Share this project

Done

Share this project

Done
Elite: Dangerous's video poster
Play

Take a ship and 100 credits to make money legally or illegally - trade, bounty-hunt, pirate, assassinate your way across the galaxy. Read more

25,681
backers
£1,578,316
pledged of £1,250,000 goal
0
seconds to go

Funded!

This project was successfully funded on January 4, 2013.

Take a ship and 100 credits to make money legally or illegally - trade, bounty-hunt, pirate, assassinate your way across the galaxy.

Use this space to cheer the creator along, ask questions, and talk to your fellow backers. Please remember to be respectful and considerate. Thanks!

    1. Creator Jörn Huxhorn 22 minutes ago

      @Avalanche: Nope, didn't receive any money and they didn't bother to answer to the nagging mail I wrote on 2015-02-11. As expected. Just sent them another one.

      Sorry for the delayed answer to your question. And congrats for still keeping your calm in this comments section. I have serious problems with the "respectful and considerate" part if explanations are completely ignored.

      https://defectivebydesign.org/ - certain people should take a look at this link.

      @Wyzak: I will definitely post here when I receive the money.

    2. Creator Wyzak about 17 hours ago

      @Avalanche, the refund thread has grinded to a stop, and most of the discussions on the EDRG are related to other things now. So it looks like most of the guys who wanted refunds have been sorted. This is what E:D should have done right from the start. Offered unconditional refunds and pay out those who really felt offended, and everything would have just died down.

    3. Creator Avalanche 1 day ago

      @: Wyzak [ https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/comments… ]

      Is that a lot? :o) What I mean is, do you get a sense of how many others were still waiting or..? 73 still doesn't sound like many, but then again, a lot of people could have not posted success, with a few still waiting. On the other hand, if *hundreds* are still reportedly waiting, then that's a different matter.

      Sadly, I'm guessing the latter is closer to reality.

    4. Creator Wyzak 3 days ago

      @Fabio Capela - yeah the offline console version was just a slap in the face of those who bought their original game. Funny how Blizzard use to be my favourite gaming house, and now I haven't bought anything from them in several years. I won D3 in a competition, wouldn't have spent my own money on it after became apparent that it was always-online. I tried the beta and the lag was horrible.

    5. Creator Fabio Capela 3 days ago

      @Wyzak
      Kinda offtopic, but:

      "And that is fine, a ton of games have done that successfully. I wish Blizzard did this with Diablo III."

      Actually they did. In the console version. Together with the controller support players have been asking for since, like, Diablo 1.

      Which is another reason to be looking somewhere else for my next games. Between the mandatory Battle.net launcher, the always online nature of all their recent PC games, and denying features to PC players despite having developed them for the console version of the same game, I'm not sure I will be purchasing anything from Blizzard again. A pity, up until a few years ago they were one of the few devs I trusted enough to purchase games blindly, which is how I got Diablo 3 (and learned to utterly hate always online games) in the first place.

      @Sean

      EVE isn't a good comparison, really, as it's not in as good shape as you paint. It has always had a serious issue of player retention; the devs themselves admit that about half the players that purchase the game (as opposed to downloading the free trial) leave the game in the first month, which is a very bad figure for a MMO. Besides, in the west it never went much above 300K players, so its peak popularity should be on par with Ultima Online (and far below most multimillion-dollars MMOs), and to boot the devs haven't released subscription numbers for the last couple years, something that usually signals that things are going south.

      Is ED going to succeed? I sincerely don't know. I'm fairly sure your analysis is false, though; you seem like the kind of person that assumes everyone enjoys the same things as you, which while a common error, is an error nevertheless.

      On the other hand, I can tell you for sure I will be doing my best to make any potential player aware of how Frontier went back on promised features and made a stink when it came to handing out the refunds those players that purchased the game over the now false promises were due. I usually wish success even to games I hate, together with their dev studios, but Frontier is a company I wouldn't shed a tear over if it went down.

    6. Creator Wyzak 4 days ago

      @Avalance, by my count 73 people have so far received refunds

      @Sean Curtin, wall of text incoming.

      https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/comments…, just because we have Internet does not mean that we have stable Internet. It does not mean that we have reliably Internet. Just because we can access a website at some point in time, does not mean that we have 24/7 access to the Internet.

      And even if we have 24/7 access to the Internet, we were promised an offline mode which goes far further than just the ability to play offline. It allows you to play while your Internet connection is busy with something else in the background. It allows you to control your game, if you don't like how they changed the cobra in patch 1.1, you can stick to patch 1.0 for the rest of eternity. It allows you to be able to play the game for as long as you own the actual media and have a PC that is capable of interpreting the game. You aren't at their mercy for when they switch off the servers. You aren't at their mercy when it comes to weekly maintenance downtime. Only have half an hour or so to play, log in and oh snap there's an update which downloads for 30 minutes. You can't say, not now, I'll install it later, I just wan't to play. You have to update or you can't enter the game. Which means, oh sorry you can't actually play the game you wanted to play during the limited time you had available to play it.

      I bought the game, but I'm not able to sell it. So essentially I never bought the game, and my rights have been stripped against my will.

