@RPiAwesomeness There's the stuff Rapitor mentioned, and in my experience it was one of the most tedious, generic, and repetitive games I've ever played.
@JasonBerkan I definitely plan on going at some point in the near future, need to stop being a lazy ass and fire up Rosetta stone to finish learning the language
@murgatroid99 That is what I have heard. Granted, when I played, I played the first mission to get a hang of the game and then played a mission on Mars (and failed horribly) and then tried an easier one on Venus.
I think they were trying to create too big of a world to fit within one game, and just ran out of originality.
@RPiAwesomeness there's been a lot of rumors and theories about it. The one I agree with is that something happened at some point during development and they had to start over/work with what they had. that's why it's a jumbled mess
if Bungie and Microsoft didn't butt heads they might've gotten us "correct" Destiny, because it's been in development at least since Halo 3 ODST (as there are posters ingame announcing Destiny)
@OrigamiRobot Mostly the fact that they promised offline, then a month before release went, "Herp derp, nope, sorry, no more offline. And no refund for you backers, either!"
@OrigamiRobot What about those backers that were promised offline, tried the alpha or beta because, hey, they backed it and were entitled to that, and now are being refused refunds based on that?
@Rapitor No, those people should be smacked and reminded that they're not preordering a game. And if they're of the attitude that this is a preorder, then remind them that preordering is not a good thing to do.
@Unionhawk I agree with that generally although I'm a bit conflicted when they make their case based on a premise and then completely about-face. Failure to deliver is one thing, refusal to deliver is another...but then again a large part of that is communication, which seems to have not gone so well in this case.
@OrigamiRobot There were promised a feature. In good faith, they expected that feature to be added eventually. There was no reason NOT to take advantage of the backer rewards they had gotten.
@Frank The promises are just that - promises. You invested in the game hoping it would be just as awesome as you expected, but something changed and it's not. That's too bad, but there's never a guarantee with unfinished games.
At least according to Italian law, if I say to the public "if you give me X I'll do Y for you", that's an offer to the public that becomes a contract binding you and whoever gives you X
Yeah, I think the only legal argument here would be if the creator never intended to deliver, in which case it's probably some sort of fraud. Otherwise if they intend to produce something that's a sufficient fulfillment of interest.
and if you say you do Y and end up doing Y', that can be ground for cancelling the contract if you can prove that Y'-Y is significant enough that, had you known you'd have gotten Y' instead of Y, you wouldn't have made the contract to begin with
at least according to Italian law
which doesn't apply here
sorry, our course in contract law only covered Italian law, but it was very interesting nonetheless :P
> When a project is successfully funded, the creator is responsible for completing the project and fulfilling each reward. Their fundamental obligation to backers is to finish all the work that was promised. Once a creator has done so, they’ve fulfilled their obligation to their backers. At the same time, backers must understand that Kickstarter is not a store. When you back a project, you’re helping to create something new — not ordering something that already exists.
> There’s a chance something could happen that prevents the creator from being able to finish the project as promised. If a creator is absolutely unable to complete the project and fulfill rewards, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to a satisfying conclusion for their backers.
@Frank Probably not as easily as if they had never intended to do it in the first place, and lied about it. But it sounds like they're genuinely suggesting that the path to development ruled it out as being an option they could pursue, which is dickish in a way but likely much less of a tangible legal issue.
> There may be changes or delays, and there’s a chance something could happen that prevents the creator from being able to finish the project as promised.
> Many of the conversations we have had during development focussed on backers wanting to play the game without the downside of online – griefing especially – ie a single player experience. We considered this to be the main issue and focussed on making sure we had a great single player offering. We have also ensured that the solo play mode has a minimal network requirement(about 10 kbps).
