How hard can it be to get a refund?

So it looks like Frontier Developments are thieving scum intent on ripping me, and many others, off. Very sad about this. Had such high hopes, and they have now completely and utterly destroyed my faith in any developer after promising so much and turning out to be yet another scum of the Earth, thieving, money grabbing whore of a company.

After recent news that they were removing offline mode from the development of the game I opened a ticket with them with regards to a refund. Initially the ticket was closed and I was a bit upset. Then I read they were dealing with refund cases individually, but mine still remained closed, so I raised another ticket. To my annoyance, they stalled and stalled, taking longer and longer to reply to each message, asking me to confirm stuff, trying to tell me they thought I would like the game better playing online (the bloody cheek of trying to tell me what I'd like best)! Eventually they replied confirming they would refund £35 of the £50 I paid to pre-purchase the game. However, nothing arrived in my bank and they continued to ignore my replies.

Seeing others were suffering the same poor service on their forums, I decided to take the matter to PayPal. I created a dispute claiming back the £50 and awaited their decision.

Quote:

---

After careful consideration, we're unable to decide this claim in your favour at this time.

The listing accurately described the item you received. We cannot grant claims based on buyer's remorse.

---

What kind of idiocy is this? How can they possibly say the listing "accurately described" the item I received? How am I possibly claiming based on "buyer's remorse"? I am so bloody furious right now I feel like I am being shafted by both companies, both intent on ripping me off, and it feels like I can do nothing about it. I can't do anything with the PayPal claim, I can't get any response from the developers and the transaction is now to old to dispute with Visa (thanks to their delaying tactics)!

What can I do about this now? Is that it, or can companies rip people off however and whenever they like with no repercussions?

Well, first, I entirely agree with you about the offine v. online issue. I have no interest in online gaming, and WILL NOT buy a game that requires a net connection .... which my games machine does not have.

However .... I guess it's kinda "buyer's remorse" in buying into a Kickstarter project, where the exact nature of the product you're buying isn't written in stone. So, a lot will, IMHO, depend on exactly what was promised, to the extent of being guaranteed, in the original Kickstarter project, and what was suggested, but subject to change.

As for what you can do to force either the developer or PayPal to issue a refund, my guess would be .... not much.

The moral of the tale, IMHO, don't buy a pig in a poke in future. Don't invest in Kickstarter projects unless you're prepared to take a bit if a punt. Because you are doing so. If you're not prepared to, be patient, wait, and check out the final product before committing.

I don't mean to sound unsympathetic. Believe me, I feel for you. All I can suggest is putting it down as an experience that forms one of those lessons in life that we learn from ... and a relatively cheap one, at that.

Keep pushing for a refund by all means, though, and I genuinely wish you the best of luck. The developer may, eventually, come through. PayPal, though .... I ain't holding my breath. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allen

trying to tell me they thought I would like the game better playing online (the bloody cheek of trying to tell me what I'd like best)!

---

Actually... This is often really, really true. When you are developing something, often as the nature of what you are doing becomes apparent, certain limitations kick in. In this case, the kind of game they could have offered which had an offline mode, you might well not have remotely enjoyed, because there is no game to it.

I feel slightly sorry for them with this, because the whole offline mode has been communicated very badly, and based on what they claim they've been doing I can see why they rely on the online world to provide the entropy, but this is the issue with raising money via a kickstart type thing, and why I'm constantly telling people not to do it.

Kickstarter is all the downside of being an investor without any real upside. A 10% saving on a product that will be better in a later version? Wow! Even the most interesting kickstarter I've seen, the form labs one, shows, that it arrives late (very common in product development) but also that the version right after it is better.

For kickstarer to work with consumer style demands the project has to be almost finished (or very simple) as people will want it later that year. They will not be happy with the idea of waiting longer, as often the more you wait, the more things will change. So anything that is that close to being realised, probably doesn't need kickstarter anyway, they will have other ways of raising money open to them, ones that allow those taking the risk (investing) to get some reward (profit, rather than a poor mk1 product).

Kickstarter to me, is often a brilliant example of the 'vally' mentality, where it pretends to be all nice and huggy feely, but in fact is much, much worse than the system before it. Bro-down!

Thanks for the replies guys, however, I should clarify something. I pre-ordered the game from their website in August, long after the Kickstarter campaign had ended. I don't know what rules apply to pre-order compared to Kickstarter, but my understanding is with Kickstarter you aren't even guaranteed to get a product because it's in the "idea" stage. However, pre-ordering should surely be a different kettle of fish and covered by some kind of consumer protection laws?

I guess I will try and call Natwest about a VISA chargeback, see what they say, but as it's been over 3 months due to their stalling tactics, and that the payment was to PayPal I doubt they will help.

Still havn't played the final version. I got so put off by slow / lousy tech support on the beta I kinda lost faith in the project. Tried and failed the Paypal refund route at the time while they gave no tech support for overa week after raising the IT DOESN'T EVEN LAUNCH case along with my more than adequate system specs. Sobering lesson to me about paying upfront for unfinished goods.

Visiting their head office in person worked for me. Not a solution for all of course but I do live just down the street. Doubtless I'd be in the same boat as you if I didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allen

Thanks for the replies guys, however, I should clarify something. I pre-ordered the game from their website in August, long after the Kickstarter campaign had ended. I don't know what rules apply to pre-order compared to Kickstarter, but my understanding is with Kickstarter you aren't even guaranteed to get a product because it's in the "idea" stage. However, pre-ordering should surely be a different kettle of fish and covered by some kind of consumer protection laws?

I guess I will try and call Natwest about a VISA chargeback, see what they say, but as it's been over 3 months due to their stalling tactics, and that the payment was to PayPal I doubt they will help.

---

Two issues there, IMHO.

First, yeah, I'd say "pre-order" affects your consumer rights (assuming the seller is UK-based and the contract is under UK law - check their sales T&C's). If they said "can be played offline" and it can't, I'd say that's a clear cut example of "not as described" under Sale of Goods Act. So .... if you can be bothered, write to them and give them a 'reasonable' period to issue the refund, say 7 days, or you will "have no alternative" but to consider legal action. Be polite but professional and firm.

As for NatWest, you've correctly identified the problem - two contracts :-

1) Seller and you, via PayPal as the payment method.

2) You and PayPal, with the PayPal account settled via NatWest.

Unless things have changed since last time I looked (and something nags at the back of my memory saying it has, or was at least being proposed) that distinction isolates the card company from any consumer law obligation, though what NW do as a goodwill gesture may be different. But even without that, the law that makes the card company liable only applues to credit cards (not debit) and to transactions over £100 (and under £30k, but that's rarely an issue).

As a pre-order, my reaction would be the 'pay up or court' route BUT .... be aware that if you do that and still get nowhere, you've burned some bridges and pretty much either have to take small claims cout action, or give up and write it off.

Personally, I'd be .... erm .... 'peeved' enough to send the recorded delivery pay up or else letter, and then if need be, take the court action. It's a pain, but on principle, I don't like getting screwed. If you do, my guess is it's unlikely they'll even try to defend it, and won't want a CCW against them if they don't, which implies paying up. They probably also won't want to spend the time or hassle of showing up in court. It's more trouble than it's worth.

Be aware, though, there are ways an awkward company can jerk you around, being 'ill" on the day, etc, up until the judge gets fed up with them jerking him/her around too. Been there, done that. It can still sometimes be hard work getting them to pay up, but debt collectors threatening asset seizures often works wonders, and is VERY satisfying. :D

Thanks Saracen. I have already been in contact with Frontier Developments through their ticket system for over a month and PayPal for the past 2 weeks, neither of them will budge and they are not responding any more it seems.

Also NatWest, whilst sympathetic, told me there was nothing they could do to assist and suggested CAB, an Ombudsmen or to look into small claims court.

Whilst I have put up a good fight, and was doing this for the principal of developers making single player games online only (an extreme peeve of mine), I have decided to not waste any further time on this. In that respect, I am forced to play the game online rather than throw £50 down the drain.

Sad that the games industry is doing more to piss me off these past few years than to entertain me.

I sympathise, Allen. And it does indeed come down to 'wasting time'. Question is who's least prepared to 'waste time'? You, or Frontier?

