Share this project

Done

Share this project

Done
Take a ship and 100 credits to make money legally or illegally - trade, bounty-hunt, pirate, assassinate your way across the galaxy.
Take a ship and 100 credits to make money legally or illegally - trade, bounty-hunt, pirate, assassinate your way across the galaxy.
25,681 backers pledged £1,578,316 to help bring this project to life.

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 Oldschool Shadowrunner about 2 hours ago

      @ts - Again with the insults? I can't say I am surprised.
      ___
      Theta Sigma about 2 hours ago
      @os
      Post away. Hardly anybody's listening. But if it'll keep you happy, and keep you off the streets and away from that general public, go for it.

    2. Creator Wyzak about 2 hours ago

      Still with the personal insults I see Theta Sigma

    3. Creator Theta Sigma about 4 hours ago

      @os
      Post away. Hardly anybody's listening. But if it'll keep you happy, and keep you off the streets and away from that general public, go for it.

    4. Creator Oldschool Shadowrunner about 4 hours ago

      @A New Hope - How great it would be if Elite Dangerous was DRM-Free like many of bundles at Humble?
      @TS - Why don't you post some negative reviews as well? Or I can... it has been a while since I posted what FD - Employees think of Frontier Development.

    5. Creator A New Hope about 13 hours ago

      Stealth Inc 2 is currently free at Humble Bundle Store, https://www.humblebundle.com

    6. Creator Oldschool Shadowrunner 1 day ago

      Theta Sigma a.k.a Frontier Developments
      "As other readers will know (...are there any here, anymore? :) I always endeavour to present accurate, objective information."
      Well that's great to hear. But then tell us all please, why are you claiming "Elite Dangerous Refund Group ... trying to obtain merchandising copyright in order to print derogatory Elite-bashing sweatshirts and books" and presenting none of the "accurate, objective information" you have to back this up?
      .
      Could it be you don't actually have any accurate, objective information to back this up?

    7. Creator Theta Sigma 2 days ago

      @Michael Taylor

      Drew Wagar on December 11, 2012
      "...Perhaps those requiring absolutely offline mode should submit comments via post or telegram."

      #wrysmile

      %^]

    8. Creator Theta Sigma 2 days ago

      @os

      "...the sweet, sweet, sweet fresh air of truth - Is this in such short supply that you cannot share it with us?"

      Not at all: There's a plentiful supply if you'd only up your lungs and breeeeeathe %^]

      As other readers will know (...are there any here, anymore? :) I always endeavour to present accurate, objective information.

      If necessary, I immediately concede a point and correct it if a mistake becomes apparent (as I did in the case of removed 0.2m sales prior to December 2014 official public release date)

      The strict fact of the matter, regarding E:D sales is:

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      Elite (latest version)
      Official Release date to Public of 1.0 Version: December 2014
      0.44m sales in 0.5 years

      Also:
      0.20m sales in preceding 2 years*
      ...a period during which the game was not available to play except for Alpha and Beta backers of Kickstarter Campaign)

      Total sales to 25th June 2015:
      0.64m
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      The reason I questioned the oddity of starting the clock at the end of the Kickstarter [January 2013] is that:

      - almost 12 months elapsed until 'Alpha1.0' [December 2013, accessible by a few 100 backers]
      - almost 18 months elapsed until 'Premium Beta' [May 2014, accessible to a few 1000 backers]

      The stats that had been presented for GTAV, and Dark Souls were for their _entire_ franchise lifetimes, whereas the figures for Elite were only for the latest version.

      Additionally, since GTA and DS stats were from their respective public release dates (and not start-of-development-date, nor Alpha, Beta nor Gamma dates), I therefore considered the appropriate date for Elite:Dangerous (namely, December 2014)

      If you really want to compare like-with-like, however, perhaps you'd like to consider the stats for just the latest releases in each franchise: GTAV and Dark Souls II - Scholar of the First Sin?

      ...or alternatively, perhaps you'd like to consider the _total_ lifetime unit sales of games in the Elite franchise since 1984? %^]

    9. Creator Michael Taylor 2 days ago

      @Avalanche - thanks for the wry smile induced by your list of forum examples :)
      "Offline removal means I cannot play" - "I have internet all the time so everyone else should have too. Also, you have posted on the forum so you must have internet all the time"

      At the time I backed (and up to and past release) a good portion of my year was spent at sea with zero net access so offline removal was a pretty big deal to me. I didn't pursue a refund as I had originally backed (at the minimum level) the online game, though if I could've got the difference back I probably would've asked for it. £90 DRM free collectors edition? Cardboard box with badge, book and shiny round drinks coaster, more like.

      Some think offline DRM free didn't make a difference to the campaign, [engage sarcasm mode] I'm sure FDev putting DRM-free on the higher pledges was a total accident and no-one at all was bothered and DRM free isn't a selling point *at all*. *cough*www.GOG.com*cough* [sarcasm off]

      As for the not-DRM-free current implementation, well I did a bit of testing a while ago; one of the main reasons I hardly play is the lack of a pause function in Solo mode. I'd heard that the 4K screenshot function was removed from the multiplayer modes as it was being used as a combat exploit - it was left in Solo. It takes the game several seconds to upscale and save the screenshot, so I set the screenshot save slot to a slow memory stick and hey-presto short term pause ability, though only up to ~67 seconds or the game crashes. I did a lot of network traffic checking while fiddling around and the 'transaction data' that needs to be synced? It's pretty much everything. Entering/exiting Supercruise, taking damage, shooting NPCs; loads of things call home. There's also a little server handshake going on every few seconds as well which can only be lost for just over a minute before the game dumps you to a 'Server Lost' screen. Not exactly 'transaction data' that, is it? More like an always online DRM check... ;)

      The thing I suppose upset me the most about offline removal (though FDevs refund actions are a close second) was, as you mentioned, that it was a creative decision, not a technical reason. They just *decided* to not do it. Cheers FDev. Yeah, thanks, really. This 'living, breathing' galaxy vision you didn't want to compromise? In Solo it's a few numbers changing on the commodities screen. Colour me excited beyond belief. It's so totally better than what Frontier Elite 2 did 20 years ago, no, hold on, that had peoples faces didn't it? Oh dear, seems the /sarcasm switch has clicked on again :)

