I wonder if this combined with the BBC article made DB do his Q&A yesterday...
No Single Player offline Mode then?
- Thread starter Brandon31
- Start date
- Status
I wonder if this combined with the BBC article made DB do his Q&A yesterday...
Absolutely agree with you and Tiger on this. It's murky territory though. Marshland with quicksand pools. Because where does moral responsibility end? If they refund over this, then the next time they must refund over something else. (And maybe relatively small like having planetary landing but no walking around.)
Blanket refunds at this stage in the process is just a stupid move.
I refer to the line in that post "I enjoy playing games by myself."
Solo means no interaction with the other players. You are, in essence, playing alone. It isn't offline that is the issue to that user but rather the need to not have to deal with others. And the game still provides that. The human interaction has been removed... you just have a AI with pilots that fly into bases backwards (I'm not sure which one bothers me more, humans or the AI)
Just because they can stand behind the legalities doesn't mean they should ignore the morality of the situation.
I paid money and was looking forward to the offline version. They said it was coming. I paid money because they said it was coming. They change their mind and I am stuck with something that is not completely what I wanted.
I will not dump the game. I will not hold my breath until I turn blue. I will not go off on some verbal bashing.
I will play the game. I will frequent the forum. And I will MOST DEFINITELY remember how this was handled by Frontier.
And whoever asks me about the game will get the simple answer: Its a GREAT online game that allows you to do (insert all the things that Frontier delivered on here.) with other players.
And IF they ask about the future of the game, or they ask: "Hey I read about this feature or that ability coming in the future. How do you think that will be?"
The next simple answer from me is: "How much time do you have?"
Why would I need to do that. Is a game only worth playing, ever, if you are sure you can take it to your grave? How is this even a thing.
But the stink you are making IS affecting us, and may well affect our gaming experience in future.
Your argument holds up -to a point-. However, when you make a decision that materially alters the game prior to the date of release in the UK, you're effectively invalidating your agreement with the customer, regardless of what status they're involved in, beta or otherwise, so at the very least they've got redress to the tune of their retail copy of the game plus anything that would be rendered inoperable due to the cancellation of the retail copy of the game. Note I'm discussing the UK only, I can't speak for anything outside of the country. It's important to note that Kickstarter backers in the UK may have redress if they backed over £60 because one of the reward tiers is a DRM free copy of the game, if FDEV can no longer provide that, they're in breach of contract (the agreement between backer and FDEV is deemed legally binding by kickstarter in the case of physical rewards).
As for people who bought through the store, it depends on how well you can represent yourself, but a lot of people are getting sledged simply because they don't know their rights or because they can't put into words the right legalese to get redress from FDEV. Their whole "The beta costs £50, and the copy of the game is in effect a free reward" move is an act of sheer evil genius by the way, that's how they've been able to avoid refunding beta backers. It's brilliant.
Ok, fair enough.Having worked on several MMO and games I can say it is VERY common that you often try and try to get something to work the way you want to and at some point as you get near release you sit in a meeting and say, "We failed on that section people, we can't figure out how to do what we wanted to. This sucks. They're gonna be mad. Well, let's get on with the rest." I suspect they realized they were beating a dead horse (much like this thread
Much less problems, if FDEV had acted like you describe and delivered the message better. Just an e-mail to all backers/prebuyers and an announcement on forums, in the official Store and webpage saying "We're terribly sorry, but we cannot include the promised offline mode at launch. See <link> for the technical and financial reasons. If this compromises your ability to play the game, please contact our support <link> for arrangements. We're still looking for possibilities and suggestions on how offline could be made reality in the near future <link>. Thank you for your understanding, and sorry for the inconvenience." would have been okay.
Last edited:
That should be okay I imagine - it's just physical goods, there won't be a key in it as you'll already have that. Of course, the buyer would have to own, or buy, the game another way in order to play!
Rules can be changed, or new rules can be made. It happens all the time, there's nothing extraordinary about it. If both FD and the interested users agreed to a solution that allowed FD to sell on those users' accounts to other people, what harm would there be in doing that? Take my account for example, it's pristine and squeaky clean: I have never played beta, never downloaded anything, I have no save game, nothing that would offer an unfair advantage to the buyer over other players. I would go home and stop complaining, FD wouldn't have to open its coffers to issue a refund, it's win win.
I don't think they should have told anyone, they should have had an offline button in the game and when you pressed it, it launched the original wireframe elite. I suspect they might have got away with that.
... I am now ... officially back to lurking... crikey... this ... all of it... what ... my eyes... they bleed... my brain... it hurts... Back to a world, a world where people actually pretended to care about others and their opinions, and maybe make a passing effort at comprehending them...
Oh and the views are so much better if I leave the web.
The offline only crowd in general doesn't give a fig about data security and protecting the online side from crackers. It is nothing for them. They just want the off-line version, no matter the compromises it would mean for the online game.
This actually made me laugh (not your answer, the concept). Companies rarely take a moral side when they have a legal stand.
Great, so no.
No worries. I'd be interested in reading that interview, so please post the link if / when you find it. Most of what I've seen thus far has just been quotes from the forum (even found one of mine on a website yesterday - how bizarre!).
Do you own books? CDs? Blu-rays? Why is that even a thing - you can get them from a library, or rent them! Madness I tell you.
I get it. What flings one way, flings the other too, is what I am talking about. My suggestion: Stop the flinging, but trying to be funny about it. No sense of humour? Never mind.
People are saying "No one cares about us. Have some empathy." But in the whole ruckas the mud flinging is affecting everyone, not just the group who are feeling it.
I just want what they sold me or my money back. You want me to be ripped off.
Offline was the only way I played the beta
No offense to all of you but I just have no desire to play the same game with you. It was a major detraction for why I didn't buy the other guys game. And will actually stop me from playing this one if I have to play with other and have a few people ruin my experience. I don't mind online requirement for patching/updates. But I don't want "intrusions" on my experience or the mandatory persistent internet connection.
No offense to all of you but I just have no desire to play the same game with you. It was a major detraction for why I didn't buy the other guys game. And will actually stop me from playing this one if I have to play with other and have a few people ruin my experience. I don't mind online requirement for patching/updates. But I don't want "intrusions" on my experience or the mandatory persistent internet connection.
- Status