No Single Player offline Mode then?
- Thread starter Brandon31
- Start date
- Status
So when the government say they'll do something, then don't do it or do the opposite - do you stop paying your taxes? Do you leave the country? Do you protest at the gates of parliament?
Frontier are not some magical pixies who can make everything work - they are human like you and me, and they are not infallible.
Bit of history for those who missed out on the KS ...
Source: Kickstarter comments from FD reps
FD seemed to be aware of the challenges even before they announced the offline version, but they thought they could pull it off, and announced it on Dec 11 2012.
Source: Kickstarter comments from FD reps
Creator Frontier Developments on December 10, 2012
The current vision for the Elite universe is that is a shared universe. This sharing will happen at different levels. We've already looked (briefly) at the most obvious with the opt-in multiplayer. However the grander part for the game is that the universe is shared.
Now this doesn't mean that people can pop into your game uninvited, but it does mean that players can affect the universe. For single player we are looking at the galaxy being server based. This allows us to construct a more interesting galaxy by adding events and reactiions to player events into the world.
It's worth noting that it's really the meta data for the galaxy that is shared, so planetary data like governments and stock market data would be shared. Exploration data would another thing we could share. We think this is quite an exciting prospect for Elite. Naturally there are challenges for this. One question being how often do you need to sync with the server? We haven't resolved those questions yet.
Michael
The current vision for the Elite universe is that is a shared universe. This sharing will happen at different levels. We've already looked (briefly) at the most obvious with the opt-in multiplayer. However the grander part for the game is that the universe is shared.
Now this doesn't mean that people can pop into your game uninvited, but it does mean that players can affect the universe. For single player we are looking at the galaxy being server based. This allows us to construct a more interesting galaxy by adding events and reactiions to player events into the world.
It's worth noting that it's really the meta data for the galaxy that is shared, so planetary data like governments and stock market data would be shared. Exploration data would another thing we could share. We think this is quite an exciting prospect for Elite. Naturally there are challenges for this. One question being how often do you need to sync with the server? We haven't resolved those questions yet.
Michael
Creator Frontier Developments on December 10, 2012
- "Will you be able to play ED without an internet connection?"
We're currently looking at a shared universe, that makes no connection at all difficult (but not impossible).
Michael
- "Will you be able to play ED without an internet connection?"
We're currently looking at a shared universe, that makes no connection at all difficult (but not impossible).
Michael
Creator Frontier Developments on December 10, 2012
The shared galaxy state is not intended as DRM. The intention is to create a richer and evolving galaxy that responds to player's interactions. The economy is probably an obvious example, single players would have little effect on a planetary economy, but thousands or millions of player create a ore vibrant and organic experience.
The other aspect that excites us is being able to add events to the galaxy as it changes. Maybe a large war breaks out. Maybe there's a huge humanitarian crisis.
A server based system also allows us to create a more detailed model of the political and economic systems than is possible with a client only system.
It might be possible to have an offline ode, but as the server runs the galaxy it would a limited experience in comparison.
Michael
The shared galaxy state is not intended as DRM. The intention is to create a richer and evolving galaxy that responds to player's interactions. The economy is probably an obvious example, single players would have little effect on a planetary economy, but thousands or millions of player create a ore vibrant and organic experience.
The other aspect that excites us is being able to add events to the galaxy as it changes. Maybe a large war breaks out. Maybe there's a huge humanitarian crisis.
A server based system also allows us to create a more detailed model of the political and economic systems than is possible with a client only system.
It might be possible to have an offline ode, but as the server runs the galaxy it would a limited experience in comparison.
Michael
Creator Frontier Developments on December 11, 2012
Good morning everybody. I've had a chat with David and gained more clarity on the single player question. The intended experience with the evolving galaxt will need to sync with the server. However you will be able to have a stand alone save if you choose. Note that the offline save won't contain all of the server features (exactly how it will balance out is unknown at the moment) and it may not be possible to sync an offline save with the server state, although we'll look at how we can do this.
So yes, you can haveyour own save without having to connect to the galaxy server.
Good morning everybody. I've had a chat with David and gained more clarity on the single player question. The intended experience with the evolving galaxt will need to sync with the server. However you will be able to have a stand alone save if you choose. Note that the offline save won't contain all of the server features (exactly how it will balance out is unknown at the moment) and it may not be possible to sync an offline save with the server state, although we'll look at how we can do this.
So yes, you can haveyour own save without having to connect to the galaxy server.
Creator Frontier Developments on December 11, 2012
@ Styggron
Yes it does mean you can play the single player offline, but I would like to reiterate that the online single player will be a richer experience. So I hope you'll at least give it a try.
