or an even worse DRM like always-on DRM?
No Single Player offline Mode then?
- Thread starter Brandon31
- Start date
- Status
or an even worse DRM like always-on DRM?
Yep. Shouldn't need explaining, but there you are
The amount of defending the indefensible in this thread is astonishing.
If that is worry, why not argue for us get refunds and settle the issue? That is all we want at this point.
On the subject of making an archived snapshot of the servers if they ever take them off line. That tells me that an offline version is completely possible, yes it would not be as dynamic but they told us that right at the start of the kick-starter so no one expected it to be.
A couple of other points, why would David’s word on them archiving the server and making it available off-line if they ever shut there servers down be good enough? We previously had his word on the off-line mode and it turned out to be an empty promise. He has shown that his word is very definitely not his bond.
Secondly it makes it very clear the main reason for not providing an off line mode is that they fear the information it would make available would enable people to cheat at the online game. None of this rubbish about it not being dynamic enough which we knew it wouldn’t be from the start.
Elite Dangerous does not have an off-line mode for commercial reasons the on-line game is where the up selling opportunity is.
Anyway to quote Kosh; “The avalanche has started, and it’s too late for the pebbles to vote”, as David has made very clear to us on how important it would be to add an off-line mode later e.g. not at all.
A couple of other points, why would David’s word on them archiving the server and making it available off-line if they ever shut there servers down be good enough? We previously had his word on the off-line mode and it turned out to be an empty promise. He has shown that his word is very definitely not his bond.
Secondly it makes it very clear the main reason for not providing an off line mode is that they fear the information it would make available would enable people to cheat at the online game. None of this rubbish about it not being dynamic enough which we knew it wouldn’t be from the start.
Elite Dangerous does not have an off-line mode for commercial reasons the on-line game is where the up selling opportunity is.
Anyway to quote Kosh; “The avalanche has started, and it’s too late for the pebbles to vote”, as David has made very clear to us on how important it would be to add an off-line mode later e.g. not at all.
I wrote a bit of an explanation on why I find it hard to believe, and why I think a dynamic evolving procedurally generated offline galaxy is quite achievable.
My reasoning is quite possibly flawed, but feel free to take a look, if you want.
I was going to chat back but tbh, sod it - 10 pages since I last wrote something about an hour ago - lol. Coherent discussion is pointless
In a nutshell I'd need further breakdown of what you mean in the 1st few sentences as it doesn't make too much sense. Leave it though mate
If you truly care that much, all the more reason for you to help get FD to correct their massive mistake. Defending them helps no one. I can assure you that pettiness has nothing to do with people raging aginst FD for going back on the game experience they promised.
No it doesn't.
It means that before a wipe there would be a snapshot. You still would need a server, the client wouldn't suddenly become self supporting...
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
They added a "Physical DRM-free boxed set" and *specifically* added the following qualification:
If the intention was to allow people to duplicate the disc or distribute the installation package online freely with no restriction on playing the game after installation, the qualifying text would not have been included.
Is that not a ransom? Is that not what I have been saying all along?
wow ... approaching 600 pages ... maybe more by the time i finish typing this message
Anyways, to my point.
I'm a Premium Beta backer, I paid £100 to support DB and the team to build the game they wanted to build with a hope and a trust that I would enjoy the journey and the end product and I truely believe that trust was not mis-placed.
Over the past 6 months or so I have had an absolute ball, trading, exploring, fighting, crashing and I can safely say that even if it all ended now and that's all I was to get I would still consider it money well spent for the entertainment value alone.
Sometimes I just fly around a binary star system or through an asteroid field and giggle with delight at the awesome visuals, again, money well spent regardless.
Ofcourse it would be great if all elements of the game were able to be kept and yes I'd like to see a totally offline version as well but if it's not going to happen I'll certainly not be asking or expecting any sort of refund, as stated above I've easily had £100 worth of entertainment already, more infact.
Just a few thoughts ...
Anyways, to my point.
I'm a Premium Beta backer, I paid £100 to support DB and the team to build the game they wanted to build with a hope and a trust that I would enjoy the journey and the end product and I truely believe that trust was not mis-placed.
Over the past 6 months or so I have had an absolute ball, trading, exploring, fighting, crashing and I can safely say that even if it all ended now and that's all I was to get I would still consider it money well spent for the entertainment value alone.
Sometimes I just fly around a binary star system or through an asteroid field and giggle with delight at the awesome visuals, again, money well spent regardless.
Ofcourse it would be great if all elements of the game were able to be kept and yes I'd like to see a totally offline version as well but if it's not going to happen I'll certainly not be asking or expecting any sort of refund, as stated above I've easily had £100 worth of entertainment already, more infact.
Just a few thoughts ...
These things are easily balanced out. Evolving yes, but you would be the one influencing the evolving - nobody else. The net effect of a single trade in offline could be set far greater than online where there are more people, and a single transaction would have less effect. It's all just numbers multiplied by other numbers. The key is in what numbers you use.
There is also plans (yes, even in online) for the galaxy to have events seeded into it that have a rippling effect. These could be replicated in offline, or not... depending on what they wanted to do.
But personally, I would have settled for the different numbers only in the first instance. That's basically what we were promised.
i think the boxes were added sometime around 20/21 NOV, that's what made me back it on the 22, i'd been hesitant up until then, however single player still hadn't been clearly addressed or added by that date if my memory serves me correctly
I just spit coffee all over my desk regarding your color comment.........
Thanks for the laugh,,,,
+1 and some rep for you!!!!!
Sorry you feel that way.
From what i can see is that in Offine you would be getting a Flat, Static, Insipid non changing galaxy. Far from the Dynamic one envisioned by David.
If your whole and entire reason for not wanting Online-Solo is because your cash-cow traderoute might get played out by other people while you are at work, then I really don't think you are after a universe simulator in the first place.
Anyway, who's to say that the offline mode wouldn't have had an 'outside meddling' routine programed into it, so simulate the actions that are the result of having more than One trader in the entire galaxy.
Read the terms:
https://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use?ref=footer
When a project is successfully funded, the creator must complete the project and fulfill each reward. Once a creator has done so, they’ve satisfied their obligation to their backers.
Throughout the process, creators owe their backers a high standard of effort, honest communication, and a dedication to bringing the project to life. At the same time, backers must understand that when they back a project, they’re helping to create something new — not ordering something that already exists. There may be changes or delays, and there’s a chance something could happen that prevents the creator from being able to finish the project as promised.
If a creator is unable to complete their project and fulfill rewards, they’ve failed to live up to the basic obligations of this agreement. To right this, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to the best possible conclusion for backers. A creator in this position has only remedied the situation and met their obligations to backers if:
they post an update that explains what work has been done, how funds were used, and what prevents them from finishing the project as planned;
they work diligently and in good faith to bring the project to the best possible conclusion in a timeframe that’s communicated to backers;
they’re able to demonstrate that they’ve used funds appropriately and made every reasonable effort to complete the project as promised;
they’ve been honest, and have made no material misrepresentations in their communication to backers; and
they offer to return any remaining funds to backers who have not received their reward (in proportion to the amounts pledged), or else explain how those funds will be used to complete the project in some alternate form.
The creator is solely responsible for fulfilling the promises made in their project. If they’re unable to satisfy the terms of this agreement, they may be subject to legal action by backers.
How is it paranoid to doubt the word of someone who has broken their word already? Even if you accept David meant it at the time when he said there would be an offline mode, he hasn’t kept his word. He might mean what he says about archiving the server now but find it’s too costly or difficult for them to archive and package for us at the time.
To be frank if someone has always kept their word to me I will take them at their word, if they haven’t it’s not at all paranoid to doubt them.
- Status