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 Theta Sigma less than a minute 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.

    2. Creator Oldschool Shadowrunner 35 minutes 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?

    3. Creator Theta Sigma about 1 hour 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.

    4. Creator Theta Sigma about 1 hour 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

    5. Creator Avalanche about 5 hours 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.

    6. Creator Avalanche about 5 hours 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)

    7. Creator Theta Sigma about 6 hours 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.

    8. Creator Oldschool Shadowrunner about 7 hours 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.

    9. Creator Theta Sigma about 7 hours 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. %^]

    10. Creator Theta Sigma about 13 hours 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..."

    11. Creator Michael Taylor about 14 hours 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.

    12. Creator Theta Sigma about 15 hours 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

    13. Creator el_tel about 16 hours 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.

    14. Creator Oldschool Shadowrunner 1 day 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.".

    15. Creator Theta Sigma 1 day ago

      @Avalanche @deusx_ophc

      http://i.imgur.com/cduydI5.jpg

      Examples of Kickstarter campaign funding curves for games in similar genres/types as Elite:Dangerous.

      Campaigns which were either:

      a) Unsuccessful
      b) Successfully funded in the first few days
      c) Successfully funded mid-way through
      d) Successfully funded towards the end of the campaign

      Observations:
      - All campaigns share very similar campaign curves.
      - All campaigns show the last few days "pledge-a-thon", and this is _regardless_ of whether they funded in the first few days, or never reached successful funding.
      - All campaigns show an _increase_ in the rate of funding mid-way or towards the end of the campaign (prior to the ever-present pledge-a-thon) again regardless of whether they were successfully funded or not.

      You can read whatever you like into the reasons for the various aspects of the E:D curve, but, as with all confirmation bias*, you'll only see what you want to see.

      However, bear in mind that the objective evidence from looking at other campaigns and not being so myopic about E:D, is that most funding curves are very similar, and attributing _any_ _specific_ _aspect_ to offline mode is naive in the extreme.

      *no doubt some will counter that I have selected _only_ those curves that support my hypothesis. Feel free to add your own however, and do note also that I included Formula Fusion since I backed this Kickstarter (not a space game) and STARFIGHTER INC. due to @A New Hope's absolute assertion that the main reason it didn't fund was down to lack of single player - which was _never_ part of its pitch, and was never added during the course of its unsuccessful KS campaign - yet it still has a rise in funding mid-way through its campaign and a pledge-a-thon at the end - all without the producer promising single-player/offline-mode at any point.

      This is quite interesting given that @A New Hope asserts categorically that "most" people wanted an offline mode for STARFIGHTER INC %^]

    16. Creator deusx_ophc 1 day ago

      @avalance
      i do get your point, really ^^

      the 1998 video has nothing to do with the letters and wording and the actual campaign of the kickstarter. but as i keep saying has everything to do with the 2000+ elite that david braben wanted to make, always wanted to make: a multiplayer/mmo experience. and he was very against gifting computer games as xmas present, for being a lone, single experience. i make this point only to highlight a tendency (as opposed to a deceitful behavior).

      you are right to point out that FDEV were not sure on their terms/definition of what ed actually should be but you cannot argue that ED is mainly played as mmo now.

      the difficulty comes from offering so many game modes, solo, private group, all and obviously they were also planning an offline version. hence the unclear terms. (they talked a lot about having cracked p2p code)

      but ed was never talked about a normal multiplayer game, like tf2, lol or the like. it is and always was billed a everyone in ONE galaxy. (and that is where the issue with offline arose at some stage both from a design & technical (read resource) pov)

      DRM also always carried the "need to sync" label and i understand that that is a very open (to this date) statement. the solo mode only syncs for "transactional data" so that could be very little (afaik - quote mb from my post earlier) or rather a lot.... of course online is no true drm, but proper offline drm was never offered. you always had to auth via the server.

      to get onto the semantics
      The Pitch opened with:
      "'Elite: Dangerous' is the latest installment of a long series of epic space games, starting with "Elite" - one of the most successful games of the 1980s."
      All of which were single player only. #### yeah many online multiplayer games in 1980ies...####

      "...take part in multiplayer co-op mission alliances, free-for-all group battles and team raids to bring down planetary economies... or simply explore the wonders of the galaxy (and who knows what you’ll find out there..) is up to you."
      And again:
      "And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours..."
      ### alone =/ offline ###

      i understand that FDEV made that promise of an offline mode, i understand that some people feel wrongly done by when they called it off.

      it was the first ks they ran, one of the very first uk ks campaigns. it forced FDEV into the public domain (something they had not done before). they agreed that with hindsight they would have done things different (not sure if offline would be one of them ;p) and that is that to me.

      look how much they improved their community team. it is beyond recognition from even 1 year ago. look what they have just announced https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php…

      i still find little to no fault in their behavior (specially from a business view...)

      maybe we just stand at those opposite ends and wave to each other from time to time ;p

      just typed this down, back home and a bit tired =)

      onwards & upwards cmdr!

    17. Creator Avalanche 1 day ago

      @ Oldschool Shadowrunner

      Well, they started with hoping no-one would notice. Then that no-one would make a fuss. *Then*, yeah, they pretty much poured on the spin after that. Anything they could come up with really.

