Just put in my Refund Request ticket.

Chris Roberts supposedly still wants Star Citizen to be DRM-free. And the game will eventually have a single-player campaign, even though I suspect it will require online at full time.

If Chris keeps his promise and if he launches his game on GOG (not likely, but one can dream), I will buy it just to show him my support as a gamer.

Just to finish Id like to quote a guy from the RPS news, commenting E:D's story:

JusticeInTruth says:

[i]"Let’s see. A company promises a very specific item, like offline single player play in order to glean more money from backers, and then waits until the very latest possible moment, before revealing that, “oh, sorry, we really won’t be doing that, psych.”

Seems to me that they would have known they were not going to have offline months and months ago, in fact from probably the very beginning, since you have to build the architecture pretty early on.

And now, when finally the people who in many cases backed this game BECAUSE offline was so explicitly promised, are told, “too bad for you, we’ve got your money and we will do as we see fit with it.”

Then, when they get mad and complain about being lied to, along come these strange creatures who try to justify the lies and spin it all around to make it look like the poor consumer is somehow at fault. “Most people are always online anyway, this is 2014, how 2013 of you to even think you would want a game that isn’t connected.” They are messing with your head, and implying, however obliquely and politely, that you are an idiot and passe merely because you expect a game that does not require a constant online connection.

You are being conditioned people. Conditioned by a very subtle pseudo peer pressure mechanic. The constant online is nothing more than DRM, plain and simple. They make up lame excuses to justify it, but in the end, it’s all fabrication designed to get you to swallow the constant online pill being shoved down your throat."[/i]

You think this is bad? If you want to see something truly baffling, I recommend you take a look at the Frontier forum (both beta & general sections for Elite:Dangerous) where you will find people who have been actively REQUESTING to pay a monthly subscription for weeks! Apparently $75 for an always online game + optional microtransactions + expansion packs to buy separately later is not enough, they still feel the need to pay an extra fee every month on top of that!

Backers being blamed for expecting an offline mode and people campaigning for an extra montly fee, sometimes I can't help but wonder if I've crossed over into the twilight zone...

I've not followed this game at all but my first impression for the notion of 'wanting' something to have a monthly fee is because of the design. Since it's going to be mostly reliant on multiplayer one of the first worries is cheating and lack of ongoing support. For people who've played (and paid) for MMO's for years, there's a sense of legitimacy and reassurance that comes with paying monthly for the game. (even though some MMO's seriously dropped the ball there despite the subs)

This is not an MMO we're talking about here and comparisons to Simcity are very apt. Multiplayer in this game barely works and it isn't designed to be an MMO.

Ongoing support is supposedly through microtransactions. Or not so micro, really. Anyway, the sycophants who actually offer to pay monthly subscriptions are a special kind of pathetic people.

It really is amazing, but worst of all is that people still claim that this always-on DRM is not DRM, because the always-on connection is needed for the gameplay, not as DRM!?

Always online doesn't have to be DRM, but when it's tied to an account and login, it's DRM.

EA tried your logic when they launched Simcity.

Yeah, it's a farce, really. Some individuals must have rather long noses by now.
Cut'n pasted from ED forums:

Originally Posted by Binerexis:
"It's already been explained to you that DRM is implemented to stop copyright infringement. If that's not why a game is online, it isn't DRM." <snip>

My reply:
"It doesn't matter."
"It automatically serves the same purpose as DRM when implemented, since the game won't function without it being validated and connected to a remote server all the time."

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

I laughed when somebody posted a picture of a platypus after that ;)

It's a grassroots movement. As such, everyone who's vocally anti-DRM represents it.

In 1998, after working on a typewriter for years, I finally got a computer, and the guy who sold it connected his hard drive, launched Norton Commander, and copied his [GAMES] directory containing like 200 games from his hard drive to mine. None of those games had DRM, and none of them had any frigging installers.

Quoting myself from earlier in the thread, to another poster with similar reading comprehension abilities as you have: http://www.gog.com/forum/general/frontier_have_decided_to_make_elite_dangerous_online_only/post152

I guess you're trying to convince or at least inform others of your position, but let me tell you: constantly insulting them won't help, stop being a pain in the ass.

Are you an intellectually impaired goldfish?

They don't even do that :)

They try to convince the right holders to re-release a game again, they never buy a license. This is why others, for example Night Dive, succeeds where gOg fails.

I answered in kind. I did not start this infantile internet nerdwhining. Go check.

Well if someone would know an intellectually impaired goldfish, then you must be the go-to guy.

Were you not whining about installers? Can you express yourself in English?

Try it.