Again? So this will be your PR Mantra, straight from EAs mouth, huh? NO DRM, you only need to be connected to the internet LMAO
No Single Player offline Mode then?
- Thread starter Brandon31
- Start date
- Status
Again? So this will be your PR Mantra, straight from EAs mouth, huh? NO DRM, you only need to be connected to the internet LMAO
There is a reason I used these --> " "
That's the only one you may have a point with.
However, even if we accept your post as written then all you're really saying is "it's fine to make and break promises". Good going!
No, what I'm saying is that things change over time...
Well, that's very sad.
For me, offline-only play was a big draw. I have no interest in multiplayer games. Don't play'em, never have, and this always online nonsense is not what I paid for. It's not what I was told I was paying for when FD came cap in hand looking for people to give them cash. People seem to forget that we are the ones who provided the money for this game to be made, that without the kickstarter backers we wouldn't even be here now to have this conversation. So for FD to casually trash what was, for me, a fairly important promise like offline play?
Kind of a move, guys. We all hoped and expected better from you but instead you've waited till the last minute and bottled it by putting this out as a footnote in a newsletter rather than coming clean from the getgo.
For me, offline-only play was a big draw. I have no interest in multiplayer games. Don't play'em, never have, and this always online nonsense is not what I paid for. It's not what I was told I was paying for when FD came cap in hand looking for people to give them cash. People seem to forget that we are the ones who provided the money for this game to be made, that without the kickstarter backers we wouldn't even be here now to have this conversation. So for FD to casually trash what was, for me, a fairly important promise like offline play?
Kind of a move, guys. We all hoped and expected better from you but instead you've waited till the last minute and bottled it by putting this out as a footnote in a newsletter rather than coming clean from the getgo.
They could do an offline version, maybe at a bit later date, but they could do it without destroying the online game.
To be fair, during an alpha / beta, problems such as the stability of the servers is to be expected. On this point, you have to at least give them a chance which means reserving judgement until after release...
That is a wild assumption, I have spent the last 40 minutes catching up on this thread from page 80ish, where I left it last night.
The majority of posts (not all) are fairly reasonable discussions on the topic with very few threatening charge backs..
I very much doubt this issue will have a major financial impact on FD... as you pointed out in previous post's the people in this thread are after all the "vocal minority".
I am of course not trying to pick a fight, I agree with some of the things you are posting (I even gave you rep for one) but you can't keep insisting that those who want a refund because of this are going to ruin it for the rest of us, who don't want a refund. If that was indeed the case however, then its a poor judgement call on FD's part and then it should be reconsidered.
Last edited:
weather you are for or against the solo aspect of the game, FD'd decision will ultimately hurt them, a quick google search already has this floating around the net, once the bigger sites get wind of it it's only going to hurt launch day even more, as it stands I don't believe this will be remotely ready come the 16th dec, there's still issues that have not been resolved since alpha, the networking still has issues, sc cruise is laggy, controls have been iffy since beta 3 that were fine beforehand etc etc. maybe we expected too much, I would have been a lot happier if they released later, we've paid to be in alpha, beta and gamma but the release version will probably still be a way off what they hinted at. The newsletter is just a means to lower expectations, it doesn't appear to have achieved what they wanted.
In all fairness, the news outlets will mostly ignore the gaseous components coming up to release. They'll focus on two dates:
November 22nd
December 16th.
He did, but my reply was on a post many pages earlier. And his post on page 115 confirmed it was not the entire story.
I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you here, Juniper.
The best that Frontier Developments could give would be an estimate or the projected time given projected revenue from sales, which are themselves conjecture. Otherwise they could give a minimum time given the funding levels, but this could act to restrict sales and make it a self fulfilling prophecy and a business disaster.
In the current circumstance the only real thing they could do practically is to re-iterate in black and white that if ever the servers were to be closed that something would be put in place to allow people to continue to play in some form or another. Of course, the manner in which the news of the removal of the offline mode was released unfortunately means that any such promise would be taken with a more than a pinch of salt.
I suspect one reason that hasn't received so much attention, is that many people (myself included) had already over the last few weeks resigned themselves to the probability of that being the case. In that regard, the newsletter merely confirmed my suspicions. This off-hand dropping of what had been an assumed core feature was on a totally differently level I think, even though I personally have no interest in an offline mode.
I agree also +2
almostpilot
Banned
Exactly. If you've shat your pants, you're going to stink for a while, not matter how quickly you change the pants.
Noone knows this...how could they?
They probably might have some projections internally, but sharing these kind of speculations would help noone.
How long will you live? Surely you should be able to answer this question.
That's precisely why they should have ensured the longevity of the game by providing an offline mode that isn't affected by these uncertainties. How is removing a failsafe improving the game?
Michael Brookes
Game Director
There is no arm twisting. Circumstances are simply staff we have available and what could be spared to work on something that doesn't support the core design of the game.
Michael
Michael Brookes
Game Director
Really well said. FD should keep his word.
Even if it made the game worse?
Michael
This. It does not bode well for future commitments, support, or respect for backers and customers in general.
Don't take the troll-bait mate.
Really well said. FD should keep his word.
So considering they reckoned they could not deliver an offline version that they reckoned would up to standards would you rather they kept their word released some rubbish and then everyone would moan about how many of the online features are missing?
Really well said. FD should keep his word.
Or if they cannot for technical reasons that were discovered through development - and I do believe that is likely - they simply post a new sticky on the Update forum to apologise and offer a refund to at least the Store buyers, making it clear how to get it.
I tend to consider myself as a Backer a different case and I suck it up, even though I think the decision and the way it was attempted to be slipped under the radar in the newsletter stinks, but them's the breaks for funding something out the starting gate.
If FD don't do this properly it's going to be a ripple effect onto other sites and the rumour machine will turn and it's just a load of bad press for them.
- Status