Elite: Dangerous - Backlash Over Online-Only Emphasis

Originally Posted by forgottenlor
and you want a refund, you should be given it.

Yes, even to those who played alpha and beta. Some of them do it under the same false assumption that SP will be given at the end.

Originally Posted by Moriendor
It has turned out that the vast majority of developers are not that much better than publishers.

I wouldnt say that they are "not much better". Remember its one company. But publishers are not all black and developers are not all white.

Also, to fatknacker's point, that the wording to the backers stated that they were paying for early access, and the finished product was then essentially a free gift? But what if the thing you paid to access "early" turns out not be what was advertised when it arrives? I could see EU consumer law not looking kindly upon that.

If anyone cares enough to test it in court, that could be quite interesting. You could form decent arguments for and against, and I wouldn't like to predict the outcome.

Originally Posted by Moriendor
I don't have a problem with the single player online requirement (the PC I will be playing the single player online on is connected 24/7) but the loss of trust is definitely an issue. Frontier Developments were doing so well. A near perfect campaign and well executed subsequent alphas and betas. Good communication all around. And now this… *sigh*

Oh well, just another reason to never ever back any game ever again. I'm all done with Kickstarter and crowdfunding in general. It has turned out that the vast majority of developers are not that much better than publishers.

I'd certainly back another game by the developers of Shadowrun Returns or Wasteland 2. I like to give developers a chance, but once they've wasted it they can't expect any more money from me.

Well I've been avoiding backing games that promise both single-player and MMO modes, and now I'm doubly glad that I did. It seems like too large of a focus split, given the funding level, and, I think, should be left to projects with heavyweight backers.

Yeah. That should have been an obvious red flag to anyone who prefers single player. Also, they should refund anyone's money no matter whether they played the alpha or beta. To do otherwise will completely kill Frontier's reputation.

What I don't understand is that, given their stated plan is to expand the game in a modular way over time, why not just make the work required for a single player engine a module, and do that next?

They're being a bit disingenuous claiming that their enormous galaxy requires a server farm to simulate. That's only true once you've decided to track the activity of thousands of real players. To use procedural generation and a bit of ai to simulate an economy for single player would require no more complexity than a basic strategy game. A bit of extra work, sure, but far from infeasible.

Yep. They are sounding disingenuous on several fronts. Not a good sign.

EDIT: Well I should have done my research

From PC Gamer:

It will still support single-player gameplay, but a constant connection to the internet will be required.

So that's not so bad, except for those without internet connectivity. Is that common?

http://www.pcgamer.com/elite-dangero…-offline-mode/

Glad I didn't kick in for this one. I decide when I want to be connected to the interwebs, no one else ever gets to make that call for me. Period.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
Yep. They are sounding disingenuous on several fronts. Not a good sign.

EDIT: Well I should have done my research

From PC Gamer:
So that's not so bad, except for those without internet connectivity. Is that common?

http://www.pcgamer.com/elite-dangero…-offline-mode/

None of that will matter when the servers disappear one day in the future and you want to play…

Same can be said of all other online only games. Unfortunate, but there are remedies.

I backed this game. I don't know if I want to play it as an MMO.

Originally Posted by rjshae
Well I've been avoiding backing games that promise both single-player and MMO modes, and now I'm doubly glad that I did. It seems like too large of a focus split, given the funding level, and, I think, should be left to projects with heavyweight backers.

People here were saying I went too far when I said the single player mode in Richard Garriot's game would be severely compromised but stuff like this makes me doubly believe I was exactly right.

Originally Posted by Moriendor
I don't have a problem with the single player online requirement (the PC I will be playing the single player online on is connected 24/7) but the loss of trust is definitely an issue. Frontier Developments were doing so well. A near perfect campaign and well executed subsequent alphas and betas. Good communication all around. And now this… *sigh*

Oh well, just another reason to never ever back any game ever again. I'm all done with Kickstarter and crowdfunding in general. It has turned out that the vast majority of developers are not that much better than publishers.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Originally Posted by shadow9d9
None of that will matter when the servers disappear one day in the future and you want to play…

Well, according to the newsletter that would not necessarily spell the end…

What is Frontier's plan for when the servers shut down?
We do not plan to shut the servers down, but understand it is a reasonable question. We are at the beginning of the game not the end and are focused on creating a game that we hope will be played for many years in the future. We do plan to take regular archives of the game and the servers, to preserve the game for the future.

Could the server code be released publicly some day when the servers are shut down?
Yes. This is something we would do if for whatever reason we cannot keep the game going.

By then you could probably run a server on your home computer.

Originally Posted by rjshae
Well I've been avoiding backing games that promise both single-player and MMO modes

Originally Posted by Thrasher
Yeah. That should have been an obvious red flag to anyone who prefers single player.

True. But it was Elite… I wanted to believe.

For those interested, Frontier now appears to be reconsidering its refund policy. Contact them if you want your money back, as they say they'll be considering refunds on "a case by case basis."

Source: http://www.pcgamer.com/elite-dangero…-reconsidered/

Might want to update the newsbit.

I'm a backer and annoyed at the decision. I'm thankful that kickstarter freezes the original screen so that this FAQ question is unchanged for 2 years:

How will single player work? Will I need to connect to a server to play?

The above is the intended single player experience. However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server. You won't get the features of the evolving galaxy (although we will investigate minimising those differences) and you probably won't be able to sync between server and non-server (again we'll investigate).

They are iffy but it was enough for me at the time to invest. I would accept losing features like the rebalanced economy for offline or even not being allowed to sync.

Sadly I think I'm going to try and get my money back but I suspect it will be difficult despite what they are saying about the case by case. The only good thing is I did not download or play any alpha or beta so that may improve my chances. I would not be surprised if the community hacked the hell out of this game to put offline mode back in out of spite if its possible but we shall see.

Originally Posted by Irian
Was looking forward to the game for the SinglePlayer. Now, one less game I have to spend money on. Well, let's hope for another day…

Unfortunately I was looking for a solid single player game too.

I doubt kickstarters are going anywhere, but these kind of dissapointments make people more cynical and each dissapointment derogates the foundation of kickstarter. One of the main elements of foundation was honest communication with your backers.

I wish devs would just inform their backers if they for some reason change their mind or are forced to change their mind. Orginal vision can not be always implemented the way it was planned during kickstater, but you must explain this change in design to backers when it happens.

We get enough pr bullshit from likes of EA and Ubisoft.

Originally Posted by Dez
I doubt kickstarters are going anywhere, but these kind of dissapointments make people more cynical and each dissapointment derogates the foundation of kickstarter. One of the main elements of foundation was honest communication with your backers.

I wish devs would just inform their backers if they for some reason change their mind or are forced to change their mind. Orginal vision can not be always implemented the way it was planned during kickstater, but you must explain this change in design to backers when it happens.

We get enough pr bullshit from likes of EA and Ubisoft.

Changes at the last minute which have serious repercussions for backers….

Now where have I encountered that before? I see a pattern forming, must resist…