Would I?
It might help you avoid buying games that "dismantle, alienate, frustrate and abuse their costumers" in your opinion.
For example I dislike 3rd person games, I deal with this world shattering issue by not buying them.
Would I?
I'm bemused by the idea that not letting someone explode others counts as "abuse". And if anyone is getting dismantled by this game I wonder what fearsome computer peripherals they have?It might help you avoid buying games that "dismantle, alienate, frustrate and abuse their costumers" in your opinion.
For example I dislike 3rd person games, I deal with this world shattering issue by not buying them.
Have you considered the possibility that a lot of people consider the choice is the game's best point?but a lot of people think a solo mode is not good
People can play in solo mode, but It's not good for a true MMO experience. There are countless examples of real MMOs that don't have a solo mode and it works out, it creates more cooperation, team play. A real MMO is by design not a solo-game. It's about encouraging Massively Multiplayer experiences Online. ED is not a true MMO though. It's a hybrid single-player with multiplayer features.
Irrelevant.Check Eve Online revenue per year is way higher than ED.
That's the whole point - if I wanted an MMO exclusive experience from this game, I wouldn't have bought it because that is not what it offers. It's never been what it offers and the best information we have from the developers is that it never will be.
E: D would not have gone past Kickstarter if it was pitched as open only game.
I'm bemused by the idea that not letting someone explode others counts as "abuse". And if anyone is getting dismantled by this game I wonder what fearsome computer peripherals they have?
Really?More people would've bought and played ED if it offered a true massively multiplayer experience.
If the game hadn't contained the three game modes then it might not have achieved its funding target - in which case there'd be no game to be discussing.More people would've bought and played ED if it offered a true deep sandbox, massively multiplayer experience. So the loss of a few players would not be a big deal.
More people would've bought and played ED if it offered a true deep sandbox, massively multiplayer experience. So the loss of a few players would not be a big deal.
Not as bad as Edinburgh. I was there on holiday once (yeah, I must sound crazy now), and literally 99% were rushing around like it was their last day on earth or something. Nearly as bad as London (that one I can say wasn't my idea though).Yea were a bit mental up here in Glasgow
Solo contradicts Open Mode.
Funny? Yes. But utterly stupid if you are looking for coherence inside your game. Smart? No. Stupid? To create a game mode to dismantle, alienate, frustrate and abuse your costumers. Questions?
They don't need defending in this discussion - they consciously chose not to make their game revolve around PvP and have stuck to that premise for over seven years.I know you will keep on defending Frontier, but a lot of people think a solo mode is not good. This discussion can go on forever.
Just making a note to visit Glasgow when I get the chance (my mouth is now drooling).....Edinburgh is nothing compared to Glasgow. Seriously they put salt and sauce on their chips.
Uncultured people.
Indeed so - and the opportunity for excellent cooperative gameplay within a closed group isn't to be sneered at eitherThey don't need defending in this discussion - they consciously chose not to make their game revolve around PvP and have stuck to that premise for over seven years.
Some people certainly think that solo mode is not good - as has been obvious for years. What proportion of the player-base that represents is unknown.