      I game to get away from the mundane of normal life. I want to get lost in a game and forget that I'm playing a game. Everytime I encounter a lag spike it breaks that immersion for me, and I am reminded again how I am forced to play an essentially single-player game online due to a decision that David Braben made after having sold me the idea that I would not experience this. I live in South Africa, so there aren't any servers near where I am. I am forced to play with a 200-250ms latency on good days.

      We were promised a DRM free game, always-online is not DRM free and can never be.

      Nobody wanted to go the legal route right from the start, we applied for refunds directly to FDEV and after being ignored by them for months, only did we decide to proceed with legal action. It was used to force their hands, because they refused to budge even though they made a "creative" decision to drop offline mode.

      https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/comments… - yes, they've stopped posting here. You can't defend the indefensible.

      "Elite however has lasting appeal and if the game did go solo, then you wouldn't really have the same ability to enhance it short of releasing new games down the track, all of them solo"

      Incorrect, they could still publish patches which the user can download at his own convenience should he want to do so. As was done 10 years ago.

      "They would always have to be seperate entities and then players would of course want support for both games"

      And that is fine, a ton of games have done that successfully. I wish Blizzard did this with Diablo III.

      "The decision would not have been an easy one but ultimately money is the key issue. The more versions that have to be supported, the greater the cost."

      And it was them who promised that there would be two versions when we funded the game. They could have stuck with the online only version there and I simply wouldn't have backed it. But they tricked me into backing with the promise of an offline version and then withdrew it sneakily 1 month before release. Go and read how David Braben feels about second hand games and maybe you'll understand then that he never intended to add offline mode to E: D

      "Anyway, I'm glad those who have not wanted an online game got there refunds and what's left to winge about? Go and enjoy what ever game it is that does it for you."

      We had to drag the refunds out of them after threatening legal action and actual sending legal letters. Does that sound like the correct way of doing things to you? FDEV brought this whole mess onto themselves.

    7. Creator Avalanche 4 days ago

      If anyone is still trying to get a refund, then I would suggest looking at http://www.elitedangerousrefunds.org/ . I'm told that the people involved with that site are *really* helpful and useful, so maybe drop an email to pibbles@elitedangerousrefunds.org ?

      @ Darious

      The A), B), C) that you outlined will be forever known by me as FD SOP*. Could very well be adopted by others though, but that's another matter. I admire your possible restraint with "It really is a shame..." as what you had to go through could have been described far worse, although you could just be drained by the whole thing. 'Shameful' might be a good start, which I guess is similar. Frontier Developments don't appear to have any shame on this matter what-so-ever, but that might be a part of FD SOP.

      Anyway, I'm glad you got your money back. Such things bug me: I couldn't get my head around "no fees taken out". Does that mean you got PayPal charges back as well?

      So, I seem to recall cs was refunded a little while ago, so one** left is:-

      @ Jörn Huxhorn

      Any word, or are you still waiting?

      * Frontier Developments Standard Operational Procedure
      ** I say 'one', as I recalled there were others who've commented here over the many weeks (obviously many others have not posted here at all). But then I thought about it and decided to go back and see:

      Franz Luger [ https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/comments… ]
      zlives [ https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/comments… ]
      Lestat [ https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/comments… ]
      Peter "Wizball" Wilson [ https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/comments… ]

      Any news from you?

      And there are, unfortunately, others ( hence the link to http://www.elitedangerousrefunds.org/ ), but I didn't want to list them all. Some of whom accepted a refund, but I don't know if they actually received the money.

      Still hoping everyone left can persevere. Actually, hoping those who accepted a partial refund still have recourse.

    8. Creator Darious 4 days ago

      @Avalanche
      100% refund, no fees taken out. This was after, at various times, having received the A) the silent 'let's hope he goes away' treatment, B) you will take a partial refund and shut up offer and C) No, you aren't entitled to a refund at all notice.

      It really is a shame that it took a letter-before-action to make it happen.

    9. Creator Avalanche 4 days ago

      @ Darious

      (Mutters: Stoopid auto comment update)

      The good news is I already backed the Star Citizen Kickstarter *and* I semi-buried another one of your posts...

      ...okay, I'm not sure how that's good news for you ;oP I backed, but I've not been following Star Citizen as I'm finding these things are just too problematic. It's like keeping an eye on chimps or somesuch. I didn't back Limit Theory though and that's looking interesting, so I'll see, but that could be good. Or not. But I'm hopeful on that...

      ...wait, you got your money back? As in, all of it? And it's actually in an account of yours? Didn't they offer you an *almost* full amount, but not *actually* the full amount?

    10. Creator Avalanche 4 days ago

      @ Sean Curtin

      Frontier Developments never really posted here on this issue. Half a dozen posts in total? No Update. That's appalling. But they didn't post as they had no answers, so they stuck to Public Relations type stuff and excuses.

      Yes, we (not that I can speak for everyone) made up our minds early and Frontier Developments came to *our* way of thinking kicking and screaming, so I don't see how that reflects badly on us. Weren't we right all along? Why did people have to threaten legal action for Frontier Developments to do the right thing?

