No Single Player offline Mode then?
- Thread starter Brandon31
- Start date
- Status
Last time i saw a forum explode like it, was at Xrebirth launch.
Some can say nope .. lets see on Monday when papers will deliver their impressions, VR has started today
When you promise something to customers you need to deliver it even the cost it will have.
Some can say it was not promised .. it was. There links on kickstarter/reddit whitch are clear about it
The video game industry is pretty hard about it. Its a jungle.
I am not really affected by online/offline (just a bit during working week) but i truly understand people who have paid for the offline side and will not get it.
They lost their time, their money and their heart in pre order development. Most of us are 35 to 60, the reaction of most is mature, its significant. They played Elite at first on BBC, C64, Amstrad and all.
Elite is a mythic game still now for most of us. Being not able to play it cause of lack on internet connexion is for them a loss and not a little one.
I really hope that Frontier will take a middle view to content all customers
And go backward to examine this request further even if it has cost (because it will) and will deliver a lesser experience to players.
Cause it will have consequences and i dont wanna see my most wanted game getting high critics on the wall cause of it, it will affect every players there.
Its not the customer fault when there are bad review .. its the owner fault. This is a bad decision but a bad decision can be reviewed and i think it was not the good time to deliver it.
Really not when near to the launch... this could have done month ago and we will be much more easy now.
Some can say nope .. lets see on Monday when papers will deliver their impressions, VR has started today
When you promise something to customers you need to deliver it even the cost it will have.
Some can say it was not promised .. it was. There links on kickstarter/reddit whitch are clear about it
The video game industry is pretty hard about it. Its a jungle.
I am not really affected by online/offline (just a bit during working week) but i truly understand people who have paid for the offline side and will not get it.
They lost their time, their money and their heart in pre order development. Most of us are 35 to 60, the reaction of most is mature, its significant. They played Elite at first on BBC, C64, Amstrad and all.
Elite is a mythic game still now for most of us. Being not able to play it cause of lack on internet connexion is for them a loss and not a little one.
I really hope that Frontier will take a middle view to content all customers
And go backward to examine this request further even if it has cost (because it will) and will deliver a lesser experience to players.
Cause it will have consequences and i dont wanna see my most wanted game getting high critics on the wall cause of it, it will affect every players there.
Its not the customer fault when there are bad review .. its the owner fault. This is a bad decision but a bad decision can be reviewed and i think it was not the good time to deliver it.
Really not when near to the launch... this could have done month ago and we will be much more easy now.
Intent is different from a promise, and I read the wiki-link. The Wiki-link suggests that forcing a player to have a single-player experience whilst enforcing an "always on" connection, is DRM. And I'd agree with that assessment. Except FD just removed the offline part, and we're in an MMO world where a connection is necessary to interact with other pilots, and a dynamic, changing, universe.
Explain to me again how it is still DRM, I could be a little slow
My argument stands firm because all Solo/online is, is the same as anyone elses' except they don't get matched with other players, just NPCs. Their contributions to the universe are just as forceful as those who play "Open". Once again, not DRM. It's an online experience with a rule that says the matchmaker prefers you on your own. That's it.
I really feel that FD have handled this very badly indeed.
For such a big decision, the way it was just slipped into the newsletter (easily missed by many on first scan) was very poor form, and pretty disrespectful IMO to any who pledged with Offline mode in mind.
It's not their decision that's got me riled as such (if it really wasn't doable, fair enough), but the way they chose to communicate this and the complete lack of any info that this mode was looking untenable prior to yesterday. I actually find the whole thing kind of shocking.
There should have been a properly written statement about this some time ago, not a last minute spun paragraph slipped somewhat stealthily into the newsletter a few weeks before launch. Even if it had to come at such late notice as the decision had only just been taken (seems very unlikely, but still...) the last thing they should have done was to gloss over it as though it's nothing.
For such a big decision, the way it was just slipped into the newsletter (easily missed by many on first scan) was very poor form, and pretty disrespectful IMO to any who pledged with Offline mode in mind.
