No Single Player offline Mode then?

[Juniper]

But you don't know that for sure......Your assuming they lied....Their version sounds more plausible if you really think about it

Actually, I don't think they deliberately lied (apart from the "from time to time" wording in the newsletter which is blatantly & demonstrably false).

But they have known about this for a long time (please, I'm an experienced software dev, I know how these things go), and a lie of omission is still a lie.

As to whether they lied during the KS to get people's money & they had no intention of delivering offline mode, that's another question. I'm more inclined to believe that to be a serious error in judgement.

 

[Silanda]

No, sorry, you can't compare this. Planetary landing is one of the ultimate goal of DB, he stated this multiple times. Offline-mode was only a desired feature but not a main goal.

The Kickstarter FAQ stated: "However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server."

That is an unambiguous assurance that they have gone back on.

 

[Vlodec]

Surely they are entitled to put their opinions here as much as anyone. Their job is to uphold the rules of the forum, not be faceless yes men.

A faceless yes man wouldn't be seen as impartial. And I note that other mods have kept well out of it, very sensibly in my view.

But I'll leave the last word to others.

 

[psykokow]

*sigh*, no they're not "lesser", they are however meant to be impartial, and just as importantly, meant to be seen as impartial. This becomes difficult the more they contribute to a thread, especially one as emotionally filled as this one.

I totally agree with you, But it is very difficult because I am a backer, and I do have opinions, and I am disappointed...

 

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

No, sorry, you can't compare this. Planetary landing is one of the ultimate goal of DB, he stated this multiple times. Offline-mode was only a desired feature but not a main goal.

It's like the discussion about real newtonian flight mode vs the more atmoshperic flight mode we have now. Of couse FD have looked at both modes and simply came to the conclusion that the current flight mode is simply much more fun and i fully agree.
Same with the offline-mode. It was desired but not feasible at the end. I would have liked it too and i also would have like a better communication.
But i don't see it as a reason to accuse FD of being dishonest. I think people here in this thread are going to quickly into wrong conclusions.

As so many people defending this decision have said : "Things are subject to change", remember these words well. Because if offline gets canned, there's a very distinct chance other features may well get sacrificed. At this point the problem is trust, this was slipped in as a single line in a newsletter, and the communications have been utterly terrible. If the launch is Simcity-esque, I won't be happy.

 

[Juniper]

It says there that the intended single player is to be connected and only POSSIBLE to be able to play offline and they were to be investigating. In other words, there is nothing there that is a promise that you can play offline. Those that claimed that they only backed because of offline play simply gambled and lost. Not FDs fault.

However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server.

Only sentence you need. The "investigating" part is about what updates you would receive from the online galaxy server. They would investigate making it more dynamic than static (but static would have been fine).

Entirely FD's fault that this apparently cannot be done, sorry. Their code, their design, their fault.

 

[Silanda]

It says there that the intended single player is to be connected and only POSSIBLE to be able to play offline and they were to be investigating. In other words, there is nothing there that is a promise that you can play offline. Those that claimed that they only backed because of offline play simply gambled and lost. Not FDs fault.

I don't want to be rude but is English your first language? "It will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server" is unambiguous.

 

[beelbeebub]

Thunderbird installs on your system, has no authentication check, and is system agnostic. It's an email client. If you do not need an email client why would you install it? If you need an email client then it's a DRM free email client, and if you have your own server, then guess what? You have the option to set zero authentication (Granted that would be a REAL security risk) but if you wanted to, you COULD. That's still a terrible example.

Tweetdeck requires a twitter account which is free, again, no DRM on the software client and you can install it locally (but again, if you don't use twitter, why would you).

Those are DRM free software, they're used for accessing internet based API's, but it's important to note that the applications themselves are in and of themselves entirely functional without the internet, you could still access your offline mail with Thunderbird if you were disconnected from the internet. And if there was offline twitter storage, you could do the same with tweet deck. Therein lies the fundamental difference, no internet connection means no Elite Dangerous *At all*, tutorials excepted, which are not the game.