      Whatever you say, Elite: Dangerous *might* succeed, or it *might* shut down tomorrow for any number of reasons. And there is no protection against that. The other games spoken off were/are online games, so the situation about longevity is understood. Frontier Developments said they would create the game without the need for an internet connection and went back on their word and contract, introducing longevity as an issue, without consulting us, even though they already had our money to make a different game. Then made excuses about it technically being an MMO all along, when no mention of that was/is mentioned on the Campaign page, so I don't know what you're trying to defend.

      Nothing you said really addressed any of our points about offline/internet/control/promises/breached contracts etc, but instead resorted to the standard attempt at dismissal by calling us whingers.

      And they didn't say it was a cost issue, they said it was a "creative decision", yet decided to keep people's money *until* we complained and didn't give up. Some, sadly, *did* have to give up and Frontier Developments kept their money. Some people are still waiting, so, again, I'm not sure how you can stand up for them the way that you do, but you *are* allowed to. I don't understand it though. They should have made the 'two versions' as that's what the money was for. It's what they said they would do with it.

    11. Creator Darious 4 days ago

      @Sean

      "What ever you do, be happy and enjoy"

      Trust me - after /finally/ getting my money back from this nasty little company, I've already started looking at getting into Star Citizen.

    12. Creator Sean Curtin 4 days ago

      Well it looks like a lot of people have already made there minds up so I can't blame FD for not bothering to post here anymore, what would be the point? There's nothing they can now do other than refund which looks to be in motion. Other games such as 'EVE Online' for example have had issues in terms of loosing people due to changes etc from the whole online gaming concept, it hasn't stopped it becoming one of the greatest space games ever made and there's a huge following. It's been running for 13 years now and is still going strong. It's not fair to compare long term space games like Elite Dangerous to franchise style games like Star Wars galaxies etc as these games have limited appeal, in fact the whole franchise system does. Case in point(not a game but bold proof on this) would be the Star Trek exhibit in Las Vegas. That to me was great and I wanted to go again however the main issue was that it got boring according to the sales figures and ultimately ended when it wasn't going to be a lucrative business model anymore. In short, if the support is there the game will survive. Star Wars Galaxies became tired even for my hard core Star Wars fan brother who played the game a lot but started finding it limited and lost interest. Myself I've just never found franchise games to be immersive or with enough depth so I never bothered getting into it. The same for the Star Trek online game.

      Elite however has lasting appeal and if the game did go solo, then you wouldn't really have the same ability to enhance it short of releasing new games down the track, all of them solo. The ability for people to play together is a great thing and the only way I could see for a solo project to work would be to release a limited game for solo players where you couldn't incorporate your solo game into the online game because the online game is ever changing and evolving. There's no way you could have offline people accruing amazing wealth amidst the galaxy(hacking there own games etc) then have them just suddenly pop into the online game with untold wealth, it simply wouldn't allow for a fair economy in the game, so I can understand from a game perspective why it wouldn't be possible to merge the 2 together. They would always have to be seperate entities and then players would of course want support for both games. Online and offline versions.

      The decision would not have been an easy one but ultimately money is the key issue. The more versions that have to be supported, the greater the cost.

      Anyway, I'm glad those who have not wanted an online game got there refunds and what's left to winge about? Go and enjoy what ever game it is that does it for you.

      As for the rest of us, I look forward to playing with you in Elite Dangerous. Personally I'm just glad there's a new Elite game and look forward to playing it. For solo play, just go grab OOlite or the X series of games.

      What ever you do, be happy and enjoy,
      Sean.

    13. Creator A New Hope 5 days ago

      GOG are having a sale (Atari+Rebellion)and Imho I-war 1 is a far better game than ED seems to be in it´s current state. They also have I-War 2 on sale and that game is more focused on buying and selling things without any connection requirements at all and a world that feels a lot more alive than what I´ve seen from ED.

    14. Creator Philip Konczak 5 days ago

      @sean

      I am one of those that requested a refund. When a company removes a core eleement in this case an offline DRM free version that is a fundamental change. Ok you may be enjoying thegame now but what happens in a year 5 years if the servers go down for good then what you cant play the game period. With offline there you can play to your hearts content whnever you wish regardless if you have great internet or not the game is not needing to access a server so you can play the game. Thats the appeal we had on games like the original elite, Frontier you can still play the game today on your pc.
      With companies like good old games bringing back games from the past to work on modern pc we have a chance to play gaes from our history now while the way things remain Elite Frontier may become of no use to people and lost in time. Look to the MMO market gow many have come and gone can you play the likes of Star Wars Galaxies now no the servers are gone the game is dead although people are trying to bring it to life through emulation it is not the same.

      Also the way FD handeled the offline removal was not professional at all and the way they have treated us since leaves a lot to be desired and has for me put me off backing other kickstarter projects that i feel deserve the money but i fear of having to go through this whole mess again.

      I am happy that you enjoy the game and that you keep having fun with it but for me i will never touch anything FD makes again.

    15. Creator Fabio Capela 5 days ago

      @Sean

      It's very much like Darious said. I have great internet access, but being able to take full control over the game is very important to me; there is a reason I love to death the PC versions of the Elder Scrolls games but can't stand the locked down console version. The online-only version of ED, where Frontier has full control over every gameplay parameter to the detriment of the player, isn't really worth playing for me.

      I wouldn't mind that much if Frontier, when deciding to completely change the game they would be delivering (from the point of view of those of us that backed for the offline mode, at least), made full refunds available without hassle. But players had to wrestle away their rightful refunds, often by threatening legal action. A company that goes to this length to deny refunds over something that is their exclusive fault is a company I don't want to do business with; it shows a level of contempt, of disrespect towards customers that isn't acceptable. And they don't seem to have any legal standing in denying those refunds anyway, so much that just about every lawyer contacted about it said so, and they seem to immediately fold when they receive a letter before action.

    16. Creator Darious 6 days ago

      @Sean
      Correct, we do have internet access but, for me personally, it was very important that the game itself not require it. I am tired of being treated like a criminal by game makers such as EA and 2K Games and specifically went looking for games on Kickstarter that didn't have that attitude.

      Turns out that Braben, much like the higher profile Molyneax, decided to lie in order to have his kickstarter succeed.

      As for legal action - that is what we _HAD_ to pursue in order to get our refunds for their bait and switch. Believe me, myself and (probably) nobody else wanted to do so. It was only after 3 months that we really started sending our registered Letters Before Action to FD.

      And, miracle of miracles... the full refunds started happening.

      And no. No matter how good the game may ever become, the shitty ass way FD and their forum moderators acted in this matter means they will never, ever, see a dime of my money.

    17. Creator Avalanche 6 days ago

      @ deusx_ophc

      Not sure if you already know, but Frontier Developments don't respond here anymore.

      https://www.kickstarter.com/profile/1461411552/comments

    18. Creator deusx_ophc 6 days ago

      hi fdevs - just a big thank you and props to your support team, top marks for diligence. have been pleasantly surprised today late on your working day. been here since day one and miss the great fun that was had =(

      much enjoyment & fun in game though =)

      ps. as per ks suggestion i am trying to be rather respectful and considerate ^^

    19. Creator Avalanche 6 days ago

      @ Wyzak [ https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/comments… ]

      What was I thinking ;oP Yeah, as we've said here a fair number of times, once they had the money, then... promises and commitments became a lot more fluid. Offline cuts them off from future money making, and for Frontier Developments that would *never* do. Only time will tell how *that* works out.

      I did have a look at Metacritic though*. That was interesting** Very difficult to not let my obvious views get involved, but I did *try* not to see all those 10s as anything other than... than... I'm trying not to use words like shills or fanboys.

      I hate how those words are just thrown out there in place of an actual argument, but... from *trying* to get a grip of the game through just those reviews, at best, all I could get was that it was *really* pretty and that there was a lot to do and a lot more to come. What I *didn't* get was what the things to do actually were. I should add that I'm sure there are genuine reviews in there somewhere who aren't shills or fanboys, but it could well be that there are a fair number who are just countering the 0's and I'm not how to class them. But that's one of the problems with Metacritic.

      The 1 Rating/1 Review group does seem suspicious though, but I do have a nagging, yet to me valid, counter in that I haven't looked at other releases to compare, so it *could* be less suspicious. Great, thanks Wyzak, now I'm going to need a spreadsheet to look into it ;oP

      The thing for me, though, is the reviews are just so... bland, if that makes sense. They're not saying anything apart from the same 'lots to do', 'pretty', 'digs at Star Citizen (or it's Backers)', 'not for casuals or those who get bored/no hand-holding/not for everyone', 'beware of those giving 0' and the insipid "awesome/incredible/amazing/fantastic". Okay, people say such things about many games, but looking through them in order of the most recent first, they were all saying the same thing and very little else.

      Worse though, was that I couldn't help notice that a lot of the 10s were saying that they were sure there was much more to come. For a game they rated 10/10. Aside from trusting Frontier Developments, a perfect game getting much better? Some even said it was perfect, yet needed improvement or the game came out too early.

      [snip of a load of other stuff I could go on about :o) ]

      I don't know. I'm obviously *way* to close to it and already of a particular mind, but I did find the high 'user helpfulness ratings' for the scores of 3/4 interesting. Also, the 3/4 type scores are a *lot* more useful/balanced, containing actual information. My only hope is that people read a fair number of *those* reviews.

      Unfortunately, Metacritic's "Most helpful" system is a joke, so... people don't actually get the most useful reviews.

      * it's your own fault - you raised the issue ;oP
      ** although possibly only to me [standard disclaimer :o) ]

    20. Creator Avalanche 6 days ago

      @ Wyzak

      Hold on... I'll talk to you in a sec :o)

      @ Sean Curtin

      I'm never really sure how to respond to such comments as yours. Pretty much everything you said I not only disagree with, but are things that have been well covered and not just in this comments section. And not just for Elite Dangerous. The issues of solo play vs. offline and accompanying issues about DRM have been covered so often, that I'm never really sure where such comments as yours stem from.

      But, similarly to some of the other posts over the past few days, do you really not see the difference? Do you really not understand issues of control over a product? Being at the mercy of a developer that goes back on it's word, being in charge of the content and who can play it? And can, as they have, go back on any promise due to a "creative decision" or a whim. Such things and many more have been what we have been talking about here for so long, but maybe you've not read back. I can see that, but the argument along the lines of "everyone who has backed this project, obviously had internet access" is so common and yet refuted 1000 times over, that, again, I'm not really sure what to say. Trains. Unstable connection. The military. Room mates. Cost. Places not having internet. Monopolies. At parent's house. Living in isolated areas. Parental blocks. Laptops. What does it matter? Frontier Developments said there would be an offline mode and DRM free option, rending the internet moot, until they went back on their word.