It's not their decision that's got me riled as such (if it really wasn't doable, fair enough), but the way they chose to communicate this and the complete lack of any info that this mode was looking untenable prior to yesterday. I actually find the whole thing kind of shocking.
There should have been a properly written statement about this some time ago, not a last minute spun paragraph slipped somewhat stealthily into the newsletter a few weeks before launch. Even if it had to come at such late notice as the decision had only just been taken (seems very unlikely, but still...) the last thing they should have done was to gloss over it as though it's nothing.
Which I would be very surprised if it weren't dependent on the number of players.
Frankly, I find it very hard to believe that the server running on a regular PC couldn't handle the amount of data generated by a single player (and probably even a small coop party for LAN play) and still leave room for the client to run.
I doubt it really comes down to computation power. I mean in any online game the server resources available per player are going to be vastly less than the resources of a single home pc. I mean they may have some pretty meaty hardware but divide that by the thousands of con-current connections and thats not a lot of clock cycles per user.
Its more likely they have some utopian vision that because the events in the game are the result of other player actions that it will somehow feel deeper, richer or more engaging. It will somehow be more real. Personally I don't think you will actually be able to see the difference. But I guess we will see.
I'm not aware of any procedural generation engines that can generate even a solar system fast enough using similar methods as stellar forge(based on the limited description by FD so it could be simpler that I think
)
Last edited:
I'd say it's more a vocal minority. Granted it's not small, but I believe the game has around 100K total backers and customers and from what I'm seeing I'd say it's maybe around 2000-3000 of that number, certainly on the forums. Out of that, you and I have no idea and you can't really say what I've quoted of you here. You're making as many assumptions as I am here.
No, you're right. We don't have the metrics at this juncture, so I can't comment on them.
One thing I could say is, given the amount of people unable to play online, I'd proffer that the amount of people who's PCs could manage the Milky Way in any reliable fashion is even more substantially less than that!
Jackruss,
Don't get too down. Solo mode is still there, you can still play without other humans. Also, you can sign up for one of the PvE groups, this will give you a private group with others who do not want to go PvP.
It is not all bad!
Elmasri
But simulating the background universe could require a lot more power than your average PC has regardless of the number of players that are active.
ED is multiplayer online, but it's not massively multiplayer online - I don't regard ED to be massively multiplayer in the same way I don't consider Team Fortress 2 to be massively multiplayer, or Minecraft to be massively multiplayer. ED's multiplayer aspects feel heavily sharded (to the extent that two players in the same instance can't see the bits of rock that the other person chips off the same asteroid).
MMOs are engineered from the ground up to deal with many simultaneous players; right now, managing to see a couple of your friends in the same instance feels like an achievement.
Yes, it's basically your "block all" concept (well, more like a private group with a single member, I believe, but it ends up the same, you end up in your own private instance).
Other online only games bring in cosmetic items for a small fee that rake them in tons of money. ED has that slightly with the ship skins. I wouldn't mind having more ship skins added, I haven't bought any yet, but I've also been too lazy to check them out. Paying for cosmetic items is the best way to fund servers. Its completely optional for players and given at a low price it doesn't scare anyone away if they really enjoy the design. warfare and planetside 2 is mainly cosmetic purchases and I see almost every player with a cosmetic item on. Even in Cs: go, most players buy skins for their weapons. Some of those skins go for hundreds of dollars and valve gets a small cut for them, not intrusive at all. There are ways to fund servers.
OkIntent is different from a promise, and I read the wiki-link. The Wiki-link suggests that forcing a player to have a single-player experience whilst enforcing an "always on" connection, is DRM. And I'd agree with that assessment. Except FD just removed the offline part, and we're in an MMO world where a connection is necessary to interact with other pilots, and a dynamic, changing, universe.
Explain to me again how it is still DRM, I could be a little slow
Voila.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Always-on_DRM
150 pages in less than 24 hours is a vocal minority? lol
- Status