP insurance can get to 2 million. If you think of anaconda... man, you'll have to be a slave to the game no personal life, no job nothing. Just sit and grind money so you can pay anaconda expenses.

I ticketed it already and asked them if they can't honor the agreement at least give us an opportunity to insure modules since modules now are no longer insured. Don't remove something without adding a way to resolve the conflict. It would make a lot of sense to be able to insure the modules.

 

[Madlib]

I agree with OP. Is was already implemented in the way they had promised and envisioned. They have obviously changed it's implementation, so it is no longer what they promised.

 

[Antmax]

I always felt there was a little pay to win assuming I'd get 25% off full insurance. A nice little bonus and incentive to pay the extra for premium beta. I don't regret it too much but it is disappointing that it turned out to be a few hundred credits out of the expected thousands. Makes the free eagle that I wasn't interested in the most valuable perk available at launch.

 

[MikeB]

Bizarre decision to make, will be surprised if it doesn't get reversed.

 

[DocMoriarty]

As if any buyer of the beta package would have known that ship = hull when reading the advertised bonus on the beta3 package page. That would have required to know how stuff in game works. Do you think that anyone on the street would say that ship just refers to hull but not to all the equipment needed to make the ship a really working ship?

I bet this is going to change or FD is in for a massive beating. My review value for E: D reviews went from best case 6:10 to 3:10 for deception and disrespectful treating of paying customers in general. Could very well be that the hype is over in 3-6 days.

Did i mention that KSP 0.90 was published today? Finally something great to play over the holidays!

 

[Monarch Black]

I just wish that people would stop saying "it" or "this" and say what the heck you all are upset about. Nouns people, come on ...maybe even a verb or two. I haven't noticed anything that has bothered me the last couple days other than the instability issue with the Sunday patch, which seems to have been completely fixed Monday. Played for 5 hours tonight without a single disconnect. I get that it is something having to do with insurance, but I can't say I've found myself betrayed by anything in the insurance mechanic. It seems very forgiving really after playing Eve. Am I missing something or is this just a thread trying to drum up some fabricated controversy early on launch day.

 

[Zenicetus]

A month ago people were claiming that this was a tiny, insignificant bonus to backers and wasn't "pay to win". Now that it's been reduced it's suddenly a big deal? Which one is it?

I'm still in a tiny ship where it doesn't matter, but it will be a big deal for anyone in an Asp or above. I understand why this is a legitimate issue.

I think what the player base would like to see is a reason why this was done. And so far, it's just been one small bullet point in a patch update notice, with no explanation. If there is a game balancing reason for this, then maybe it would make more sense. Right now, we're hearing nothing about why it was necessary to nerf an early backer reward this way.

 

[zorianarki]

I agree with OP. Is was already implemented in the way they had promised and envisioned. They have obviously changed it's implementation, so it is no longer what they promised.

But how do you know that that the old way is what was promised and envisioned (mind reading magic?), can you provide a quote? I only remember seeing "ship insurance" which could mean both so...

 

[DocMoriarty]

CIG did the same with 'Limited' ships. It looks like all the developers honor the agreement but only until there are more people start to show interest for a game. Then backers become minority and developers just throw their agreement out of the window for 'balancing' purposes. I wouldn't say anything much if it was a matter of a few hundred thousand credits. But even in ASP insurance can get to 2 million. If you think of anaconda... man, you'll have to be a slave to the game no personal life, no job nothing. Just sit and grind money so you can pay anaconda expenses.

I ticketed it already and asked them if they can't honor the agreement at least give us an opportunity to insure modules since modules now are no longer insured. Don't remove something without adding a way to resolve the conflict. It would make a lot of sense to be able to insure the modules.

Honor? Dude they are ripe for a lawsuit!

 

[SelfAvenger]

What were they (FD) thinking?
The backlash from all the "backers" alone surely had to be considered by them before they made this change. Why would FD even think of putting themselves in this precarious position?
Revert it back now, you simply do NOT do this to backers irregardless of any reason you think is "balanced". It puts your respectability into question.

Respect your original game play mechanics of ship insurance reduction, don't tell your backers that after you have changed the game play mechanic that this is what you originally meant.

Are you really implying that all backers are this stupid?

Do you like betraying all the backers who backed your development?

Just stupid, and now you have a lot if angry people.

You did not foresee this? Or did you even care?

Betrayed is a pretty strong word to use here don't you think? Sometimes things don't always work out how they were intended for one reason or another. Just like the whole offline thing. Offline was a pretty important feature to me but I don't feel betrayed that it was taken away. Betrayal implies some kind of ill intention on the part of the betrayer. There is no malicious intent here. Let's not jump up and down because this is the internet....

Why don't we speak to the developers as if they were right in front of us. I'm sure a lot of comments that people make about the whole issue would change their tune or how they are presented....

Cheers,

-Todd