      I didn't resort to legal action. I got a charge back. Those who did send an LBA, in many cases, seemed to have immediately received replies and a sudden (though not surprising) expedited refund of money, including costs. I'm not sure if you realise that a contract is formed from a successful Kickstarter Campaign and that contract was breached, so... I'm not sure what your argument is there.

      Spirit? After all Frontier Developments have done and how they have behaved? Their made-up-not-actually-a-rule thing about not giving people their money back if people backed before Frontier Developments made the announcement of offline mode? Keeping people's money? It seems that the spirit you speak of was broken many times over by Frontier Developments.

      Maybe the game will end up good, but it will not have what Frontier Developments said it would have. But back to the first part, maybe Frontier Developments will make compulsory paid for add-ons or DLC. Or micro payments. Or go bankrupt. Or shut down the servers and move on to another project. And the game will be unplayable. Either way, the game as is, relies on the servers and people doing something in the game now, may be affected a week later by the universe changing. You didn't seem to cover any of the many common counters to the sorts of things you said. And your optimism belies how Frontier Developments have behaved. But, again, all this has been talked about at length. Maybe not so much in the Elite Dangerous forums? But that would seem to be due to moderators, than the will, and wishes, of those unhappy.

      Your comment didn't seem old-school to me. It didn't even seem to be making excuses. Just a statement of... 'stop complaining'.

      Again though. Spirit? *We* backed the game. £1,578,316.

    21. Creator Sean Curtin 6 days ago

      Honestly, the whole solo play issue is leaving me puzzled. Correct me if I am mistaken but everyone who has backed this project, obviously had internet access?

      If so, then surely that means online play should not be a problem full stop?

      Once your playing, most players are sitting at a desk on the own anyway, how is this different from the alleged solo play? Your still solo everybody!!!

      I myself and old school, I'm still awaiting my box set before I'll play it and I've actually emailed Frontier Developments today with a small request to discover when I'll receive the box set as I'm growing depressed reading about all the great things the new game has to offer but can't play it till that boxed set arrives(I'm old school ok, there's something special about installing the game from physical media and then playing it, the whole download a game caper leaves me a bit cold. I'll always remember playing Elite First Encounter fondly not to mention wearing my pig nose 3D glasses and playing Space Quest III The Pirates of Pestulon for example). So that's my excuse and I'm awaiting that set.

      As for threatening legal action etc, honestly guys, is that seriously a good way to go.

      Essentially legal action = people not happy.

      Shouldn't you at least play the game before going that route?

      At the end of the day, why did we all come here? Because were space fans that's why!! We want a virtual reality were we can explore the universe we can only gaze at with telescopes and binoculars today. We dream of travelling through the stars and doing what is only human, to explore and go where no one has gone before.

      That's the spirit we all need to remember. It's not about the game, the software, how it's handled, the professionalism even. It's about the spirit of adventure that we all long for.

      Why not not join together and have fun exploring the universe instead of wanting to carry out some weird all on my lonesome gaming desire. How I wished I could play with other friends when the original Elite was in full bloom. We all talked about how we discovered this great trading route and where the Thargoids were, how to have fun at certain stations etc.

      That's what it's all about, having fun.

      I really do feel sad that some people feel it's not fun, but it's also still early days and I'm certain and hold faith that FD will deliver the boxed install edition they promised and more.

      Perhaps after reading all the posts on 1.1 etc, it's best that there waiting to release the boxed edition(a solid release with most of these bugs and issues fixed) rather than just sending people a 2nd rate release(my case in point would be Traveller 5(oh the dissapointment)).

      My main query was due to how it seems the game is all set, but perhaps it isn't just yet and hence the delay. In any case reading your posts has calmed me down that I havn't been forgotten but am simply awaiting the release along with everyone else here who's still keen to begin exploring this great frontier together.

      Here's hoping many of you can find joy instead of depression and I hope to see you all in the Elite Dangerous universe fellow Elite fans.

      Sean A. Curtin

    22. Creator Franz Luger on February 19

      Elite Dangerous has ruined the kickstarter experience for me: At their annonuncement to break their word and not to deliver the promised offline singel player mode I demanded my money back - they have kept it so far, sending me hollow excuses...
      There are many projects out there that might really deserve being bakked, but I have lost the trust in (empty) promises... :-(
      Thank you, Frontier Development, "Good Job"... *dg*

    23. Creator Wyzak on February 19

      @Avalanche, let's not be foolish here. They've already been paid for the kickstarter rewards, doing more work to fullfil those rewards without any further financial incentive is just a waste of money.

      Manipulating the scores on Metacritic however results in more sales, without having to do much work.

    24. Creator Avalanche on February 18

      @ Wyzak [from https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/comments… ]

      If only they'd put that sort of effort/detail/resources into fufiling *all* the Kickstarter rewards. Then again, what with Reward removal being a "creative decision" and all, I still wonder exactly how much effort they intended to put into those Rewards right from the start.