Some years ago (about 30) my car was stolen, then recovered. The insurance company jerked me about over the claim for months. About 6 months, to be exact. Eventually, I blew a fuse and told them I'd sue. The claims controller kinda shrugged, so I asked for his fax number. Why, he said. I just want to fax you the small claims court paperwork before I submit it to the court, because it's here, completed, ready to be sent to the court. That slowed him up a bit. I think he assumed "see you in court" was the usual empty threat. It wasn't. I fully intended to take court action because, well, first it was over about £3500, second, I had a cast-iron case, and third, they had jerked me about for months. First they tried the silly low-ball offer. Then they tried excluding this and that. For instance, objecting to the car hire charge saying I should have hired a small, cheap car. My response was it's a business vehicle, covered for business use and if I'd wanted a small, cheap uncomfortable, low-powered car, I wouldn't have bought a Capri 2.8i in the first place. The hire car was a Sierra 2.8i, which was the closest I could get to a direct one-for-one match to the Capri.

Ultimately, the agreed (in writing) to everything except some credit card charges, mwhich, they informed me, it's against policy to pay. I pointed out that the ONLY reason the card charges had been incurred was because they dragged their heels for so long reimbursing me, and that they'd been warned, two MONTHS in advance of the charges becoming due that the car eas booked in for repair work, and that they could either settle directly with the garage, or reimburse me BEFORE the credit card bill became due, but if they didn't, charges would start accruing.

And that's what the court threat was about - some £32 in credit card charges. They'd sent me a cheque for the other £3500, in "full and final settlement". I sent it back. Told them those charges were entirely their fault, due to their dragging their heels reimbursing costs they knew full well were justified, and I was not going to accept a penny less. And, by the way, the clock is ticking on those charges. If the credit card company add more charges, I increase the claim accordingly.

I told the claims controller, on the phone, that faxing him the court paperwork was a courtesy, but that if I didn't have a settlement cheque, in my hand in 48 hours, the case WAS going to court, and he could explain to the judge why they'd duckdd, dived and dodged, and tried to weasel out of paying a fair claim, for over 6 months. But, I pointed out, small claims track judges generally don't like having their time wasted by one party, especially big companies facing a private individual, acting unreasonably. If he felt he could convince the judge that these months of delay were reasonable, and that me oaying charges because they couldn't settle promptly was reasonable, then by all means, let's let the judge decide. I was absolutely up for that. In fact, I was postively loking forward to arguing it with them, in front of the judge.

And ultimately, all because they were being bloody-minded about £30 in credit card charges. Well, guess what? It turns out that "policy" or not to not pay charges, they actually can, if they want to. A cheque in full settlement arrived by motorbike courier the next day. :D

My point, I guess, is that it's largely about psychology.

I WANTED my day in court. They didn't want to go to court. It was going to cost them time, would probably be embarrassing, they were almost certain to lose, and that was exactly the kind of case (big company treading all over little private individually) when small claims court judges do everything they can to use costs, against the big company, punitively. Sadly, they're very limited in what they can do, but I had lists of time spent, cab fares incurred, train fares to work, mileage to and from the garage, right down to every last postage stamp and minute of phone calls, just in case the judge wanted to go that way (which was, IMHO, very possible).

In effect, I out-psych'ed them. I truly was quite happy to go to court. They weren't. I called their bluff, and they (correctly) concluded mine wasn't a bluff.

So .... the moral of the tale? If you want to be awkward, go the small claims route. It's neither hard, nor expensive. You do pay the nominal fee up-front, but should at least get that back if/when you win. Odds are they'll concede before getting to court. If not, odds are they won't show up on the day. If they do contest it, it's not a full 'court' experience - it's both parties sitting in an office with the judge, and maybe a court staffer taking notes (but maybe not). It's as simple, informal and unintimidating as that.

I've used this technique several times, when I really felt I was being treated unfairly. I didn't expect it to get to court (barring one occassion) and was right, it didn't. But, since I was absolutely willing to let it go to court, and even went along a couple of times only to get judgement by default (and costs) when the other party simply failed to show up, without excuse or prior notice to the court (thereby thoroughly irritating the judge, who had his time wasted, too, and was NOT happy about it;) ) they correctly concluded I wasn't bluffing.

But you could use this method and be bluffing, as long as the other side don't think you are.

You asked how hard it can get to get a refund? Well, that's how hard it can get.

Ultimately, if they won't refund you willingly, it might require escalation to threat of court, or to actually starting the proceedings, or to actually going to 'court', or even to getting the judgement then having to go through enforcement action.

That latter bit has perils of it's own, and I can comment on that a bit too if you want, but it's way jumping the gun at this point.

So yeah, you either have to write it off to experience, as you suggest you will, or be prepared to at least put in the effort to make it look like you're really going to go to court. Odds are, if you do, it won't come to that. But .... be prepared, 'cos it might. If it does, it's really not that big a deal.

I'd say do it Allen, although I've bought the game and am loving it (feel very nostalgic playing Elite how I imagined it back when I was 12 or so) you where expecting something that you didn't get. Fight your corner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabi

Still havn't played the final version.

---

But have you played any of the Alpha, Beta or Gamma versions?
If so, that's what the remaining £15 was, you got what you paid for and used the product, so would not be eligible for a refund on that part.
The other £35 that you got back was the actual release version of the game, at a discounted price.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allen

However, pre-ordering should surely be a different kettle of fish and covered by some kind of consumer protection laws?

---

Depends on the description - If you advance-ordered something at a time when it was knowingly unfinished and subject to change then the Trades Description Act will account for this and likely only apply the description of the final delivery product.

There is so much ranting over the 'removal' of this Offline mode, which was only ever something they were trying to do and never officially committed to deliver in the first place. In short, nothing was actually 'promised' in that respect.

*Technically*, they've done nothing wrong and most unhappy people whining about "broken promises" simply didn't read the descriptions fully, but FD have not helped themselves because, while they did state everything very precisely, they did not make it abundantly clear in big bold, underlined text. They assumed everyone would read everything thoroughly.

Marketing promises made and undelivered. Frontier refunded me after I spoke with their COO regarding this issue. Your opinions don't really hold any weight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reddit

[–]j6wbs 6 points 1 year ago
I still play the original Elite on my laptop on the way to work. Will I be able to play 'Elite: Dangerous' in a single player mode without any connection to the net? Thanks.

[–]DavidBraben[S] 7 points 1 year ago
Yes, though you will lose the richness of multiplayer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster

But have you played any of the Alpha, Beta or Gamma versions?
If so, that's what the remaining £15 was, you got what you paid for and used the product, so would not be eligible for a refund on that part.
The other £35 that you got back was the actual release version of the game, at a discounted price.


Depends on the description - If you advance-ordered something at a time when it was knowingly unfinished and subject to change then the Trades Description Act will account for this and likely only apply the description of the final delivery product.

There is so much ranting over the 'removal' of this Offline mode, which was only ever something they were trying to do and never officially committed to deliver in the first place. In short, nothing was actually 'promised' in that respect.

*Technically*, they've done nothing wrong and most unhappy people whining about "broken promises" simply didn't read the descriptions fully, but FD have not helped themselves because, while they did state everything very precisely, they did not make it abundantly clear in big bold, underlined text. They assumed everyone would read everything thoroughly.

---

I`ve also opened a dispute with paypal regarding frontier - but my claim is slightly different - I bought and paid fo both the digital game AND the DVD - the dvd has gone from being available to `on hold` and pre order , with a post on their forum saying they are having production issues.


therefore my dispute is regarding the physical media not being shipped , and wanting a refund for that (£13 - dvd +standard shipping).

I've not been on the forums for a while, but I've physical stuff due - as far as I was aware they were still due this month. Don't suppose you've a link to the production issues post? I had a quick search but their search function is awful...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yamangman

Marketing promises made and undelivered. Frontier refunded me after I spoke with their COO regarding this issue. Your opinions don't really hold any weight

---

That's not an opinion, that is how consumer law works.
If the retailer still chooses to provide a full or partial refund, it is at their complete discretion but they are not required to provide one.

Also, your ONE quote of some random Reddit post holds no weight with regard to proving that FD actually PROMISED anything.
Nowhere in the official Frontier Developments documentation, be it website, email or anything of that ilk do they say definitely, absolutely, certainly, 100% guaranteed and may god strike us down if we don't deliver, that they WOULD include Offline mode in the final product... All they have ever said (and have said numerous times) is that they would try and were working on it.
If you can find an OFFICIAL statement from FD stating otherwise, THEN I would believe you.

If you simply misread or misinterpreted these official statements as something else, then you have built up your own fantasy and let yourself down. You, or anyone else bleating about broken promises are whining about something that never actually existed.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ject_faq_43734

Quote:

---

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).

---

kickstart FAQ - they promised both single player and offline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster

That's not an opinion, that is how consumer law works.
If the retailer still chooses to provide a full or partial refund, it is at their complete discretion but they are not required to provide one.

Also, your ONE quote of some random Reddit post holds no weight with regard to proving that FD actually PROMISED anything.
Nowhere in the official Frontier Developments documentation, be it website, email or anything of that ilk do they say definitely, absolutely, certainly, 100% guaranteed and may god strike us down if we don't deliver, that they WOULD include Offline mode in the final product... All they have ever said (and have said numerous times) is that they would try and were working on it.
If you can find an OFFICIAL statement from FD stating otherwise, THEN I would believe you.

If you simply misread or misinterpreted these official statements as something else, then you have built up your own fantasy and let yourself down. You, or anyone else bleating about broken promises are whining about something that never actually existed.

---

Statements do not need to be 100% and "may God strike us down". The buyer is entitled to simply expect and require that good are "as described". If FD said it includes an offline mode, and it doesn't, then it isn't as desribed, in exactly the same way as if they'd sold a camera stating it had an integrated flashgun, then decided at the last moment to leave out the flashgun.

Nor tp phrases about people "bleating" or "whining" help, so kindly stop doing it.

Where I agree with you is that it ALL depends on exactly what FD said about offline mode. It depends, in other words, on HOW they described the product.

Also, whether a refund is full or partial is NOT absolutely at the retailer's discretion. Once delivered, goods can, in legal terms, be accepted or rejected .... and this ISN'T about phydical acceptance but legal acceptance. There are a variety of ways "acceptance" can occur, including doing anything not consistent with having not rejected them (like physically altering, or selling them) OR, and this is the catch-all, not rejecting them in a reasonable time. But .... buyers do have that period, pre-acceptance, to ensure goods comply with the stipulations of the contract, and that emphatically includes the implied conditions embedded in EVERY B2C contract, by the Sale of Goods Act, including the stipulation that goods be "as described".

The SoGA is more complex than most people realise, and there are B2B sections relating to bulk orders, sale by sample, etc where other conditions apply, but in basic consumer contracts, it is also not an option for the retailer to say they supplied 70% of the order, so here's a refund for the 30% of features they did not put in. In is certainly not down to themvto attribute what features consist of what percentage. In my case, for instance, online play consists of 0% of my reason for buying, or intended game play, and offline play for 109% of it. Without an offline mode, I don't want the game if they gave it to me free, because the machine I use for gaming doesn't have a net connection.

What retailers can do, is AFTER a product has bern accepted, is to offer a repair, replacement or, yes, partial refund to account for usage already had. If TV might be expected to last 5 years (60 months) but dies after 13.5 months, they could justify a 13.5/60ths deduction for use.

But that usn't the same as delivering a car sold as having air-con then deducting some random percentage as the part that is air-con. If the car was desribed as having air-con, and doesn't have it, that is grounds for rejecting the WHOLE car, because it isn't "as described".

And the retailer has NO discretion at all in the size of the refund for unaccepted goods being rejected because they breach the Sale of Goods Act. Paetial refunds simply are not an option.

So, thix all comes down to exactly what FD said about their product, what their "description" was, and when and how fast, and under what circumstances, the goods were 'rejected'.

Oh, and under none of this at all does the retailer have "absolute" discretion. That rests with the Courts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HalloweenJack

kickstart FAQ - they promised both single player and offline.

---

They said it is *possible*, not that it will happen and certainly not that it was promised.
It still remains perfectly *possible*, but is not something FD are prepared to develop as they believe it would be too great an undertaking (essentially a whole new game).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

The buyer is entitled to simply expect and require that good are "as described".

---

And that's what people are missing here - The product *is* as described.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

If FD said it includes an offline mode, and it doesn't, then it isn't as desribed

---

They said they would investigate it and would work to try and make it happen. People are mis-reading this as guaranteed included and the plethora of outrage threads is very unfairly slating FD.

Had FD actually promised Offline mode and then failed to deliver, they'd more than deserve the flak. But since they didn't, all that's happening is the threads are merely spreading falsehoods.
As is, there are plenty of other devs who did fail on their promises, but they haven't caught half this kind of flak. Ubisoft can pretty much just do it all the time, as no-one even expects them to deliver half of what they claim any more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Where I agree with you is that it ALL depends on exactly what FD said about offline mode. It depends, in other words, on HOW they described the product.

---

I do not see anything amiss with their descriptions so far.
If you see different, please elaborate as I'd genuinely like to know and the Trading Standards guys I've spoken with about this would definitely be surprised.

Quote:

---

Also, whether a refund is full or partial is NOT absolutely at the retailer's discretion.

---

Providing all other legal obligations are met, yes it is.
In the context of the Offline mode, FD have met the legal criteria and satisfied the Trade Descriptions Act. The Sale Of Goods & Services Act lays out what aspects are refundable, if at all and they are adhering to that as well.
By those acts, buyers are often not entitled to a refund on the used test-access part, even if FD choose to refund it anyway. But in those instances, the choice does remain with FD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

But .... buyers do have that period, pre-acceptance, to ensure goods comply with the stipulations of the contract, and that emphatically includes the implied conditions embedded in EVERY B2C contract, by the Sale of Goods Act, including the stipulation that goods be "as described".

---

Firstly, B2B contracts would not apply to the consumers in this case, unless the product was specifically purchased as or on behalf of a business.

Secondly, by logging in and playing one of the test-phases of the game the user is deemed to have accepted that product in whatever unfinshed (which would be the 'as described' part) state they may be. This is one reason why they are examining each case individually and generally refusing refunds on the paid Alpha/Beta/Gamma portions of any payments made - Because people accepted it and got exactly what they paid for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

in basic consumer contracts, it is also not an option for the retailer to say they supplied 70% of the order, so here's a refund for the 30% of features they did not put in.

---

But if you pay for 10 items and you initially only receive (but still use) 3, they can refund the cost of the other 7... refunding of the 3 you received is then a different matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

In is certainly not down to themvto attribute what features consist of what percentage.

---

The pre-order was one item.
Access to the pre-release tests was a second, separate item.
The latter required payment for the former, but remains a separately itemised purchase on the individual's account, allowing the former to be refunded independently of the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

What retailers can do, is AFTER a product has bern accepted, is to offer a repair, replacement or, yes, partial refund to account for usage already had.

---

And this part in bold is what they are doing - Partial refunds on the item (the pre-ordered final release) that did not get used.
With the test-access, you either used it or you didn't. If you used it even once, it's fully used and you got what you paid for. No contest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

And the retailer has NO discretion at all in the size of the refund for unaccepted goods being rejected because they breach the Sale of Goods Act.

---

Use of the test access denotes acceptance. All FD have to do (probably as simple as it sounds, but also time-consuming) is check through their server logs to see if you used the access.
You either get a complete £35 refund on the pre-order item if you did, or you get the same plus the additional complete £15 on the test-access item if you did not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

So, thix all comes down to exactly what FD said about their product, what their "description" was, and when and how fast, and under what circumstances, the goods were 'rejected'.

---

And also the conditions that define acceptance.

Pre-ordering games can almost never be a good thing. Some companies may be legitimate but most out there are nothing but money grabbers. A few bad apples spoil the bunch. It seems like way too many developers grab the money from customers than don't release a full product/ what they promised or implement bs 'features' as above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster

They said it is *possible*, not that it will happen and certainly not that it was promised.

---

Quote:

---

However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server.