Michael
@ Styggron
Yes it does mean you can play the single player offline, but I would like to reiterate that the online single player will be a richer experience. So I hope you'll at least give it a try.
Michael
I have no proof of this, but I do believe Frontier genuinely believed they'd ship a pure offline component until sometime August/September 2014. As we saw more and more server-moderated logic being woven into the game, multiplayer became more stable and doing a pure offline mode got more and more unlikely.
Not that it's impossible, mind you. They could always ship a stripped-down galaxy server and have it run on localhost for when you wanna play completely offline. But for various reasons (protecting their work, making it harder for hackers, simple anxiety of shipping such a core internal component even in stripped down form, etc.) they chose not to.
I think around August was also the time when they realized that they would release with a reduced feature set.
If you're angry because pure offline mode is not in the released game, I guess that's understandable. I don't share the anger for I don't actually play singleplayer games at all anymore myself, but I can completely understand the people who are angry. I am also not quite happy about the marketing blah in the newsletter. Five more ships, that's cool, but not what this game needs right now. Ships are playable assets, not "gameplay content". You may have a new ship but you're doing the exact same things as in your previous ship. What people ask for is more things to do, as well as reasons for doing said things.
Here's hoping that FD are focusing on these things as well as the bugfixes for release.
That said...
ED is still a freaking amazing game. It needs more gameplay depth and long term motivation, yes, but what's there is still awesome.
Not that it's impossible, mind you. They could always ship a stripped-down galaxy server and have it run on localhost for when you wanna play completely offline. But for various reasons (protecting their work, making it harder for hackers, simple anxiety of shipping such a core internal component even in stripped down form, etc.) they chose not to.
I think around August was also the time when they realized that they would release with a reduced feature set.
If you're angry because pure offline mode is not in the released game, I guess that's understandable. I don't share the anger for I don't actually play singleplayer games at all anymore myself, but I can completely understand the people who are angry. I am also not quite happy about the marketing blah in the newsletter. Five more ships, that's cool, but not what this game needs right now. Ships are playable assets, not "gameplay content". You may have a new ship but you're doing the exact same things as in your previous ship. What people ask for is more things to do, as well as reasons for doing said things.
Here's hoping that FD are focusing on these things as well as the bugfixes for release.
That said...
ED is still a freaking amazing game. It needs more gameplay depth and long term motivation, yes, but what's there is still awesome.
Some "constructive" critics from me. Up to this point Elite Dangerous doesn´t have all of the things that EliteII:Frontier had (on the ST and Amiga!).
Many bugs still in there. Too many to handle to the launch in Decembre in my opinion.
I love the game and I absolutely respect the developers.
They dropped the single player mode. But that´s a g ood thing for the developers only. Not for the people.
The P2P idea for the game is a bad decision but it is cheaper than using servers. I don´t like P2P esp. if it is not working like it should.
Now it is up to the developers to make it working like it should.
If that is the decision they had made for the game I am fine with that.
A lot of more work they put on their shoulders.
I just hope it works out.
And yes, I would NOT pay a fee monthly to play the game.
If it just came around the wrong way let me say I love Elite and I really love what Frontier came up with so far and I am still excited about the release but please, Frontier don´t miss the goal, thank you.
All the best,
Robin
Many bugs still in there. Too many to handle to the launch in Decembre in my opinion.
I love the game and I absolutely respect the developers.
They dropped the single player mode. But that´s a g ood thing for the developers only. Not for the people.
The P2P idea for the game is a bad decision but it is cheaper than using servers. I don´t like P2P esp. if it is not working like it should.
Now it is up to the developers to make it working like it should.
If that is the decision they had made for the game I am fine with that.
A lot of more work they put on their shoulders.
I just hope it works out.
And yes, I would NOT pay a fee monthly to play the game.
If it just came around the wrong way let me say I love Elite and I really love what Frontier came up with so far and I am still excited about the release but please, Frontier don´t miss the goal, thank you.
All the best,
Robin
Cannot resist sorry Titus, but the irony is if there was an offline version you wouldn't need the servers to enjoy abll be it static but breathtakingly beautiful elite
But as you say Elite dangerous is now tightly coupled with revenue and income for our future enjoyment, how long is the big question how many ship skins a month?
Big unknowns...
Completely serious.
Everything I've backed on kickstarter have been games that promised to bring back the gameplay and enjoyment that have been lost to the current mass-produced half-baked industry model.
I play games to have fun, and to evade from reality. I have to deal with humanity when I'm not playing, the last thing I want is to have to deal with it when I'm trying to have fun.
I backed Elite: Dangerous despite its multiplayer features, because it offered offline and solo modes. If it hadn't offered offline mode I'd have backed a lot less money, or not backed at all.
Now offline is gone, and I have no confidence at all that solo won't also be scrapped.
And when the servers are down I won't be able to play (which is clearly a bug).
And eventually the servers will be gone for good (or switch to a subscription model), and I won't be able to play the game I paid an inordinate amount of money for.
So yes, multiplayer, to me, is clearly a bug, a gimmick I have no use for, something that makes the game less reliable and less fun, since developers waste time implementing and balancing it instead of adding proper features to the game (after all, why have content if the players can pay to generate it? who cares if the "content" generated by the players is so crappy that the game isn't worth playing?).
Yeah... that about sums it up. ED is and will be a great game, at least for as long as we are being granted the privilege to play it before the servers will be shut down (which might be much sooner than some people defending that decision may think). It basically just confirms my suspicion that I had when I heard about the company going public: it has become a publisher like any other. EA and Ubisoft still make great games either, but their intransparency and their tendency to pull a fast one on their customers was very much mirrored here.
So nothing is promised, the game we could be enjoying for the next 30 years might die in 3.
Until your internet goes down.
Or the servers go down.
Or you have no internet access at all because of where you are.
Or the servers are switched off.
Apart from that - yeah - great, wonderful. Good job Frontier. The multiplayer works SO well after all.
You need to go back on my posts, I explained elsewhere. In the EU and for a store buyer only, they have to make a constraint such as this known in a durable form BEFORE purchase. They did not do this and there are specific consequences for this, one of which is the contract for sale is void and therefore they have to offer a refund because any cancellations terms then are also voided.
I would say it all again but I fear people might start slitting their throats in boredom!
Additionally, FD did actually promise this and we have 8 screenshots of their representatives doing this even just the other day.
Solo. Done. Next?
For some reason I have the "What have the Romans ever done for us?" Scene from Life of Brian stuck in my head with this one...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE
Promise 1: Not a promise a design goal now found to be unrealistic.
Promise 2: Not 25 ships, but 30, oh the horror!
Promise 3: Backers = Alpha and Beta =/= Pre-orders.
Not a single broken promise. Stop the drama, and just play the game. Or don't, I really don't care.
I normally don't go in for wild speculation, but this sure seems politically/financially motivated. Maybe a major player has decided to invest in FD and ED and requires more stringent control over server data, player accounts, etc.
I'll leave via the way I came in, no need to see me out.
Or resign.
MIDI?
Back in those days, you didn't so much as make music, but just tell the computer what key to fart in
This sums it up for me as well, to a tee. Have some +rep.
Just found out about this
Basically that's how I see it too. I can appreciate that FD went down a path and found at a rather late juncture that offline play was prohibitively difficult to implement. Irrespective of the individual areas that inhibit offline play (whether it's time, resources, money...etc) I would expect that FD do not come to such a decision lightly.
I can understand why people are disappointed and angry though. Some will have been depending on offline mode to play for various reasons and I sympathise with them. As for the promise/no-promise line of reasoning....It was clearly stated as being an option for the game, that option is apparently no longer viable. Saying that people have no cause to complain because they didn't write "We promise to include offline play" is totally unreasonable. Make no mistake, FD have made an error here, or there (back when it was first proposed), and people (customers) are entitled to a feeling of disappointment.
Basically that's how I see it too. I can appreciate that FD went down a path and found at a rather late juncture that offline play was prohibitively difficult to implement. Irrespective of the individual areas that inhibit offline play (whether it's time, resources, money...etc) I would expect that FD do not come to such a decision lightly.
I can understand why people are disappointed and angry though. Some will have been depending on offline mode to play for various reasons and I sympathise with them. As for the promise/no-promise line of reasoning....It was clearly stated as being an option for the game, that option is apparently no longer viable. Saying that people have no cause to complain because they didn't write "We promise to include offline play" is totally unreasonable. Make no mistake, FD have made an error here, or there (back when it was first proposed), and people (customers) are entitled to a feeling of disappointment.
And also irrelevant in the circumstances as the contract is now voided and therefore the cancellation terms no longer apply.
It all smacks of lack of thinking through the impact of this decision.
You just lost 2 bets, I suggest you stay away from Lottery tickets for a while.
BTW I am not your mate and it can be spelt as both "fanboy" and "fanboi", but you already knew that.
3 years or months. Never can tell the future.
- Status