I think we may be talking at cross purposes, you sort of confirmed what i was saying. A piece of software can be DRM free, as thunderbird is, yet not function as intended without a connection to an online service.
-
Tweetdeck (as you say) just Doesn't make sense without an online connection to an account, but the client is still drm free, it just doesn't work offline.
-
"doesn't work offline" is not the same as DRM.
-
Fd could provide a drm free ED client that loaded, allowed access to the tutorials but the online play options (i.e all of them) would be greyed out until you logged in. That would be drm free even though the galaxy didn't work offline

 

[Unfluffydave]

The Kickstarter FAQ stated: "However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server."

That is an unambiguous assurance that they have gone back on.

Quote the full line to give proper context, in the same section of the faq, the same answer even they say that the intended way of playing solo was online.

The operative word there is not WILL but POSSIBLE. To be unambiguous it would say "However you will be able to play single player without connecting to the galaxy server".

 

[Juniper]

I totally agree with you, But it is very difficult because I am a backer, and I do have opinions, and I am disappointed...

Respects for that.

One of your fellow moderators recently confessed that he felt hampered by the blue highlight and avatar next to his name, because he felt he had to be "above" everything and he wasn't allowed to express his opinions like everyone else.

Say what you mean, mate. You're a volunteer, and a backer. Not an employee of Frontier.

 

[Silanda]

Quote the full line to give proper context, in the same section of the faq, the same answer even they say that the intended way of playing solo was online.

The operative word there is not WILL but POSSIBLE. To be unambiguous it would say "However you will be able to play single player without connecting to the galaxy server".

"It will be possible to" means "you will be able to" in this context. I ask again, is English your first language?

EDIT: Sorry if I seem rude here but I can think of no other explanation for anyone finding that statement to be anything other than clear.

 

[Juniper]

Quote the full line to give proper context, in the same section of the faq, the same answer even they say that the intended way of playing solo was online.

The operative word there is not WILL but POSSIBLE. To be unambiguous it would say "However you will be able to play single player without connecting to the galaxy server".

"It will be possible..." is pretty unambiguous, sorry.

They didn't say "We hope it will be possible", they said "It will".

There's really no cause for confusion there.

Edit: To clarify - the Update! line was a direct result of questions asked about an offline mode during the Kickstarter, on which several high value pledges were based. That's why Frontier clarified it. The original FAQ was that solo online would be the way to play solo.

 

[Greyshadow]

Honesty no one here ever looks at the big picture.

With this games current networking model they could never get away with a monthly subscription. They would have to redo the whole online aspect for this to work. Even micro transactions is a stretch.

No open play grouping

Limited amount of players to connect at a time - This is due to the p2p model they are using

Item or credit trade with players

And several others - Where are these features and why have we not tested them yet.

Also you guys do not see the big picture for why offline mode was take out. its not because they can't do it. Its because they have no intention to fully finish the game by launch. Offline mode would mean the game would have to be finished. All the systems in, all the ships, missions ect because it would have to be available to those who cannot play online. No instead they plan to release the game as (with the exception of what every they do manage to add between now and December) meaning the finished content would need to be downloaded later through patches which would be a hassle for those with no internet connection.

I have said this many times and I will say it again. We are more then likely not going to get a "finished" product on launch there is no time. We will probably not get the content we were promised because deadlines are apparently more important.

I can understand why publishers did not want to pick up this title. Its way to ambitious for the amount of time they wanted it done in. This forum is a result of just one feature being pulled. Whats going to happen when the rest of the promised content is not delivered or is delivered 6 months down the road?

 

[Dave Leestir]

In case nobody responded to this already, it has been pointed out by more than one card-carrying DDF member that the DDF was -not- consulted on this particular matter.
If it's old news, never mind and carry on - I'm slowly catching up on the discussion.

-Toddler

Perhaps this is one group which would not need to be assessed on a case by case basis for refunds.

DDF surely should have been let in on the challenges of delivering the offline version - or at least involved when deciding the design to support it (or not, as it turns out).
Maybe they should be pre-emptively refunded for this failure to include them in such an important and impactful area.
(just a refund as compensation for not getting their DDF benefits, but still allowed to remain on board and to play etc.)

