No Single Player offline Mode then?
- Thread starter Brandon31
- Start date
- Status
Actually, I am not in the country and have not paid taxes for about 14 years, but I see what you are trying to say. However, its not quite the same is it? In fact far from it.
However, Frontier are not a government and I know they are not magical pixies etc, but they made a proposal/business plan, call it what you will. They made that plan by calculating what they could do, they didn't just sit in a cafe and come up with a few ideas on a napkin and then bung it on kickstarter etc, they though about it, saw what resources they had to make this happen and came up with an educated plan about what they could do, and offline was one of those features. As I have said, I understand they can't come up with it now or for the release, but I do not think they should just drop it. They said they would do it and they should keep trying to do it, that is all I am saying/asking.
I have only seen one post where Michael referred people to the now invalid cancellation terms. He did not answer my direct questions on the matter.
I have to say I love the sentiment from the "shut up you'll spoil everything crowd", it's the contributions from everyone that made ED possible, not just the MP crowd, so it's only right that those who wanted the offline mode and backed it for those reasons are upset and feel betrayed by those at FD for blindly taking monies for a product they will now not release.
MIDI?
Back in those days, you didn't so much as make music, but just tell the computer what key to fart in
I laughed way too hard at this... Startled my cat.
I've honestly resigned to people on these forum being irrational about this decision. Michael, however, I feel deserves a raise for not pimp slapping several people on these forums.
Said which law degree you hold?
Quick, what are tomorrow's lotto numbers oh great and powerful wizard?
Last edited:
It would not be so bad if everyone was enjoying a fine multiplayer beta testing experience. But from where I stand many current problems in-game are network/multiplayer related. I have given up on this ever being fixed and for that reason was looking forward to enjoyable (stable) gameplay from a single player mode, which would (hopefully) have non of the problems related to the p2p code. Even in solo online I get severe stuttering and hyperspace freezing along with lag when using things like system info in the galaxy map. The SP offline mode was my last hope for smooth gameplay. (quad core PC and 100mb + connection). In retrospect the fact that there has never been the option to play solo offline should have been a rather large hint that it was not going to happen.
They are, you're correct - but their development process is somewhat different. Elite has started with a persistent universe and "Blaze your own trail" mindset from the get-go, whilst Star Citizen has gone down a different route. Given that Wing Commander was story-driven, that makes sense. Given that Elite wasn't, that makes sense also, hence the difference.
At the end of the day, we want to enjoy our games - and I believe we will. The difference between Elite and Star-Citizen cannot be rationally argued right now, but perhaps in 2 years time when their persistent universe is "online", and we all have planetary landings and encounters.
Note also that CIG has a LOT more funding than ED has, and so has more options to play with.
Time will tell.
For now, I am going to enjoy Elite and hope to stay with it for years to come.
Fly safe, commander
The "next" would be the rest of my post, which you appear to have ignored. Thanks.
There are too many external & unknown variables between me and my game. I don't give a rats ass for multiplayer. I just want to play Elite: Dangerous. I thought I'd be able to do that, because for the last two years, that's what was promised.
Now we're all completely at the mercy of the external variables in order to play, and for every single one of them to be working correctly at the same time. If even one link in the chain is broken - for whatever reason - Boom. No game.
Last edited:
I suggest you do the same. I wonder how you will feel about the whole thing when you can't play ED in a couple of years anymore, because FD decided that running the servers wasn't feasible. Just for reference: Electronic Arts, a multi billion dollar company, usually shuts down the online servers for their games after about 2-3 years.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Of course that there will be backers taking action individually. Worry not. You have already posted probably more times than most here about what details you think can be relevant to be successful at that. Could I possibly suggest that you simply point to anyone interested towards any dedicated thread you may have created to that effect instead? I reckon it could be a much better use of your valuable time.
And I get why you are upset and your apparently compulsive care about others grief. But in that case then, please by all means, follow through the natural course, go all the way, and organize a class action. I ll cheer you all the way to boot.
Last edited:
With no offline play option it means you have no game for life. You have now a game that you can play for as long as they let you play it and they may not let you play elite dangerous if they bring out eilte 5 in 5 years and ask you to pay for it again.
You just cannot trust what is said on kickstarter and you cannot trust companies. This was a very big and clear feature promise of the game at kickstarter.
They state technical reasons but at the end of the day it is still a big break in promise.
You just cannot trust what is said on kickstarter and you cannot trust companies. This was a very big and clear feature promise of the game at kickstarter.
They state technical reasons but at the end of the day it is still a big break in promise.
It can be both
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/12770-Chris-Roberts-On-Multiplayer-Single-Player-And-Instancing
QUOTE:
"The same instance system underpins the single player Squadron 42. If you’re playing off-line, your computer will be acting as the server and client, there will be no opportunities for friends to join and everyone will be an NPC. But if you play Squadron 42 through the Galaxy Server, even though your missions and space areas are pre-determined (you don’t get to pick where in the galaxy you are flying if you’re in the military) we will allow your friends to drop in / drop out to take over NPC wingmen and if you want extra skill ranking you can allow other players to drop in and take over enemy ace characters. This system is pretty similar to the Demon’s Souls setup where people could drop in as a Blue Phantom to help you kill a boss monster or fight off another invading player, or you could drop in as a Black Phantom to someone else’s world and try and kill them for XP and other game rewards"
Not mine, but my sister who is a partner of a London law firm and read everything last night and this morning. She set Amazon (and other) UK compliance policy to the new consumer regulations. She has already helped one store buyer get a refund earlier in the year because the FD cancellation terms were not compliant.
She lurks, I post, her husband used to post. We're all backers but we think Frontier are out of order here and we're trying to help those that are affected. What are you doing to help, please?
Last edited:
The option of downloading new episodes if I want to play them is a far cry to having no choice and needing to be connected to the internet to even play. Diablo 3's biggest mistake when launched is they took a good solid offline game and made it mandatory to connect online for DRM. They still get bashed about that today.
Indeed it is. Unfortunately it's the manner in which the news was "leaked" at the last minute which has caused the largest degree of anger.
Now, if Frontier Developments had made it known that they were having great difficulty technically reconciling on-line and off-line modes to the point where they may have to remove off-line and then subsequently being contrite and informing the community that sadly the technological difficulties were too great for them to co-exist then there would have sadness and a little anger at the decision but most would have accepted it. It would have felt a respectful way of dealing with the problem.
Unfortunately, the manner in which the the news broke felt highly disrespectful, even if it wasn't meant to be.
I'm afraid that Frontier have always been a little poor at public relations. It's a learning curve for them and a steep one as this is the first time they don't have a publisher to do it for them and on top of that they're having to deal with development in the open.
Whatever way people wish to look at this, FD have upset a lot of people and as normal in life, people will remember the bad things that are done for far longer than over the good that they do. I hope that the powers that be read the writing on the wall and remember one solid and extremely important fact:
At the end of the day.... You and I have contributed to their financial living and without the contributions that all you good people have made, be it in Beta or in Pre order, without us there would be no ED.
Remember that FD.
At the end of the day.... You and I have contributed to their financial living and without the contributions that all you good people have made, be it in Beta or in Pre order, without us there would be no ED.
Remember that FD.
Just some general thoughts about this after skimming through the thread... (Not that this comment will make any difference really... )
A broken promise could be defined as something that was told to be one way, but later changed and turned out to be something else, right?
They also "promised" the ability to buy in-game credits for real world money. I can probably find an equal amount of times this was said as the number of times they mentioned offline mode. They "broke that promise"...
They also "promised" an in-system travel mechanic similar to EVE Online (choose POI and automatically warp over there). By implementing supercruise they "broke that promise"...
They "promised" to release the game in March this year. They "broke that promise"...which I think most people where quite happy with...heck, a lot of people probably want them to "break the promise" of releasing the game on Dec 16th...not me though...gimme gimme gimme...
There are plenty of similar (IMO positive) "broken promises".
The reason they "broke those promises" is because the new change was better for the games development and the majority of players. There are still people who want to jump directly to stations/planets for example and want to skip the whole supercruise experience...the majority does not agree though.
Having a purely offline option has one advantage which I perfectly well understand some people will consider to be a dealbreaker. Not requiring a online connection.
It has several downsides though since huge parts of the game needs to be taken out of the game. Dynamic events/economy/missions/news and so on...basically everything that will make the game feel more alive. Sure these things could still be made to work in an offline game to some degree, but the point here is that it wouldn't be the same codebase at work. The devs would need something different to handle these things in a purely offline version. News for example would need to have a timeline of events written up in advance. That content would also need to be unique so that offline players doesn't spoil the content for the online players. Something they as a independent studio simply can't afford to support without heavily cutting into the dev budget for the rest of the game. The playerbase that would consider the lack of an offline version to be a complete dealbreaker simply isn't big enough (IMO) to dedicate these resources towards it. This of course doesn't help these people, nor is it a decision FD wanted to make (as Michael has already said several times above). It's just one of those tough choices that needs to be made sometimes.
The last couple of weeks the main point of concern here on the forum has been that the game feels to static and lifeless in its current form. Much of this is IMO simply because they aren't "wasting" content on us right now in terms of news and dynamic events/missions since everything will be wiped any day now anyway. Saving these things up for Gamma (or release) when the game won't need to be wiped again and instead stay persistent makes a lot more sense. The systems to do these things are there and seem to be working. They just aren't being used at the moment.
An offline version of the game would have none of this though and maybe these kind of concerns that has been expressed is the reason this decision was finally made? By removing that "sub-par" version of the game from the equation they can make sure players are experiencing the game the way it is intended.
