You know, I am disappointed - VERY disappointed.

It's not just about DRM. That's just one part. I wanted to play this SINGLEplayer. I want to play it alone and with ALONE I mean in my own universe. I don't want any changes that happen online. I want to do whatever I want.

I've received an automated response to say my refund claim ticket is now "under investigation" by a member of the support team.

interestingly (and this is not aimed at you, but is completely as a side-point to the previous discussion in this thread), this can also sum up the discussions with many of the "DRM free" advocates who claim you can not get DRM free games via Steam :)

Nobody can really do that and see through marketing speech. What would be the criteria? Everything that is not dead simple and almost already implemented is potentially just mentioned in case somebody falls for it?

I think there was no reason to assume that they would not be able to make the game offline and DRM free. Even an MMO, just simulate the expansion of the universe or strictly separate between a solo experience and a multiplayer experience. It's possible and there are probably quite some examples out there who do it like this.

When the money is low and there is not enough time then you need to cut somewhere. But the decision where to cut is mostly completely arbitrary. The important question whether it is really impossible to have that game with an offline mode remains (unanswered).

And I wouldn't care if they would refund everyone who doesn't agree with this decision. They can make whatever kind of a game they want to make. But don't cheat on the way. This is unethical. Stand to your decisions and give backers a chance to adjust to it. Don't just grab the money and run away.

If their action is legal which is not completely clear than KS is just a donation society and nothing more. The financial risk would be fully only on the back of the backers and the creative freedom of the creators to change their product would be endless. I would not really recommend KS then, at least not for any professional team that could get the money anyway from somewhere else.

It also does not much good to KS itself by not defining more clearly what is expected of creators and under which circumstances a refund should be done.
Good thing I never do this. :) I always only say that most of the most popular games on Steam you cannot get DRM free. And this is true.

One state, imagine, beheads 40000 convicts a year. You say, how barbaric. Then a statesperson says: "No no, actually we also send 5000 a year to prison and we have about 50 a year, that get a fine. So we are all good." -all for the same crime.

And do not let me start about all the metrices they got through their client, to measure gaming behaviour and so on.

The biggest problem in Kickstarter and in any crwodfunding platform really is the lack of real accountability. The crowdfunding platforms really want just to be middleman between the money and the project and collect their share, after that it all is in the hands of the project creator.

I've pledged on one project that has utterly failed to deliver because they ran out of money. Kickstarter really doesn't do anything in those cases, they just want the backers and the project creators to handle the issues themselves. And what really is going to happen? The project can promise refunds, but from where do they pay them, if the money is already gone? So good luck for me waiting to get that 13 dollars back.
Everyone should have their own criteria. I know I have and many projects have not filled them.

Thanks :)

But alas, the only chance that a pirated version of that game ever surfaces, is if somebody leaks the galaxy database and server components which runs on Frontiers servers to the internet at some point - which i really hope it does.

I have a great idea for fixing KS:

- Having special bullet points that must be fullfilled, i.e. must be part of the final product. Otherwise backers who want that get their money back and also do not get the product. To be able to always refund backers, each project should pay a certain part of its money into an insurance fond for this.

So next time if offline mode is a promised (fingers crossed) feature and it does not come: refund is guaranteed. That should also increase the confidence of the backers and renew their interest in further KS projects.

They are also damaging KS as a whole by this.

But you don't know really how good the people in the project team are or what difficulties will arise or what interests the team managers really have. So any criteria should show quite a big error margin. You will trust a lot of projects that fail. I still think the relation here is very unequal and therefore KS can not really be recommended since one side has all the benefits and the other all the costs. Seeing it solely as a charity facility is the only way that makes sense to me right now.

DRM doesn't have to occur just while you are running the game .exe it can operate before like during the installation.
Although some steam games are don't require steam to run they still do when you want to install them.
When you click on an uninstalled game on your steam library, it downloads and install the game without anything in between.

A cd key doesn't stop being a form of drm just because it was required during the installation and not while running the game.

If steam has games that you can install without being connected to steam and don't require steam to run, then they will be drm free. I have no idea if such games exist, but if they do someone should make a list of them.

With DRM free games Steam can be seen just as an installer really. But again, with this territory we get into the world of defintions, which even here aren't as black and white.

I recall that I was very upset that I missed out on the Kickstarter for this game, now I am very happy.

I have 2 days per week that has proper internet connection due to various circumstances, so I wouldn't be able to enjoy the game anyway, not to mention I don't like the idea of other players messing up the situation in my game world (I mean changing owners of locations, manipulations in trade, and so on)

I would demand a refund for the game as they broke the offline promise, I however managed to dodge this bullet.

It can be seen just as an installer, yes. But as an installer that requires an Internet connection.

Just in case someone wants to hear another example. I backed a nice little game project back in 2012 of a student making a game about american history. The presented game graphics and art and gameplay looked decent and the time to finish was estimated half a year and then the game was supposed to be released as freeware (everything written black on white on the KS page). First there were some delays, then the project artists vanished, then the main person needed to do some jobbing, then she found new artists but they do not want to work for a freeware game but want to earn money. So the game (if ever it comes out) will be commercial (not what I wanted and not why I backed it) but the creator reassured the backers that it will be bigger than aimed at back in 2012 (if ever it comes out).

I felt at some point the urge to ask for a refund but then just let it pass. I don't want the game anymore. I wanted a nice little project which is freeware and comes out between 2012 and 2014, not later. But could this be foreseen by any criteria in the world before? Could anyone see that the project is so fragile, the code base not that advanced, the artists on the way to leave? I guess not.

No criteria can help you there unless you decide to never ever back another KS. My example just shows how one-sided and unqueal the relation between backers and creators is. I think this should not be tolerated anymore. Backers who think of KS as an investment should demand a clear right to have their say and decide about the fate of the project or they should only back in a few selected projects that are already quite advanced. And there should be the possibility of a refund. Promising a DRM free game and not delivering it is nothing else than cheating. Promising an offline mode, then cutting it and not refunding is cheating too (in my eyes).

It seems that the creators of this case here are afraid of the few numbers of backers who are only interested in an offline single player mode. So they rather chose not to give refunds and have quite a big pile of negative PR.

Maybe all projects above a certain volume (say more than $100k) should be strictly seen as pre-orders only with all the legal rights that are attached to pre-orders.

While I was definitely interested in eventually trying out the online universe of this new Elite, I really was only interested in the game beforehand when I knew I'd also be able to play all on my own... Sadly, this news has left me cold. Guess I won't be spending any money on ED for some time unless it hits the bargain bin range. It's a shame, too, since I was quite excited for this new installment. Oh well. Guess I can use that money to finally pre-order Witcher 3. =/