kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
*weary sigh*

I guess this is just the age we live in now, where releasing unfinished, broken games is the norm, rather than the exception. Glad I was already determined not to buy this game anyway, thanks to the online only bullshit.
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
"We're still going to look at how to do [an offline mode]. You know, It's not off the table. We just can't promise it, and that's caused a lot of people to get very angry. I am always upset when people are [angry]—especially when they've backed us—but we had a vision and we're trying to stick as closely to that vision as possible, which is to do something new."

If they can't promise it, then why the hell did they, you know, promise it? That's a rhetorical question, by the way, because I already know full well why they promised it: they wouldn't have gotten enough funding and the Kickstarter would have failed otherwise.

(Disclaimer: I did not watch that 20 minute interview at all.)
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
As they fucking well should. Of course, the way Braben is talking, he makes it seem more like he's magnanimously extending a bothersome and unnecessary boon to the peasants rallying at his castle gates with torches and pitchforks, rather than admitting that it was a thing they should have been doing in the goddamn first place. Oh well, better late than never, I suppose.

(EDIT)

On an semi-related note, and speaking more in general than about Elite: Dangerous in particular, I've never understood this relatively recent concern that game devs have with "splitting the fanbase" of their game. This was something that came up with Diablo 3 as well. All these game devs lately are claiming that the game is online-only because they don't want to "split the community." (It's a bullshit reason, of course, since the real reason it is online-only is for DRM reasons, but let's ignore that for the moment.) Here are my questions about this. Let's say you have 100 people who want to buy your game. Out of that 100, 25 want offline singleplayer, and 25 want online multiplayer and 50 want both (the actual split may be different in one direction or another in reality, obviously, but let's go with this for now, just to simplify things). Tell me how, exactly, alienating the 25-75 that want offline singleplayer by removing offline singleplayer altogether is somehow "uniting the community," huh? Tell me how, exactly, including an offline option is somehow "splitting the community." The ones that wanted offline only would have never been a part of the multiplayer "community" anyway. Or are you truly saying that you're fine with 25-75 customers total, when you would have had 100 customers had you included an offline option? More money is better than less money, right?

But, okay, now back to reality. First of all, many of those who wanted offline only are likely going to buckle under and still cravenly buy the damn game anyway, even without it, no matter how much they might complain about it, so there's that bit out of the way. Second of all, what these game devs are really saying is that they don't care that they're fucking over the people that wanted offline singleplayer, just so long as they stick it to those damn, dirty apes who pirate their game or, worse, sell their game in a used game store. I guess the real question is do they think that the money they'll lose by people not buying their game because it doesn't have an offline option (such as myself) is less than the money they'll lose by people pirating their game (assuming that the pirates don't find a way to hack around the DRM anyway, which is not inconceivable) or selling their game used? Looks like the answer so far is that these game devs really don't care that they're angering and alienating legit potential customers by removing features just to inconvenience pirates and used game buyers/sellers (who, in the eyes of these devs, are probably indistinguishable, anyway).

(/EDIT)
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
(EDIT) And here is the Rock, Paper, Shotgun version. They seem to be a bit more willing to take Frontier to task over this, as opposed to PC Gamer, which just seems to be more interested in reporting as is, rather than editorializing about it. And the comments under there are just as negative to this overall as they are at PC Gamer, which is nice, though there are still a few idiots trying to defend the indefensible there as there are under the PC Gamer article (probably the same idiots, it wouldn't surprise me). (/EDIT)

"Those who have already been playing the game online in the Alpha and/or Beta phases, regardless of whether they backed the project via Kickstarter or purchased access to Alpha and/or Beta through our online store, are not eligible for a refund."

So, essentially, if you're someone who has actually played the unfinished game, such as, let's say, one of those people who were colossally idiotic enough to pay $150 to play the game early[1], then you are apparently shit outta luck for getting a refund if you wanted one now that Frontier Developments has revealed that they've been lying to you all along about including an offline mode, which might have been the main/only reason you backed them in the first place.

I hope someone files a damn class action lawsuit against these assclowns, I honestly, truly do. Then again, they've probably got one of those horseshit "you can't sue us" clauses hidden in their EULA. So completely glad I dodged a bullet by not backing this shit. Also glad that I didn't go for the higher-tier "pay us more and we'll let you test our game early" tiers on the KS projects I have actually backed in the past as well, or that I usually completely ignore the beta invites and such even if that sort of thing was included in my pledge level.

I didn't even bother to read the comments under this one, but I'm sure there are still idiots down there even now trying to defend the patently indefensible.

[1] - Remember the days when testers actually got paid to test games and didn't have to pay to test them? We're living in bizarro world now.
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
Of course he's going to say that. Doesn't make it true, and I'm still not buying his game explicitly because of it.
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
And here is the Rock, Paper, Shotgun version of the previous post. The comments under that are also largely negative about this change, with the occasional defender throwing in their worthless two cents, of course.

This was yet another one of those games that I'd been seriously eying as a potential purchase, but now won't be touching with a ten-foot pole. They knew all along that it was going to be online-only, yet they blatantly and abjectly lied to their backers that there would be an offline mode. (EDIT) And the precise reason for why the game is online-only is blatantly obvious. (/EDIT) Seriously, though I don't foresee it actually happening, I truly do now hope this game utterly crashes and burns. Soooo glad I dodged a bullet by not backing this shit, even though I'd been tempted to do so on more than one occasion in the past.

This thing here both is and is not about the lack of offline in this particular game, though. It's just as much, if not more so, about a game company who ran a Kickstarter campaign and who explicitly promised to backers a certain thing, no matter what that thing may be, during that Kickstarter campaign, and who are now completely reneging on said thing roughly a month or so before initial release of the game, and who never intended to provide said thing in the first place, as should be quite obvious by now. And I'll definitely be keeping this in mind the next time some other game company comes to me with hat in hand asking for my money, as well. Yes, not all game companies are going to be utter scumbags like this, but then who would have thought that the curators of the Elite franchise would be scumbags like that? (EDIT) Well, assuming you weren't already paying attention anyway, as I had not been until now. (/EDIT)

I truly hope Frontier Developments goes utterly out of business over this, though again I don't see it actually happening. There are just far too many clueless and/or apathetic and/or militant sycophantic lickspittles out there for them to fail the way they really deserve to.

Yet another facet of why I just don't give much of a shit at all anymore about modern video gaming in general.
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
News like this makes me glad I didn't back this game, and if I had backed it, I'd definitely be asking for a full refund. And now I won't even be buying the finished product when it comes out, though I'd already been somewhat leery of it to begin with.

And, of course, the comments under the article are filled with the likes of (actual copy/pastes of comments) "Don't really mind all that much personally, since i'm online 24/7 anyway" and "Being online 100% of the time while I game on my PC, I really don't see where the problem is" and "I'm fine with this really, solo mode is enough of a single player for me." This is why we can't have nice things. (EDIT) Okay, now that there's been a little time passed, the overwhelming sentiment in the comments seems to be negative in response to this (not that that will matter the slightest bit as to getting this boneheaded move reversed, of course). It's just that when I first opened that PC Gamer article, those three comments were among the only four or five that had been posted at that time, and the replies to those comments that have since shown up are scorching the original commenters, as they well should be. (/EDIT)
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
It looks like this sort of thing is becoming the next big trend. I'll just say the same thing I said last time: if idiots want to pay that much just to be allowed to test a game, let them waste their money in whatever way they want. It's actually somewhat morbidly interesting watching to see what new terrible schemes game devs/pubs are coming up with these days to fleece people, and equally morbidly interesting to see how many fools fall for such things. The only alternative is to get depressed by it all.

(EDIT) There are people in the comments trying to claim that because this game will cost $50 on release and because it will come with an extra $50 of pre-planned DLC (meaning that the game plus the stuff that they're cutting out to be sold as DLC is going to cost $100 total, assuming they don't come out with even more DLC later), you're really "only" paying an extra $50 for the privilege to test the game early. They're saying this as though this is a really good deal. Then again, these same people are apparently willing to pay full price $50 for a game and an additional $50 for DLC in the first place, so go figure. Well, as has been said before, there is a sucker born every minute.

I'm not saying that I don't think this will be an awesome game or anything, because it looks and sounds like it will be pretty amazing. I'm just saying that I'll be waiting a few years after it is released before I buy it at a more reasonable price than $100, as per my usual policy. (/EDIT)

Profile

kane_magus: (Default)
kane_magus

June 2025

S M T W T F S
12 34 5 6 7
8 9 101112 13 14
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Page generated Jun. 15th, 2025 06:33 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios