No Single Player offline Mode then?

[Zieman]

Do people realise they may add this after release?

Based on mr Brookes' comments, that ain't gonna happen.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

There's no rational reason that the same code can't be used for both modes, though.

Either the initial design didn't take offline mode into account (and we were thus falsely told it did), or the current code can handle offline mode, but there are other reasons for it being scrapped.

Yeah.

Better to release a feature-freezed offline version after E: D 1.0 launch, with randomised Galaxy secrets and diminishing possibility of star systems having a dockable in them, starting at 5% at the edge of human-controlled space.

Would delay first expansion maybe a week or month?
Then, as time goes by the offline version might get a patch or two per year if game stability or game engine technical advacements warrant it.

 

[paralipsis]

This would make sense (about the razor) only if they promised to make the off-line mode later mode. They ditched it completely. Now and in the future.

I'm not sure that does. What do they do if they ship a DRM-free version long after release day? Do they press thousands of new discs and ship them around the world to all the people who backed the kickstarter for a DRM-free boxed copy? Dumping it now, and for the foreseeable future means they get to ship the final version out the door in time, without having to backtrack and do another worldwide mailout a few months later on their own dime.

When big features get cut, just look to time and money issues. They are simple and more than likely true. While it's also not exactly the reason we've been told, so it's a tad conspiratorial in that regard, it's not a massive stretch.

 

[mbpoblet]

Sooooo... how many games have you coded in your lifetime?

None, as I said.

Hence, since I can come up in an afternoon with a design that apparently would work (please tell me why it wouldn't), Frontier's people definitely could come up with much better and more optimized designs, and yet they claim they didn't, which is absurd.

That's the whole point, basically.

 

[Globusdiablo]

I've also ticketed, requesting a full refund. Did it Sunday. I've got a confirmation mail, but nothing further.

At: https://store.zaonce.net/cancellations-returns/

 

[paralipsis]

There's no rational reason that the same code can't be used for both modes, though.

Either the initial design didn't take offline mode into account (and we were thus falsely told it did), or the current code can handle offline mode, but there are other reasons for it being scrapped.

Or they've just let the server code develop along a different path, and planned to add the offline component right at the end, only they ran out of time and money to do so. They had to launch in order to get some more revenue coming in to continue development, and so offline mode gets cut so we can be told that what players are getting in December is the complete game. Despite lacking what they promised, nobody's sitting there going "I'll wait for offline mode". Instead they are making do with what they get (or are like me and seeking a refund).

 

[-o-]

TL;DR: Brookes' excuses don't hold water; they make no sense; by any rational analysis, we are for some unknown reason (which I'd like to know) being given false information.

Which, frankly, sucks.

We don't really know what the true design of this online game was built around. All we know is what the 'publically releasd' version is.

For all we know they may be have designed it based on Kate Russell's advice ....

"What I really want to do is popularise the term ‘cloud’, which has been rather hijacked by enterprise software vendors – it really means using storage or accessing information on the web. The book is all about how businesses and entrepreneurs can use the internet to their advantage."

 

[Vandaahl]

we are for some unknown reason (which I'd like to know) being given false information.

Yes, its all teh consrp... conpsri... constipa...
Dang illuminaties, wheres my tin foil hat.

 

[mbpoblet]

Or they've just let the server code develop along a different path, and planned to add the offline component right at the end, only they ran out of time and money to do so. They had to launch in order to get some more revenue coming in to continue development, and so offline mode gets cut so we can be told that what players are getting in December is the complete game. Despite lacking what they promised, nobody's sitting there going "I'll wait for offline mode". Instead they are making do with what they get (or are like me and seeking a refund).

That's applying Hanlon's razor, yes.

I find it very hard to believe they'd be that incompetent and unprofessional, though (granted, this is the infamous gaming industry, so you might have a point, after all).

 

[light487]

You're not wrong about the theory of procedural generated galaxy would not require a server farm to manage.. it could, even with emergent AI, easily run on a modern PC. There are games created already and others in development right now, which can or will do that.

The problem is that FD painted themselves into a developmental corner by focusing so heavily on the multiplayer interactions both in terms of design and programming that they are now feature-locked into a game without offline as it would require heavy rewriting of the backend/inner-workings of the game and redesigning how things work basically. They are in this predicament largely through tunnel vision and secondarily through enforcing a release deadline rather than pushing the game out like every other independent game studio, which has had full or partial crowd sourcing, has done in the name of creating the best experience for all backers and delivering on the basic promises and features that they started out with.

For some odd reason FD has decided to adopt a (self)publisher model and do the very same things to themselves that a publisher would have done.. it's like they are still living in a bubble that hasn't burst on account of now being free of a publisher.. but wait.. there was that IPO wasn't there... they have proper investors now.. shareholders.. so.. not much different to a publisher really.

The unfortunate truth is that the "excuses" do hold water and it is unfortunate because they brought it on themselves.

 

[wolverine2710]

Do people realise they may add this after release?

An official statement by FD would be nice but so far it seems they hope the issue will go away by itself.

But here could be hope. Maxis of SimCity after 10 months added an offline mode to SimCity. First they stated that would be (near) impossible, later it turned out to be possible and they spun it like ´exited to release an offline mode´. For more details see this page or just google maxis simcity offline mode. They were crucified in the press for the alway-on-DRM on release and perhaps the sales motivated or lack thereoff motivated them to create what was advertized: offline mode. I´ve not delved deep into this but things can change in the games world.