    10. Creator Oldschool Shadowrunner 2 days ago

      @Theta Sigma
      "I'm sure _you_ recall that there wasn't an Alpha1.0-release for backers to try out "
      That doesn't change the fact the first sales were made upon KS close in Jan 2013. And remember many more sales were made before that first delivery.
      .
      "Just inhaling the sweet, sweet, sweet fresh air of truth"
      Is this in such short supply that you cannot share it with us? :-)

    11. Creator Theta Sigma 2 days ago

      Nothing changed, it seems:

      Greg Marsden on December 11, 2012
      "@Alien
      I think you got me mixed up with someone else.
      I want full internet connection and a dynamic universe with real interaction. True to DB's vision.
      I dont want ELITE 1984 with better graphics.
      It would be nice if they could please the people who want single player stand alone but if it cant be done it cant be done. They dont seem to have a problem with internet connection as far as I can tell. They spam the comments section with the same point every five mins"

    12. Creator Theta Sigma 2 days ago

      Another insight into the happenings in these comments prior to December 11, 2012

      Fozza on December 11, 2012
      "Ok... Well I'm glad thats all sorted. Now.......
      I WANT PLANTARY LANDINGS OR I'M GOING TO DROP MY PLEDGE HAVE A TANTRUM AND GO HOME!!!!
      or on the other hand I could just Jonty my pledge (again) sit back in this nice comfy armchair put my feet up and have a piece of this deliciously moist carrot cake, who's putting the kettle on?"

    13. Creator Theta Sigma 2 days ago

      @os "ED's 640,000 sales were over a period spanning TWO AND A HALF YEARS starting with the Kickstarter closing January 2013."

      That is indeed sort-of-true, but it's a but odd starting the clock counting from the date of the _end_ of the Kickstarter in [January 2013]

      ...I'm sure _you_ recall that there wasn't an Alpha1.0-release for backers to try out until almost an entire year later in December 2013, and even then, only a small percentage of backers (a few hundred backers out of 25,681) had pledged a high enough amount to take part in the Alpha-release....

    14. Creator Theta Sigma 2 days ago

      os a.k.a. shouty-man

    15. Creator Theta Sigma 2 days ago

      @os

      Yes. You're right.

      Strictly speaking, it should be:

      Elite (latest version)
      Release date: December 2014
      0.44m sales in 0.5 years

      Please accept my apologies for the over-sight.
      It will be most interesting to reconvene on the 8th September to post the latest official figures from the RNS reported to The London Stock Exchange.

      Will you be here, os?

    16. Creator Oldschool Shadowrunner 2 days ago

      @Theta Sigma a.k.a. Frontier Developments plc
      "Elite (latest version) 0.64m sales in 0.5 years"
      I am sure you know that is untrue, TS. ED's 640,000 sales were over a period spanning TWO AND A HALF YEARS starting with the Kickstarter closing January 2013.

    17. Creator Theta Sigma 2 days ago

      @New Hope

      Thanks for finding those figures.
      Extremely impressive numbers to say the least!

      Dark Souls (series)
      Release date: September 22, 2011
      8.5m+ sales in 4 years

      GTA (series)
      Release date: October 1997
      150m+ sales in 18 years

      Elite (latest version)
      Release date: December 2014
      0.64m sales in 0.5 years

      I wonder how E:D will fare as time goes on...?

    18. Creator A New Hope 2 days ago

      http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-07-01-dark-souls-series-sales-surpass-8-5-million

      "The brilliant Dark Souls series has surpassed 8.5m sales, and more than 3.25m of those were on PC."

    19. Creator A New Hope 2 days ago

      http://www.vg247.com/2015/04/16/gta-5-breaks-steam-concurrent-players-record/

      "Not factoring in Valve games, GTA 5 is the new king of concurrent player numbers on Steam.

      gta_pc_14
      GTA 5 is very popular on PC, even more popular than games like Skyrim in its heyday. The number of concurrent players for GTA 5 has peaked today at 301,246.

      This makes it the only non-Valve game to ever reach that record, beating Skyrim’s record of 280,000, which was also achieved on launch.

      The numbers are all the more impressive when you consider the phenomenon that Skyrim was, and the fact that this is the third time GTA 5 has been released."

    20. Creator Theta Sigma 2 days ago

      @All

      TL;DR

      The other two games released on Steam in the same week as Elite:Dangerous (GTAV and DSII:SOTFS) are both showing an_order_of_magnitude_greater_drop below their all-time average player numbers than Elite:Dangerous just prior to a major 1.x release...

      #notbadforafailinggame

      %^]

    21. Creator Theta Sigma 2 days ago

      Engage: standard reply to zero-context "analysis"

      @Cerise

      Would you care to compare like-with-like?

      How are those other two games faring by the same metric that you choose to look at?

      [All-time 'Average Players' (fully completed months) vs [Last 30 days Average Players]

      DSII-SOTFS: 3,787 [2,711] -53.08% drop below all-time average

      GTAV: 92,671 [31,195] -66.35% drop below all-time average

      E:D: 4,290 [3,905] -8.95% drop below all-time average

      So, although average players have dropped beneath all-time average, E:D is performing much, much better than the other two games that were released in the same week on Steam.
      Great objective analysis from Cherry-Pie, as usual:
      You focus on a number or a percentage (devoid of any kind of frame of reference, or perspective, or comparison at all) yet present it as some kind of "proof" of a particular viewpoint. Keep picking %^]

      So, E:D still showing strong Evergreen characteristics, as usual.
      - Admittedly, a decrease over all-time average... however:
      - Over six weeks since last major 1.x release: August decline therefore to be expected
      - 1.4 + CQC imminent
      - Horizons Beta imminent

      1. Guess how those imminent updates are going to affect the average player figures?
      2. Guess what the trend for GTAV and DSII-SOTFS will be as August and September continue?

      To recap:

      1. GTAV, a blockbuster, shows huge decrease as expected of the type of release.
      2. DSII released the day before E:D, shows another huge drop since -36.6% drop on August 19

      - very similar full-price
      - very similar number of owners
      - very similar sales periods
      ...not a blockbuster (also, seemingly not an evergreen title either...)
      %^]

      sources:
      GTAV
      http://steamcharts.com/app/271590

      DSII-SOTFS
      http://steamcharts.com/app/335300

      E:D
      http://steamcharts.com/app/359320

    22. Creator Theta Sigma 2 days ago

      @os

      Nothing.

      Just inhaling the sweet, sweet, sweet fresh air of truth %^]

      PS Wyzak a.k.a. DA Pretorious might be able to provide us with more information regarding the melodorous individual responsible %^]

      @DAP Where are you these days?

    23. Creator Oldschool Shadowrunner 2 days ago

      @Theta Sigma "Elite Dangerous Refund Group ... trying to obtain merchandising copyright in order to print derogatory Elite-bashing sweatshirts and books"
      .
      What are you smoking, man??

    24. Creator Oldschool Shadowrunner 2 days ago

      ED Steam average players down 20% on last month. http://steamcharts.com/app/359320#All
      .
      Number of owners up, number of players down. There must be a lot of people regretting wasting their money on this game.
      .
      What's the bet there will be another discount sale soon?

    25. Creator Theta Sigma 3 days ago

      Just to reiterate:

      Liqua on December 11, 2012
      "@All
      .
      Just watched the latest Dev diary ...
      .
      It looks ...
      .
      Freakin
      .
      .
      A M A Z I N G !!
      Now thats what i'm talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D Great video David and FD. Anyone not pulled in by this needs their head checking :)"

      And lo, the Elite:Dangerous Kickstarter was record-breakingly-over-funded.

      %^]

    26. Creator Theta Sigma 3 days ago

      @All

      Jason S on December 11, 2012
      "That video, amazing....
      ...So question, how do we re-contact all those that bypassed the project earlier to show them this now ? I rekon we could get a lot of people on who initial did not think much of it.
      ACE vid "

      @Avalanche @os @Michael Taylor @Wyzak et. al

      You want a very good reason why there was a _possible_ slight increase in pledges and a _possible_ slight increase in new backers, and the reason E:D was ultimately successfully funded after a supposed "trickle" in pledges? I think you need look no further than shiny visuals presented after a long period of not much being shown off by Frontier... as opposed to a dry statement regarding an offline mode that hardly anybody cared or cares about.

      Video games are largely a visual medium, and the longer-term effect of that pre-alpha footage on existing backers and potential backers in the context of this Kickstarter probably shouldn't be underestimated.

    27. Creator Theta Sigma 3 days ago

      @All

      Contrast those multiple outbursts of joy (and there are many, many more - do check) directed exclusively at the pre-alpha footage Dev Diary video with no mention of anything else...

      ...compared to the weary/grudging/relieved/worn-down/not-really-bothered-sounding comments directed almost exclusively towards Styggron and taumel (and a very few others) that the minority had finally (seemingly) got the thing that they'd been harping on about for ages, and that most people weren't bothered about in the slightest i.e. Offline Mode

    28. Creator Theta Sigma 3 days ago

      @Avalanche

      It's pretty clear that you're not bothering to read posts, or look at this objectively %^]

      Avalanche: "It's all pretty much speculation really, but I do wonder if anything else was announced or..."

      ...and quite unlike you, I think it definitely _is_ "worth trawling through" the comments, since that gives a huge insight into:

      1. the actual number of backers posting about offline mode (not many unique posters)
      2. the sheer number of posts per person (_extremely_ vocal and prolific @Styggron, @taumel, anyone? :) regarding offline mode
      3. the number of backers stating that the visuals displayed in the pre-alpha dev diary video (alone) has prompted them to Jonty-up...

      Oh yes indeed: Something else (other than offline mode) most certainly _was_ announced/released on December 11th

      Theta Sigma: "I suggest that the visual impact of this [Dev Diary, 11th December] had a far greater (and long-lasting) effect on not only current backers but potential backers than a statement regarding an offline mode that hardly anybody cared about at the time, or cared about afterwards when it was cancelled."

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      Theta Sigma: "The real find, however, is the "unspecified" reason you unwittingly refer to.

      You know what it was?

      Elite: Dangerous Dev Diary 3 - Player Roles
      https://www.youtube.com/watch

      Just look at some of the comments immediately following its release:
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      Darkmoon on December 11, 2012
      Great update! *Applause* I am loving the style of the ship designs, and how they do derive from their Elite 1 counterparts. I was thinking, it would be cool if somewhere in the game, you could see an Elite 1 style wireframe representations. A good place for this would be on some alternative view: a navigation computer screen, missileCam or possibly some kind of strategic view hologram aboard a freighter (this would make sense on a freighter to have all round visibility of docking craft etc.).
      NOTE: Update explicitly referred to. No mention of offline mode. Mucho mention of visuals.
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      Lars Jørgen Kire[Lortsamler] on December 12, 2012
      @Styggron: I belive seamless planetary landing is equally important to many,if not more. So i hope we can get that confirmed soon.
      NOTE: Offline mode deemed not as important to the majority as planetary landings. September 2015: Planetary Landings will be a thing. Offline mode will not.
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      Philip Coutts on December 11, 2012
      It's the scale of it. For the first time the Anacondas look massive when compared to the Vipers you get a proper sense of them being a slow lumbering beast and the Vipers buzzing around them like flies. Remember to like the you tube video and get tweeting, e-mailing, facebooking this everywhere.
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      dcal on December 11, 2012
      Amazing! Imangine what this is going to look like when it is more polished next year. THIS IS PRE ALPHA and it looks great! Exactly what I needed to finish my promo video.
      Thanks DB and Frontier.....this game will be incredible.
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      karlchen on December 11, 2012
      Hey FD-Team!
      fantastic update!
      Let it be the start of some final run!
      This update was badly needed and it is exactly what is neccessary!
      I hope and wish that you get rewarded for this!
      I decided to double my jonty budget because of this!
      You show that you hear us! And we hope we can help to make this project happen!
      Dont forget the explorers and traders ;) ;)
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      Jason S on December 11, 2012
      That video, amazing.
      Just the right amount of nebula, just the right amount of effects, cool ships, cool movement, cool shields.
      Really loved it !!
      Don't know why they didn't show that earlier, I can only guess they were polishing up the code for it.
      But awesome!!
      So question, how do we re-contact all those that bypassed the project earlier to show them this now ? I rekon we could get a lot of people on who initial did not think much of it.
      ACE vid
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      Liqua on December 11, 2012
      @All
      .
      Just watched the latest Dev diary ...
      .
      It looks ...
      .
      Freakin
      .
      .
      A M A Z I N G !!
      Now thats what i'm talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D Great video David and FD. Anyone not pulled in by this needs their head checking :)
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    29. Creator Avalanche 3 days ago

      (Sleepy time thought: I really hope I don't do things in that list. At least not at all often. 'Night all.)

    30. Creator Avalanche 3 days ago

      The link to all the little blue bars in a line :o)

      http://www.kicktraq.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/#chart-daily

      @ Michael Taylor

      "I'd been following the old Frontier website for about 10 years..."

      I like statements like that :o) It's so simple and easily passed by, but... 10 years is like a *really* long time. Shame Elite Dangerous turned out the way it did. As you said at the end of your post, the game doesn't seem to be close to the game presented here. But do note I've not played it.

      I always find such trends so difficult. Maybe ultimately there just simply isn't enough information available. There *is* a jump in money on the 11th, but then a two day lull, then a decent, continued, sustained rise. A definite increase, but due to the announcement? I don't know if there was anything else that was announced along the way. I *really* don't know. So I don't know if there was anything else that might have triggered the rise.

      I do take you point though, that yeah, thinking back to the Campaigns I've backed, and even those that I pulled out of or never backed, there is so often that dreadfully drawn out period, in the middle, where very little, if anything happens. Just a trickle of money. And I often forget that Elite Dangerous was 60 days and was dragging even more than usual. I would say that it did *seem* as though *something* happened, as there was also a jump in number of Backers on the 11th, but I don't know for certain why that was or if the effects of the announcement extended beyond the 11th. As you say, it's possible that those following closely, backed/raised quickly, which led to the initial spike. Others not following so closely (or at all) found out just checking in, or just happened upon it from other sites and word spread, which would explain the two day lull.

      Or something else completely :oD But if it *was* something else, then what? Although, *not* providing an alternative, doesn't prove the original theory.

      I would have been with you though on *not* taking bets either way on the success or failure of Elite Dangerous had the announcement not been made. I think that would have been tricky. Yeah... just scraped in? I... nope... not gonna commit :o)

      That aside, we'll never know how much of a difference, but yeah, it made a difference. After the announcement, things curved up. All to do with it? Some? No idea, but a factor. Without the announcement, then not as many new Backers and raised Pledges and at least some who backed from the start or backed for offline mode later when it became more of an issue, would have cancelled. Probably not a *downward* total, but at least a smaller slope.

      It's all pretty much speculation really, but I do wonder if anything else was announced or... something in the Comments section? Probably not worth trawling through :o/

      I wonder if we should ask Frontier Developments if there were a lot of £1 Pledges that were raised on the 11th? ;o)

      < sigh > I actually don't back Kickstarters anymore. Or preorder. It's down to more than just this game, but also what you said about the lack of empathy. The knights and the need to defend, mean that the companies don't need to do nearly as much in response, if anything at all. Maybe something that someone has paid money for is difficult for people to accept is flawed, even broken? Not wanting to admit disappointment? Maybe people are jaded and don't see other's comments as sincere. Or, yeah, just a total lack of empathy. Unable to see that another person's experience is not the same as one's own, but then there's also the need to shut the other person up, so I really don't know either. Maybe it's just a wanting to be right and then not wanting to be wrong and then anything to save face/escape. Often though people can't seem to simply... *not* respond.

      "This doesn't work." - "Works for me."
      "Okay, for me, it still doesn't work." - "It must be you or your setup then."
      "I dislike this game." - "I like it, so you are wrong."
      "Okay... but *I* think it's bad." - "It's actually good."
      "I find this game really difficult." - "You're just a casual."
      "Why did they do this?" - "It doesn't affect me, so stop whining."
      "I find the game poorly explained." - "I understood it, so you are an idiot."
      "I wish they hadn't done this." - "The game is a masterpiece. Why can't you just enjoy it?"
      "I can't believe they didn't include this." - "I don't want/need this, so why are you making a fuss."
      "But I can't play without it." - "But I can."
      "Could this be added." - "I say the game is fine as it is and that would ruin it."
      "Does anyone else find this problematic?" - "No, only you."
      "Actually, I do as well." - "The game is great, so stop bitching."
      "I have a huge bug." - "I didn't get that bug, so your issue is unimportant/suspect."
      "If it doesn't affect you, then that's fine." - "No, I must continue to tell you that it's actually not a problem at all."
      "I've had loads of bugs." - "I had just one crash my whole play through, so that's what everyone had."
      "Why would an *option* to have this included/disabled make any difference to you?" - 101 possible answers: rarely have I've found one to be reasonable
      "Any criticism/feedback of a game." - "I will not entertain the possibility that someone could actually like something and yet still criticize for the purpose of genuine improvement. So shut up."
      "But pretty good can be made better." - "The game is already excellent. You're a hater/troll/idiot."
      "My experience was something." - "My experience was different and correct."
      "Why is your experience correct?" - "People cannot have different tastes or circumstances to mine."

      And in reverse:

      "Few people are having this issue." - "It still means it's an issue. Also how few and how do you know?"
      "No idea. I'm just trying to diminish the issue. I'm going to be doing that a lot."

      Wow, I really should stop, even for me, 'cause now I'm sad. And yet, it's actually still a relief to know that I'll not be mixed up in such things again. I'm so tired of them.

    31. Creator Theta Sigma 3 days ago

      @os

      Meanwhile, back in the real world...

      RollerCoaster Tycoon® 3 still coining it in two weeks after release:

      Figures for:

      iPhone, in the US, alone*

      $13,643
      Daily Revenue Estimate

      2,734
      Daily Installs Estimate

      https://thinkgaming.com/app-sales-data/62948/rollercoaster-tycoonr-3/

      *remember, there's the iPad version too, oh, and 100+ other countries out there, not to mention the likely upcoming Android port of RC3 %^]

    32. Creator Theta Sigma 3 days ago

      @B1gdeano

      I think I'd have enjoyed getting to know you a bit back in the day - your comments from December 2012 could equally apply to certain posters right up to the present hour here in 2015 (...know what I mean os?) %^]

      B1gdeano on December 11, 2012

      "@Taumel
      I really am beginning to suspect you are a bit of a troll.....
      Looking back at your comments you are near enough consistantly arguementative, confrontational, negative etc etc
      How about contributing with something a bit more constructive than the constant bitching you come out with?"