 

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

I think we may be talking at cross purposes, you sort of confirmed what i was saying. A piece of software can be DRM free, as thunderbird is, yet not function as intended without a connection to an online service.
-
Tweetdeck (as you say) just Doesn't make sense without an online connection to an account, but the client is still drm free, it just doesn't work offline.
-
"doesn't work offline" is not the same as DRM.
-
Fd could provide a drm free ED client that loaded, allowed access to the tutorials but the online play options (i.e all of them) would be greyed out until you logged in. That would be drm free even though the galaxy didn't work offline

No, there's no cross purpose, you're attempting to make a false comparison. An email client is specifically designed to access a remote server, you can in theory point it to a corporate intranet as well and that would work just as efficiently. A twitter client is specifically designed to access the twitter API and therefore is bound up to the twitter service which is an internet based application. These are intrinsically internet (or corporate intranet) in nature.

Whereas Elite Dangerous is fundamentally non functional without authentication and validation from the Frontier network servers, you don't get to choose that, you're not offered a choice either in how you access, whereas if you have issues with tweetdeck or thunderbird, you can always pick another client that works with the relevant API's.

To be clear, you will not be able to modify the client without breaking the EULA and risking an account ban, you will not be able to cheat in singleplayer mode, you will be affected by other players regardless of your chosen mode, the Elite Dangerous client as of now is no different than the client used for say MMO's, and therefore acts as always on DRM.

 

[Dave Leestir]

Honesty no one here ever looks at the big picture.

With this games current networking model they could never get away with a monthly subscription. They would have to redo the whole online aspect for this to work. Even micro transactions is a stretch.

No open play grouping

Limited amount of players to connect at a time - This is due to the p2p model they are using

Item or credit trade with players

And several others - Where are these features and why have we not tested them yet.

Also you guys do not see the big picture for why offline mode was take out. its not because they can't do it. Its because they have no intention to fully finish the game by launch. Offline mode would mean the game would have to be finished. All the systems in, all the ships, missions ect because it would have to be available to those who cannot play online. No instead they plan to release the game as (with the exception of what every they do manage to add between now and December) meaning the finished content would need to be downloaded later through patches which would be a hassle for those with no internet connection.

I have said this many times and I will say it again. We are more then likely not going to get a "finished" product on launch there is no time. We will probably not get the content we were promised because deadlines are apparently more important.

I can understand why publishers did not want to pick up this title. Its way to ambitious for the amount of time they wanted it done in. This forum is a result of just one feature being pulled. Whats going to happen when the rest of the promised content is not delivered or is delivered 6 months down the road?

That is possibly true... but why do they flat out refuse to commit to releasing an offline version later? That would suggest that online will never be finished enough to offline it.

 

[Juniper]

Perhaps this is one group which would not need to be assessed on a case by case basis for refunds.

DDF surely should have been let in on the challenges of delivering the offline version - or at least involved when deciding the design to support it (or not, as it turns out).
Maybe they should be pre-emptively refunded for this failure to include them in such an important and impactful area.
(just a refund as compensation for not getting their DDF benefits, but still allowed to remain on board and to play etc.)

As a DDF member, even I'd say that's a stretch. The DDF didn't get involved in architectural issues surrounding code (their reasons for offline apparently being too complicated / time consuming). We were mostly used as sounding boards for their game design ideas, to see what we thought of theirs or if we could think of a better way to do something. The Supercruise system came directly out of that. Apart from that one thing, most things passed straight through and Frontier did what they originally planned with only a few modifications.

Sizeable chunks of it have yet to even see the light of day in the game... doubtful if they ever will.

That said, we should certainly have been informed long before Friday that offline was in jeopardy. Not just the DDF, but every backer & customer. The DDF is full of very clever people, and some of them may have been able to help out, but who knows. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

And on that, I'm off to bed.

 

[cfs3corsair]

In this sad situation, there is only one thing that the consumer can do: hold hands and sing "Kum ba ya"

 

[adoredtv]

*sigh*, no they're not "lesser", they are however meant to be impartial, and just as importantly, meant to be seen as impartial. This becomes difficult the more they contribute to a thread, especially one as emotionally filled as this one.

The only "group" that has conducted themselves with any class and dignity in this whole affair has been the forum mods, imo.

 

[cerberuss]

I had to register, just to respond. I backed this game a long time ago. This is so unfortunate, so disappointing. In today's day and age there should be no reason not to be able to produce a good quality stand alone game. Any yet, always online if forced on us at every turn, and always with the same result.

30 years ago they made it work with the limitations they had, because they wanted it to work.