No Single Player offline Mode then?

[Kaltern]

Why are people bringing SimCity into this? There is no comparison. SimCity was terrible online because the game was broken, online play was broken, servers wouldn't allow players to connect. Ok, ok E doesn't have perfect online play, but it is better than what SimCity was, so there is no comparison between the two...jesus people are really reaching...

No, people are drawing comparisons because EA said SimCity REQUIRED online access because their megaservers were needed to calculate the obscene amount of data needed for the game to work... which was later proven to be utter crap, the only reason was DRM and RMT's.

There isn't a huge difference between that and ED, in that there are instances of the game, where occasionally players could interact and trade.

 

[Azimuth]

There is a significant challenge between the traditional MMO and the P2P model that FD have chosen. I've suffered from this model myself (please see Pizza-Bet-Thread ), but I believe it can be surmounted. Note that classical MMOs that are client/server suffer far more depending where you live... there's a tradeoff at the end of the day.

Indeed - and classical MMOs limit player actions by design, specifically with communication / processing limits in mind - leading to the hotbar / target combat mechanics of WoW, or the, er, flying-spreadsheet mechanics of EVE Online

Frontier, to their credit, don't seem to have attempted to shape player actions to suit the underlying infrastructure, with the exception of the 'room'-based space travel. I do hope they manage to smooth that out.

Having friends in the same instance is something they need to sort out. Whilst some are saying that the lack of "Offline" will kill the game, for me, the lack of being able to hook up with a friend and go do stuff together, will kill the game for me.

Horses for courses, huh?

The big one for me (assuming I can log in at all on launch day) is being able to help a colleague who's just been interdicted - right now, I imagine you'd have to slam the brakes on, travel back to their warp trail assuming you can find it, and hope you can drop out in their instance before they're mincemeat. So, although warp trail scanners are now functional, they don't feel very 'multiplayer' to me yet. Without that sort of co-op functionality throughout the game, I doubt I'll play much of the 'open' mode - I don't see much point in just hanging around as prey for someone else.

Being able to chase people (especially NPCs) on multiple hops through supercruise / normal space is pretty cool, though

 

[ToddlerfromHell]

That's a polite phrase to use, instead of "mandatory online DRM requirement", which ED just became. Did you not learn from the SimCity fiasco? What happens when the servers are down, or Frontier decides to turn them off in a few years?

No offline mode? No expansion/DLC/store purchases then.

I want to throw Moore's Law into the ring. In 10 years, our gaming machines will laugh at the work required to have the server software running as a background service in parallel to the game. Releasing a (maybe limited, less dynamic) version of the server software would be a way to solve this conundrum.

(In fact, I always assumed the offline mode would be the game client connecting to a local, standalone, feature-limited server application. This has been done in other games in the past, too.)

Edit: I'd also like to repeat what I said in the newsletter thread: Cancellation of the offline mode is equivalent to the cancellation of the game itself to some people. People who backed the game, followed it, engaged in the forums, became emotionally invested, probably spent hundreds of hours of their lives in the process - and are now left empty-handed.

I think it is very possible to have offline mode, but just as blizzard did with the PC Diablo3, Act. with Call of Duty, and EA with Battlefield3-4, they want to control your experience. If you believe, they can create a virtual galaxy that is 400 billion systems, but don't have the ability to make it offline, you are very gullible. If the software exists on an online server that runs all the code transactions, it can exist at home, on your computer.

The problem here is that you'd have access to the server which isn't something we'd want to allow as it contains the secrets of the galaxy. Which was also an issue with an online version.

Michael

So why not give us a galaxy generated with a different seed?

? it worked before they(he) cant get it to work now.
I dont expect a fully galaxy wide simulation running on my poor little puter, the simulation would only represent systems you might jump to soon (locally) everything else would be procedurally generated as needed

Simply (at least in principle) - remove all those secrets from the publically released server software. People who depend on the offline version would certainly rather play an offline version that had no Thargoids, for example, than not being able to play at all.

I'm also disappointed. I've never planned to play ED online in any major way.

However, if SP offline is not available, I'll be spending my time in SP Online mode.

If, at some point in time, many years down the road, and FD decides to pull the plug on ED and the servers, I hope FD makes one final patch to ED to allow it to run in Offline mode with a Static Universe.

Much of that seems irrelevant for a static always-offline game. Interactions between players? There's only one player! Transactions of value? There's only one player, so no need to validate transactions! Data & processing for the galaxy? A bit vague, but a static universe wouldn't seem to need much processing!

Really, if Elite Dangerous off-line mode was basically Elite 2 (but with fancier graphics, etc), I think off-line fans would be quite happy.

I think this is the bit you're looking for.

"If you have received an item that is not what you originally ordered, please contact Customer Service with your order number, name, address, the reason for the return and whether you would like a replacement or a refund."

Didn't EA eventually release an offline mode for Sim City 4?

I didn't back at Kickstarter and no off-line mode isn't going to affect me, but its clearly upsetting people and is going to generate negativity in the run up to the 22nd. I hope this doesn't become 'the story' of the Elite launch because the game is pretty damn amazing, even without everything that we'd hoped for.

I guess this means that if a subscription model is ever implemented because of the obvious increase in server costs this would cause, then it'd be a case of having to pay or not play at all.

Offline mode was why I was willing to not only spend a lot of money on the kickstarter campaign, but to spend even more money as things got rolling. I really do like the online mode of play, but detest games that *require* me to always be online whenever and every single time I want to play it. I have seen it said, "there will most definitely be an offline mode" over and over throughout the last couple years that this project has been going, as recently as 5 days ago! If it is a technical issue, then take some more time and fix it, I am willing to patiently wait. I really look forward to being able to land on planets, but I am willing to wait for that because I know, as we have been told, it will be coming.

But to say, there will be an offline mode for over 2 years, and then at the last minute say something like 'opps, my bad, it won't be there', is a *HUGE* slap in the face to all of us that took you at your word! So, what else can we expect to have changed at the last moment? The promise that we can land on planets changed? What else are we going to have to second guess now that you are starting to show you will not keep your promises? Can we believe anything you say now?

If it will take some more time to provide some kind of server, with limited functionality so we don't expose your precious secrets (what were you thinking when you promised offline mode to begin with?!), then do it, and say so. I am willing to wait. I have spent a lot of money on this, and really hope my investment isn't going to be met with half truths and misstatements.

Really, that's the issue. For those of us who pledged big in Kickstarter, our money is gone. That's always the (understood) risk... and up until this evening, I've never seriously regretted pledging as high as I did. Legally, I haven't a leg to stand on in terms of ever getting that money back.

Announcing the removal of a core tenet of the game (not a "nice to have" as Michael seems to be toning it) at this late stage leaves a very bitter taste in the mouth.

Morally, it is a betrayal of trust. Frontier have failed in their moral obligations. I will not soon forget this.

There hasn't even been an apology.

OK. Missions - generating fetch and carry missions was already done in Frontier and FFE. Trading - keep the prices static, worked in Frontier and FFE. Events - OK remove dynamic events. Exploration/Mining - with the best will in the world the single player isn't going to explore/mine more than 10,000 systems in game. That's not a lot of data to keep track of. Over 99.99999% of the galaxy will remain untouched throughout the life of the game and can be ignored.
.
The problem I have with all of this is that some of us backed based on your previous track record of cramming the universe in a box. You (collectively) have done it 3 times before. We (OK, I, erroneously) expected it wouldn't be an issue to do it again - just with 2015 sound and graphics.
.
I'm not going to throw baby out with the bath water, stamp my feet and ask for a refund, as I enjoy the game as is. It just damages expectations and trust, and make you wonder whether the long term plans for the game will truly come into fruition.

I too backed this project in the hopes that there would be a real off-line component, as the KS page stated. I'm not surprised this did not come to pass, disappointed and more than a little dismayed, yes, because I fear that this revelation late in the beta process does more bad than good. Michael keeps insisting that this change had to be made to be able to make the game they wanted. What if it's not the game we, the backers and consumers, asked for?
I am a middle-aged, economically sound drone, with little or no chance of being able to play an always online game steadily enough to be able to keep up with the kids that have nothing better to do than play all day long. Others have already pointed out that a true off-line experience would have allowed us to play at our own pace, without fear that the ever-evolving universe would pass us by. "Luckily", I backed at a level where all future expansions are free (unless that is about to change as well), so I won't have to spend another penny on this endeavor.

-Toddler

 

[VR Mr Teatime]

I'm pretty sure your phone could do that. Don't underestimate current technology.

Somebody should get on the phone to CCP because I'm sure they'd love to be able to take their cluster out of Telehouse and into their pockets.

 

[mbpoblet]

But what about what all the other NPCs/factions are doing? It's not just about the player. It's about everything in a populated universe.

A server can happily do these calculations and simulate it without breaking a sweat.

Your local PC? Not so much...


Honestly, I think FD have realised that to deliver what they want to, it just doesn't make sense as a self-install/offline edition. Maybe that will change in the future.

