No Single Player offline Mode then?
- Thread starter Brandon31
- Start date
- Status
Actually, it was pretty clear it was going to happen - they have been releasing builds on a regular basis through Alpha, Premium Beta, standard beta, Gamma coming, release imminent... at what point was it unclear that Elite: Dangerous would happen?
It's only the fundamental game mode they baited and then switched at the last possible moment. If they'd said right at the start of alpha (almost a full year into development) "You know what guys? This offline thing isn't going to work for us... we really just want to make an online-only MMO with microtransactions instead - that's our vision" I would have simply asked for my money back there and then & that would be that. I would have been disappointed naturally, because I've been looking forward to Elite IV for a very very long time (like most people who remember the originals) but I'd have gotten over it.
No. They didn't breathe a word about it. Not one single word. So in the year following, I've contributed extensively to DDF threads, helped out with advertising, free promotion, testing of their multiplayer builds (even though I didn't care one jot for them) and filled my tickets out like a good little tester.
Now of course, because I've helped them out in this way, I'm not entitled to a refund because I've already downloaded the game.
Either they kept that information from backers, or it was never part of their "vision" from the start & they simply said it on Kickstarter to get people to pledge money. You don't just add these things last minute - because if you do - you find that "Oh look! it can't be done because the game hasn't been designed that way. We'd have to do two separate games! Whoops!"
I won't be playing the game online because as a single Dad I don't get a lot of time for games & when I do, I need them to be the same as when I left them. Not massively altered by the kids who can afford to spend 24/7 playing.
400 billion systems.
Even if one is explored ever second, it will take 12,684 years to explore them all.......I think it's safe to say there's plenty for everyone.
Yeah, a great one I hope. If anyone is still upset about recent developments and start bringing it up on Saturday to anyone that will listen I would hope they would be politely asked to politely. We are there to enjoy ourselves after all.
My only desire for an offline mode was for the extra Commander slots so I could diversify in an RP kinda way, with characters taking actions that I'd consider too reckless/expensive/unethical for my online Commanders. So no offline for me is a minor disappointment, but no more than that.
However, I can totally empathise with those who are seeking a refund, and I'd also like to add a point for the benefit of those posting here who (for whatever reason) seem either incapable of empathy, or perversely actually seem to enjoy seeing some of their fellow players in discomfort.
The point is this : you keep picking the wrong analogies.
I am an artist.
Suppose I say "I'm going to create the most awesome Christmas card ever. It's for everyone, and it's going to have brightly coloured presents on it, Santa Claus in his red suit, reindeers, glittery stars...the works!"
And you say "Oh, that sounds cool! But I prefer the simplicity of monochrome. Is it possible you could also make a version of the card that's just black and white?"
ME : "Yes! I can certainly make a b&w version. I'll even be able to send preliminary sketches for you to look at and give feedback on as the work progresses, providing you pay me in full now for the finished card with a bit extra to cover the cost of postage for the prelims."
YOU : "Shut up and take my money!
"
Time passes...Christmas draws near...I've drawn up colour sketches and I send them out for everyone to look at.
YOU : "These sketches are cool - too colourful for me of course, but I can see how some people will like it. Oh btw, you missed the toe on Santa's boot here!"
ME : "Thanks for pointing that out! I'll go and fix it. Your b&w version is still in the works btw."
Christmas is suddenly just around the corner...and I announce "The card is nearly ready! It's all the awesome I promised it would be, and more! Unfortunately, the more colour I put in, the messier a b&w version of the card looked, so I took the tough decision to give up on a b&w version and spend the time working on my coloured version instead - that was my original vision after all."
YOU : "Whaaaat?! But you said a b&w version would be available! I paid you in full based on that assurance!"
ME : "Yes I know, but to do a b&w version now would mean redrawing the entire card in black ink using cross-hatching and dot fills in place of all the colours of the main version, and that's simply too big a project to do now."
YOU : "I see. I can't say I'm happy but I guess I do understand. All the same I'd like my money back please, because the card you've made is not the one I thought I was paying for."
ME : "I can't refund you for the finished card because I already sent you the preliminary sketches, which you looked at and enjoyed."
YOU : "But the preliminary sketches aren't the finished card! They're neither the colour version, nor a b&w one!"
ME : "Nevertheless, you have seen them, and you did enjoy looking at them, so that's that - no refund."
YOU : "How about just refund what I'd have paid for the finished card then? Forget the postage on the prelims."
ME : "No."
---------------------------
Now. You show me the professional artist who'd do that and I'll show you...well actually, nothing. Because no professional artist would do that.
The key lies in the sections I highlighted - the customer paid for something which he did indeed get...BUT he did not get something else for which he had also paid.
I can appreciate FD's position regarding KS pledge tiers and goals, so I don't expect them to offer a refund for, say, the pledge to name a planet. But (as has often been pointed out) offline mode was neither a KS pledge tier, nor a stretch goal. It was a feature. But it was a feature that was not playable in either the Alpha or Beta downloads, and it then went on to be a feature that will not appear in the retail version of the game either.
So what I would expect FD to do would be to refund those who feel aggrieved by this debacle just the cost of the game if it was purchased post-release.
My reasoning for that is simple : if there'd been no Beta at all, the people whose sole reason for buying the game was the offline mode would not have bought the retail version of the game!
If someone paid for Beta access, I believe they should receive the price of the retail game at release, with the difference between that and what they paid for Beta access remaining with Frontier.