Maybe these recent discussions on the forum of the game being to static and lifeless is one of the reasons the decision to drop such a lifeless/static offline version of the game was finally made? Pure speculation of course.
I also seen people make comparison to Diablo 3 and Sim City which I find quite flawed to be honest.
One of the main design goals of ED is that everyone plays the game in the same shared persistent universe where our actions affect how it evolves over time, no matter if we play it in SOLO, PRIVATE or OPEN. This can NOT be said about those to titles mentioned above. So comparing ED to them in regards to the offline/online component isn't really useful. There are (sadly) plenty of games out there that forces an always online approach eventhough there is no real reason for it. ED is NOT one of those games since it's built around the shared universe to begin with. No shared universe, no game.
This also touches on the whole DRM argument. Always online does NOT equal DRM. Is WoW using DRM? No, not really since the whole game is based around the fact that it is online. Same thing applies to ED due to the shared universe.
Sorry for the intermission...you can carry on now!
)A broken promise could be defined as something that was told to be one way, but later changed and turned out to be something else, right?
They also "promised" the ability to buy in-game credits for real world money. I can probably find an equal amount of times this was said as the number of times they mentioned offline mode. They "broke that promise"...
They also "promised" an in-system travel mechanic similar to EVE Online (choose POI and automatically warp over there). By implementing supercruise they "broke that promise"...
They "promised" to release the game in March this year. They "broke that promise"...which I think most people where quite happy with...heck, a lot of people probably want them to "break the promise" of releasing the game on Dec 16th...not me though...gimme gimme gimme...
There are plenty of similar (IMO positive) "broken promises".
The reason they "broke those promises" is because the new change was better for the games development and the majority of players. There are still people who want to jump directly to stations/planets for example and want to skip the whole supercruise experience...the majority does not agree though.
Having a purely offline option has one advantage which I perfectly well understand some people will consider to be a dealbreaker. Not requiring a online connection.
It has several downsides though since huge parts of the game needs to be taken out of the game. Dynamic events/economy/missions/news and so on...basically everything that will make the game feel more alive. Sure these things could still be made to work in an offline game to some degree, but the point here is that it wouldn't be the same codebase at work. The devs would need something different to handle these things in a purely offline version. News for example would need to have a timeline of events written up in advance. That content would also need to be unique so that offline players doesn't spoil the content for the online players. Something they as a independent studio simply can't afford to support without heavily cutting into the dev budget for the rest of the game. The playerbase that would consider the lack of an offline version to be a complete dealbreaker simply isn't big enough (IMO) to dedicate these resources towards it. This of course doesn't help these people, nor is it a decision FD wanted to make (as Michael has already said several times above). It's just one of those tough choices that needs to be made sometimes.
The last couple of weeks the main point of concern here on the forum has been that the game feels to static and lifeless in its current form. Much of this is IMO simply because they aren't "wasting" content on us right now in terms of news and dynamic events/missions since everything will be wiped any day now anyway. Saving these things up for Gamma (or release) when the game won't need to be wiped again and instead stay persistent makes a lot more sense. The systems to do these things are there and seem to be working. They just aren't being used at the moment.
An offline version of the game would have none of this though and maybe these kind of concerns that has been expressed is the reason this decision was finally made? By removing that "sub-par" version of the game from the equation they can make sure players are experiencing the game the way it is intended.
Maybe these recent discussions on the forum of the game being to static and lifeless is one of the reasons the decision to drop such a lifeless/static offline version of the game was finally made? Pure speculation of course.
I also seen people make comparison to Diablo 3 and Sim City which I find quite flawed to be honest.
One of the main design goals of ED is that everyone plays the game in the same shared persistent universe where our actions affect how it evolves over time, no matter if we play it in SOLO, PRIVATE or OPEN. This can NOT be said about those to titles mentioned above. So comparing ED to them in regards to the offline/online component isn't really useful. There are (sadly) plenty of games out there that forces an always online approach eventhough there is no real reason for it. ED is NOT one of those games since it's built around the shared universe to begin with. No shared universe, no game.
This also touches on the whole DRM argument. Always online does NOT equal DRM. Is WoW using DRM? No, not really since the whole game is based around the fact that it is online. Same thing applies to ED due to the shared universe.
Sorry for the intermission...you can carry on now!
It's very easy to say things in anger, when you're upset - I'd never hold it against you. In the course of this fiasco I actually de-repped someone for the first time ever, and yet afterwards we had a rather amicable discussion about the whole thing in private. Very British.
I've also de-repped in accident... got a great message about that, I tell you. We can agree to disagree... from my own personal life, if I promise something I will do it unless things way out of my control (e.g., death) gets in the way. However, if I have intent I will do it - but if later information and/or circumstances makes it a bit of a dodgy decision, I might regress that - and tell said person why I didn't go through with what I said. I try and avoid that as much as possible.
Fly safe, Mr United Kingdom flag
- Status