I don't believe they will do what I would want, which was a more static universe offline - basically what was discussed up until Friday, so I didn't re-suggest something they've already said no to as far as I can see. Whether they eventually release the server code, bring in subscriptions or donations to keep it going, whatever, it's up to them and I don't feel there's anything I can do now to alter that.
No Single Player offline Mode then?
- Thread starter Brandon31
- Start date
- Status
I don't believe they will do what I would want, which was a more static universe offline - basically what was discussed up until Friday, so I didn't re-suggest something they've already said no to as far as I can see. Whether they eventually release the server code, bring in subscriptions or donations to keep it going, whatever, it's up to them and I don't feel there's anything I can do now to alter that.
Ah ok, I slowly getting the difference between "lie" or "fraud" and "bad PR".
If I take some $150 from you for a product and don't deliver the product it is a "lie".
If I take the money and at that point think I can deliver the product it is "bad PR", right?
Sorry, but feels a bit strange to my sense of honour...
I don't claim FD has deliberately lied to us, but I also doubt pretty much an offline version is not possible. It may be a bit more work and yes, as stated in the kickstarter FAQ it will not be possible to "sync" the offline galaxy etc., yet this is what they said from the start, so nobody should complain if offline means, truly seperate from online... I guess even most people won't care or even want that.
However you call the current situation, it is doing no good to FD and the teams reputation, and that should concern all of us.
If a professional journalist from Gamestar (one of germany's larger and well known Gaming Magazines) is chiming in to ask for interviews, what do you think will that forebode for the review?
I would really like to see FD joining this debate and try to find a good compromise.
By the way, how about you get a notice that major changes to the Galaxy/new quests/ etc. have been stored on the servers and you might want to "update" if convenient. Once or twice in a month shouldn't be much of a problem.
I could live with such a compromise. What I don't like is to be "connected" for every little "Trade transaction", buying a ship, outfitting a ship, jumping into another system or switching between supercruise and normal flying. Currently at any of these points if you lost server connection, it causes trouble or limits your game experience...
Michael Brookes
Game Director
The decision was made so that we could focus on getting the game done and to match what we desired from the game - so of course we're continuing with work.
Michael
If you go to the forum listing, you can see a little Frontier logo in the threads row? Click that. It'll take youto his first post in that thread. Then, simply click the Frontier logo IN each post at the top right and it'll take you through all staff postings.
Cool! Looking forward to the next newsletter that hides something else a lot of us wanted being hidden in marketing speak!
(ahhh I kid... Goodnight, sir. Hope you're getting paid enough to be the whipping boy pushed out into this forum every now and then. Thank you for the game we have so far. I hope it turns into the actual game you promised. I hope you understand why I don't trust you any more. Nothing personal.)
Well one way would be to take a USB stick, have patches available on the FD support section, goto a pc that does have internet, download, and install back home. Its not like that ever happened before.
As said earlier i personally trust those that have the bravery to tell us all about something like this in a newsletter a few weeks away from release and according to them as soon as the decision was the only choice left to them. They could have waited till the 16th, they could have announced it in a different way or even made offline mode just a few combat missions etc.
To suggest that you cannot trust someone for taking a -in my opinion- brave action and this close to release is more a sign to trust in their honesty and certainly not worthy of some of the nasty comments thrown at them.
In Drew's review of the offline situation, which Mr Braben's tweet supported, he quotes KS;
"When you back a project, you’re helping to create something new — not ordering something that already exists. There’s a chance something could happen that prevents the creator from being able to finish the project as promised."
He then concludes .. "So, I can’t see a refund route here. If you are a Kickstarter/Paypal backer this is the risk you took when you signed up. If you didn’t understand the risk, that is your concern."
However he knowingly omits to mention the full story because his KS quote was sourced from this KS FAQ paragraph.
The full paragraph reads ...
"When a project is successfully funded, the creator is responsible for completing the project and fulfilling each reward. Their fundamental obligation to backers is to finish all the work that was promised. Once a creator has done so, they’ve fulfilled their obligation to their backers. At the same time, backers must understand that Kickstarter is not a store. When you back a project, you’re helping to create something new — not ordering something that already exists. There’s a chance something could happen that prevents the creator from being able to finish the project as promised. If a creator is absolutely unable to complete the project and fulfill rewards, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to a satisfying conclusion for their backers."
The red section Drew quoted was favourable to FD's case.
The remaing blue section, was not.
