No Single Player offline Mode then?

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
This really deserves to be quoted here:
...
Then, when they get mad and complain about being lied to, along come these strange creatures who try to justify the lies and spin it all around to make it look like the poor consumer is somehow at fault. “Most people are always online anyway, this is 2014, how 2013 of you to even think you would want a game that isn’t connected.” They are messing with your head, and implying, however obliquely and politely, that you are an idiot and passe merely because you expect a game that does not require a constant online connection.

You are being conditioned people. Conditioned by a very subtle pseudo peer pressure mechanic. The constant online is nothing more than DRM, plain and simple. They make up lame excuses to justify it, but in the end, it’s all fabrication designed to get you to swallow the constant online pill being shoved down your throat."

- JusticeInTruth, a guy from the RPS news

I love how now we're all corporate shills of Frontier rather than just being fans.

Fine - https://twitter.com/tanepiper - that's the real me. Feel free to Google me, you'll find nothing more than I'm a pragmatic developer who understand the pressures FD are under and approach this whole thing not from an emotional, but a logical direction.

Now stop saying I work for Frontier. I don't.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Well Frontier, I am waiting a couple days for a statement that this was all a big joke.
If not, I want a refund please

Here's your statement:

https://twitter.com/DavidBraben/status/534328060343234562

https://twitter.com/DavidBraben/status/534328371464130560

Now move along

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Waiting until 23:00 CET.
That is my personal deadline.

See above
 
A lottery? Because some day the servers will close? Looks like you have an acute case of "first world problems" going there chap.
Maybe, but reacting differently would, to me, be like "he has too much time at his hands".

You have to understand, I value my free time very highly. I don't have much. Before I start a new computer game, I consider this step very carefully.
Furthermore, when I play, I am in it with enthusiasm and emotion. If not, why would I play at all? I could use different, better ways of entertainment to spend my time with.
I had intended ED to be such a game. If it failed to provide enough entertainment for me to be deeply involved in it, it wouldn't be the right game to begin with. Until last friday it seemed like exactly like a game for me.

So basically: If you dump maybe hundreds of hours of gameplay into that game with so little enthusiasm that you wouldn't even mind much if you lose all your hard earned spaceships and resources for reasons beyond your control, then you really have entirelly too much time at your hands.
 
Last edited:
And this is one of the biggest disappointments for me. Its the same issue I had with Landmark. Big companies come along and make use of funding methods that have been a fantastic boon to indie developers. Big companies that arguably shouldn't need such funding streams or development models. They then screw over people by reneging on promises and put off people from using these crowd funding or early access models in future which will only hurt the indie companies in the end.

Shame on you Frontier. You're not just damaging your own reputation your damaging the reputation and future of the crowd funding model.

A bit like in this article? http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-12-12-are-the-rich-old-men-ruining-kickstarter
 
...snip...

Shame on you Frontier. You're not just damaging your own reputation your damaging the reputation and future of the crowd funding model.

yeah i think some 15,000* unhappy ED backers and pre-order buyers people will kill the crowd funding model.

/perspective

*given a generous 10% of the current beta testers
 
People were individually assured, right up to last friday, that they would get an offline mode. Ignoring the store blurb, the kickstarter, and the EULA, if you'd asked people directly, you would have been told you'd get offline play by a mod, the executive producer, or even the CEO of FD. That's why people thought this was a thing.

Still does not change anything regards the law. At that point the devs were most likely (speculation on my part btw) still thinking it was possible to do and all they would have to do is provide evidence of single player code/tests etc and thats the end of it. The text based conditions etc are the thing that matters most and as far as i have read, legally speaking, there is no grounds for actual court action.

People are entitled to be upset,disapointed or even angry at the decision but all the shouting about law suits and stuff needs to stop, nothing illegal has happened.
 
Maybe, but reacting differently would, to me, be like "he has too much time at his hands".

You have to understand, I value my free time very highly. I don't have much. Before I start a new computer game, I consider this step very carefully.
Furthermore, when I play, I am in it with enthusiasm and emotion. If not, why would I play at all? I could use different, better ways of entertainment to spend my time with.
I had intended ED to be such a game. If it failed to provide enough entertainment for me to be deeply involved in it, it wouldn't be the right game to begin with. Until last friday it seemed like exactly like a game for me.

So basically: If you dump maybe hundreds of hours of gameplay into that game with so little enthusiasm that you wouldn't even mind much if you lose all your hard earned spaceships and resources for reasons beyond your control, then you really have entirelly too much time at your hands.

No matter how many hours you "dump" into it, it's still a game, you're supposed to have fun. If I spend hundreds of hours playing a game I have not "dumped" my time but I spent it while being entertained. Even if I never play it anymore, I still had fun up to that moment. It's not like you are creating your future or something, you are playing a game.
 
Still does not change anything regards the law. At that point the devs were most likely (speculation on my part btw) still thinking it was possible to do and all they would have to do is provide evidence of single player code/tests etc and thats the end of it. The text based conditions etc are the thing that matters most and as far as i have read, legally speaking, there is no grounds for actual court action.

People are entitled to be upset,disapointed or even angry at the decision but all the shouting about law suits and stuff needs to stop, nothing illegal has happened.

Well, I'd suggest that in terms of a refund, EU/UK/AU consumer protection law is actually quite robust and I know in terms of Australia denying digital refunds and making false representations about Australian's rights to one is exactly the sort of thing Valve is currently being done for by the ACCC.

If you wanted to make a big legal mess, I'd go the other way as the other chap suggested and see what the SEC (or FSA) would make of what's been happening.
 
The rewards are DRM free versions. So I guess they'll just have to make the servers accessible to everyone without serial key or any authentication, like Phl0giston suggests.

Or supply refunds/compensation to compensate for the promised reward would be my guess, the claimant should be saying "i pledged £££ for XXX reward, however i cannot get this reward as i am unable to access the game as i have no internet connection" and not " i want my refund because i didnt get single player", does that make sense to you guys?
 

Vlodec

Banned
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom