No Single Player offline Mode then?

[Sterlino]

After all these reply, after all these discussion and after 2 night of sleep on it... i realised that:

in a big big title game like Elite 4 there must be an offline mode .
at least an offline mode of some kind (or anykind possible).

This is my suggestion to the Frontier team: postpone it after the landing on planet expansion.. then - when the game has a bit of ''auto conservative substance''
Split the team and Instructs some of them to build an offline mode simply closing here and there and cut some multiplayer features ..doing it in the faster and easier possible way.

And It will not matter if it isn't the majestic game as it is in the online version, but it will stay in the history for much longer time.

 

[Zapp]

Well we are still in beta, nothing is final, is it? So they might as well see what they are doing and backtrack before it's too late ...

A few years ago I made a definite point not to buy anything that needs an Internet connection and/or a remote server. If this means that I have to switch to Linux (half of my work is on Linux already) and Open Source apps, so be it. Games are no exception. I want control on what I buy. I want to be able to use it on my laptop while traveling, without paying €€€ for Internet connections and stuff. I also want to use the program as long as I want, without fear that they shut down their servers or start asking for a monthly fee for some "priority access" server (not saying this is the case, but we've seen it happen before).

Just my opinion of course, but I tend to vote with my wallet. It's the only way to make yourself heard these days. Unfortunately.

Zapp

 

[sbdags]

After all these reply, after all these discussion and after 2 night of sleep on it... i realised that:

in a big big title game like Elite 4 there must be an offline mode .

You haven't said why it is a must? Clearly it is not a must to FD or some backers on here so why do you think it is a must. I'm interested....

 

[Sylv3r]

That is one problem with them yes.
I don't think this poll is any less valid than any other. Just that polls in general are not good empirical evidence of anything.
They always remind me of the "88% of our 167 person study preferred our shampoo" type adverts

I modified the post and deleted the poll I dont want to give wrong infos to the community.
But the fact that there is a significant amount of customers who are not happy with no offline mode is still there

 

[DhuAlan]

OK, I think it's time that there was a dispassionate round up of the situation was made:

History

Since 11th December 2012 an off-line mode where the only time a user had to connect to Frontier's servers would be to install the game, install updates or update the galaxy has been a deliverable item from the Kickstarter.

The off-line mode has been promoted by David Braben and Michael Brookes ever since, time and again up until recently.

The off-line mode was described as part of the product on the Elite Shop web site for purchasers up until Friday morning.
​

Current situation.

Off-line mode was announced as cancelled as a sideline in Newsletter #49 as part of an "interview" with David Braben.

Subsequently Michael Brookes has stated that they cancelled off-line mode due to design and logistical issues making it infeasible.

When asked, Micahel Brookes told those affected to seek refunds from the on-line store. Each case will be take on its merits.
​

Analysis

The announcement being made as an aside, buried in other news has caused anger and made many feel that this was disrespectful.

It is unknown when the decision, however unwanted by the development team, was made or how long it has been known or obvious
that this has been a likely outcome of design decisions being made.

According to information given by Michael Brookes, design decisions made to make on-line play better have meant that much of the functionality of the game has been moved out of the client and into the server back-end.

Going by what has been said not only this weekend but previously, the "game" users run seems to be little more than a rendering engine and slave to the back-end server architecture with the ability to run and control NPC ships.

Further deductions about the server architecture include:

• There is a large database holding star system data which has been previously procedurally generated by "Stellar Forge" with modifications both hand crafted and generated by star catalogues.
• Front end systems on Amazon AWS act as authentication, game saving and trading gateways, they perform match making and provide all stellar data from the central database.
• Back-end economic and mission injection systems tie into the central database and modify it.

Because the "client" is merely an unintelligent rendering shell creating an off-line version would require creating practically from scratch an equivalent of the back-end server architecture and bolting this into the "client".
​

nice synopsis, with the design, it must have meant offline had to been known for some time to by a high cost feature that was highly likely to be cut, if this had been communicated clearly and much much earlier, the flames and uproar would have been slightly less

 

[sbdags]

Well we are still in beta, nothing is final, is it? So they might as well see what they are doing and backtrack before it's too late ...

A few years ago I made a definite point not to buy anything that needs an Internet connection and/or a remote server. If this means that I have to switch to Linux (half of my work is on Linux already) and Open Source apps, so be it. Games are no exception. I want control on what I buy. I want to be able to use it on my laptop while traveling, without paying €€€ for Internet connections and stuff. I also want to use the program as long as I want, without fear that they shut down their servers or start asking for a monthly fee for some "priority access" server (not saying this is the case, but we've seen it happen before).

Just my opinion of course, but I tend to vote with my wallet. It's the only way to make yourself heard these days. Unfortunately.

Zapp

I tend to agree (about subscriptions anyway) and have recently moved my business over to Linux as well (successfully I might add).

However, a PC without an internet connection is a severely limited and crippled piece of kit in 2014. Having an internet connection is pretty much a must these days. The world is changing and having that option will become more and more restrictive.

 

[OriginalBadBoy]

I do actually remember Liqua posting specifically on this topic yonks ago - something about being able to play on a laptop in travel situations -

I stay in a hotel 3 nights a week .. EVERY week ...

My gaming laptop does not play ED very well, and most sub £1000 wouldn't in all honesty... So the fact there is no offline mode is the least of my worries...

Am I bothered about this? Nope .. I play other games instead, and then play ED when I am home on my main rig ... In the end its my decision to be working away from home every week , that isnt FD's fault.

In that regard ED is 'fit for purpose' for me anyway .. The only people who realistically should be able to ask for a refund are those who literally cannot play the game without an offline mode.

 

[Flatpackhamster]

You haven't said why it is a must? Clearly it is not a must to FD or some backers on here so why do you think it is a must. I'm interested....

Because he slept on it for 2 nights. That overcomes any technical issues.

Maybe the FD team should sleep on it for 2 nights. Then they'd change their minds.

 

[beelbeebub]

I think you will find we was testers for the game,devs would normally have to pay ppl to do that.
But instead they got ppl to test the game while they bought it up front.They got us testers for free.
So it worked both ways free testers to find the bugs for them while we played the beta i might add of the game we paid up front for.

It was not the full version so we did not have access to a full game,yet they had access to our full cost of the game.
Also while they gained interest off the cash they made as well so it was win win for the devs.
win lose for us,(well the ppl who was promised offline mode anyway)

Yes we were free testers, but we went into this with our eyes open. We were paying for the experience of being beta testers, we knew that up front. Bear in mind we are amateur testers not professional ones. Paid testers have to play the game in specific ways and are much more useful to dev's than us somewhat inarticulate and random testers. How many beta testers decided not to play open because of PvP when FD would love to stress Open play testing more. How many decided not to play because trading was no longer profitable when FD wanted Missions testing? Sure we were good for large number stress testing but that's about it. We got to be beta testers, so contract fulfilled.

 

[alan]

Hasn't everybody been testing online for the last 12 months?

 

[Ydiss]

So for those of you who are saying that this change affects a small amount of people. This topic has had more replies in the last 24 hours and period then any other forum topic in the beta discussion. Considering most of the posts on this topic are against the removal of the offline mode it would seem that this affects more people then you think. Its also got enough attention that it has also been posted on various media site across the net.

It's still going only because of arguments.

It's not 200+ pages of feedback and I'd be surprised if the ratio of posts between "upset" and "not" was far from 50%, with the vast majority of the last 100 pages consisting of long - and mostly repetitive - discussion between a small, shifting, group of people.

I went to bed 6 hours ago and I've come back to see the same arguments happening with largely the same people, plus a few new ones.

It's a contentious event. It will affect a fair number of people but it's not the volume or proportion that had lead to this thread being so large.

It's the nature of the complaint. If it was that FD promised a ship and changed their minds, it would have died out long ago.

A post above nailed it. FD explained their decision. It won't change. They tried to work it in but it isn't practical. Those who feel they can no longer back the project have been directed to the refund link.

That's it. The vast majority of the thread has been arguments over definitions, semantics, FD's intent and the reality of game development, people not reading the 37 developer posts and being told what those posts said, People reading those posts and arguing that they're a lie, people claiming FD are money grabbing and deceitful and people arguing that they're not.

By mostly the same people. If it were a feedback only, no arguments allowed, post here if you are unhappy and want a refund thread, it'd be considerably shorter.

 

[Arkronis]

Yeah, pretty much everything in that newsletter was marketing speak rubbish for breaking promises.

"We'll have 30 ships, at some point" - But no 25 ships at launch
"Solo play needs to be online for all the dynamic-ness" - So no solo offline at all

I really wish devs would realise that marketing PR speak just makes people kill, it has never appeased anyone ever. Just come out and say we need to launch now, and to do that some corners have been cut but we will get round to offering everything we promised where applicable but X,Y & Z are gone for good because...

It's not hard, don't treat us like muppets and you don't lose the insane amount of goodwill you have had up until this point.

You do realise it wouldn't have made a difference right? PR spin or straight speak - the result from anyone's point of view of missing out on some feature that was proposed would have been exactly the same regardless.

 

[tagos]

A lot of the discontent comes from the quite reasonable fear that once the company closes the servers they cannot play the game. Frontier should make a firm commitment to keep a maintenance-mode server running for a specified number of years come what may. Or they should make a cast-iron commitment to provide an offline patch should they decide to close the servers.

 

[eeps]

I modified the post and deleted the poll I dont want to give wrong infos to the community.
But the fact that there is a significant amount of customers who are not happy with no offline mode is still there

oh no :\

 

[cpbtrading]

You haven't said why it is a must? Clearly it is not a must to FD or some backers on here so why do you think it is a must. I'm interested....

Possibly its because FD do not have a record of supporting MP games (as of now) and the fact its a public company i.e. once its not viable financially, they will stop support. Its only a guess but we'll need a SP offline mode should that happen, be it a year or two years down the road.

Not sure, but its what I'm thinking.. Maybe they could sort something out after release or nearer the time they think they may stop supporting the game and at that point, add in an offline mode.

Anyway, wait and see, all we can do.

 

[TrueFranco]

I am from Cuba and before migrate to United States a few years ago,I used to play Call of Duty with a 56k modem. I find hard to believe that there is any place in 2014 with internet access worst than Cuba.

 

[enbeekay]

On the subject of "broken promises and features removed"...
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but my memory isn't what it used to be in my old age...

Wasn't one of the features of E: D going to be the ability to play solo and then have the ability to switch to multiplayer, have some fun there and if you wanted afterwards to go back to playing solo?

If that is indeed the case and my memory is not going completely in my 30 years of age...
If FD implemented full offline solo then they would have to remove a different feature of being able to switch between solo and multiplayer.
Why?
Because of the changing/evolving galaxy.
Having different galaxies would make it impossible to switch between the two as there'd be no coherancy, consistency...somebody elses galaxy would be vastly different to another persons and it wouldn't be able to translate into a server online at all.
Then there would be the fact that offline would have a static market, you could find a trade route that paid out a lot of cash and stayed static so the market prices for that would not change therefore the solo offline players would have a major advantage over the evolving galaxy players.

If FD had decided to cut the ability to switch between solo and multiplayer, do you think nobody would care? I think a lot of people would be up in arms about that, maybe more than are on this current thread.

It isn't just take take take, it's give and take. Compromises have to be made in life, you can't have your cake and eat it. FD have created the evolving galaxy and that is what they have had to go with in the end as it is their vision for the game. Sacrificing one aspect so another may live...it makes sense to me.

*Disclaimer: I personally would indeed like a fully offline mode down the line so I can carry on playing what will probably be the last Elite till I'm on my deathbed. But it won't get me up in arms about it now because it's perfectly understandable.

 

[Kerrash]

I modified the post and deleted the poll I dont want to give wrong infos to the community.
But the fact that there is a significant amount of customers who are not happy with no offline mode is still there

Sorry, I wasn't trying to force you to change anything; merely pointing out that data can be interpreted many ways.

 

[Kicks]

Maybe the FD team should sleep on it for 2 nights. Then they'd change their minds.

Not necessarily. The backend servers are all Amazon AWS cloud-based. I am going to assume that as the galaxy got more intricate, the backend got more complex. I'm going to go ahead and assume that as they were doing this, there was an interface for the cloud, and an interface for offline. The code can be written in such a way that the client doesn't care if it's local or cloud. Stuff happens, it renders things.

Perhaps, as things got more interesting, they simply couldn't replicate offline anymore. It'd produce a different, dumbed-down, experience. Now, one could say "keep the offline dumbed down, as it is"... in a way that might have been possible at some point, but I believe it became more and more difficult to have 2 fundamentally different galaxies. And yes, that's two galaxies. So, they've decided to go with just the one Milky Way.

The above is all supposition and I really think that, come Monday, someone needs to clarify exactly why. Michael Brooks has been kind enough to shed some insight (on a weekend!), but I think to "fan the flames" a little, those who are affected by this decision deserve the chance to say "Oh, right. I *understand* why you made this decision", and then rightfully ask for a refund if they so wish. I don't believe the communication was well done. A friday newsletter, with it buried in a paragraph... not cool. It's the kind of thing that needs it's own newsletter. Tomorrow morning

 

[Lugalbandak]

On the subject of "broken promises and features removed"...
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but my memory isn't what it used to be in my old age...

Wasn't one of the features of E: D going to be the ability to play solo and then have the ability to switch to multiplayer, have some fun there and if you wanted afterwards to go back to playing solo?

If that is indeed the case and my memory is not going completely in my 30 years of age...
If FD implemented full offline solo then they would have to remove a different feature of being able to switch between solo and multiplayer.
Why?
Because of the changing/evolving galaxy.
Having different galaxies would make it impossible to switch between the two as there'd be no coherancy, consistency...somebody elses galaxy would be vastly different to another persons and it wouldn't be able to translate into a server online at all.
Then there would be the fact that offline would have a static market, you could find a trade route that paid out a lot of cash and stayed static so the market prices for that would not change therefore the solo offline players would have a major advantage over the evolving galaxy players.

If FD had decided to cut the ability to switch between solo and multiplayer, do you think nobody would care? I think a lot of people would be up in arms about that, maybe more than are on this current thread.

It isn't just take take take, it's give and take. Compromises have to be made in life, you can't have your cake and eat it. FD have created the evolving galaxy and that is what they have had to go with in the end as it is their vision for the game. Sacrificing one aspect so another may live...it makes sense to me.

*Disclaimer: I personally would indeed like a fully offline mode down the line so I can carry on playing what will probably be the last Elite till I'm on my deathbed. But it won't get me up in arms about it now because it's perfectly understandable.

this would be not fair for the open all players , the guy gall who play it as a multiplayer game , thats wy i vote to remove solo as well , only keep groups , want solo , make a group on your own.