---

It says "will be". Not "might be". Not "It is possible that [...]". Possible here refers to the ability here, not the possibility of something happening.

As far as I am concerned, "Will be possible" clearly means that it is not possible now, but it will be.

Ttaskmaster

David Braben - in his sales pitch to receive money stated it WILL , not might be or possibly


it WILL.

by removing that cast iron feature , it could be said he has defrauded those who paid money for the single player offline experience.

Jack - do you have a link to the post on their forums stating manufacturing issues?

I only buy games once they have been made so I can make an informed choice by either reading reviews or seeing what happens during development. Any one that pays for an unfinished product then complains it wasn't want they promised gets a lesson in life. You wanted to see a game being made with off-line mode it changed in development, such is life that's the risk you take when being a backer product in development.
I suggest in the future you stick to buying fully finished products.

Look at all the investors that were stitched up with occulus rift didn't see a penny when it was bought out for billions. If you want to fight your corner go for it. I hope you win and get your money back.

The lesson is you back an development product you take your chances. Personally I'm loving elite at the moment but then I did play the original as a kid on the bbc mirco :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HalloweenJack

Ttaskmaster

David Braben - in his sales pitch to receive money stated it WILL , not might be or possibly


it WILL.

by removing that cast iron feature , it could be said he has defrauded those who paid money for the single player offline experience.

---

Maybe so, but the Kickstarter phase also had a section on risks, and that assumptions and intentions may change.

However, the OP ordered in the pre-order stage, direct from the website, so what was or wasn't relied relied upon in making that decision will be product descriptions at that stage, not the earlier money-raising stage.

I do agree with rob4001 about, personally, not buying a pig in a poke and buying, or pledging development funds, before I know what I'm getting.

For me, offline mode is absolutely essential. No offline mode, no interest in buying. Period. So when that got cut, so did any chance of me buying. And that is disappointing, as I'd been looking forward to this. But if that's the company's decision, fair enough. I wish they hadn't, but it's their right to decide .... and mine not to buy as a result.

Which is why, personally, no way would I have backed this on Kickstarter, or pre-ordered. I wanted to be SURE what I was buying, before I bought it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splash

Jack - do you have a link to the post on their forums stating manufacturing issues?

---

like you I find the search function aweful and didn't save the direct thread link - which has disappeared amoungst the sea of whinning

Ah well, not to worry. Thanks for getting back to me :)

(and yes, I tend to visit their forums less of late because while there are some great posts in there they seem to be lost in amongst threats of legal action)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by risapylsa

Pre-ordering games can almost never be a good thing.

---

I'd normally agree and have never pre-ordered a single game from a publisher-funded developer.
I got on-board with the crowd-funding idea through the theory that a dev not beholden to the budget-holding publisher's demands for something outside of or contrary to the original project's concept would be far more likely to deliver a better product.

However, I understood with both Star Citizen and Elite that I was giving away money so they could make their game however they wanted, with neither a publisher, nor me or any other third party having any say in what the end result is.
I understood the risks of it stalling, failing or simply not turning out how I'd hoped/thought/expected/dreamed. As is, I'm not too enthused with Star Citizen's flight mechanic, but that's par for the course. I'd already written off the cash I put in anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

It says "will be". Not "might be". Not "It is possible that [...]". Possible here refers to the ability here, not the possibility of something happening.

---

There is a big difference between "will be possible" and "will be done".
It will be possible for me to work 18 hours tomorrow, but there's no guarantee it will be done...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

As far as I am concerned, "Will be possible" clearly means that it is not possible now, but it will be.

---

That's not the context I read it in and the same goes for people who know far more about legal interpretation than I.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HalloweenJack

David Braben - in his sales pitch to receive money stated it WILL , not might be or possibly

---

Link to exact wording?
There is a lot of confusion over the Multiplayer and Solo modes, both of which are Online and the potential Offline Solo mode. The latter two were often referred to as Singleplayer, which furthered the confusion as well as the difference between the Multiplayer's permanent server connection and the Solo requiring only sporadic connections for quick in-game data updates.
The wording FD used was always correct and accurate, but not neccesarily as clear and simple as people perhaps would have preferred.

Then again, the game itself is like that and you have to read the descriptions of everything exactly, or you'll make mistakes, so I guess that's the kind of mindset these Devs have...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

However, the OP ordered in the pre-order stage, direct from the website, so what was or wasn't relied relied upon in making that decision will be product descriptions at that stage, not the earlier money-raising stage.

---

AFAIK, it's always said, "The game client works in conjunction with server-based code to deliver its functionality / experience, and therefore requires a continuous internet connection" in the minimum SysReqs and they never changed it even when an Offline mode was on the cards.

The EULA has more about exactly when you can cancel the order/pre-order, but whatever exact product description was there at the time of pre-order is likely no longer easily accessible.

Also - Current info about the Boxed Edition:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...ighlight=boxed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster

Also - Current info about the Boxed Edition:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...ighlight=boxed

---

Pretty sure I've seen something stating a January delivery date for the physical goods, bit I'm at work at present so can't check

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splash

Pretty sure I've seen something stating a January delivery date for the physical goods, bit I'm at work at present so can't check

---

I briefly scanned this and other threads. I think they said end of January, so still a ways to go...

There is no confusion - only where you say it is:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ject_faq_43734

Quote:

---

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 sold the kickstarter as being single player and offline - neither of which has been delivered!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HalloweenJack

they sold the kickstarter as being single player and offline - neither of which has been delivered!

---

Firstly, it has already been established that the Kickstarter description was subject to change.
Secondly, Kickstarter sold nothing - Any money given was effectively a donation.
Thirdly, FD use the same very specific language in both their communiques and in the game itself, probably for good reason.

They did not say "players WILL have", just that it would be 'possible'.

Applicable legal definitions of 'possible':
achievable, anticipated, apt, attainable, believable, capable, cogitable, conceivable, credible, feasible, grantable, imaginable, liable, likely, obtainable, performable, plausible, potential, probable, rational, realizable, reasonable, supposable, surmountable, thinkable, unrealized, viable, within reach, within the range of possibility, within the realm of possibility, workable
See also: conditional, contingent, convincing, debatable, future, plausible, potential, practicable, presumptive, probable, prospective and viable.

And even a dictionary definition:
1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
2. Capable of becoming or of being made to be so.
3. Capable of occurring or being done in accordance with something specified.
4. Capable of happening but of uncertain likelihood.
5. Permissible.

Not a single one of those 44 synonyms or 5 basic definitions actually confirms or even infers such a thing definitely will be present.

Quote:

---

The above is the intended single player experience.

---

They have made it quite clear here and elsewhere that 'Single-Player' is what we now call the Online Solo mode. This has been delivered.

Quote:

---

However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server.

---

It still is. FD just aren't doing it... They may still do one day. Who knows.

Quote:

---

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 perfectly accurate and one of the main reasons they abandoned the Offline Mode.
Given how so many people have reacted to the loss of Offline, they may well pick it up later. But since it was never on the cards to start with, since they weren't just remaking the same old Elite merely with better graphics, since they had enough player support from just the Online modes and since it would have been a massive undertaking (by their estimates), the Offline was dropped.

its not subject to change once your project is closed - and since you have started to break down legality I shall continue:

Will be possible

that is part of the involved sentence in this matter along with the rest:

Quote:

---

However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server

---

Frontier Developments said right their - it will be possible (and to use one of your supplied definitions *achievable*) to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server.

perfect definition of a the saleable feature - which was abandoned after they took the money and ran. *kickstarter campaign was closed*

its a shame, as it was an advertised feature of the game - by definition.
your trying to offer the legal recourse of plausible denial but frontier deveolpements themselves left little room for interpretation of the line:

Quote:

---

However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HalloweenJack

its not subject to change once your project is closed

---

So all those changes made in response to player feedback during Alpha, Beta and Gamma testing... by that same logic, those are also outrageous violations of the game description, are they? How come (almost*) no players are upset about those?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HalloweenJack

and to use one of your supplied definitions *achievable*

---

A 6GHz overclock is 'achievable' for my CPU and I might well be able to achieve it... but there is certainly no guarantee. It is possible I will choose to go watch TV instead.
The word also does not mean guaranteed. In the legal sense, it means 'can be done', not 'will be'. Legal terminology is pretty specific, with lots of 'shall', 'must' and 'will' rather than 'maybe' and 'might'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HalloweenJack

perfect definition of a the saleable feature - which was abandoned after they took the money and ran.