    33. Creator Theta Sigma 3 days ago

      B1gdeano on December 11, 2012

      "Really I think enough has been said about this MP/SP issue, lets just wait and see shall we?
      I am still a firm believer that it will not force synch/updates
      Take windows updates for example. You can choose to never update if you dont want. Windows doesnt stop working does it? You may just not get the full experience others are because of it
      Sound familiar?
      True its conjecture on my part there, but that is how I see it happening. Only time will tell, but for people's sanity can we stop this ping pong on here about it?!
      Its been going on since about 9pm last night"

      @B1gdeano (if you're still listening :)

      Update: August 28, 2015

      It's now been going on(line) for 991 days (...and counting)

      %^]

    34. Creator Theta Sigma 3 days ago

      @All

      Another thing that really grates is the revisionist history of offliners implying that offline mode was somehow the only thing that was ever an issue.

      It wasn't.

      There were many other "demands" from backers to Frontier.

      Things like:
      Multilingual Support.
      Linux Support.
      Star Dreamer
      ...and, oh... what was that other really important one?

      Oh yeah: PLANETARY LANDINGS %^]

      None of these things were part of the initial Kickstarter pitch.
      Some of them have been included after demands.
      Some of them haven't.

      The absurd entitlement complex of people pulling the "I demand it or else I'll withdraw my pledge!" was summed up beautifully by B1gdeano immediately following the offline announcement:

      B1gdeano on December 11, 2012

      "But seriously folks, we need to have the most important question of all answered by FD right now!
      We NEED a multiplayer offline galaxy that can be played on linux with a stardreamer included while not connected to the internet, but at the same time synching with the server for updated galaxy info. All of that also needs to be playable on a laptop running Win 98.
      Is this going to be included please? :-)"

      %^]

    35. Creator Theta Sigma 3 days ago

      @os

      "It made a good story a week or so in the press... then? Almost completely forgotten about." [...in the press] [sigh/]

      We all know that _you_ and the hundred or so other refunders definitely haven't forgotten about it (and sadly, for you, probably never will)

      Why not just present your evidence of the supposedly thousands of refunders?

    36. Creator Oldschool Shadowrunner 3 days ago

      @Theta Sigma
      "A very vocal minority kicked up a shizzle-storm. It made a good story a week or so in the press... then? Almost completely forgotten about. "
      Whereas in the real world (which Theta Sigma does not seem to inhabit very often), people were still fighting for refunds four months later https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php…

    37. Creator Theta Sigma 3 days ago

      @os

      Hmmm... let's see...

      The lack of evidence in the definite numbers presented by The Elite Dangerous Refunds Group.
      The lack of evidence of a perceptible increase in the rate of funding after offline mode announced.
      The lack of evidence of there being thousands of unique, angry posters on any of the multiple forums they might post to.
      All the evidence, in fact, points to a few hundred, at most.
      If you have any advance on a few hundred, and have evidence to back it up, us backers would be all ears.

      Until then, I'll stick to the evidence, as I always try to do.

      The evidence points to around 100, and I'm being generous "guessing" a few hundred.

    38. Creator Oldschool Shadowrunner 3 days ago

      @Theta Sigma
      "Even if we include those backers who forced Frontier's hand by obtaining a chargeback, the number of refunders is almost certainly less than a few hundred.
      Basically, nowhere near the circa. 5000+ that your assertion necessarily implies.
      It's the guesswork of the gaps that I object to the most."

      I don't see you objecting to your own guess work that the number who got refunds is "almost certainly less than a few hundred. Basically, nowhere near the circa. 5000+ "
      .
      What makes you think the number who got refunds wasn't 1000? 2000? 3000? Or yes 5000? Or more?

    39. Creator Theta Sigma 3 days ago

      @Michael Taylor [Part 2]

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      Liqua on December 11, 2012
      @All
      .
      Just watched the latest Dev diary ...
      .
      It looks ...
      .
      Freakin
      .
      .
      A M A Z I N G !!
      Now thats what i'm talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D Great video David and FD. Anyone not pulled in by this needs their head checking :)

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      I suggest that the visual impact of this had a far greater (and long-lasting) effect on not only current backers but potential backers than a statement regarding an offline mode that hardly anybody cared about at the time, or cared about afterwards when it was cancelled. How many refunds, either through Frontier or forced via chargeback? Please, give us the numbers.

      "...and the eventual turdnado that descended when its removal was sort-of almost announced, well, it leaves me a trifle discombobulated."

      Yes. A very vocal minority kicked up a shizzle-storm. It made a good story a week or so in the press... then? Almost completely forgotten about. Sorry. The fact is hardly anybody cares or cared about offline mode.

      "I really cannot understand the lack of empathy for fellow backers displayed by some after the offline removal announcement (one month before release, let us not forget)."

      This is another thing that grates.

      I think you'll find that most backers, myself included, have (or rather, had) a degree of empathy for those that wanted offline mode. Especially at the start. The problem is that _so_ vocal and _so_ entitled feel the minority, and _so_ vitriolic in their vendetta against E:D/FDEV/Braben...

      Examples: Elite Dangerous Refund Group colluding to abuse Metacritic voting system, trolling Reddit with analysis of the figures, posting misinformation to FDEV share discussion forums, trying to obtain merchandising copyright in order to print derogatory Elite-bashing sweatshirts and books and on and on and on. For months after receiving refunds...

      ...that now, approaching a year since the announcement, most backers are just sick of hearing the whining and complaining about a promise in a Kickstarter which was never a guarantee, and utterly sick of the actions of those aggrieved by the decision whose stated intention on many occasions is to utterly discredit the game, its company and its CEO when the majority of the rest of us still really want to see the game we backed succeed.

      It's not that hard to understand, really, if you take a step back out of offline-myopia.

      "FDevs actions regarding refunds were awful."

      They honoured refunds. They were quite slow about it. Get over it. There was no conspiracy - announcing offline mode didn't lead to a huge increase in funding - the data simply doesn't support the assertion.

      "The direction the game seems to be taking (to me) is further and further away from the vision presented in 2012/2013."

      Yup. That was the Kickstarter. Frontier have a multi-season, possibly ten-year plan for the game.
      Games progress, games evolve, games are released to new platforms.
      The fact that you seem to object to the direction the game is taking is kind of unsurprising really, though, given your absolute standpoint that Elite should remain in '84 as an offline experience.

      "Yet some still gallop to FDevs defence 'pon their shining chargers...it puzzles me, it really does."

      See previous comment regarding the actions of some offliners.

    40. Creator Theta Sigma 3 days ago

      @Michael Taylor

      "I'd been following the old Frontier website for about 10 years, hoping to see any news about Elite IV."

      Me too. For a longer period.

      "When the KS was announced I pledged on the second day to the minimum amount that would get me a copy of the game, disappointed as I was about its online-only nature. After the offline announcement I Jonty'd up to the £90 tier."

      Yup. I pledged £100. As an original '84er, and someone who'd trawled the web endlessly for years for every morsel of information about EliteIV, I wanted this game to be made, regardless.

      "I've backed 15 successful projects"

      ...and 4 unsuccessful projects.

      "...on KS and all of them *bar one* have followed the same pattern - initial high funding levels for the first week or so, followed by a steady trickle before ending with another peak in the last 2-3 days."

      Simply untrue. I've analysed the funding curves for all 15 of the successful projects you've backed (and the four that were unsuccessful) and your description of their patterns simply does not stand up to the objective evidence of the Kicktraq data.

      This is something that really grates: It's very easy for someone to make sweeping statements such as, "all of them *bar one* have followed the same pattern" and by doing so, people casually reading might go away thinking that such statements must be true.
      It's more time-consuming to actually do the analysis and disprove the sweeping statements, and most people can't be bothered to either investigate this, or present their findings, with the ultimate effect that the propaganda is assumed to be fact.

      Analysis to follow soon. But suffice to say, whether successfully funded (or not), whether 30 day campaign or 60 day campaign, whether successfully funded in the first few days, mid-way through, or in the last week/fortnight they _all_ (bar hardly any) follow very similar funding curves. Broadly:

      1. initially high rate of funding in the first few days
      2. rate of funding decreases
      3. rate of funing increases mid-way, and/or towards the last quarter or third of the campaign
      4. huge increase in rate of funding in the last 2-3 days.

      "The one exception to this is Elite."
      Nope. See above, and my previous post to @os and @Avalanche on the subject.

      "After the offline announcement the steady trickle funding level went from a sub-£10k level to over double that for the last fortnight of the campaign."

      As previously demonstrated, this is part of the standard funding curve for the majority of Kickstarters, regardless of campaign duration, whether successfully funded (or not) and whether funded in the first few days, the mid-way through, or in the last week/fortnight.

      "There wasn't a massive jump on the day of the announcement"

      You're damn right there wasn't.
      But _surely_ there _should_ have been given all the chatter about how it was such an _enormous_ issue to so _very_ many people.
      Perhaps it's time to face the fact that it _was_ an enormous issue (but to a vanishingly small percentage of people)

      "...because, this being the real world"

      Yes. It's high time offliners entered that world.

      "...it takes time for word to get around"

      Again: _If_ offline was such a _massive_ issue to so many people this word would have spread like wildfire, to _all_ who cared about it. Just like the cancellation announcement spread so quickly.
      The rate of comments per hour in this section around 11th December was enormous.
      Anyone who cared about offline mode would have known very quickly indeed about the announcement (if offline mode was indeed the major reason for the majority of comments, no?)

      My suggestion is that the news _did_ spread like wildfire (just like the announcement of the cancelling of offline mode did before petering out after a week in the press)
      The issue (as with the cancellation) is that hardly anybody really cared about it.
      Hence no perceptible ramping of pledges in the days following the announcement of offline mode.
      Sure, the people it mattered to - it _really_ mattered to.
      But, as with the cancellation:

      A minority being _very_ vocal about offline mode != a majority giving two fracks about offline mode

      "(I recall reading about it and upping my pledge a day or two after the update)."

      OK. "A day or two." If it mattered _so_ _much_ to _so_ _many_ people it's reasonable to expect they also Jonty'd after a similar amount of time, no? But where's the evidence? As el_tel observed: "I don't see a jump in funding anywhere."

      Offline mode was announced on 11th December 2012 around day #34 and day#35 on the funding curve:
      Being generous, there's a very slight bump between day #40 and day #41, which reverts to the previous rate for a fewe more days.
      Then, as with most Kickstarters (see Kicktraq) there's a steadily increasing rate as we head into the last third of the campaign, prior to the huge ramp in the final 2-3 days.

      "Whether the project would've failed without the offline announcement? I think it probably would've scraped in over the finishing line, but I wouldn't have liked to bet on the outcome :)"

      See previous post.

      "For some to now try and deny that the offline mode was of any real benefit to the campaign while ignoring the comments of the time or that the increase in pledge levels was due to some other unspecified reason..."

      Here's the crux of the matter:
      I've taken the time to read the comments from the time.
      Essentially, there _is_ a _minority_ of very _vocal_ people that were _very_ happy that offline mode was announced.
      The real find, however, is the "unspecified" reason you unwittingly refer to.
      You know what it was?

      Elite: Dangerous Dev Diary 3 - Player Roles
      https://www.youtube.com/watch…

      Just look at some of the comments immediately following its release:

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      Darkmoon on December 11, 2012
      Great update! *Applause* I am loving the style of the ship designs, and how they do derive from their Elite 1 counterparts. I was thinking, it would be cool if somewhere in the game, you could see an Elite 1 style wireframe representations. A good place for this would be on some alternative view: a navigation computer screen, missileCam or possibly some kind of strategic view hologram aboard a freighter (this would make sense on a freighter to have all round visibility of docking craft etc.).

      NOTE: Update explicitly referred to. No mention of offline mode. Mucho mention of visuals.

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      Lars Jørgen Kire[Lortsamler] on December 12, 2012
      @Styggron: I belive seamless planetary landing is equally important to many,if not more. So i hope we can get that confirmed soon.

      NOTE: Offline mode deemed not as important to the majority as planetary landings. September 2015: Planetary Landings will be a thing. Offline mode will not.

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      Philip Coutts on December 11, 2012
      It's the scale of it. For the first time the Anacondas look massive when compared to the Vipers you get a proper sense of them being a slow lumbering beast and the Vipers buzzing around them like flies. Remember to like the you tube video and get tweeting, e-mailing, facebooking this everywhere.

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      dcal on December 11, 2012
      Amazing! Imangine what this is going to look like when it is more polished next year. THIS IS PRE ALPHA and it looks great! Exactly what I needed to finish my promo video.
      Thanks DB and Frontier.....this game will be incredible.

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      karlchen on December 11, 2012
      Hey FD-Team!
      fantastic update!
      Let it be the start of some final run!
      This update was badly needed and it is exactly what is neccessary!
      I hope and wish that you get rewarded for this!
      I decided to double my jonty budget because of this!
      You show that you hear us! And we hope we can help to make this project happen!
      Dont forget the explorers and traders ;) ;)

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      Jason S on December 11, 2012
      That video, amazing.
      Just the right amount of nebula, just the right amount of effects, cool ships, cool movement, cool shields.
      Really loved it !!
      Don't know why they didn't show that earlier, I can only guess they were polishing up the code for it.
      But awesome!!
      So question, how do we re-contact all those that bypassed the project earlier to show them this now ? I rekon we could get a lot of people on who initial did not think much of it.
      ACE vid

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      Liqua on December 11, 2012
      @All
      .
      Just watched the latest Dev diary ...
      .
      It looks ...
      .
      Freakin
      .
      .
      A M A Z I N G !!
      Now thats what i'm talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D Great video David and FD. Anyon

    41. Creator Avalanche 3 days ago

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

      Possibly a few perceptive/experienced readers started to realise we'd *already* been screwed? :o/ It was just a matter of how long ago it had happened.

      I do still wonder if one day we will ever find out.

    42. Creator Avalanche 3 days ago

      Since this is the Kickstarter Comments Section, the only way is 'Add it to the top of the big pile to make it just that bit bigger.' :o)

      ...or :o( depending on your point of view.

      @ deusx_ophc

      I actually don't know know if Elite Dangerous is now an MMO, as I've never played it. I would absolutely say that whatever any Kickstarter ends up as, it's what the Campaign said it would be that is the only thing that is relevant. The game was presented as being tethered fairly, if not very, loosely to the mother ship (it actually wasn't that clear on details - sync every day/week/month/longer?), but then *totally* cut loose [hooray for metaphors :o) ]. Or playable always online for co-op/multiplayer. I think I get that David Braben may have been talking elsewhere about other things for a long while, but the game here is in no way that game. The game here is as presented and if he'd wanted to make something different, then he should have said so for the Campaign, including stuff like if it was an MMO. I think the deceit comes out with the buried not-actually-an-announcement, the highly suspicious delayed timing leading me to question how such a commitment could take 22 months (with just 1 month to go) to realise it couldn't be done, statements about "We will continue to fully and openly engage with you." In. The. Same. Newsletter. And, well, all the things I've said a couple/few times now. Then part of the reason being piracy? How many people asked for a refund? They said not many, but took forever to *not* respond to people. Again and again, if it was not many, then give the money back and everyone can move on. Would you agree the answers here from Frontier Developments, after people found out about offline not being included, were pathetic? They didn't answer anything. Then just... stopped replying. They ended up doing everything in *their* forum, so they could control it and their Newsletters, which they could also control in a Public Relations Press Release sort of way. They said they knew earlier that they had problems. How early? With everything else they tried as excuses, I call deceit. You said before that you thought they were honest. Leaving the lower level of badness that is deceit aside for the moment, do you still think they were even honest? If so, how?

      One of the big, big problems in all of this, is that however new, daunting, uncertain a Kickstarter may be, Frontier Developments made a commitment here and took £1,578,316 on that commitment. I still have no idea how many :o), but there were some who only pledged with offline mode being a part of the game (myself included). Do you agree that Frontier Developments made the unilateral "creative decision", at *very* short notice, to not include offline mode, even though it was "technically possible"? And in no way discussed it with anyone? And offered no alternative? Then said they weren't *able* to offer refunds. They even said many times that a Kickstarter is an investment. It isn't. That isn't allowed. They never answered that. Frontier Developments had/has no right to keep the money, if they weren't going to fulfil the commitment they made to *get* that money. From a business point of view, they decided *themselves* not to deliver the product as they said they would, but... said they were unable to give back the money? That's not how business works. And in the end, those who stuck it out, *did* get their money back. But many didn't pursue it by being ignored, fobbed off, offered a percentage of what they had *already* paid and were worried that they would get no more, or that they just didn't have the time/energy with delays and more delays. Also again and again, 'you backed before the announcement was made' is wrong. Frontier Developments have never answered for that. That is made up. Do you think that was a fair reason to not give some people their money back?

      Why did they say "We will continue to fully and openly engage with you." and yet didn't say *anything* about the problems? Not one word. Do you think they answered people's questions?

      Do you think that Frontier Developments should have been allowed to keep the money? I'm not sure we'll ever get an honest answer from Frontier Developments about such things as those above, below and a whole load of other things.

      Does the game *practically* require an always on connection? Am I right in saying that they didn't fulfil the DRM Free Hard Copy? So, even the sync aspect and only connecting for that and updates didn't happen? Did they talk about that earlier than Newsletter #49? You said though "the solo mode only syncs for 'transactional data'", so what's the time frame for being offline, before the game has problems? I don't know how often 'transactional data' will need to be sent one way or the other and how practical it is to be away from a connection.

      I don't know what things Frontier Developments have said that with hindsight they would have done differently, but by any chance would one of them be "Give people their money back."? Because they can actually *still* do that.

      Usually best not to post when tired. In my experience... doesn't work out too well :o)

    43. Creator Theta Sigma 3 days ago

      @os

      "...as just about every seasoned KS backer knows, then a goal is reached, pledges for the then certain project increase."

      Nope. Michael Taylor's implication remains unavoidable:

      If you'd bothered to look at the infographic you'd know that there is a pledge-a-thon in the last few days _ReGaRdLeSs_ of whether the project was successfully funded or not.

      Did you even bother to look at STARFIGHTER INC. which @A New Hope backed?
      (Note: sic. project capitalisation, not os-style shouty, shouty :)

      Remember, this game _never_ announced a solo mode, and yet:
      1. Has an increase in pledge rate about half way through the campaign
      2. Has a pledge-a-thon in the last few days
      3. Was ultimately unfunded

      https://www.kicktraq.com/projects/impellerstudios/starfighter-inc/#chart-daily

      https://www.kicktraq.com/projects/impellerstudios/starfighter-inc/#chart-exp-projection

      As I've explained multiple times now, using words and pictures, the funding curves of most Kickstarter campaigns are very similar, and attributing any specific aspect to the announcement of Offline Mode is naive in the extreme.

      Still don't believe me?
      OK. Take a look at Azimuth, one of the games Michael Taylor (Unsuccessfully) funded:

      https://www.kicktraq.com/projects/1978921498/to-azimuth/#chart-daily

      https://www.kicktraq.com/projects/1978921498/to-azimuth/#chart-exp-projection

      Just under $6K in 24 days...
      1. initially high funding levels
      2. noticeable increase in funding about two-thirds into the campaign [...with no mention of an Offline mode being promised %^]
      3. _huge_ ramp the remaining 2-3 days

      ...basically, a very similar curve shape to Elite:Dangerous, for this completely non-certain, and ultimately unsuccessful project.

      Question: Why then, was there a huge ramp in the remaining 2-3 days?

      Answer: Because, as I've already explained, _All_ projects, whether successful or not, have this pledge-a-thon in the last few days.

      Hence: Michael Taylor's implication remains unavoidable.

    44. Creator Oldschool Shadowrunner 3 days ago

      @Theta Sigma "This unavoidably means your implication is that £328,316 of funding was _entirely_ dependent on funds raised due to the offline announcement alone."
      It doesn't mean that. All of that £328,316 of funding was past the goal, and as just about every seasoned KS backer knows, then a goal is reached, pledges for the then certain project increase.
      .
      If lack of offline mode had lead to the goal not being reached, then very little of that £328,316 would have bee pledged at all.

    45. Creator Theta Sigma 3 days ago

      @All

      Nice bit of publicity in BBC News Technology section for Frontier/E:D ahead of 1.4/CQC/Planetary Landings Beta %^]

      "How to turn your child* into a video games designer"

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33906050

      *fully expecting a slew of derogatory comments from naysayers, regarding "witticisms" of the form, "My kid could do better!", "Yeah, it shows, E:D is really underdeveloped!" etc. etc. %^]

    46. Creator Theta Sigma 4 days ago

      @Michael Taylor

      There is so much in your post that not only do I disagree with, but that is not supported by the objective data I've presented direct from Kicktraq.

      For the time being, though, I'll just address this one comment/observation/conjecture/hypothesis of yours:

      "Whether the project would've failed without the offline announcement? I think it probably would've scraped in over the finishing line, but I wouldn't have liked to bet on the outcome :)"

      It's probably a good job for your finances that you aren't a betting man %^]

      Essentially, if E:D "would've scraped in over the finishing line" means it would have _only_just_ raised the required £1.25 million.

      This unavoidably means your implication is that £328,316 of funding was _entirely_ dependent on funds raised due to the offline announcement alone.

      The average pledge for all backers of the E:D Kickstarter was £61.46

      Therefore, you imply that 5,342 backers (21% of all backers) only pledged money to this project _because_ of offline mode alone.

      So, where is the evidence for these 5K+ refunders?

      [sticks head out of window... hears crickets chirping]

      Please present the evidence.
      Naturally, being an objective person with an interest in analysis, I would have to consider coming round to your way of thinking on this issue.

      The fact of the matter, however, is that only circa. 100 backers received refunds.
      Even if we include those backers who forced Frontier's hand by obtaining a chargeback, the number of refunders is almost certainly less than a few hundred.
      Basically, nowhere near the circa. 5000+ that your assertion necessarily implies.

      It's the guesswork of the gaps that I object to the most.

      Whenever I read one of these comments about how announcing offline mode was the only reason Elite: Dangerous was successfully funded, or how it was all a conspiracy from Frontier to extract funds from unwitting backers I just keep thinking of Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now:

      "The Conjecture..."

    47. Creator Michael Taylor 4 days ago

      @Avalanche - I'd been following the old Frontier website for about 10 years, hoping to see any news about Elite IV. When the KS was announced I pledged on the second day to the minimum amount that would get me a copy of the game, disappointed as I was about its online-only nature. After the offline announcement I Jonty'd up to the £90 tier.

      I've backed 15 successful projects on KS and all of them *bar one* have followed the same pattern - initial high funding levels for the first week or so, followed by a steady trickle before ending with another peak in the last 2-3 days.

      The one exception to this is Elite. After the offline announcement the steady trickle funding level went from a sub-£10k level to over double that for the last fortnight of the campaign. There wasn't a massive jump on the day of the announcement because, this being the real world, it takes time for word to get around (I recall reading about it and upping my pledge a day or two after the update).

      Whether the project would've failed without the offline announcement? I think it probably would've scraped in over the finishing line, but I wouldn't have liked to bet on the outcome :)

      For some to now try and deny that the offline mode was of any real benefit to the campaign while ignoring the comments of the time or that the increase in pledge levels was due to some other unspecified reason, and the eventual turdnado that descended when its removal was sort-of almost announced, well, it leaves me a trifle discombobulated.

      I really cannot understand the lack of empathy for fellow backers displayed by some after the offline removal announcement (one month before release, let us not forget). FDevs actions regarding refunds were awful. The direction the game seems to be taking (to me) is further and further away from the vision presented in 2012/2013. Yet some still gallop to FDevs defence 'pon their shining chargers...it puzzles me, it really does.

    48. Creator Theta Sigma 4 days ago

      Hi @el_tel,

      "at which point was offline mode mentioned?"

      11th December 2012
      - that's around day #34 to day #35 on the funding history graph.

      "I don't see a jump in funding anywhere."

      Indeed, and the reason you don't, is because there isn't a jump.

      The entire premise that Offline Mode was important to thousands and thousands of current and potential backers is quite simply not supported by the history of the factual, objective data.

      Everspace:

      http://www.kicktraq.com/projects/rockfishgames/everspace/

      The good news is that from the Projection cone, Everspace is looking very likely to be successfully funded %^]

      http://www.kicktraq.com/projects/rockfishgames/everspace/#chart-exp-projection

    49. Creator el_tel 4 days ago

      @Theta Sigma

      Those graphs - at which point was offline mode mentioned? I don't see a jump in funding anywhere.

      Can you get one for Everspace? It's still in progress and a KS I've backed.

    50. Creator Oldschool Shadowrunner 4 days ago

      @Avalanche, yup that was the point in Newsletter #49 where any sane reader started to realise we were about to get screwed.
      .
      David Braben "We will continue to fully and openly engage with you.".

Show older comments