      As for the rules. If they are carried out literally and for every infraction, then... well... I can't see how anyone would be left. Except maybe Frontier Development employees. Possibly not even them. But then, those sort of rules aren't there to be enforced on every post... just the ones Frontier Development doesn't like.

    25. Creator Wyzak on February 18

      https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php…

      Look at their latest set of draconian forum rules - looks like the forum will be deserted soon!

    26. Creator Fabio Capela on February 18

      @Wyzak

      Just as interesting, the scores have been falling.

      The metascore started higher, slowly fell to 80, and has been stable there for a while now. The userscore, on the other hand, has been steadily falling since launch, sitting now at an all-time low of 7.0 after starting at or close to 8.

      My guess is that people are becoming more aware that the game's multiplayer element isn't all it was pegged to be and of the restrictions they forced upon the game design as a whole. Vanilla ED, as it stands, is a game I would find less enjoyable to me than OOLite even if it was offline, due to all the choices meant to balance and promote multiplayer, such as not having a way to pause or speed up travel.

    27. Creator Wyzak on February 18

      http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/elite-dangerous/user-reviews…

      Ah yes, the trend continues. 17 out of the 21 10/10 scorers are first
      posters - ie more than 80%.

      To be fair, I did the same for the 0/0 posters, and only 57% of them
      are first posters.

      The propaganda machine is still running strong.

    28. Creator ThomasN on February 17

      Just wanted to stop by and say that I am happy to play actual good games without DRM coming out on GOG which will still be fun long after FD's online-leashed software will be forgotten.
      Have fun taking other people for a ride and damage the reputation of actual good KS projects, FD. I for one are happy to never have anything to do with you again.
      Byebye

    29. Creator Wyzak on February 17

      @Vince Swann - https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/comments… "The game works great since 1.1"-

      I'm not expecting to hear anything from you again, because I'm sure you were just trolling. But if you honestly weren't. Please read https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php…

      o7 to Red

    30. Creator Wyzak on February 17

      As expected, the trolls just came to troll, and have now disappeared.

    31. Creator Avalanche on February 16

      @ Jörn Huxhorn

      You did say that you'd believe the money when you saw it :o( Predictable, that even after the capitulations, Frontier Developments weren't done with the delays, stalls and silence. I hope you can keep pursuing it.

      @ Simon Turner

      Can you explain it to me? As all I understood was that they didn't include the offline mode as a "creative decision", so I don't know why it "cannot be" at all. It was more that they wanted to control the product and the Kickstarter promises/contract be damned. It could be done, but they chose not to.

      @ Vince Swann

      Do you really not see/understand any of the issues here? Do you really think that all that has been going on over the past months, is... people flinging their toys out of the pram?

      "...just play the game and enjoy it for what it is..." What it *is*, is not what they said *it* would be. Solo mode is completely different to offline mode, but... you know that, right? *Do* you understand such things? We've been talking about it here for some time now.

    32. Creator Wyzak on February 16

      @Vince Swann - how would you feel if they had just dropped the multi-player and decided to make it single-player only? Be considerate of other people, just because it's not important to you does not mean that it's not important to others. For some people it is the very reason they backed the game.

    33. Creator Fabio Capela on February 16

      @Vince Swann

      Not a "tiny extra functionality" by any account. Removing offline mode means sharply reducing the amount of control we players have over our game, cutting from the game anyone without a stable internet connection, and a few other nasty side-effects. Good for you that you don't care about playing a game you have little to no control over, that is not the case for many of us.

    34. Creator Random Element on February 16

      @ Simon Turner / CMD Odd8all
      @ Vince Swann
      You don't seem to get it, do you? Things have gone WAY beyond the no offline mode issue.
      Once things entered into the realm of "it's about the principle", Frontier Developments PLC FDEV and Elite: Dangerous were finished in a lot of peoples eyes no matter what advances are being made in game from the total cock-up that was it's pre-launch era to now. Maybe things are now moving in Elite: Dangerous, great, but a lot of people have been scared and they don't really care any more.

      If Frontier Development PLC FDEV had just settled in the VERY first place this nonsense that's been inflicted upon the refund requesters and the bad press inflicted on FDEV and Elite:Dangerous in general, which has resulted in ill feelings and sentiments between both parties would NEVER of had a chance in heck to arise. Respect would have been maintained, the franchise would still be held in very high esteem, and all parties would have gone their separate ways along time ago. End of story. Everyone is super happy! Yay! :-D! Sweeet!

      It's now got to a stage where LBA letters have HAD to be sent out and delivered. With reply deadlines fast approaching, your beloved company will unfortunately, for them, be in a position to be taken to court by multiple applicants my times over. Once the letter is delivered Frontier Developments could potentially be taken to court for any sum up to £10,000 per letter. Even though the initial refund sum is small the results of being taken to court over such minor refund requests will be devastating to Frontier Developments PLC (FDEV) in the end.
      On the subject of partial refund offers. If FDEV partial refunds turn out to be illegal and those customers who accepted partial refunds are informed that they've been hoodwinked by Frontier Developments PLC, then FDEV might have to go through court ..... all.... over...... again.