      Reading through those quotes though, I... actually wondered why Frontier Developments let that list stay up. Then I noticed a Mod had actually created it. Was... that list of quotes supposed to help Frontier Developments or just save on repeating or...? Because having them all in one place was not good as far as I was concerned. Concentrated spin.

      @ Michael Taylor

      Highest total for 20 days.

      Also though, the back and forth had been going on for a little while in the Comments section, as people were asking for a totally offline mode. One thing, for me, is that people can pledge at any time. Many (I have *no* idea how many), jumped in early, as is often the way. People put together the pieces and the FAQ was updated with more details, as to how the game would eventually function. As people realised that the game would require contact with the mother ship, more and more asked for a totally offline mode and others watched. Apart from the increase in pledges with offline mode (me being one), there are also the last 48hr pledges (some of whom got the reminder email) of those hesitantly waiting to see how a Campaign figures out in the end. On top of that, those that pledged earlier expecting it to be offline, or backed to ask about offline (as that's the only way to comment), would *probably* have cancelled their pledge. I think it made a big difference to a seriously flagging Campaign.

      Truly though, I of course have no idea how many people are in any these categories, but there were people asking/commenting in a number of different places and I for one only backed on the promise of offline mode. But I would add/reiterate that the number of those who backed wanting an offline mode, would not have just been a spike very soon after that commitment was made. People would have Backed throughout the Campaign (not knowing the details, to jump in and support or hoping and waiting), even before the commitment was even made and right up until the end.

      The *big* test of course we will never know: what if Frontier Developments had *not* made the commitment. But Frontier Developments said they would, then didn't, but wanted to keep the money anyway.

    18. Creator Theta Sigma 1 day ago

      @Avalanche

      In most things, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

      Frontier promised _many_ additional things for Elite:Dangerous from the start of the Kickstarter to its conclusion.

      The huge majority of these promises were honoured, or are in the process of being honoured.

      Offline mode was not honoured.
      Frontier shouldn't have promised Offline Mode if they truly didn't think it would ever transpire.

      It is probably impossible however to definitively prove, either way, whether they truly thought they could or could not achieve Offline Mode given their constraints of funds, resources and taking into account the other promises.

      It boils down to a matter of opinion. There is no smoking-gun which proves the case either way.

      Hence: This comments section still being frequented

    19. Creator Avalanche 1 day ago

      Buying posts. Burying posts. Tralala :o)

      Seriously though, long post I know, but... I think it's very valid.

      @ deusx_ophc

      "well maybe my language or thought isn't clear enough but i shall keep trying ^^"

      I hope you do :o)

      In turn I will try and make myself clear as well :o)

      Okay, firstly, do we agree that multiplayer is not the same as an MMO? Many games have multiplayer, network code, talk about the multiplayer aspect (possibly a lot), but that is not a Massively Multiplayer Online (Game). If one is making an MMO, then say MMO.

      Do we agree that at no point in the Elite Dangerous Pitch and opening video is MMO actually stated? Or the FAQ either? Despite the talk later, is it even mentioned in the additional Updates or videos during the Campaign? No update to the main Pitch/Video/FAQ was made, that I could see.

      I still have no idea, despite it's existence, how another video, or anything else for that matter, dating back to 1988 had anything to do with this Kickstarter Campaign in 2012. I had never seen that video and that didn't form any part of the Campaign. The one you linked to was in German. Whatever David Braben may have thought or said elsewhere, that has nothing to do with, and played no part of, what they said in this Campaign. That was the basic for the money. How can that video make anything crystal clear to everyone/anyone else?

      Again, talking about co-op and multiplayer and code, is not the same as an MMO. If they were making an MMO, then they should have said so in the pitch. They didn't. Even afterwards Frontier Developments themselves don't say it was 'crystal clear' or anything similar. They say that "technically it always has been [an MMO]" and that 'online was always the way it was meant to be played'. *But* "meant to" does *not* meant that it had to be. And online does not mean MMO.

      Again, they added that the game would be playable offline. It doesn't matter if that was added later, it was still *during* the Campaign. It doesn't matter if it formed part of an update to an FAQ entry (which it did). They said the game would be playable without connecting to the servers and also repeated this afterwards. They made it clear that the game wouldn't be the same experience (which I was fine with), and that they would *try* to mitigate those issue, but the game would still be offline.

      You said about "mentioned" and "intended" and "further investigation", with regard to offline. The same quote you made with regard to what Frontier Developments added to the FAQ during the Campaign:

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

      They didn't just "mention[ed]", they said they would do it. "intended" refers to the originally intended single player experience. The completely offline mode is a separate thing that they added to say it would be possible to play "without connecting to the galaxy server". Something they reiterated a number of times after the Campaign. That was a commitment. "further investigation" isn't mention in that section, or any other for that matter that I could see. The caveat the section did say (including the word "investigate") was with regard to uncertainty with making the offline mode as similar to the online game as possible. They said though that "...it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server" So also not an MMO.

      In addition, the issue of the DRM Free version still exists. Also from the FAQ:

      "Yes, the game code will not include DRM (Digital Rights Management), but there will be server authentication when you connect for multiplayer and/or updates and to synchronise with the server."

      The DRM Free boxed copy was included in *multiple* Tiers (including Tiers which include a "Physical DRM-free collector's premium boxed edition of 'Elite: Dangerous'" and those which say "plus all rewards above") as an actual Reward and Frontier Development failed to deliver. How is this possible if, as you say, it was crystal clear that the game was always an MMO right from the start? Even more confusingly, you claim since 1988? *many* Tiers/Pledge levels included the DRM Free Reward. A DRM Free MMO? Even with the need to synch, there is no indication on frequency, so... keep playing offline? If a player wasn't interested in Multiplayer, so no need to connect for that, then there's nothing in the FAQ to say anything about the urgency/frequency to connect or update. That does not sound like an MMO.

      The game was presented right from the start as one where the player could *choose* if they wanted to play single player, co-op or multiplayer.

      The Pitch opened with:

      "'Elite: Dangerous' is the latest installment of a long series of epic space games, starting with "Elite" - one of the most successful games of the 1980s."

      All of which were single player only.

      "...take part in multiplayer co-op mission alliances, free-for-all group battles and team raids to bring down planetary economies... or simply explore the wonders of the galaxy (and who knows what you’ll find out there..) is up to you."

      And again:

      "And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours..."

      Even if "single player" needed *some* sort of connection, the DRM Free version says that you only need to synch. In addition they promised a completely offline version.

      What it does *not* say, anywhere, is that Elite Dangerous is an MMO. Again, even Frontier Developments eventually went on to say that *technically* it was always an MMO. So not an *actual* MMO, just technically? Even they don't say that there were making an MMO and the Campaign didn't either. Many Kickstarters are MMOs and when they are, they say so. Elite: Dangerous didn't say that. The game was pitched as one where links to the mother server would need to be made periodically and they finally agreed that not even that would be needed.

      Although you may indeed see nothing wrong with the turn of events, I still think the issues are still very much unanswered and outstanding as to the 22 months delay with just one month to go, no mention until then even though they had known for a while there were problems (they actually said in Newletter #49 - the one that included the vagueness of the removal of offline mode - "We will continue to fully and openly engage with you." They actually said *nothing*.), then no discussion, instead a unilateral "creative decision" to exclude something that was still "technically possible", but they chose to "prioritise delivery of the online single and multiplayer experiences" against their promise. And then refused to give people their money back.

      No idea how you see nothing wrong with this.

    20. Creator Theta Sigma 2 days ago

      @Michael Taylor

      Furthermore, given that Frontier had added all manner of _additional_ pledged content, changes and stretch-goals throughout the Kickstarter, such as Mac version, additional flyable ships, Planetary Landings (I mean, I could go on...)

      To paraphrase yourself:

      To try and say the offline promise waa the main reason for a positive effect on pledges is disingenuous at best...

      Most especially given that, subsequently, there were only around 100 vocal objectors to the offline mode removal.
      I suspect removing Planetary Landings and Mac Version would have caused thousands of refund requests.
      Given that finite resources Frontier had (and have) to implement these things, they clearly made an assessment of the promises that catered to the majority.
      That's life. In hindsight, they should never have promised offline mode.
      But then, a Kickstarter is in no way a guarantee.

    21. Creator Theta Sigma 2 days ago

      @Michael Taylor

      You might very well say that, but the data from Kicktraq simply does not support your assessment.

      If you still disagree, please point out using the data from Kicktraq where this ramp occurred.

    22. Creator Michael Taylor 2 days ago

      For weeks prior to the announcement the pledges were trickling, sub £10k per day. After the offline promise the pledges jumped up to over £20k per day until the last 3 day rush pledge-a-thon. To try and say the offline promise had no effect on pledges is disingenuous at best...

    23. Creator Michael Taylor 2 days ago

      No increase in pledges after the Offline announcement? Utter tosh!

    24. Creator Theta Sigma 2 days ago

      Reality Check:

      1. The majority of funding occurred prior to offline mode becoming a thing.
      2. Following offline mode becoming a thing on 11th December 2012 there was no discernible ramp in either the number of new backers per day, nor the value of funds pledged in total.
      3. The ramp in the final days of the KS occurred after the KS had reached the goal of 1.25mil
      4. Virtually all KS campaigns ramp in that final few days and so attributing this ramp entirely to offline mode supporters is spurious at best (and also utterly irrelevant since the 1.25mil. goal was reached prior to that final ramp.
      5. There are many, many other aspects to the game and the KS that entitled "supporters" kicked up a fuss about and threatened to remove their funding if these aspects were not introduced by Frontier. Planetary Landings is a perfect example of this. Time and time again, Frontier listened to these demands, made changes, and aimed to introduce these aspects. They clearly made a judgement that PL was achievable and beneficial to that majority of the community. Offline mode didn't, ultimately, fit that criteria, and so, like the dinosaur, became extinct.

    25. Creator Oldschool Shadowrunner 2 days ago

      @Avalanche "I am curious, do you know what quote he meant when he said "...indeed it says so in the quote of me being circulated"?"
      He says "We have always said the way to play the game is online - indeed it says so in the quote of me being circulated.".There's no such quote in the summary of quotes linked by deusx_ophc https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php… or anywhere else that I can see. I didn't see such a quote at the time and I think I would have remembered it it has been said because it would have cause a storm of protest immediately.immediately then. Fact is, Michael is not telling the truth here "We have always said the way to play the game is online". What they said in the KS was ONE way to play the game was online. The other was offline. "you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours... ".
      .
      Reading back though those quotes reminds me how dishonest FD was being in trying to spin this. Here's one. "As mentioned in the newsletter thread the game has changed a lot since the initial kickstarter. One of the biggest changes is the importance of the the offline component to manage the galaxy and interactions." Here's the newsletter http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/… Any mention how the game has changed a lot? No. None. Except the various other broken promises, such as stretch-goal ships and game on DVD.

    26. Creator Theta Sigma 2 days ago

      @deusx_ophc

      As per yourself, "I despise propaganda and lies hoping to manipulate"

      os: "And then Michel Brookes' excuse for not providing it, after two years of not the slightest suggestion that they were not going to provide offline mode."

      Offline mode only became a thing late into the Kickstarter [11th December 2012] and, crucially, when the Kickstarter was already well on its way to reaching sufficient pledges to reach its goal.

      The objective evidence supporting this assertion is available from Kicktraq.

      Which brings me onto another repeating theme that I take issue with:
      These objective facts are presented time and time again, only to be (seemingly) completely forgotten about by certain other posters, before the discussion comes full-circle weeks and months later, and the previously refuted statements somehow become fact, again, once amnesia has set in.

      We've been through this issue of "the (supposed hugely positive) effect-of-offline-mode-becoming-a-thing on the pledges to this Kickstarter" many times before:

      Theta Sigma on Jun 7 2015
      https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/comments…

      "@A New Hope Your implication is presumably that E:D wouldn't have been funded if an offline mode had not been promised?

      If that is indeed your assertion, perhaps you can fill in some of the details:

      1. On what date do you believe offline mode was actually confirmed?
      2. How many £ short of the KS funding target was E:D on this date?
      3. How many new backers do you attribute to the announcement of offline mode?
      4. How much additional funding do you believe the announcement of offline mode caused?

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

      Jörn Huxhorn on June 7
      https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/comments…

      "TL;DR: offline single-player was promised when the game had £700k of the required £1250k."

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

      Theta Sigma on Jun 7 2015
      https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/comments…

      "@Jörn Huxhorn @Avalanche
      Lovely.
      Now use your finger to point to the place(s) on the graph where the huge influx of new backers (who had supposedly been holding off pledging due to a lack of offline mode) suddenly waded in to save the day :)
      https://36.media.tumblr.com/fb839496e292cd44b804a2f3a1ec5866/tumblr_npjs8aUMwh1rp167jo1_1280.png
      "

      Offline mode became a thing on 11th December, 2012.
      There is no sudden ramp in either
      a) the number of new backers to the Kickstarter
      b) the value of funds pledged to the Kickstarter

      ...on or after the date of 11th December 2012.

      In fact, comparing the funding curve to many, many other Kickstarter campaigns shows that Elite:Dangerous followed identical funding curves to other Kickstarter campaigns, big, small, successful or unsuccessful.

    27. Creator Oldschool Shadowrunner 2 days ago

      @do "the ks does talk a nearly exclusively about multiplayer (mmo)"
      It says " you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours... ".

      Did you spot that important bit. "The choice is yours."
      .
      "only very late deep into the q&a is any offline mode mentioned. that paragraph includes words like „intended“ and „further investigation“. "
      .
      Tricksy, tricksy. "intended" is not referring to offline mode. The only investigation mentioned is simply referring to differences with the multipler galaxy. Neither change the fact that teh KS says "it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server".
      .
      Again, in case you missed it. "it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server".

      And then Michel Brookes' excuse for not providing it, after two years of not the slightest suggestion that they were not going to provide offline mode. "The choice was develop the game in the way we wanted, or not. Trying to make it offline would have made both experiences worse than we were willing to tolerate." One month before release. Anyone who believes FD only knew a month before release must be as stupid as... FD thinks they are! :-)

    28. Creator deusx_ophc 3 days ago

      @avalance
      well maybe my language or thought isn't clear enough but i shall keep trying ^^

      The Elite Dangerous Kickstarter first and foremost being an MMO since 1988?
      - the next elite was always going to be a mmo (multiplayer) experience and that old video shows DB saying exactly that in 1988 about an elite in 2000+. so that is, to me, a crystal clear statement of intent from its creator and at that time a visionary plan to follow and formulate.

      The Kickstarter took place in 2012 and made no mention of being an MMO. It actually said it was possible to play the game alone, DRM Free, just synching with the server and also offered a completely offline mode.
      - the ks does talk a nearly exclusively about multiplayer (mmo) and even states FDEV already have the networking done (peer-to-peer). it clarifies in the main pitch that you can also play the multiplayer game alone, but connected to the moving and evolving galaxy.
      - only very late deep into the q&a is any offline mode mentioned. that paragraph includes words like „intended“ and „further investigation“.
      - i know there was a promise made to ensure there is an offline mode in the comments section.

      - to quote from the q&a december 2012
      „Update! The above is the intended single player experience. However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server. You won't get the features of the evolving galaxy (although we will investigate minimising those differences) and you probably won't be able to sync between server and non-server (again we'll investigate). „

      Again, promises, Rewards, took money, "technically possible", "creative decision", made no mention for months, no discussion, unilateral decision, don't give money back and... all the things I said in my post below.
      - and i see nothing wrong with above turn of events. it is what i would have expected FDEV to do, because ed ran via kickstarter (risk & challenges apply) and all decisions were their call.
      the communication was not ideal for some backers, the refund saga expected.

      - to help out with dev quotes regarding the online mode
      https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php…

      - and i still cannot find anything they have done willfully wrong

    29. Creator Avalanche 3 days ago

      @ deusx_ophc

      I'm not really sure if any of that was meant to be a counter? I mean, it really is fine if you still think what you think, but I'm very confused as to what introducing the very old video in German has to do with anything.

      I'm not sure I can really say anything in response that isn't just the same things I said before. The Elite Dangerous Kickstarter first and foremost being an MMO since 1988? And that's crystal clear? I have no idea what you're getting at. How was the game clearly always an MMO? The Kickstarter took place in 2012 and made no mention of being an MMO. It actually said it was possible to play the game alone, DRM Free, just synching with the server and also offered a completely offline mode. How was anything going back to 1988 relevant? Was that included in this Project? Was the German video?

      They said they would include the offline mode and DRM Free is still a Reward, but now say that it was technically always an MMO, so... isn't that contradictory? Also, you say that it's crystal clear, but FD say it's technically so.

      "it must be online, it should be offline (just that wasn't (yet?) to be)"

      I don't understand that.

      You had good experiences with FD, which is fine, but many other were given excuses, like the 'backing before the announcement' line, or like me, simply just ignored when I asked for my money back.

      Again, promises, Rewards, took money, "technically possible", "creative decision", made no mention for months, no discussion, unilateral decision, don't give money back and... all the things I said in my post below.

      It really is fine if you still hold your views, it's just I have no idea if your reply was supposed to be a counter to anything I wrote?

      "as you said, it is all rather subjective but some objective points have to be at that core..."

      Which parts are subjective and which parts are objective? A lot of the things I went through are the things that happened. Conclusions reached are often a different matter, but I don't know what you mean by that.

    30. Creator Avalanche 3 days ago

      @ Oldschool Shadowrunner

      Yeah, there's a sleight of hand in some of that wording which bugs me, as it's fine about it being meant to be played online and they may have said that a lot, but everything about the Project said that it wasn't *mandatory*. Offline would be offline. Even the DRM Free wasn't online, requiring just a "synch". The rest is about *their* "choice". Known for a while. Said nothing. Unilateral. No discussion. No money back. Some people persist and fight. Get money back. FD keep most of it though.

      I don't know anything about Michael Brookes. I wonder if he truly believed what he said or if he was just in the middle of having to do it.

      I am curious, do you know what quote he meant when he said "...indeed it says so in the quote of me being circulated"?

    31. Creator deusx_ophc 3 days ago

      @avalance
      and again thanks for food for thought. of course i am not going to "exhaustively go through and counter everything, otherwise if you don't it means I win." of your thread. there is no winning for me here.

      something to share, to help you maybe make your mind up about the online or mmo part of a modern elite, the vision and the sincerity of david braben.

      from 3.16 onwards, note the time & date https://www.youtube.com/watch…

      kickstarter ed was always first & foremost a mmo experience. that was made, as i read, crystal clear from the very first bbc interview on the ks and before. since 1988 actually.

      and not for one second do i think FDEV was trying to sell the offline mode knowing full well they would not be able to deliver, eventually.

      it was a late decision made & communicated their way. not ideal for many, but not deceit either!

      other points remain. but to me that hits the core.

      it must be online, it should be offline (just that wasn't (yet?) to be)

      ps. also i am slightly biased by personal experience. FDEV staff have been very good in our exchanges, a few times going out of their way to help, make things work despite unfortunate situations (part my fault, too).
      and one situation with huge potential for serious sour grapes was cleared by them taking time (beyond what i think they needed) to listen, and adjust their stance.

      as you said, it is all rather subjective but some objective points have to be at that core...

    32. Creator Oldschool Shadowrunner 3 days ago

      @Avalanche " I don't think they made a good faith attempt to complete the Project or gave it their best shot"
      .
      A reminder of FDs excuse.
      "We have always said the way to play the game is online - indeed it says so in the quote of me being circulated. The choice was develop the game in the way we wanted, or not. Trying to make it offline would have made both experiences worse than we were willing to tolerate. We had to make the decision and have done so. " Michael Brookes https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php…

    33. Creator Avalanche 3 days ago

      @ deusx_ophc

      You do indeed see things differently :o) That's really not meant as a passive aggressive way of saying "you're wrong" :o) I like to believe that I accept that people can see things in *very* different ways and although I may very much disagree with many of the things you said, it doesn't instantly make me right or you wrong.

      I do disagree with things though. If people want to spend huge sums of money on something, then truly, it is their/your money, so I have *no* issues there, but I don't think that Frontier Developments and in particular, David Braben were honest. I think they were deceptive and didn't honestly take responsibility for their actions. Some of that I would say is just my opinion and... well... it's all subjective really :o) but something that I've said many times is that they waited for 22 months and to me, hid the announcement in Newsletter #49, just one month before release. And then initially refused to give refunds. It seemed as though they tried to bury it and hoped there wouldn't be much of a fuss. At some point they started saying that investing was risky, when Kickstarters cannot be investments. But later, added other reasons, like piracy. After an uproar and bad press, they backtracked as slowly as they could. But even then, they tried the semi-quote that I made below regarding 'since you backed the game before the announcement of offline mode no refund for you'. That's terrible. Frontier Developments made that up. That's just not a Kickstarter thing. People can pledge, alter, remove as we like, without penalty. It's up to us to pledge so we can comment and ask questions/make requests. Kickstarter say we need to do such things. It all seemed like excuses and I know of no response to such things from Frontier Developments. As Frontier Developments dragged things out, the press coverage lessened and Frontier Developments got away with more and more.

      But the issue of explanation seemed, and still seems, very wrong to me. They said that technically Elite was "always an MMO". Really? I seriously do ask if that's what people thought during the Kickstarter, as I in no way got that impression? That was never a part of the pitch that I was aware of and was not mentioned. How can an MMO have an offline mode in the game. They did say that offline mode would be restrictive. That it would not be the same experience and I was fine with that. But the pitch talked about co-op and mulitplayer, but also said things like "...you can do all this online with your friends, or other 'Elite' pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours...". The previous Elite games were all single player (to my knowledge) and the pitch talked a lot about single player (but needing to connect to the server). Needing to 'connect for updates and to synch', but it's an MMO, doesn't make sense to me. It never seemed like an MMO to me, but the answer in Newsletter #50 said "technically it always has been [an MMO]" and when one starts saying "technically" when that was never in the *actual* pitch, then I think that is trying to wriggle out of responsibility and rewrite things. Note that I haven't looked at all the additional videos and Updates in a while. Some I may never have seen, but it's not in the pitch or the FAQ.

      I confess to being a little sketchy here, but somewhere, rewards including the DRM Free version of the game were simply not fulfilled. Even though it was said that they would need to 'update and synchronise', I *think* that changed with Newsletter #49 and always online, so those rewards weren't fulfilled.

      It all seems like... well... that the promised offline mode was made in haste to reach the Goal, with very little intention of ever being in the game. And then they waited *so* long to announce the removal. They said that in hind sight they should have said something sooner, but they made *no* hint of it as far as I am aware and were still taking money, so... I could go on, but I don't think Frontier Developments learned anything. I think they clammed up responding here (5 comments as I recall), deleted posts on their own forum that they could control and took forever to respond to anyone. Even though they said they hadn't had that many refund requests and that each one would take 10 minutes, weeks and weeks passed. I still ask, if they *truly* had so few requests, then why didn't they just refund everyone and we could all have just moved on. To me, they can't have it both ways. They stalled and stopped even replying here, even though here was where they took £1,578,316.

      If they couldn't fulfil the rewards and much repeated promise of an offline mode then, I think they owed people their money back, but they didn't do that. It took Letters Before Action before they returned some people's money and I don't know, but I really doubt that they would have stood any chance in court. But I also think that they knew this. I think they delayed and delayed and made excuses and yet gave no actual answers. I said many times way back a long, that they went into Public Relations mode.

      Ultimately I don't know, but I would truly be interested in any counter points.

      As for trolling and the like (lies/propoganda etc), I have not been reading all the posts on such things as trends and numbers and percentages and the like, over the past weeks , so I truly don't know who has been trolling who there, if at all. But personally, I learnt not to back Kickstarters, as apart from Elite, no-one really wants to talk about what a Kickstarer *actually* is. But, truly, that's a whole other conversation, but I think the Contract would have backed those wanting a refund. And I learned not to trust David Braben as I said before. I doubt that will change with his attitude on this, as it appears to be who he is. It's true I don't know him, but what little I have seen makes him very untrustworthy to me.

      I think it's important to note that Frontier Developments made the "creative decision" to drop offline mode (even though it was "technically possible" to still do it) and the DRM Free version. They made it unilaterally, without discussion, just a month before release, yet pushed upon people that they were adding other things that weren't a part of the original Pitch as if people should appreciate that and then said that they 'weren't able to give people their money back'. I don't think they made a good faith attempt to complete the Project or gave it their best shot, yet they still wanted to keep the money. Their way of doing things would be fine, except, they already took the money to do something else.

      Lastly, the Rock, Paper, Shotgun article http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/03/12/david-braben-on-fan-anger-interview/ was something that I though reflected badly on David Braben and for me the comments reflected a lot of the issue I had/have with the whole way this was dealt with by him. Opinions will vary. Which is fine.

      There may be counter points. I have not seen any so far, but collectively I think it paints a very poor picture of David Braben and how this was handled. I'm open to discussion though.

      I hang around now for various news/links/events/stuff as I don't follow Elite elsewhere and I'm still interested, but I do continue bringing up such points to you here, that I have brought up many times before, as I don't think that they have in any way been answered by Frontier Developments. I think that's deliberate on their part and additionally wrong. I don't think anything like the truth has come out. And I'd like to know. Maybe one day.

      I should add, that I don't expect you to answer the questions here yourself (hence the lack of question marks as most were to Frontier Developments) and don't feel the need to refute everything I've said :o) I know this is a long comment, but that's been a major issue, that this and a lot of other things that have been said *many* times before have just not been answered by Frontier Developments. So don't feel that you have to exhaustively go through and counter everything, otherwise if you don't it means "I win." as I really don't see things that way. All this is just my take on things.

    34. Creator deusx_ophc 4 days ago

      @avalance
      genuinely thank you for sharing and explaining why you are still posting here.

      i understand why you get upset by what from your position is a “broken promise” and despicable behavior.

      obviously i see that situation rather differently, i understand FDEV reasoning and appreciate their honesty. obviously there is some learning involved, ideally from both sides...

      but my general position is what maybe differentiates us more than anything.

      like many i have actually thrown money at FDEV, all affiliated kickstarters and upgraded many backers to ddf, alpha, beta, lifetime pass etc. and i am not asking anything in return other that FDEV give it their best shot.

      and their best shot at making this game, their game, David Braben's game is by definition the only shot worth taking. and their way of doing it, is the only way of doing it.

      so i let them get on with it. hope they as people and company and we as community take the chances that this project offers to develop, to better ourselves and our practices.

      and with a bit of well meaning support and plenty of time everyone of us involved in the modern elite will hopefully have the chance to find his place in space. it is a whole lot of space bliss for a lot of people already!

      unfortunately some will fall by the wayside. i wish that you find a way, maybe someday, to find your way back.

      the reason why i post here? i despise righteous and ill meaning people. and i despise propaganda and lies hoping to manipulate. oh and trolls trolling ^^

    35. Creator Avalanche 5 days ago

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

      My original motives were to get frontier developments to reverse their stance of not granting refunds, after they went back on their word here. They *semi* capitulated with their "case by case basis", but my motives were to continue pressure to get them to do the right thing. Something that they failed to do with me (and most others), so I got my money back via the Chargeback Scheme, while others accepted partial refunds and others had to resort to Letters Before Action. A fair number just gave up, but I have no idea how many.

      My motives were based on what I still see as their despicable behaviour. Something that has been raised again and again here, with many questions/issues still unanswered/unresolved. Currently things here are focused on other aspects which I have not had much of an interest in and I already have my money back, but I don't wish frontier developments to fail. I do hold david braben personally responsible enough to never trust the man ever again or buy any of his games again, but I'm sure there are many fine folk, who I in no way wish to lose their jobs.

      I don't think I am in any way grumpy :o) just *very* unhappy with david braben and the handling of this game - 'since you backed the game before the announcement of offline mode no refund for you' etc.

      Additionally, since this is the place where frontier developments came for the money, I think this is as good a place as any to air such views.

    36. Creator deusx_ophc 5 days ago

      ΘΣ ohh shiny ^^

    37. Creator deusx_ophc 5 days ago

      @Theta Sigma
      love the new avatar /props

    38. Creator deusx_ophc 5 days ago

      @os
      there is not a single "share trader" in this world that is looking to make money from trading FDEV short/medium term. well not any "share trader" that has got half a brain left.

      1. what do you think a "share trader" is looking form in terms of value? hmm no idea. let's just pretend this is a very tiny value "share trader" looking to invest GBP 100k for the short term.
      2. what do you think our "tiny share trader" has formulated as his investment strategy in FDEV? hmm no dividend payments... hmm no exit strategy... hmm just bet on the success of ED, EDH then? ok betting as investment strategy awesome!
      3. our trader has been lucky with betting and made some 30% on those 50k shares. lovely now get out!
      4. ermmm wtf!!! to exit 50k shares at/around current price with a stock as illiquid as FDEV takes (unless you get insiders to buy from you but why would they...) about 4 weeks and lots of micro trades. and your 30% dwindle to 25%, 20% and eventually 15%... still mustn't grumble and all ^^

      tl;dr
      no "share trader" in his right mind would try and trade FDEV

      obviously there is money to be made with FDEV after IPO but only in volumes that interest small private investors. and there is obviously, long term, an exit plan there, might need to ask DB for that ;p but those guys do not care about the current share price ^^

      how about we start a little experiment to highlight that issue? if the current crew here have some interest to get 1st hand facts about FDEV as a stock i be happy to facilitate and offer guarantees at no cost. we formulate and action a plan together and report back regularly.

      just for fun type of thing, it stops all this nonsense about FDEV share price and we might make a modicum of $$$ well GBP but whatever ;p

      also we could also always badger FDEV to hold a proper, open AGM* in 2015 ^^
      *think their AGMs have been very internal affaits to date

      and to end with, if the FDEV share price rises next week, then suddenly everything is rosy? or are the "share traders" then incompetent and the new big investor that has rescued FDEV is just stupid ? hmmm, not sound logic methinks ^^

    39. Creator Theta Sigma 5 days ago

      @CMDR Cerise

      Information regarding total units sold prior to XBone release is already available to traders (and everyone else) via RNS. Do you need us to remind you of the number? %^]

    40. Creator Oldschool Shadowrunner 5 days ago

      @el_tel "The thing with shares is that the results are often already priced in by traders, who know much more than you and I about how to analyse stocks, resulting in the share price being around the correct level already when the figures are released (unless they're unexpectedly good or bad).
      The only thing about the release of those figures that interests me is the number of copies of ED sold. "
      Guess what. Share traders who know much more than you and I about how to analyse stocks might be interested in the number of copies ED sold. ... and might buy or sell on that information when it is released!
      .
      Put it another way. Share traders can't price-in information that is unavailable!

    41. Creator Harbinger 5 days ago

      @OS: Wow we're on to random Steam reviews now. You quite literally have nothing of your own to contribute anymore.

    42. Creator Theta Sigma 5 days ago

      @CMDR Cerise

      i) How many units of E:D have Frontier shifted to date, from official FDEV RNS data?

      ii) Do you accept RNS data to London Stock Exchange as "official" data?

      iii) Based on RNS data, and all other available information regarding the various platforms E:D has thus far been released to, what is your "best guess" for the total number of E:D units sold that FDEV will report via RNS to London Stock Exchange on Tue, 8th September, 2015, for the entire period since Kickstarter launch on Tue, 6th November, 2012 (a period of 2 years, 10 months - or, 34 months)?

    43. Creator Theta Sigma 5 days ago

      @deusx_ophc

      "regarding "Where did it all go right?" ...
      he didn't even mention the incredible audio. i am not an audiophile so only bought a "custom one pro" for ED - still ED audio is stellar ^^"

      Damn straigh: The sound design and implementation on E:D is essentially peerless.

      A sonic tour de force.

    44. Creator Theta Sigma 6 days ago

      @el_tel

      "_I'm_ Braben!"

      #spartacus

      %^]

    45. Creator el_tel 6 days ago

      @TS
      Don't let OS goad you into predicting the Frontier's share price will rise when they release their figures.
      The thing with shares is that the results are often already priced in by traders, who know much more than you and I about how to analyse stocks, resulting in the share price being around the correct level already when the figures are released (unless they're unexpectedly good or bad).
      The only thing about the release of those figures that interests me is the number of copies of ED sold.
      Personally, I couldn't care less what the share price is as I don't own any FD shares.
      Obviously I have staff share options though, becasue I am David Braben ;)

    46. Creator Theta Sigma 6 days ago

      @os

      These questions are being posed to you again since "official" units reported from the Backers' page have been a subject dear to you in the past. You still haven't discussed these actually official "official" figures, though:

      "Although you've (attempted to) ridicule myself and deusx_ophc for our predictions and statements regarding total units sold and the imminent official RNS from FDEV to the London Stock Exchange on 8th September, you still haven't answered the question yourself:

      @Oldschool Shadowrunner

      "1. How many total units sold do you estimate/predict Frontier Developments Plc (a.k.a FDEV) will officially report to the world via the London Stock Exchange in their RNS on Tuesday, 8th September, 2015?

      2. Will you accept the figure that FDEV report as being "official" and a true and honest statement to the stockmarket, investors and general public regarding the total units of the computer game Elite:Dangerous that FDEV have sold since the commencement of their Kickstarter on Tuesday, 6th November 2012?"

    47. Creator Oldschool Shadowrunner 6 days ago

      "The people at Frontier Development are either extremely greedy or extremely delusinal to think that they've made a $60 game that is deserving of a $50 expansion."

      Jack Jack JacknCoke
      Not Recommended
      32.7 hrs on record
      Posted: 21 August

      Barely any content and they are charging $50 for the next expansion, which will have planetary landings where you essentially do exactly what you do in space but now on the surface of procedurally generated planet....

      It's a neat game but the content ISN'T there and it seems the developer is severely over-estimating the worth of their product. At a certain point it's just downright disrespectful to ask for MORE when your game is already lacking content. This isn't a new thing that Frontier Development invented but that sure as hell doesn't make it acceptable and this is probably one of the most blatant milking of a video game I've ever encountered. The people at Frontier Development are either extremely greedy or extremely delusinal to think that they've made a $60 game that is deserving of a $50 expansion.

      When you first start up E:D it feels like you'll never understand it. The world seems massive and there's no indication from anything as to what you should be doing so you simply start taking missions off the station's bullatin board and there you have it folks. Elite: Dangerous. I wish I were joking but that is pretty much the extent of the game. You bounty hunt/trade/explore and are essentially made to make your own fun after you realize that this is Ship Progression: The Game. Grinding for the next space ship is pretty much the only meaningful thing to do and I'm using the word 'meaningful' very loosely.

      Of course there are people who enjoy the game as is but for me, and a lot of others, the contet just isn't there and what IS there is extremely easy to deconstruct and see through. After a handful of hours you start to realize you're doing the same crap over and over again without much variety.

      Hope I helped make your mind up. E:D could be great, and if the price tag was right I'd recommend it as there IS room to make your own fun in a sense, but if they're going to be asking for so much they need to back that up with actual content.
      http://store.steampowered.com/app/359320#app_reviews_hash

    48. Creator Theta Sigma 6 days ago

      http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/feature/game/best-pc-games-of-2015-so-far-3623563/

      "A combination of online players and NPCs makes gameplay interesting and unique, as you could be flying along, minding your own business (like we were) when out of nowhere, you’re pulled out of Supercruise and attacked by a fleet of pirates. If you’re a fan of Star Wars and other space-warfare franchises, Elite: Dangerous is a must have."

    49. Creator Theta Sigma 6 days ago

      @Oldschool Shadowrunner

      There can be no guarantees in this life... %^]

      http://www.canadalife.co.uk/canada-life/Products/SavingsAndInvestments.asp

      "Please note that past performance is not a guide to the future. The value of units can fall as well as rise and currency fluctuations may also affect performance."

      Elite: "Buy Low, Sell High"

    50. Creator Oldschool Shadowrunner 6 days ago

      @Theta Sigma
      Gee thanks for the thought TS. Are you telling me FDEV is going to rise on the Sept 8th RNS?

Show older comments