You can draw your own conclusions to determine if Drew's assessment of the 'refund route' was fair, or cherry picked.
Unsurprising Mr Braben considered it a "nice piece".
"When you back a project, you’re helping to create something new — not ordering something that already exists. There’s a chance something could happen that prevents the creator from being able to finish the project as promised."
He then concludes .. "So, I can’t see a refund route here. If you are a Kickstarter/Paypal backer this is the risk you took when you signed up. If you didn’t understand the risk, that is your concern."
However he knowingly omits to mention the full story because his KS quote was sourced from this KS FAQ paragraph.
The full paragraph reads ...
"When a project is successfully funded, the creator is responsible for completing the project and fulfilling each reward. Their fundamental obligation to backers is to finish all the work that was promised. Once a creator has done so, they’ve fulfilled their obligation to their backers. At the same time, backers must understand that Kickstarter is not a store. When you back a project, you’re helping to create something new — not ordering something that already exists. There’s a chance something could happen that prevents the creator from being able to finish the project as promised. If a creator is absolutely unable to complete the project and fulfill rewards, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to a satisfying conclusion for their backers."
The red section Drew quoted was favourable to FD's case.
The remaing blue section, was not.
You can draw your own conclusions to determine if Drew's assessment of the 'refund route' was fair, or cherry picked.
Unsurprising Mr Braben considered it a "nice piece".
Nothing. Journalists are interested in controversy, but not in how this change game. They will review game as it is. They will mention in reviews to inform people, but that's about it.
Hello Tiamat
A good post and one which I agree with to some extent. Us 'mere forumers' simply do not know all the facts regarding development of the game. We don't know everything about what data the servers are processing and the associated challenges. We can only speculate on what vague comments are made by FD (as in the latest news letter). However, saying that, the single player off line version of the game WAS the version I was most looking forward to. And now it appears that I won't get it. Which is a shame.
A good post and one which I agree with to some extent. Us 'mere forumers' simply do not know all the facts regarding development of the game. We don't know everything about what data the servers are processing and the associated challenges. We can only speculate on what vague comments are made by FD (as in the latest news letter). However, saying that, the single player off line version of the game WAS the version I was most looking forward to. And now it appears that I won't get it. Which is a shame.
From your list of examples, Kickstarter, payments, ED launcher, downloading the game, and Frontier forums are all tolerant of spotty / slow Internet connectivity, and don't rely on a persistent connection.
I've played since premium beta, and have experienced (and ticketed) many crashes in networked play, whether that's been in open play, private group, or solo. I wasn't able to play at all between beta 3.00 and 3.03 because of the MTU sizing code Frontier added - it drove my machine to use 100% CPU and I wasn't able to even start the game. People have experienced problems when buying ships or trading commodities due to a server timeout (and in the case of buying ships, lost a lot of in-game money because of it). Many people have been posting about and ticketing these issues.
It's not just about having an internet connection - an always-online mode requires Frontier's servers to be available, and in open play, your own frame rate seems to be dictated by the network quality of the other people in your instance. If someone else has a slow network connection and you're in the same region of space, your frame rate suffers. (Most commonly seen around space stations with 10 or more human players)
I understand why the decision was made and that you guys have work to do, but some in this thread have said that some official word/explanation/apology may go some way to prevent them asking for refunds, and help rebuild a little bit of lost faith. Whether or not you guys consider that 'a worthy enough reeson'' is of course up to you.
Last edited:
At work I send out bad news last thing Friday all the time. I just hadn't appreciated what a hero I am until now.
Ha ha, yes... funnily enough it's the "blue section" that I've been quoting in various threads... absolutely agree with you!
"Their fundamental obligation to backers is to finish all the work that was promised"
Last edited:
Back in the day we did without the patches.
And the expansions came on a separate disk.
So I guess they were going to install from the DRM free hard copy and play the game.
Totally understand, but could FD at least examine the possibility of on offline version after ED's release and before planetary landing extension?
What constant online means is they can control what's available to the players in terms of content, DLC, micro transactions, skins, DRM.
that is a concern many people have because the big companies did not treat the PC players well but i do not think FD di this just to take over the control.
an offline Economy in an offline world would not be the big problem from what i understand the problem is to transfer the online game that is release ready to an offline version of itself.
that is a concern many people have because the big companies did not treat the PC players well but i do not think FD di this just to take over the control.
an offline Economy in an offline world would not be the big problem from what i understand the problem is to transfer the online game that is release ready to an offline version of itself.
- Status