      With advances in A.I simulating a supply and demand stock market in this day and age is virtually nothing. It had been done in the prehistoric gaming age when the very first Elite came out...and look how that turned out on a 8-bit machine! The choice to kill off the offline mode, if it ever existed in the first place, and the planned response to backers and customers was their decision and it was our decision to ask for a refund.

      Quite simply, people just want their money back. No more, no less. What's so wrong with that?

      Simon Turner / CMDR Odd8all and Co, sorry but if you've come here to brown nose Frontier Developments PLC FDEV and boost Elite: Dangerous then this definitely isn't the place to do it.
      Very happy to hear you're "Loving the game". Who f@cking cares? Go play the game then :-).

    35. Creator Vince Swann on February 16

      Okay so the offline thing was a annoyance initially but it does seem to be getting blown out of all proportion now.
      The game works great since 1.1 and 1.2 will bring some amazing multiplayer functionality.
      If multiplayer's not your thing, play Solo. It works great and there's loads more to do now.
      I just don't get why everyone's still flinging their toys out of the pram over offline mode - just play the game and enjoy it for what it is instead of weeping over the tiny extra functionality you wished for.

    36. Creator Wyzak on February 16

      @Simon Turner - so you're saying that the previous elites were boring and that it would not have been possible for them to offer a way for you to update your offline game with current info without having to have a continuous tether to their servers? Offline mode was dropped because of a creative decision, not because it was unworkable.

      Or are you just trolling? I guess time will tell.

    37. Creator Simon Turner on February 15

      I understand why there cannot be an offline version and I play most of the game in solo mode to all intents and purposes that is as good as offline. The commodities market needs to be updated via the Internet to control prices and stock levels. The game would be boring in my opinion if you could just keep stocking up on commodities and selling them. A big thumbs up from me frontier developments. From CMDR Odd8all. Loving the game. Thanks

    38. Creator Jörn Huxhorn on February 15

      Just a quick status update.

      I was promised a full refund on 2015-01-30 but haven't received any payment so far. My mail on 2015-02-11asking about the whereabouts of the money has been unanswered so far.

    39. Creator Oldschool Shadowrunner on February 14

      @Theta Sigma -https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/comments…
      .
      Please take some time to educate yourself before posting! It makes you appear more intelligent and people will value your opinion/comments more greatly (in most cases) instead of considering it fan-boy regurgitation.
      .
      If you did take an hour or two to educate yourself you would have learned that FD has been caught boosting their ratings and doing fake reviews. Hopefully my joke comment is a bit more funny to you now. Yes it was a joke.
      .
      Also please don't quote Kickstarter rules and regulations to me as it is a bit insulting. Think about the scenario at hand... you know the scenario of FD pissing all over those Kickstarter Rules and Regulations and screwing hundreds if not thousands of people. Yes the irony! Also please pretty please do us all a favor and do some research. Read twenty seven or so months of kickstarter posts, then read 15,000+ posts on FD forums, that follow that up with reviewing thousands of comments on numerous sites. Once you do that I will take your comments more seriously and we can have an educated discussion on how badly FD has fracked themselves.
      .
      @Dragonbait - FD has stopped posting here a while back as they are not able to censor/delete posts. If I was in your place I would email them directly. Don't hold your breath it takes them on average about a week to two to respond and only faster if you get the courts involved.

    40. Creator Wyzak on February 13

      @Dragonbait - sorry mate, you won't find any answer to that question here. Frontier have long since abandoned this platform. Best would be to try and contact them directly or post on the forums.

    41. Creator Dragonbait on February 13

      Hey Guys!
      Any update on when the Boxed versions are going out??

    42. Creator Fabio Capela on February 13

      @Wyzak: Don't forget that they now have players that truly wanted the offline version stuck with that always online thing they made. I guess this is a good part of why ED now has a 7.1 Userscore on Metacritic, and to a smaller degree why there is so much negativity on the forums; they have tricked into purchasing and playing people that were never onboard with DB's vision of the game. Someone that wanted true solo / offline will be far less forgiving regarding any issues that wouldn't exist in the game mode they truly wanted.

    43. Creator Wyzak on February 13

      @Chris Herbert - the actual monetary value of the refunds is insignificant compared to the reputational damage that they've taken and will continue taking into the future due to scarred backers. They should have immediately offered refunds to all those affected when they announced the dropping of the offline mode and that would have been the end of it. But they foolishly thought otherwise.

    44. Creator Chris Herbert on February 12

      I wonder if the amount of refunds they have had to pay out has made them regret pulling Offline Mode. IMHO it was very bad PR and very bad for the game.

      P.S Where is my Boxed Copy?!!!

    45. Creator Wyzak on February 12

      @Theta Sigma https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/comments… - I'm sorry the lack of offline mode is not a minor issue. It is critical to some, I would not have backed it myself if it didn't promise offline mode. Simple as that. You said it yourself, be considerate to others. Just because it's minor to you, does not mean that it's minor to everyone.

    46. Creator Avalanche on February 12

      A very interesting and useful link provided by Andrew Camilleri in the Godus forum:

      http://pastebin.com/UHsBKjgY

    47. Creator Avalanche on February 11

      @ Theta Sigma

      I wasn't sure what you meant just after "Here's another personal opinion for you:" Is that someone *else's* personal opinion or a hypothetical personal opinion or a deliberately exaggerated hypothetical opinion to illustrate a point? It was just that you went on to add "From my perspective:" and I wasn't sure what the point of the first one was. To me it completely misrepresents what happened. But I'll say no more, as I may well have missed the point of that.