---

Nope.
An *intended* feature which was nowhere near implemented and still being investigated/developed at the time the page was last updated, which is why they explained further about still looking into how it might work.
If you are relying on the Kickstarter description only, it is already proven subject to change and covered from both a legal and moral perspective.
It was also subject to change after the Kickstarter had kick-*started* the project, which was also made abundantly clear on many occasions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HalloweenJack

its a shame, as it was an advertised feature of the game - by definition.

---

It was advertised as an *intended* feature of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HalloweenJack

your trying to offer the legal recourse of plausible denial but frontier deveolpements themselves left little room for interpretation of the line:

---

They purposely left almost no room for interpretation, which is why I talked it through with Trading Standards to get an official consumer law perspective on it. I'm not making all this up - This is what qualified, certified legal authorities have officially stated is the correct legal interpretation and what would be applied if they took the case to court, for either party. Unless you have more legal degrees than them, I don't know what else to say... apart from good luck in court, then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster

So all those changes made in response to player feedback during Alpha, Beta and Gamma testing... by that same logic, those are also outrageous violations of the game description, are they? How come (almost*) no players are upset about those?



A 6GHz overclock is 'achievable' for my CPU and I might well be able to achieve it... but there is certainly no guarantee. It is possible I will choose to go watch TV instead.
The word also does not mean guaranteed. In the legal sense, it means 'can be done', not 'will be'. Legal terminology is pretty specific, with lots of 'shall', 'must' and 'will' rather than 'maybe' and 'might'.



Nope.
An *intended* feature which was nowhere near implemented and still being investigated/developed at the time the page was last updated, which is why they explained further about still looking into how it might work.
If you are relying on the Kickstarter description only, it is already proven subject to change and covered from both a legal and moral perspective.
It was also subject to change after the Kickstarter had kick-*started* the project, which was also made abundantly clear on many occasions.



It was advertised as an *intended* feature of the game.



They purposely left almost no room for interpretation, which is why I talked it through with Trading Standards to get an official consumer law perspective on it. I'm not making all this up - This is what qualified, certified legal authorities have officially stated is the correct legal interpretation and what would be applied if they took the case to court, for either party. Unless you have more legal degrees than them, I don't know what else to say... apart from good luck in court, then.

---

I really don't know why I'm getting involved in this, but the fervency with which frontier are being defended irks me for some reason. However, go read post 3. Allen didn't fund it on kickstarter, where it would have been a lost cause. He pre-ordered a game which should by then have had a more or less complete list of features. If you pre-order a physical product and it is missing something key to the operation which it was claimed it would have then you are entitled to a refund. Similarly if you were buying a service in advance which then was not properly delivered. This situation is no different.

Its fairly apparent that Frontier had absolutely no idea what they were getting themselves in for, they've effectively committed themselves to building and supporting a huge MMO with no ongoing fee model and a budget of the order of 10% of what something like WOW cost. The support issues are excusable when a game is in development, as is the thing being a buggy mess. However this is release, in theory I could walk down to my local game and buy it (although not, because they can't get their dvds printed in time and game hardly sell PC games).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by herulach

I really don't know why I'm getting involved in this, but the fervency with which frontier are being defended irks me for some reason.

---

Probably for the same reason I feel FD are getting disproportionately high and quite undeserved flak and am irked when so many mistruths are spread that furthers it.
Some of my friends are devs themselves (though not for FD or in any way associated with their projects (that I know of)) and the biggest stresses they get are release deadlines and handling complaints from gamers who think they know better, even when the dev process is 100% open and public.
Certainly if I was a Dev, I'd chuck it all in and tell people to get stuffed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by herulach

Allen didn't fund it on kickstarter, where it would have been a lost cause. He pre-ordered a game which should by then have had a more or less complete list of features.

---

It did, more or less.
The Offline has always been at the 'seeing if we can' stage ever since I read about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by herulach

If you pre-order a physical product and it is missing something key to the operation which it was claimed it would have then you are entitled to a refund.

---

Yep, very much so.
My argument is that inclusion of the feature in question and the stated intent to include it was not as certain as many people had (incorrectly) believed.
The legal side of the argument still stands, even if FD themselves are happy to refund the pre-order part for those thusly entitled.

From Allen's account of the situation: FD confirmed a refund of that part to which the buyer is definitely legally entitled to, although there would appear to be a processing delay somewhere along the line (FD-Bank-PayPal-Bank and whatever in between), probably due to the high number of service tickets and the seasonal holidays. With written confirmation from FD, the refund still stands and there is probably a set time outside of which the refund process would be deemed unreasonable, though I'd have to find out what that time is... but it should still happen. And I hope FD get around to it sooner rather than later.

Meanwhile, PayPal were called in to resolve the dispute and they actually ruled against FD's own refund... I wasn't sure they could overrule an authorised refund, unless it's their way of saying they don't have to/are not getting involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by herulach

Its fairly apparent that Frontier had absolutely no idea what they were getting themselves in for, they've effectively committed themselves to building and supporting a huge MMO with no ongoing fee model and a budget of the order of 10% of what something like WOW cost.

---

But is it 10% of the size of WoW?
I don't have stats on that...

And yeah, they possibly didn't know it would turn out quite so big, especially as a lot of what they and RSI/CI are doing comprises fairly new and untested models.
But should we slam them now and shut them down for trying, so that they or anyone else never bothers to attempt something cool again... or give them a chance to get on top, iron out the issues and see if they can deliver?

Some of us have waited 30 years for this game - What's a few more weeks...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by herulach

The support issues are excusable when a game is in development, as is the thing being a buggy mess.

---

I have a hard drive full of big title games that were released years before I even bought them. All are fully patched and everything, yet still they are far buggier than Elite.
Heck, how often does Steam fail to connect when you open it up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by herulach

However this is release, in theory I could walk down to my local game and buy it (although not, because they can't get their dvds printed in time and game hardly sell PC games).

---

Is it fair to bash the developer if a company they have hired to print DVDs have not delivered?
To me, that's like that YouTube reviewer who blamed FD because his own ISP or antivirus was blocking downloads...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster

Probably for the same reason I feel FD are getting disproportionately high and quite undeserved flak and am irked when so many mistruths are spread that furthers it.
Some of my friends are devs themselves (though not for FD or in any way associated with their projects (that I know of)) and the biggest stresses they get are release deadlines and handling complaints from gamers who think they know better, even when the dev process is 100% open and public.
Certainly if I was a Dev, I'd chuck it all in and tell people to get stuffed.


It did, more or less.
The Offline has always been at the 'seeing if we can' stage ever since I read about it.

---

I CBA finding them, but there have certainly been posts citing various features lists that included singleplayer (which your 'reasonable' person would assume to be offline capable unless it specifically stated it used always on DRM

Quote:

---

Yep, very much so.
My argument is that inclusion of the feature in question and the stated intent to include it was not as certain as many people had (incorrectly) believed.
The legal side of the argument still stands, even if FD themselves are happy to refund the pre-order part for those thusly entitled.

From Allen's account of the situation: FD confirmed a refund of that part to which the buyer is definitely legally entitled to, although there would appear to be a processing delay somewhere along the line (FD-Bank-PayPal-Bank and whatever in between), probably due to the high number of service tickets and the seasonal holidays. With written confirmation from FD, the refund still stands and there is probably a set time outside of which the refund process would be deemed unreasonable, though I'd have to find out what that time is... but it should still happen. And I hope FD get around to it sooner rather than later.

Meanwhile, PayPal were called in to resolve the dispute and they actually ruled against FD's own refund... I wasn't sure they could overrule an authorised refund, unless it's their way of saying they don't have to/are not getting involved.

---

Paypals decision has absolutely no bearing on the legal position of anything. Similarly, I think Allen's objection is that a partial refund isn't good enough. They failed to deliver the product he bought and as such he should receive a full refund. Say you preordered a new car, which the spec list said it had bluetooth, then it is delivered without it because 'specifications are subject to change at any time' but you're a travelling salesman who needs to be on the phone for work. Are you going to take a partial refund or are you going to reject delivery and get a different car?

Quote:

---

But is it 10% of the size of WoW?
I don't have stats on that...

And yeah, they possibly didn't know it would turn out quite so big, especially as a lot of what they and RSI/CI are doing comprises fairly new and untested models.
But should we slam them now and shut them down for trying, so that they or anyone else never bothers to attempt something cool again... or give them a chance to get on top, iron out the issues and see if they can deliver?

Some of us have waited 30 years for this game - What's a few more weeks...?

I have a hard drive full of big title games that were released years before I even bought them. All are fully patched and everything, yet still they are far buggier than Elite.
Heck, how often does Steam fail to connect when you open it up?

---

I've no idea either, but that isn't really my point. Nor do I think they should can the whole thing, whoever, the main criticism of UBI, EA etc recently has been forcing release of incomplete product to meet arbitrary release deadlines. It seems as though FD, free from evil publishers, have chosen to do exactly the same thing.

Quote:

---

Is it fair to bash the developer if a company they have hired to print DVDs have not delivered?
To me, that's like that YouTube reviewer who blamed FD because his own ISP or antivirus was blocking downloads...

---

If FD have decided to take on the role of publisher, developer and retailer then its absolutely fair to criticise them for failing to fulfil their obligations. They have sold something here, saying 'we're just a small developer don't be mean' doesn't exempt them from their obligations. At the very least you'd expect them to keep people reliably informed of the status of their orders.

why don't you just sell your key ? if possible ..you get some cash who ever gets the game ..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by herulach

I CBA finding them, but there have certainly been posts citing various features lists that included singleplayer (which your 'reasonable' person would assume to be offline capable unless it specifically stated it used always on DRM

---

Not really anything to do with DRM specifically, as that is more focussed on account access control than copy-protection and is handled by logging in to the launcher at the beginning.
But it was stated even as far back as the Kickstarter that 'Singleplayer' referred to the Online Solo, as per the description already copied earlier in this thread. With a statement as specific as that, if anyone (reasonable or otherwise) chooses to assume it means something else, that's their problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by herulach

Paypals decision has absolutely no bearing on the legal position of anything.

---

Not between FD and the end user, no. However, it was interesting to me that they would take a stance contrary to the retailer, so I suspect they are indeed just refusing to intervene. It may also depend on PayPal's source of legal interpretation, which at the least could sway a court case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by herulach

They failed to deliver the product he bought and as such he should receive a full refund.

---

He technically paid for two things, one of which was used and therefore non-refundable by all the terms and conditions that apply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by herulach

the main criticism of UBI, EA etc recently has been forcing release of incomplete product to meet arbitrary release deadlines.

---

Near as I can see, ED is complete as per the features already confirmed. Anything else (planetary landings, for example) was just a 'maybe now, if not in a future upgrade', of which we were all made aware and with which most of us seemed perfectly happy. What you think you're buying and what they have said you're actually buying is more of a caveat emptor at that point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by herulach

It seems as though FD, free from evil publishers, have chosen to do exactly the same thing.

---

But with the advanced warning that such issues may occur. In some cases, it wasn't as advanced as one might have hoped, but they let customers know as soon as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by herulach

If FD have decided to take on the role of publisher, developer and retailer then its absolutely fair to criticise them for failing to fulfil their obligations.

---

Are they failing though, or are they still getting it done and there's just a queue?
What's the timescale for resolution of issues and subsequent and delivery?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by herulach

At the very least you'd expect them to keep people reliably informed of the status of their orders.

---

For the most part, they are. Certainly they're doing better than most larger companies (like my own employer).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster

There is a big difference between "will be possible" and "will be done".
It will be possible for me to work 18 hours tomorrow, but there's no guarantee it will be done...

---

The difference is far less than you make it. If you want to imply that something is possible, but may or may not happen, the obvious choice is to use the term "might".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster

That's not the context I read it in and the same goes for people who know far more about legal interpretation than I.

---

I wonder if the context you are pushing for could really stands up in court. Regardless of what your claim about "people who know far more about legal interpretation".
But even if we assume that your interpretation has any legs to stand on (I am still not buying it), why would they bother to put an update specifically to state that a requested feature "will be possible" if not to imply that it be done. People asking aren't interested to know if something is technically feasible, they want to know if it will be done.

I haven't followed the drama. I am not invested in that game/project. But if what you are saying is the basis of their defence, then it just damaged my perception of the developers (I read your arguments, I feel that the hole just get dug deeper and deeper). The best thing the developers could do in my eye, is to state honestly that they have changed their stance regarding offline mode, and offer a sincere apology. And that is as someone who didn't buy the game that should put me back on neutral. But if I was the OP's position, I'd want a refund or at least a partial one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

If you want to imply that something is possible, but may or may not happen, the obvious choice is to use the term "might".

---

The difference is slight, but still definite.
The obvious choice would be plainer language than FD tend to use, but they choose to use these words for a reason and rarely re-word things in order to clarify/simplify it. Smacks to me of ass-covering Legalese.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

I wonder if the context you are pushing for could really stands up in court.

---

That's why I took it to Trading Standards for an official interpretation - They retain legal professionals such as barristers and solicitors who present TS's prosecutions in court and provide legal services such as definitive interpretations of the law. That's about the best you can get without actually going to court and seeing how your particular case turns out, but is legal advice based on the entire history of similar cases.
It's also free to the public via the TS helpline... although I just asked a friend to raise it with his legal department, because he's a TS Enforcement Officer and was round my house at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

why would they bother to put an update specifically to state that a requested feature "will be possible" if not to imply that it be done.

---

I imagine because this was still at Kickstarter stage, so they have to comply with KS's regs on their product description as well as any applicable laws.
By using 'possible', they are demonstrating every *intent* to include a feature, but not guaranteeing it, so if they end up not delivering it for whatever reasons (as they now have), no-one should have any grounds to hold them to it... particularly Kickstarter.
It's as much for their benefit as everyone else's.

Quote:

---

People asking aren't interested to know if something is technically feasible, they want to know if it will be done.

---

Some also want to know if it is being done, either now or for a future release, or if it's even being considered. IIRC, this part was on the KS project's FAQ page, which suggests a lot of people had already asked if it could/would happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

But if what you are saying is the basis of their defence, then it just damaged my perception of the developers.

---

From what I know about such things, I'd say it's pretty much the standard legal defence of most retailers, so nothing new at all and pretty much par for the course whenever I've gone back to someone about a product.
A lot of it is covered from the outset if you fully read your Terms & Conditions, Contracts, EULAs and everything in conjuction with your legal rights as a consumer, which I generally do before I sign up to anything. I can be as picky about my smallprint as Saracen is about minimising his online footprint - That's what having TS Officers as friends does to you!

Therefore I didn't get my hopes especially high as they did keep saying they were still only working out if they could do the Offline (however good things were looking and however much they intended to make it happen), so I wasn't especially shocked when they finally said they couldn't... mainly just a bit surprised that they only chose/were able to announce it SO close to release!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

The best thing the developers could do in my eye, is to state honestly that they have changed their stance regarding offline mode, and offer a sincere apology.

---

I have to say, I don't recall seeing that much in the way of an actual apology from FD...
They're very good at stating the facts, but they don't come across as particularly touchy-feely and emotionally engaging as far as their customer base goes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

But if I was the OP's position, I'd want a refund or at least a partial one.

---

Most definitely and in cases where the pre-ordered final release version has not been downloaded and accessed, every customer *IS* legally entitled to that £35 refund.

The £15 for pre-release test-access is both a separate and a different product, the use of which works along the same lines as them Radeon Rewards 'Never Settle' game vouchers - Once you redeem it, it's yours, done, finished, fully used up and no longer refundable.
Those who did not make use of it should also be entitled to a refund on that.


With all the work and thought I seem to be putting into this, I'm starting to wonder if I should send FD a bill for my legal defense and PR services, heh heh!! :D

Loathe to re-open this singularly tedious debate, but hey-ho. When i spoke in person for a good 20 minutes to frontiers' coo (david, forget his surname) we talked about refunds, software licensing and consumer protection in the download sphere. He told me mistakes were made, and was very apologetic. Judging by the thread few it seems trust the bizarre position of the frontier apologist. Just trying to figure out their angle - project backer perhaps? Doing all they can to ensure investment doesn't fail?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yamangman

Judging by the thread few it seems trust the bizarre position of the frontier apologist. Just trying to figure out their angle - project backer perhaps? Doing all they can to ensure investment doesn't fail?

---

What, me?
I'm simply of the opinion that FD have achieved something fantastic, which I happen to like and for which I feel they should be congratulated, rather than burned at the stake under incorrect accusations.
Then again Matt Taylor helped land a flippin' probe on a comet, but all people actually cared about was that he had tattoos and that his shirt might have been slightly offensive, so who am I to expect people to see reason... :D

My angle?
"You're wrong". That's about the whole of it.

I'm on the side of the law and simply going by what it says. How is that bizarre?
But hell, don't trust me - Go learn the law for yourself, take it to court, challenge the qualified legal professionals and see what your internet legalese gets you. I bet it won't be a full refund!

Badgering a seller until you get a refund does not equal entitlement.

I have no investment in the game beyond wanting to play it, which I now am. I'm just calling BS on all the tantrums and demands for refunds that people think their own misinterpretation, despite being told how things would actually be, somehow entitles them to... and substantiating that BS call with what the law says they're *actually* entitled to.


In short, how hard can it be to get a refund? If you're not entitled to it - Very.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yamangman

Just trying to figure out their angle - project backer perhaps? Doing all they can to ensure investment doesn't fail?

---

As a fellow project backer I just wanted to pick you up on this: backing something on Kickstarter does *not* constitute an investment. The closest it comes is a financial contribution to getting something made, and now that the game has indeed been made I'd say that any chances of an investment failing are long gone.

I've no qualms with people requesting a refund if they feel that they were misled. I know for a fact that Allen was not a KS backer, so his terms of engagement may be significantly different to mine but... having spent an amount of time on the FD forums the one thing I can say is that I wish those who were taking their toys to play elsewhere would simply act on their word - I totally agree that it's gone beyond tedious now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster

What, me?
I'm simply of the opinion that FD have achieved something fantastic, which I happen to like and for which I feel they should be congratulated, rather than burned at the stake under incorrect accusations.
Then again Matt Taylor helped land a flippin' probe on a comet, but all people actually cared about was that he had tattoos and that his shirt might have been slightly offensive, so who am I to expect people to see reason... :D

My angle?
"You're wrong". That's about the whole of it.

I'm on the side of the law and simply going by what it says. How is that bizarre?
But hell, don't trust me - Go learn the law for yourself, take it to court, challenge the qualified legal professionals and see what your internet legalese gets you. I bet it won't be a full refund!

Badgering a seller until you get a refund does not equal entitlement.

I have no investment in the game beyond wanting to play it, which I now am. I'm just calling BS on all the tantrums and demands for refunds that people think their own misinterpretation, despite being told how things would actually be, somehow entitles them to... and substantiating that BS call with what the law says they're *actually* entitled to.


In short, how hard can it be to get a refund? If you're not entitled to it - Very.

---

your wrong

I proved Frontier Developments wrong in my first and only letter to them and got a refund.

lets play the legal game shall we.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HalloweenJack

your wrong
I proved Frontier Developments wrong in my first and only letter to them and got a refund.

---

A company may well provide you something out of kindness, in the interest of good customer service, because they feel obliged even when the law says they aren't, or simply just to shut you the hell up.
That does NOT mean you are legally entitled to it, whichever way you like to interpret it and it would lose you a lot of money in legal fees to test this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HalloweenJack

lets play the legal game shall we.

---

Go ahead - Insert coin...

*Shrug* - I am not that cynical, so I am guessing that it is just a satisfied customer who decided to defend the company like satisfied company sometime do.

Also, he convinced himself that his interpretation is correct, just as I have convinced myself that it is highly dubious, putting it as politely as I can. Assuming that his argument has any leg to stand on, I'd still view the company as I would a political party carefully crafting statement to mislead without outright lying. I will restate that if his arguments are in line with the official stance of the company, then each time it makes me less likely to side with the developers. It is terrible PR as far as I am concerned, but that's just me. If he's managed to convince 100s others otherwise, the company -should- hire him.

But aside from being a bit tedious, this whole thing "debate" feel like a waste of time with little to be gained. It just end up being one interpretation vs another, but no matter how much we doubt each other, what really matter in the end, is what other prospective customers think faced with the evidence. And they can decide for themselves directly from the relevant text as I have done.

(This post was written after post 42 and directed towards it. It seems like my assertion was correct, though "why" someone would take that side of the issue was never the issue for me. The only thing that I am concerned is, is the official stance of the company)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

*Shrug* - I am not that cynical, so I am guessing that it is just a satisfied customer who decided to defend the company like satisfied company sometime do.

---

Actually my interest is more in the consumer law, since it gets discussed between some of my friends who work in that field. I just happen to be more familiar with the details of this particular issue with this particular company than usual.
I was similarly interested in the case of Gearbox's lawsuit regarding Aliens: Colonial Marines.

I have not convinced myself of my own interpretation, since I'm not a legal practitioner, but instead had qualified legal practitioners supply an actual interpretation for me. That is an official line that you can take to the bank... or a court, in this instance.
If you know the law better than they do, then feel free to supply a correction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

I'd still view the company as I would a political party carefully crafting statement to mislead without outright lying.

---

Everyone was told quite definitely what the situation was, both with confirmed features and potential features.
If you really need it in very plain baby words, in big bold letters several times over, that's nothing to do with the legal obligations of the company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

It is terrible PR as far as I am concerned, but that's just me.

---

PR and customer service is outside the scope of my main interest in this, being more down to morals and stuff. Given how many people think donating money (ie giving it away) somehow makes them investors and entitled to decide what/how the developers make their game, I'd say they don't even understand what they're donating to...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

But aside from being a bit tedious, this whole thing feel like, like a waste of time.

---

If people actually read what is written, take the time to understand its actual meaning and become aware of what they're signing up to, then this whole mess will happen far less in future... thus not a complete waste.

FD have done (and RSI are doing) some fairly groundbreaking things in both the games they're making and in the methods by which we're getting them. They're also being fairly open with their market throughout their development processesses - They will obviously have lessons to learn along the way... but so do the consumers.
If people want to understand their legal rights, particularly when they are and are not entitled to refunds, then great. If they don't want to understand their entitlements, then they shouldn't come crying when they don't get it.

This seems fair. I haven't participated in any discussion about the game anywhere else. I just got in contact with Frontier when I realised promises weren't being kept. It took some effort and visit in person to their office. As I say they gave me a full refund, their COO apologised to me in person, and the matter is now closed for me. I just feel sorry for those who have been given the run-around, and simply trying to suss out the gentlemans' vociferous advocacy for the status quo - software is unusual as a consumer product and individiuals are less well protected than with more traditional purchases. Consider for instance the EULA which requires acceptance upon installation after a purchase has been made - i.e. at a point too late to actually return the product if you disagree with it - though cases have gone to court which prove the software vendors at fault in these instances. I for one still apply the Sale of Goods Act to such purchases, and would rather see all companies be held to account when expectations (when explicitly stated on or inside products or on marketing materials, as pertains to the SGA) don't meet reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splash

As a fellow project backer I just wanted to pick you up on this: backing something on Kickstarter does *not* constitute an investment. The closest it comes is a financial contribution to getting something made, and now that the game has indeed been made I'd say that any chances of an investment failing are long gone.

I've no qualms with people requesting a refund if they feel that they were misled. I know for a fact that Allen was not a KS backer, so his terms of engagement may be significantly different to mine but... having spent an amount of time on the FD forums the one thing I can say is that I wish those who were taking their toys to play elsewhere would simply act on their word - I totally agree that it's gone beyond tedious now.

---

Regardless of how much you talk about "legal interpretation", to me it is still a dubious claim that has not been tested (and unless this goes on trial, with an outcome, it will remain this way). Besides, we have seen from various corporate battle that just about anything can be argued and defended with another team of lawyers. I am not sufficiently interested to bother my solicitor friends just so that I can come back and say "Well my lawyer friend say that...". Because for a start you can't verify my claims, any more than I can't verify what your claims, and I have no intention of dragging them into an tedious internet debate where I have nothing to gain. I am more interested is what a average person have to say based on the evidence.

You can continue to claim that they didn't use term like "We guarantee" or "I swear that" or whatever you deem necessary to be an iron clad promise. And I will continue to say such terms aren't necessary to heavily imply a particular outcome (and not the one you claim). And other terms should have been used to imply uncertainty with, ahem, certainly if that was the intention. Easily done without patronising the reader and the company can't be accused of trying to pull a fast one.

You were the one suggesting that you should bill them your legal and PR services as a joke. Not that I took it seriously, but on a whim I am decided to reply it would not be in their interest, if the impression this whole thing has left on me is anything to go by. I will let others decide on the "moral and stuff", since we are simply not going to agree. I will make my last post here by re-stating that while it is clear neither of us is going to be in the same page, what really matter is what other prospective customers think. Winning the (alleged) legal argument or having fans (well, a total of 1 on this thread?) siding with the company is not meaningful if a large majority of prospective customer think you are wrong (note the if). I also think that most gamers have nothing to gain from seeing a developer fail (I know I don't), so you'd need to get something quite wrong, legally or morally, to be called on.

I have intentionally been keeping clear of this thread since a particular "fan boy" jumped in with both feet defending the company in question, which wasn't even part of my intended discussion I might add. This thread was, and still should be, about what to do when a company and/or PayPal refuses to refund you when they are refunding other customers. However, it seems all is lost now and there's no way it's getting back on topic.

I am not going to get into a legal debate, because quite frankly I don't know enough about law, but I will say this. Ttaskmaster, you have said many times that FD haven't done anything wrong. It has been shown several times in this thread alone that not only did they say "IT WILL BE POSSIBLE" (not probable) to play offline on their Kickstarter page, but David Braben himself posted on Reddit "YES" (not maybe) in response to a question about playing offline. Do you deny that these statements were made? Or do you really believe that a company can make any statement it wants to and then reverse them later once the money has rolled in?

Whether or not this holds any legal ground is moot in my opinion because quite frankly what they have done is morally wrong, and part of the reason why I requested a refund in the first place. I hate, and will continue to hate and avoid like the plaque, any developer who forces me to play a single player game online. FD's change AFTER I pre-purchased Elite saddened me enough to request a refund, something which I believe I was not wrong to do. If they didn't believe they did something wrong, then why were so many people refunded?

Unfortunately, a week or so ago, I got so pissed off about this whole affair I decided I would rather download the game and force myself to play it than throw £50 down the drain. I lasted about an hour before I was annoyed with myself and the game, so I'll never see that £50 again. Stupid.

Thanks FD, you have wasted my time, you have wasted my money and now you have tarnished the wonderful memories I had of Frontier: Elite II.

Bastards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yamangman

software is unusual as a consumer product and individiuals are less well protected than with more traditional purchases.

---

Which is what makes it far more interesting than just the sale of a can of beans or something. Like the Violent Crime Reduction Act and the laws governing RIFs, a lot of this has been largely untested, which makes it even more interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yamangman

I for one still apply the Sale of Goods Act to such purchases, and would rather see all companies be held to account when expectations (when explicitly stated on or inside products or on marketing materials, as pertains to the SGA) don't meet reality.

---

Then people like you do need to take companies like these to court over it and establish the precedents. Had the case against Gearbox been properly handled, things may well have turned out differently for the likes of Watch_Dogs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

Because for a start you can't verify my claims, any more than I can't verify what your claims,

---

You can phone Trading Standards up for free - They don't charge by the ¼-hour for their legal advice. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

instead of engineeringAnd other terms should have been used to imply uncertainty with, ahem, certainly if that was the intention. Easily done without patronising the reader and the company can't be accused of trying to pull a fast one.

---

I won't at all deny that FD could have done a lot more to simplify and clarify the situation and have done themselves no favours by assuming everyone reads everything. In fact, I've said so already in an earlier post.

Quote:

---

You were the one suggesting that you should bill them your legal and PR services as a joke. Not that I took it seriously, but on a whim I am decided to reply it would not be in their interest, if the impression this whole thing has left on me is anything to go by.

---

Being in the right from a legal perspective and having happy customers do not often go hand-in-hand. If I had any interest in the latter, I'd be working in marketing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

I also think that most gamers have nothing to gain from seeing a developer fail (I know I don't), so you'd need to get something quite wrong, legally or morally, to be called on.

---

Having seen some of the vehement refund demands that Rebellion got, simply for not having the cocking handle the exact shape on a rifle in Sniper Elite V2, I question what many gamers are picking holes over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allen

This thread was, and still should be, about what to do when a company and/or PayPal refuses to refund you when they are refunding other customers.

---

In short - Demand to know *WHY*, since you have a right to know. Doubly so, if they are quite happily refunding other customers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allen

Ttaskmaster, you have said many times that FD haven't done anything wrong.

---

I have asserted that they have done nothing LEGALLY wrong.
Any other kind of wrong is outside the scope of my interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allen

It has been shown several times in this thread alone that not only did they say "IT WILL BE POSSIBLE" (not probable) to play offline on their Kickstarter page, but David Braben himself posted on Reddit "YES" (not maybe) in response to a question about playing offline. Do you deny that these statements were made?

---

As I recall, whoever posted that here paraphrased his exact words, did they not?
Do you have a link to the reddit post in question, or the complete text withthe full context of the question being asked?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allen

Whether or not this holds any legal ground is moot in my opinion because quite frankly what they have done is morally wrong, and part of the reason why I requested a refund in the first place.

---

Unfortunately that's not how the law works and the law is the only thing you can rely on to define whether you get a refund.
I'm not saying you shouldn't *try* for one in these circumstances because, as has been frequently proven, companies do like to please their customers and will often 'have a heart'. But you shouldn't go in expecting one unless you know the law is on your side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allen

FD's change AFTER I pre-purchased Elite saddened me enough to request a refund, something which I believe I was not wrong to do. If they didn't believe they did something wrong, then why were so many people refunded?

---

It is never wrong to ask... There are many other factors involved besides the law and if a company feels they have somehow done you a disservice then they often will find some kind of compensation.

As per their T&Cs:
Anyone who had preordered but not yet installed and used their final release copy of ED *was* entitled to a refund of that pre-order component.
Anyone who had paid the pre-release test fees and not used that access was also entitled to a refund of that component.
The case-by-case investigation of each potential refund was to ascertain for which part(s) each individual was entitled to have refunded.

@Allen: My sympathies. I hadn't realised that this topic had already beaten to death in the news thread already. Having read that thead now, I know why so few bothered to chime in, and it really is a tiny minority who do not see a problem with it. Shame that you decided to play the game, a quick look at their forums does show a bunch of people getting their refund.. after a lot of waiting. FD is clearly trying to avoid it as much as they can get away, perhaps banking on people like you to give up.

At this point, I am not sure if there is anything you can do any more. For anyone else, it is worth it is probably worth being as tenacious as the poster above (it is the one thing I can give him credit for). Also, I stumbled across this - no idea if it is any good, but it might be worth a long shot for anyone looking for a refund: http://www.elitedangerousrefunds.org/about

Though I have never been in an unfortunate position where I had to make a claim with Paypal, I have gradually strayed away from it (it has been almost 1.5 years - much easier done in Japan) because I don't really trust them very much and your story reinforce that. As to FD, I had hoped that your story was a rare exception, but it seems far too common for me to overlook. Technically they seem to be issuing refunds but really doing the absolute bare minimums when they should have been forward and said "Sorry for the disappointment, we were convinced that this would have worked until fairly late in development, but it simply doesn't suit our vision. We hope that you will stick with us, as it is still going to be awesome, but we will issue a refund to anyone who pre-ordered and isn't satisfied with those changes" or something along those line. Yes they would have lost some sales, but not the good-will of prospective buyers now includes me.