But it sure as hell isn't about DRM.

There are hundreds of thousands of factions, trillions of NPCs... you can't expect to simulate them all, no matter how powerful the server.

The reasonable thing to do is to do statistical simulations though procedural generation, and, the same way you do with the galaxy and solar systems and planets, increase the detail where needed (where the player is), and if the generated entities end up affected by the player's actions, store them (hopefully temporarily), and discard the unaffected ones.

This should probably be simpler than generating the physical galaxy.

 

[Lobstris]

Single player isn't going anywhere.
Offline is the feature that got axed.

OK. Point. If we're going to be pedantic. I'm old skool - you have single player and multi player. Single player games have no justification for being online in my book .

[FWIW. I'm still not sold on why single player online exists anyway. If you're going to play multiplayer, play multiplayer, if not, don't. Swapping between the two is pretty tantamount to cheating (again in my book) - but that's another argument that's been done to death ].

 

[Atinus]

So why the small off comment a month prior to release.

Because we wanted to be certain before announcing. This isn't the choice we wanted to make, but one we had to.

Michael

Thank you, Michael, not only for doing due diligence, but for taking careful consideration of all the issues involved. Tells me you guys did everything you could to make it happen, but it doesn't work. That's good enough for me, although I am saddened by those who won't get to enjoy this incredible game. I hope down the road a solution presents itself if only for the sake of posterity. In the meantime, I wish you all the best of luck with the launch and release. Let's get back to testing! We've still got a game to deliver.

 

[Titus Balls]

Of course they have. I've seen their galaxy collision models.

Galaxy collision models do not a game make.

Here, instead we have a simulation of 400b stars - even within the 2000 odd systems we have that's a lot of computing power to process all the stars, planets and other bodies - their orbits and trajectories, let alone all the NPCs that inhabit them, all the commodity markets that exist in populated systems.

And before everyone goes on about "Well Elite/Frontier managed to do it on a floppy disk on a A500" - yes, however DB and co designed the game at that time and managed to fit in such a way that it wasn't a dynamic game - everything was very static and followed a set path based on the seed that was unpacked into memory. Every single copy of the game was exactly the same.

Elite: Dangerous is not that game, it's a completely different game that happens to be set in the same game universe. The design of the game was to have a non-static universe where players actually influence the simulation, and to have a much richer and deeper stage to play it on.

The game has become much more than a single player game. Like I've said before:

1984 - Elite - "We want to play this game with other people"
2014 - ED - "We want to play this game on our own"

Ignoring the genuine concerns of people with connection issues, the other argument seems to be people want Elite but with new graphics. That isn't the game Frontier created. They created Elite: Dangerous.

 

[CadetJamson]

Frontier: Elite 2 managed to do it 20 years ago on the regular PCs of the day (and Amigas), so, even with improved fidelity, once you have the algorithms (which is the hard part), it's pretty trivial (and you're doing it every time you look at the galaxy map).

Networking issues are another matter, and one of the many reasons why multiplayer should be considered a bug and not a feature.

Elite 2 i loved what back then but let's not look at it with rose tinted glasses. It was a static universe where nothing changed. From the very beginning frontier have said that they want to make a game with a dynamic universe where people experience a universe that changes. Doing this means moving more stuff to the servers.

A bug is something that is not intended multiplayer is intended. U just don't like it. I personally think it gives the universe more danger. Maybe that's why it's called elite dangerous.

 

[mbpoblet]

I'm pretty sure your phone could do that. Don't underestimate current technology.

My phone is arguably more powerful than the PC I used to have at my previous job. And it's been obsolete for two or three generations of phones. Current technology is almost frightening.

 

[littleminxundr]

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.

Absolutely, I'm very happy with the junglecamo skin for my Sidey. My other ship of interest is the Cobra (for obvious reasons), but I haven't seen a skin for the Cobra that I like. The problem is that Skins are the only thing I can think off that Frontier can use to monetize (apart from dashboard toys), unless they add a player-character editor and start selling outfits and hairdo's.

 

[jamotide]

Completely agree with the wiki'd questions about titles such as Sim City 3 (or even Diablo 3), but that wasn't my point really - and you do know that My point was about online-multiplayer games, designed to be online and, well, multiplayer... That's not DRM.

