If a game is purchased by a player and single option is available, what is unreasonable about this situation? Frontier gets £30+(ish) payment for game development and the player gets the game they wanted. Seems fair and reasonable to me.
Exactly.
Minecraft has no DRM. People can choose to get an update or not that's all I want. ED will have no DRM either this is clear so DRM is not an issue.
I have made my point and why I don't want internet connection, so it's as simple as that. I don't want ED to be a big paper weight when I am away from internet connections for long periods of time (months even). Open the box, install it no internet needed EVER. Simple as that. If I have that not a problem.
If people want MP then you authenticate just like minecraft otherwise I would never need to go online with it. This I think is ok so if I want MP I obviously need to go online so authentication is not an issue. FORCED authentication is.
So all I need to do is wait to hear if SP is completely offline and hopefully know by Jan 4th (as I wrote on the OP).
I understand many of you love Steam etc and don't mind single player / offline authentication etc that's fine..... but that's not for me. I got burned with SPORE and others. I don't want to argue with a manufacturer that my computer died and it won't let me authenticate my LEGITIMATE copy, again it punishes legitimate users. I'm so happy David also hates DRM.
So enough from me on the topic, I've said everything I need to say I just hope I get to find out whether ED needs internet for SP so I know whether to remain in the KS campaign or not simple as that.