 

[Severian]

None, as I said.

Hence, since I can come up in an afternoon with a design that apparently would work (please tell me why it wouldn't), Frontier's people definitely could come up with much better and more optimized designs, and yet they claim they didn't, which is absurd.

That's the whole point, basically.

This thread, it is full of this.

 

[mbpoblet]

You're not wrong about the theory of procedural generated galaxy would not require a server farm to manage.. it could, even with emergent AI, easily run on a modern PC. There are games created already and others in development right now, which can or will do that.

The problem is that FD painted themselves into a developmental corner by focusing so heavily on the multiplayer interactions both in terms of design and programming that they are now feature-locked into a game without offline as it would require heavy rewriting of the backend/inner-workings of the game and redesigning how things work basically. They are in this predicament largely through tunnel vision and secondarily through enforcing a release deadline rather than pushing the game out like every other independent game studio, which has had full or partial crowd sourcing, has done in the name of creating the best experience for all backers and delivering on the basic promises and features that they started out with.

For some odd reason FD has decided to adopt a (self)publisher model and do the very same things to themselves that a publisher would have done.. it's like they are still living in a bubble that hasn't burst on account of now being free of a publisher.. but wait.. there was that IPO wasn't there... they have proper investors now.. shareholders.. so.. not much different to a publisher really.

The unfortunate truth is that the "excuses" do hold water and it is unfortunate because they brought it on themselves.

So what you're saying is that I'm overestimating their competence.

As I said, I find it hard to believe, but I must admit it's a possibility.

 

[Diziet Sma]

I agree, they really need to communicate some information on this.
I'd expect nothing less than them sorting this out today.

So how do you feel now that they haven't "sorted this out today"?

 

[fullerm]

This thread is getting a bit heat, and I understand the view point of people who are not happy.
I only pledge £200 at the alpha staged when I discovered The new elite ambitions.

I am a lover of elite. The deciding factor to purchase the game was because of the fact that I could play offline.
An always online game model is not financially viable IMHO. Additionally when you buy an always online game you really have only purchased rental access to the server. Without the access to the server the game a computerised paper weight.
I live in Australia and a mere 8 kilometres from my states capital city centre point, and I have the crappest internet. I cannot even get ADSL2+. My neighbours across the road cannot get any ADSL (thanks to our telecommunications monopoly). As a result of my internet connection I wait no less than 100 seconds to come out of super cruise ... every time..

Moving forward and in a more positive note, rather than asking for refunds and distracting resources from the impending launch why don't we focus on win-win outcomes.
I'm suggesting we lobbying for an off-line version to be put back in to production ... Not at launch but say within 1-3 months, with x features, without y features with the plan for y features to be implemented with another 3. Months. Also suggest the game has a check for updates option to connect to update the game with new stories, functionality etc.
Do you see this as an achievable outcome? What features would you want and what could you do without at initial implementation?

This is a just my option an those that disagree can shoot me down inflames as you please. Or target my main engines when you see in galaxy, because I won't be able to shoot back in time because of my crappy internet connect....
[replace the words 'crap' with profanity of your choice]

 

[-o-]

Are you proud of this gamergater style attempt at terrorism and propaganda then? Some people here seem bizarrely gleeful and spiteful about any trouble being stirred up. You will gain nothing from this, but sour things for a lot of people, and maybe poison the happy and productive atmosphere at FD.

You must be very proud

The irony is that comment would make complete sense if it was targetted at whoever was responsible for this event in the first place.

 

[eeps]

I've said this a few hundred pages back, but again I'd be interested on the current viewers opinions (and dicemanns of course, he is after all FD's mouthpiece)

Offline Mode was functional in Beta 2.0x

So why cant this be boxed and sold to the offliners?

There was a whole list of things FD wanted to include in the game that required it to be online-only .. so how come offline mode worked before? (and it contained a rich enough, although not dynamic universe already)

 

[Globusdiablo]

GameTrailers have picked it up in their latest video. That's pretty big, especially for a US site. http://youtu.be/GderSUzPYPo

At 1:20.

 

[stimutacs]

The irony is that comment would make complete sense if it was targetted at whoever was responsible for this event in the first place.

You can tell this is a watertight analogy by the way kokatu seems to be by far the most FD sympathetic outlet so far, and the way FD's fans are complaining about femin^H^H^H^H^Hethics in games journalism (*cough*). But those guys who want refunds - oh right - they're exactly like the jerk gators.

 

[Waldi]

quote Elite: Dangerous Newsletter #49 - From Frontier Developments
Galaxy, story, missions, have to match, and it does mean the single player has to connect to the server from time to time, but this has the added advantage that everyone can participate in the activities that can happen in the galaxy.

Just wondering if there is any idea about how often this would be once a month or once every 2 months?

 

[Andrew_C]

Or they've just let the server code develop along a different path, and planned to add the offline component right at the end, only they ran out of time and money to do so. They had to launch in order to get some more revenue coming in to continue development, and so offline mode gets cut so we can be told that what players are getting in December is the complete game. Despite lacking what they promised, nobody's sitting there going "I'll wait for offline mode". Instead they are making do with what they get (or are like me and seeking a refund).

Conspiracy theories are fun, and encouraged by Frontier Development's terrible PR skills, but really, this is the most likely scenario.