It is very simple, I will break it down for you:

1. A mandatory persistant online connection is a form of DRM as the wiki page says

2. MMOs obviously require a mandatory persistant online connection

3. Therefore all MMOs have DRM

 

[Sniger]

I see a lot of "vision for the game" arguments flying around ... Now please tell me, what is that vision supposed be all about ?
I have watched just about every available video from FD/DB about this game, and the current stage of ED is nowhere near what is mentioned in those clips.
So unless FD has a bombshell of dam buster proportions waiting in the barn for 22-11, I'd say the 'vision' isn't exactly visionary...

Dynamic evolving universe ? - havn't seen a even a hint of that yet.
Player affected market economy ? - looks more like a RNG system gone haywire
related to the above, equipment.. appears to be thrown about without any logic or reason (highend gear on a remote mining station, and nothing better than D-rated gear on highly developed worlds ?)
Blaze your own trail... My mastery of the english language is insufficient to comment properly on this one.

So, what do we actually have at this point?
Space flight: yes it IS pretty.
Ship vs ship combat:in technical terms, yes
Trading: see comment above on economy
Missions: in a desperate attempt to be polite, I will settle for ... bland and primitive.
Multiplayer: errrm ... some might call it that
MMO: definately not!

I just can't resist mentioning this one from a mission brief: We are in need of certain high tech components, can you get us some ... ANIMAL MEAT ?!?! I can't help but wonder, if this is somehow related to this whole project

I had very high hopes for the future of this project, but am now faced with the thought that is was all smoke and mirrors. I still hold on to a tiny glimmer of hope, 22-11 will tell me right or wrong.

 

[the darkwalker]

It is very simple, I will break it down for you:

1. A mandatory persistant online connection is a form of DRM as the wiki page says

2. MMOs obviously require a mandatory persistant online connection

3. Therefore all MMOs have DRM

fun fact: this is no mmo

 

[srinidhalaya]

Absolutely, I'm very happy with the junglecamo skin for my Sidey. My other ship of interest is the Cobra (for obvious reasons), but I haven't seen a skin for the Cobra that I like. The problem is that Skins are the only thing I can think off that Frontier can use to monetize (apart from dashboard toys), unless they add a player-character editor and start selling outfits and hairdo's.

And cosmetics will only fund so much. Their silence on the issue of funding speaks volumes. I'd put money down that one of the next big announcement (newsletter) involves some sort of funding model.

 

[FredTA]

fun fact: this is no mmo

In what way is this not an MMO now?

 

[the darkwalker]

In what way is this not an MMO now?

so halo is a mmo? 16 players max dude...no grouping...

M M O

MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER ONLINE

WHERE'S MASSIVE IN ELITE?

 

[Tim Wheatley]

Galaxy collision models do not a game make.

Here, instead we have a simulation of 400b stars - even within the 2000 odd systems we have that's a lot of computing power to process all the stars, planets and other bodies - their orbits and trajectories, let alone all the NPCs that inhabit them, all the commodity markets that exist in populated systems.

And before everyone goes on about "Well Elite/Frontier managed to do it on a floppy disk on a A500" - yes, however DB and co designed the game at that time and managed to fit in such a way that it wasn't a dynamic game - everything was very static and followed a set path based on the seed that was unpacked into memory. Every single copy of the game was exactly the same.

Elite: Dangerous is not that game, it's a completely different game that happens to be set in the same game universe. The design of the game was to have a non-static universe where players actually influence the simulation, and to have a much richer and deeper stage to play it on.

The game has become much more than a single player game. Like I've said before:

1984 - Elite - "We want to play this game with other people"
2014 - ED - "We want to play this game on our own"

Ignoring the genuine concerns of people with connection issues, the other argument seems to be people want Elite but with new graphics. That isn't the game Frontier created. They created Elite: Dangerous.

Yes, I understand that. I was responding to the statement you made about NASA not having done galaxy simulations, by saying they have. The Andromeda and Milky Way simulations in particular, although certainly not a game, were what you stated they didn't have the time? Resources? to do.

Yes, everything was very static in Elite II, exactly what was described and expected with an offline mode from ED. Not understanding your point.

In actual fact:
1984 - Elite - "This game is amazing. I have no idea I can play this with other people, because it's 1984."
2014 - ED - "I want the option I thought I already had, to play this game on my own"

Sure, it's not the game they made. Correct. It's just the game a lot of people gave money for.

 

[FredTA]

so halo is a mmo? 16 players max dude...no grouping...

M M O

MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER ONLINE

WHERE'S MASSIVE IN ELITE?

Eeeer...you can play Halo offline maybe?

 

[the darkwalker]

Eeeer...you can play Halo offline maybe?

yes? even in split screen?

i would love to know how to ignore such posts