      I get that what you went on to say was from your perspective, but I'm not sure if you accept that others have their own perspective which is just as valid? I say that as it seemed you were saying that people were just making a fuss or something?

      Apart from that, you don't need my permission to have your own view (obviously), but the way you see Kickstarter is rather different from the way many others do and I think there are major flaws in what you said.

      I think the thing is, that Kickstarter isn't meant to be the way you've described it. And neither was it described that way. From the Terms of Use:

      "A Project Creator is not required to grant a Backer’s request for a refund unless the Project Creator is unable or unwilling to fulfill the reward.
      ...
      Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill."

      I think the expectation of getting from Frontier Developments what they said they were going to do, was not only reasonable, but *in* the Terms of Use. Since Frontier Developments didn't fulfil their part of the contract, then people were entitled to a refund, which Frontier Developments delayed, stalled and refused. The thing is, I could find nothing in the Terms of Use referring to the things you said about no guarantee that the Project would complete, not all aspects of the pitch would necessarily be delivered, certain aspects of the project may not be possible or about failure to deliver due to unforeseen difficulties.

      I'm very curious to know where the "explicit references" come from on the last two points.

      I think this is fairly well known, but "Buyer beware" comes from caveat emptor and was an actual legal position buyers were in. I get that people often use it from a more relaxed position of being cautious, but statutory law has replaced caveat emptor in many places and in the U.K., the Sale of Goods Act 1979 means that there are many protections in place. The point though, is that when it came down to it, people said they would take Frontier Developments to court and this seems to have directly led to Frontier Developments giving people *all* their money back. As Darious said [hi Darious :o) ], this is a 'bait-and-switch' and people unhappy with that only had to go through all they went through as Frontier Developments behaved they way they did.

      The debate on offline and DRM seems to have become entrenched, so maybe that's for another time :o)

      @ Darious

      Seriously? You read this far? :o)

      I agreed with so much of what you said, but was curious: People were refused a chargeback? Due to time lapsed? Do you know more? I did just look it up. Is this due to the Visa cut off of 540 days? (info from the 'Time Limit' section in http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/problem/how-do-i-use-chargeback#link-4 )

    48. Creator Darious on February 11

      And, in a case of wonderful timing, I'm going to share someone's experience regarding their refunds. This was just sent to the refund listserv.

      On 11/02/2015 16:24, M wrote:
      > Yes, you guys were correct. I sent several email trying to figure out why I was only given a partial refund after the initial LBA with no reply as usual, so last night I amended the LBA to include the partial payment just like Rog's example LBA and resent to all 3 FDEV emails (dwalsh, Zaonce support, and enquiriesx) restating the intent to file an MCOL claim in the next few days.
      >
      > Today I received a much faster response and a refund of my total remaining refund due. I am no longer convinced these are accidental glitches in their support system, but rather a calculated effort to see if the backer will accept the partial refund or escalate the matter. Much like Rog's case, once pushed they will eventually refund if you stay on message so you previous advice was spot on.
      >
      > Thanks again for all the assistance as without you guys directing things I doubt that more than half of the successful refunds would have occurred.
      >
      > -M

    49. Creator Darious on February 11

      @Tarasis
      Not having followed these forums I can imagine the shock - believe me that myself and very likely nobody else wanted things to get to this level.

      But after 3 months of the run around, being ignored, being called dishonest, conflicting answers, cheap tactics such as partial refunds with legal boilerplate...

      ... well, those of us who didn't have the ability to simply get a full chargeback from our credit cards because the kickstarter happened too long ago (though people who purchased the game more recently got full chargebacks), nor since we didn't use paypal we couldn't use them for a full refund (evidently enough people complained that Paypal put together a dedicated team to handle refunds)...

      Well our only recourse to obtain our money back for FD's bait and switch tactics was to start legal proceedings. We were ignored, told different things at different times, baited with 'take this partial refund and that is that', called dishonest by Braben in an interview, belittled by the forum fanbois, treated unfairly by the forum moderators, learned that FD was losing money for well over a year now, seen evidence of review tampering on previous FD titles on Amazon, followed how they are cutting staff everywhere but claiming to want to expand on the lackluster content in the game, and generally learned just how despicable a company FD is.

      We _only_ started seeing refunds _after_ Letters Before Action started being sent to their corporate headquarters. I doubt anybody wanted to go to such lengths to obtain what was rightfully theirs, but we had to do so.

      If FD just owned up 3 months ago, I would have gone away - as Theta so smugly suggests, I would have 'moved on with my life'. But after all this time of their bs.. I now /revel/ in every article pointing out how boring the game is. I now take /every/ opportunity to point out just how miserable a company FD is and have, in my own small way, succeeded in steering people away from them.

      And I will continue to do so.

      @Theta Sigma
      This isn't a matter of 'win some/lose some" but 'bait-and-switch'. And British law, the lawyer contacted by the Elite Refund group, and evidently FD's own legal counsel agrees.

Show older comments