tomimt: This has been the thing with KS projects since the beginning, as it is a platform for products that haven't been made yet. When entering in full production things can and will most likely change. It's even happening with traditionally financed games. You can ask that from any big game company and you'd hear a plethora of stories about games that changed form even quite drastically during the production, but in most cases the public doesn't know that, as that is the matter between the financer and the developer.
I know many people still look KS as some sort of pre-order and many devs are to blame from that as well. But in many cases it really isn't pre-order as much of act of good faith. You trust your money to a project and you trust the devs to do their job well. Sometimes they deliver what they promised, sometimes they omit things from the game because of unforseen developement difficulties.
It is unfortunate that such a big feature as offline has been axed. A lot of people pledged because of that. At the same time Frontier did themselves a disservice when they did sell the game later with a promise of offline. What they should have done in KS was to tell that they would look into it, but not promise it. They did mistakes there and they really aren't handeling the situation as well as they should. But at the same time KS backers should really acknowledge, that no matter how much they give, they aren't pre-purchasing a game with set features. They are purchasing something that MIGHT be.
I know and understand this. But it surely depends on the scale. You cannot promise the stars and then only deliver much less. That would be unfair and one-sided. As it is, they deliver less then they initially claimed. You cannot play the game offline and at the same time if it is online it is not DRM free.
One question would be if they could not have seen this right from the beginning. To me this move looks rather unprofessional.
But the more important question is if they really cannot make an offline mode? I guess they probably could, taking something away at another place. They mostly just do not want to do it. And then you naturally arrive at: did they ever honestly want to make an offline part? What about the possibility to deliver an offline part a few weeks after release?
For those who wanted that feature the game is now worth much, much less. By deciding for themselve and not having to ask their backer for permission to do so they basically put all the risk of the product getting worthless on the back of the backers.
That's why I see KS more like a pre-order and less like an investment. If it is an investment I want to either have a share in the decision where the journey goes to or I want my money back if the goals are shifted and I do not like them. The missing participation right of backers on such decisions is a sign that it isn't really an investment. So if it isn't a pre-order it might be something like a donation but not an investment.
With what you say they basically just could stop working on the game and saying: sorry folks, it's too difficult, it cannot be done. There must be a binding force urging the creators to finish the product and to finish it as close to the promised state as possible. Otherwise they will just promise the moon to get the money and then deliver something completely else.
The big problem here is that they do not refund those who wanted to have a DRM free offline game and who will not get such a game. The loss and risk is purely on the side of those backers. This is unfair and should not be tolerated.
So, give backers a say when changing the course of the project or give them a possibility to step away when the project changes substantially (going offline to always online is kind of a substantial change). And backers should think twice before trusting them again.
