No Single Player offline Mode then?

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Erna Jedermann

Erna Jedermann
Boogyman said:
I see the lack of an offline single player mode as a problem because I don't want my ability to play the game to be bound to the developers willingness or ability to support it. At some point in the future, the servers WILL be taken down. I suspect that I, and many others, will still want to play the game beyond that time.

A possible solution here would be to release a dedicated server application as an optional download to the community to allow us to host our own servers, and thus continue to play beyond the official end-of-life.
Click to expand...
Sorry that not the VISION ..... with ads/F2P/MT/BOT eh Farmer eh...notthing ;)
Like facebook NSA FD will show you only thing which you allready have check by amazon...mmmm there was a thread about good teamwork between...noooo can't be FD Said they don't make it like refund/offline
 

Demosthien

D
littleminxundr said:
The full game (Mercenary edition) is gifted for participating in the Beta. That's why I said that if I hadn't bought the game for the offline, I could be seen as a cunning leech; I bought in at the last moment, get more goodies than a pre-order and be thanked for something I never even did.

You didn't buy the full game when you bought Beta Access. You bought Beta Access.
Click to expand...

Yeh, that means the game is free. 8-O That could be a spanner.
 

JughedJones

JughedJones
Erna Jedermann said:
Sorry that not the VISION ..... with ads/F2P/MT/BOT eh Farmer eh...notthing ;)
Like facebook NSA FD will show you only thing which you allready have check by amazon...mmmm there was a thread about good teamwork between...noooo can't be FD Said they don't make it like refund/offline
Click to expand...

Seriously Holmes....

What in God's name are you babbling about?
 

nexxo

N
Demosthien said:
Yep, another poster mentioned that and as I said to them... That means the game is free!! FTW

Are they going to give it away on the release date do you think? (just joking... thanks for pointing that out though, seriously)
Click to expand...

They're going to give it away to you --and other alpha and beta backers. The rest will have to pay up. :)
 

jamotide

J
phlOgistOn said:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=58789&p=1024843&viewfull=1#post1024843

Very first person to reply after the Q&A DID get a refund. SO maybe MOST rather than ALL were denied.
Click to expand...

So people who just preordered got a refund. Interesting. If you help them betatest, you are boned. Kinda glad now I never tried it, so I guess they will refund me,too. Still angry though, because I think they should refund everyone regardless of them helping with the beta test or now.
 

Blethigg

B
joejett said:
"Everyone else" doesn't seem to be too concerned about whether or not the game is ruined for the folks who truly wanted or even required single player offline. In fact, from what I see on this thread, "everyone else" seems to be almost giddy, posting hostile and argumentative messages, flaming people with legitimate concerns, telling them that their honest feelings about the issue are "wrong" because of technicalities a, b or c. They come here to battle and belittle anyone who raises a voice of discontent. The apologists are the aggressors here, so why should anyone care whether the game is ruined for them or not? In fact, if these apologists could get it through their thick skulls that FD's decision affects everyone, even them, maybe they wouldn't be so hostile. Make no mistake: one day they're going feel a little nostalgic and load up Elite Dangerous, but it won't be there. On that day, maybe they'll begin to understand the impact of FD's decision and feel just a tinge of shame for all the trouble they've caused on this thread. Then again, they seem pretty shameless, so maybe not.

Anyway, I for one would shed no tears if FD went bankrupt as a result of this underhanded decision. It's not that I'm happy to see the game ruined for everyone else; it's just that my hatred for lying corporate scumbags is that great. I would say I'd be more than happy if every company that ever lied went bankrupt, but then I'd probably just find myself in a world without any goods or services whatsoever. (Holding my palms up, weighing one against the other, trying to decide which I'd prefer.)
Click to expand...

...or you could have included the second line of my post, in which I express my sympathy for those affected, but that would have invalidated your rant a little, wouldn't it?

<Edit> To put it another way, I'm very sorry that the restaurant took your money before telling you that they couldn't make dessert that you ordered. But if you then threaten to tip my table up, when I'm happy with the food I received, then that is not acceptable behaviour, whatever your grievance with the restaurant
 
Last edited:

beelbeebub

beelbeebub
Vlodec said:
This is true. Do you think lawyers advice may have persuaded DB to agree to that awful charade earlier this evening? I certainly had the impression he didn't want to be there. His lack of enthusiasm was tangible. But I originally thought a deputation of other major shareholders may have been responsible.
Click to expand...

I think the debacle of the last few days (regardless of your opinion on offline's importance the last few days have probably not been what FD wanted on the eve of the launch!) probably did have a lot to do with DB's appearance. I suspect it was the PR dept who wanted a big gun wheeled out. However, I guess this is where the printed (typed) word is less than face to face. I didn't get any lack of enthusiasm from DB's comments. I think he had legal sitting on his shoulder and probably discussed every reply with them and some other people, rather than just being "off the cuff" as it were. Hence the slightly slow response rate, however, I thought he came across well. He acknowledged that people had been angered by the decision, but defended FD's right to make the decision, and pointed out that they hadn't taken it lightly and only for technical (i.e. not for subscriptions or micro transactions or DRM or other reasons). It seemed to calm some people down, I think some of the others just have their "blood up" and are lashing out (some people clearly do have a real technical problem with offline's dropping, but I suspect not all, witness the chap who apparently dropped ED because of offline and the dull universe (two opposing reasons) then went straight to SC!
 

phlOgistOn

P
jamotide said:
So people who just preordered got a refund. Interesting. If you help them betatest, you are boned. Kinda glad now I never tried it, so I guess they will refund me,too. Still angry though, because I think they should refund everyone regardless of them helping with the beta test or now.
Click to expand...

Yeah in a nutshell it seems to be:

If you bought the preorder from them but didnt download, then you got refunded.
If you bought the preorder from them and downloaded it, you didn't get refunded.
If you backed the KS, you didn't get refunded.

EDIT: swap 'preorder' for 'beta-access' to be more correctly termed
 

ThatFuzzyTiger

ThatFuzzyTiger
beelbeebub said:
What happens in these situations (and I have been here) is that both sides will consult their lawyers on how strong they think their case is, FD's lawyers might think they have a good case, your lawyers might think you have a good case. There is then some to and fro between the lawyers as each tries to convince the other that they are right. Eventually one side may concede that the other side's arguments are valid and recommend action to their client and eventually it all gets settled out of court. It only goes to court if the two legal teams can't agree. it's a bit like the animal kingdom where the males don't really want to fight, but puff up and try and convince the other male that they are stronger. Fights only happen if there is no clear "winner" in the posing contest. What this all boils down to is that FD's legal team have almost certainly looked at all the various bits of legislation and rendered a verdict on what FD's exposure to legal action is likely to be. In all probability this consultation was done before the announcement, and if the risk of refunds was as bad as you claim it was then they probably wouldn't have dropped offline. So it is highly likely that the right to refunds is limited to a few people who are getting them.
Click to expand...

You missed the bit about the winner dryhumping the losers leg, but yes, that's actually a pretty good summary of how most legal wranglings go in my experience.
 

littleminxundr

littleminxundr
beelbeebub said:
I guess it really hinges on did you buy beta access and get the game thrown in for free or the game and the beta access thrown in for free.
-
I strongly suspect the wording in the store made it the former.
Click to expand...

Easy:
whatyouget_zps46a20acb.jpg

And yes, I misspelled goodiebag. w/e...

Also, look at the box-art. It's says Digital Beta Access...
 
Last edited:

paralipsis

P
beelbeebub said:
I guess it really hinges on did you buy beta access and get the game thrown in for free or the game and the beta access thrown in for free.
-
I strongly suspect the wording in the store made it the former.
Click to expand...

Or there could have been people who got to that beta by ordering the game first, and then upgrading. As the last few newsletters have advertised:

"If you have already pre-ordered the final game you can still become part of the Beta now and take advantage of the lasting benefits that will give you, by upgrading your account, which will cost you an additional £15. Interested? Just go to the store, put the Beta in your basket and the correct discount will be applied when you checkout."

I think it's pretty clear that the current beta price includes the game at £35, and the beta fee at £15. Maybe I'm drawing too many conclusions from what seems obvious just to me. I dunno. IANAL
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom