Elite: Dangerous Dumps Offline Single-Player

Robotron23 writes: The developers behind the sequel to legendary video game Elite have, to the anger and dismay of fans, dropped the offline single-player mode originally promised. The game is due for full release in under a month. With the title having raised about $1.5 million from Kickstarter, and millions more in subsequent campaigns that advertised the feature, gamers are livid. A complaints thread on the official Elite forums has swelled to 450+ pages in only three days, while refunds are being lodged in the thousands. It is down to the discretion of Frontier, the game's developer, whether to process refund requests of original backers.

Comments

Buyer Beware

[fustakrakich]

This Kickstarter stuff isn't very well regulated...

Re:Buyer Beware

[SeaFox]

You could say that (and in a way it's true), but technically there is no "buyer" since it's NOT a purchase, it's financial backing of a project.

I don't think it's possible to apply a blanket label to Kickstarter, which is the first mistake people seem to make with comments on Kickstarter stories.

In my mind there are three distinct types of Kickstarter campaigns.

1. The Distribution Campaign - This is for a tangle good generally, and it's an item the maker already has planned and maybe prototyped as well. The reason for these campaigns is lots of times "we can't get this mass produced unless we order at least x units". So they take the minimum number of units and multiply by the price they want to charge and that becomes the funding goal. These are very straight-forward and the goals are, too. You will get one of the (widgets) in (color) for this backer level. There's little way you wont know what you're getting or for the maker to "rip you off". It's clearly defined what you get. These Kickstarters also have fairly short turnaround times between funding ending and backers getting rewards, because it's a pre-sale drive for the most part.

2. The Charity Campaign - This is a campaign that oftentimes is for a visual art, theater, or dance companies. The money is used to fund a tour for a play to be performed by a company, or a series of exhibits, and another popular example as of late is small independent movie chains being caught with their pants down with the end of film-reel distribution of movies (forced upgrade to digital projection). The rewards are often times simple thank-you's, shout-outs on official websites or Facebook. You name on a "wall of fame" at the business. The higher dollar rewards for these might be admission to a show, or if you're a real high funder, actual face-time (dinners or private Skype discussions) with important individuals about the project. Most backers don't really get any "thing" so there's little to dispute about (unless someone embezzles the money and runs off).

3. The Production Campaign - This is the one that causes the most issues, generally because the goals are not very concrete. Lots of times it's "we want to make a video game and we have these ideas and here's some characters sketches and maybe even some initial computer graphics work, but we can't really focus on this because we have to maintain our day jobs. Please give us monies so we can stop taking all these freelance gigs to pay the rent." Lots of times the backer rewards are copies of said game when it gets released. But the exact form of the game is something that can change during production, which can be delayed, too. This is also the type of Kickstarter that generally can take years to get rewards to its' backers because it requires the people who started it to actually spend time creating something from scratch something afterwards. Another example of this is musicians pre-selling an EP or new full-length studio album they haven't recorded yet. They might have a song or two to demo to you, but the Kickstarter is to front the money needed for studio time, engineering, and disc production of the album.

The problem is lots of people get involved in Kickstarter and don't recognize campaigns for the type they are, and adjust their expectations accordingly. They back one campaign and expect every campaign to be as clear cut or easy as the last, completely ignoring what Kickstarter is -- a showroom for completely unrelated groups of people to reach a geographically diverse audience to seek financial support. They each have their own unique work ethic, and definition of meeting expectations.

I personally avoid Production-type Kickstarters because of the long turn-around times and lack of clear-cut goals. I fund some Donation-types, but mostly focus on Distribution-type campaigns and I generally am very satisfied with what I get in all of them.

Re:Apparently "backers" don't understand the term

[Anonymous Coward]

They lied. They claimed offline was part of the project in 2012 and took a lot of money in on the back of that. Now they're going back to the original plan after raking in all that money. They should at least be offering refunds to those they conned, but their refund statement is almost two years out of date and leads nowhere.

This outfit will not make anywhere near month they need to sustain their product. Therefore the online only requirement means this project will disable all copies of the game when they shut up shop in a few months.

Re:Real investments come with guidance

[mwvdlee]

Or, perhaps the best option of all:

4. The project team reinstates offline single-player mode.

You're screwing it up devs

[Karmashock]

You got all excited about this new funding opportunity. The ability to get funded directly by your customers rather then going through the big scary publishers.

And it could have worked except you crapped all over your customers the instant it became possible. You told them what they wanted to hear until the checks cleared... and then you betrayed them.

Again and again.

All these crowd funding systems need to have some sort of refund clause built into them.

We're very happy to fund you guys... but if you intentionally fuck us over then you deserve to have the money pulled.

Obviously you can't afford that happening. You already spent it. I get that. That is in fact the fucking point. You make your commitments and you damn well follow through. Alternatively, just bail on the whole project and never get funded again. Either way, this sort of behavior needs to be a third rail. It needs to mean financial ruin or career suicide.

The first rule of crowd funding is DO NOT fuck over your sponsors.

The second rule of crowd funding is DO NOT fuck over your sponsors.

Re:Apparently "backers" don't understand the term

[Half-pint HAL]

You're still obliged, in law, to deliver what you promised you would.

No, you are absolutely not in this case. Kickstarter is microfunding investments in a project/company, not a purchase of a product with a specific guarantee or warranty. The fine print says as much.

The fine print is less important than the law. In the US, microfunding commercial for-profit enterprises is illegal -- this is why Kickstarter, Indiegogo et al don't offer equity: it would get them thrown in jail. In the UK (where Frontier Developments is based), there are no "competent investor" laws so all microfunding is legal, but because there is no equity stake, Kickstarter is not considered microfunding. Last I knew it was considered a commercial transaction ruled by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act, and Kickstarter income was subject to VAT (similar to US "sales tax"). This means that they have to deliver the promised rewards, or declare insolvency.

This is ABSOLUTELY incorrect. It's not a payment at all, you are NOT buying a product. You are investing in one,

As I say, if this was true, the Kickstarter team would now be in jail for breaking investment law.

Re:Real investments come with guidance

[Anonymous Coward]

4. The project team reinstates offline single-player mode.

Game creators seem to hate single player anymore. I guess it is because they have to make an actual game with a plot, and goals, and an actual AI to fight against you. It is so much easier nowadays to take an engine (licensed and written by someone else) and create a bunch of pretty graphics for it. Then setup a server and charge monthly fees, no pesky AI or plot to worry about.

Re:To be expected

[timeOday]

Minecraft allows people to run their own servers, for free, and is doing awfully well.

Online-membership-only is killing gaming for me. I'm not paying $120/year, forever, to link up my XBox 360s to play with my son sitting across the room. (I scrounge for games that support system link, but there are hardly any.) Nor am I going to watch a bunch of commercials before every game (mobile gaming). The deal is, I pay money for a game, which I can then play as much as I like. Take it or leave it. They're leaving it.