No Single Player offline Mode then?
- Thread starter Brandon31
- Start date
- Status
Then they should change the game back.
Ridiculous post, sorry.
It's not fraud. It's false advertising, possibly switch & bait tactics, but not fraud. And the FBI are not going to care about what a computer games company in Cambridge, UK says.
FD have pulled a confidence trick, but it's a long way from fraud.
Depends on the lawyer.
They did design their own code, after all.
Designing code in a certain way is intent.
I'm pretty sure a good enough lawyer could get them up on it.
I guess someone didn't read the Kickstarter FAQs. You are not buying a finished game, complete with all the promises made. You are investing in an idea that may or may not ever happen and even if it does it may well be altered from the initial vision for any number of reasons.
Preorders are a different matter and are protected by law in many countries regardles of any EULA or warranty that you may have signed up to.
Just because you invested in a kickstarter project that didn't include the specific feature you wanted when finisihed, or was not up to the quality you imagined does not entitle you to any refund whatsoever. That is the nature of investment.
Unfortunately, so long as Elite still gets the sales numbers - then as far as Frontier are concerned, from a business perspective - then it is the same thing.
I noticed this same attitude you mention during the Kickstarter campaign (remember the lack of info during the first few days / weeks?!), and I very nearly didn't back the project because of that.
That said, the Frontier developers have done a fantastic job of the game so far, and I am very much in love with it. Far less impressed with David's Tweet today...but then that just goes back to what you have already said.
Yeah, you guys wish to play the game - but you apparently don't give a damn about the people who Kickstarted and backed this, because of promises which later turned out to be false. Remember, without these individuals you probably wouldn't have this game to look forward to.
Such business practices shall not be rewarded.
If Frontier don't want to refund to those who request it, then there may not be much left to do - except from a class action lawsuit. If this makes them crash and burn, so be it.
What I find odd about your statement is that you are putting your faith in what he said, which is the exactly what we did 2 years ago when we financially supported the project.
I accept the project has changed due to the failure to implement the design advertised during the KS, and now I am very patiently waiting for FD to accept my refund request.
This makes sense, thanks for posting it here. ^^
Not me, for sure. But I will give them the benefit of the doubt and a full day before I start suspecting foul play in that area.
even up until this morning i was concerned about the consequences of the enormity of this thread but has time as gone on, and particularly now its just become a rant thread for those affected by the recent change
you have all the answers you need, there is no point pointing at EULAs, pointing at KS pledge promises, asking Michael how long they intend to be in business (!!)
there will be NO single player offline game, it has been stated why
personally, im sorry but coming here and questioning legal paths is like getting cross at the sea and throwing a stone at it - it wont make a blind bit of difference
its as if you all think theyre sat in the office waiting for this thread to get to 6000 and then theyll all go 'joking, it really is possible, we took the physical extremities of your hate and actually built a programmer who can do what youre pointlessly demanding'
complaining and begging isnt going to make them go 'oh yeah, lets change our minds' it is not a CHOICE, they cannot do it!!
you have all the answers you need, there is no point pointing at EULAs, pointing at KS pledge promises, asking Michael how long they intend to be in business (!!)
there will be NO single player offline game, it has been stated why
personally, im sorry but coming here and questioning legal paths is like getting cross at the sea and throwing a stone at it - it wont make a blind bit of difference
its as if you all think theyre sat in the office waiting for this thread to get to 6000 and then theyll all go 'joking, it really is possible, we took the physical extremities of your hate and actually built a programmer who can do what youre pointlessly demanding'
complaining and begging isnt going to make them go 'oh yeah, lets change our minds' it is not a CHOICE, they cannot do it!!
So you think that reverting back to an early alpha stage build of the game and rebuilding everything just to appease people who want an offline mode is a good idea?
I created my ticket on Saturday morning and haven't heard back yet. I'd like to know as well if others have received a reply from support.
Can you define soon? It's just that I get confused by these statements. Like the one that mentioned having to connect to the server "From time to time" in Solo Online mode. Just let me know what setting Frontier has their Stardreamer on and I'll set mine the same.
I could say the same thing for some of these posts if we are really going down this absurd route.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/slander
A good lawyer could most definitely get them "up on it".
To everyone who thinks that they should get something back as a result of Elite Dangerous not being to their liking in the way it is being delivered...
On the Kickstarter Web pages it says...
"4. Creators keep 100% ownership of their work.
Backers are supporting projects to help them come to life, not to profit financially. Instead, project creators offer rewards to thank backers for their support."
I think the Creator has more than given something back in this case, especially given the amount of time a lot of the backers have spent playing with the Alpha and Beta already.
I think you should have thought of this before you signed up as a backer. Also we still haven't seen the final product or what it will include yet. Let alone any future developments and enhancements.
On the Kickstarter Web pages it says...
"4. Creators keep 100% ownership of their work.
Backers are supporting projects to help them come to life, not to profit financially. Instead, project creators offer rewards to thank backers for their support."
I think the Creator has more than given something back in this case, especially given the amount of time a lot of the backers have spent playing with the Alpha and Beta already.
I think you should have thought of this before you signed up as a backer. Also we still haven't seen the final product or what it will include yet. Let alone any future developments and enhancements.
This is incorrect.
They even themselves stated that it was "impractical" rather than impossible.
They CAN do it, they just choose not to. Despite it being a core feature of the project they got us backing for.
So people are clear on exactly what this means.. it does this for every action/transaction at a station, as well as any entrance/exit of supercruise or hyperspace, and any acquisition of cargo, either at a station or otherwise.
So, essentially, ~all-the-time for typical play activities.
You can verify this yourself by watching the bandwidth monitor (ctrl-b) activity while performing any of these actions in game, in beta 3.05.
Vlodec
Banned
I'm pointing out that DB has always handled things this way, regardless of context. Also, it's my impression that his silence is only fanning the flames.
You have to talk to people. DB's silence is being interpreted - rightly or wrongly - as carelessness at best and contempt at worst.
- Status