That's the same as paying for the postage on the preliminary sketches in my example above - that was an elective extra choice on the part of the customer, NOT a part of the finished piece of art. As the artist in the example I would be refunding the cost of the finished piece alone, but not the postage costs for the prelims - the postage was an agreed consumable, which is effectively what a beta is too.
However, I can totally empathise with those who are seeking a refund, and I'd also like to add a point for the benefit of those posting here who (for whatever reason) seem either incapable of empathy, or perversely actually seem to enjoy seeing some of their fellow players in discomfort.
The point is this : you keep picking the wrong analogies.
I am an artist.
Suppose I say "I'm going to create the most awesome Christmas card ever. It's for everyone, and it's going to have brightly coloured presents on it, Santa Claus in his red suit, reindeers, glittery stars...the works!"
And you say "Oh, that sounds cool! But I prefer the simplicity of monochrome. Is it possible you could also make a version of the card that's just black and white?"
ME : "Yes! I can certainly make a b&w version. I'll even be able to send preliminary sketches for you to look at and give feedback on as the work progresses, providing you pay me in full now for the finished card with a bit extra to cover the cost of postage for the prelims."
YOU : "Shut up and take my money!
"Time passes...Christmas draws near...I've drawn up colour sketches and I send them out for everyone to look at.
YOU : "These sketches are cool - too colourful for me of course, but I can see how some people will like it. Oh btw, you missed the toe on Santa's boot here!"
ME : "Thanks for pointing that out! I'll go and fix it. Your b&w version is still in the works btw."
Christmas is suddenly just around the corner...and I announce "The card is nearly ready! It's all the awesome I promised it would be, and more! Unfortunately, the more colour I put in, the messier a b&w version of the card looked, so I took the tough decision to give up on a b&w version and spend the time working on my coloured version instead - that was my original vision after all."
YOU : "Whaaaat?! But you said a b&w version would be available! I paid you in full based on that assurance!"
ME : "Yes I know, but to do a b&w version now would mean redrawing the entire card in black ink using cross-hatching and dot fills in place of all the colours of the main version, and that's simply too big a project to do now."
YOU : "I see. I can't say I'm happy but I guess I do understand. All the same I'd like my money back please, because the card you've made is not the one I thought I was paying for."
ME : "I can't refund you for the finished card because I already sent you the preliminary sketches, which you looked at and enjoyed."
YOU : "But the preliminary sketches aren't the finished card! They're neither the colour version, nor a b&w one!"
ME : "Nevertheless, you have seen them, and you did enjoy looking at them, so that's that - no refund."
YOU : "How about just refund what I'd have paid for the finished card then? Forget the postage on the prelims."
ME : "No."
---------------------------
Now. You show me the professional artist who'd do that and I'll show you...well actually, nothing. Because no professional artist would do that.
The key lies in the sections I highlighted - the customer paid for something which he did indeed get...BUT he did not get something else for which he had also paid.
I can appreciate FD's position regarding KS pledge tiers and goals, so I don't expect them to offer a refund for, say, the pledge to name a planet. But (as has often been pointed out) offline mode was neither a KS pledge tier, nor a stretch goal. It was a feature. But it was a feature that was not playable in either the Alpha or Beta downloads, and it then went on to be a feature that will not appear in the retail version of the game either.
So what I would expect FD to do would be to refund those who feel aggrieved by this debacle just the cost of the game if it was purchased post-release.
My reasoning for that is simple : if there'd been no Beta at all, the people whose sole reason for buying the game was the offline mode would not have bought the retail version of the game!
If someone paid for Beta access, I believe they should receive the price of the retail game at release, with the difference between that and what they paid for Beta access remaining with Frontier.
That's the same as paying for the postage on the preliminary sketches in my example above - that was an elective extra choice on the part of the customer, NOT a part of the finished piece of art. As the artist in the example I would be refunding the cost of the finished piece alone, but not the postage costs for the prelims - the postage was an agreed consumable, which is effectively what a beta is too.
i agree in part and have to commend you on your character. i just do not belive DB/FDEV have done this with intent nor maliciously. hapless, yes but they are a games publisher used to 3rd party publishing not to the type of open community development we have often seen here. i am still cutting them slack as long as they keep their leanrings.
and as should we.
Yes, this was a given since the first Kickstarter enquiries about the offline mode. Empty & static like Elite/FE2/FFE - that would be completely acceptable, I would be surprised if anyone truly expected anything more.
No, I'm not angry. My perception of the decision to announce that offline play would be possible back in December 2012, only to pull it in the last few days, is that the motivation to include it is questionable, and the idea that this was the earliest they could pull it is ridiculous.
You would rather the entire camp froze to death, apparently. Admirable sentiment.
Yes it is. That quote is the way I see things & I gather many other offliners. Great post David Hostetler.
seems to me that they promised a single player experience and have delivered it. But tbh who would want to play the single player anyway when you have the opportunity to be part of something much bigger?
Nearly all games these days, hell even general software, require some sort of connection to the interweb to function. I don't see that they have done anything wrong.
It's a shame that you can't just install it on your laptop and play anywhere but for me that is not an issue.
The way I see it Is that Elite Dangerous is about bringing the franchise into the 21st century not keeping it stuck in the 80's. Therefore I shall be sticking with my purchase.
Nearly all games these days, hell even general software, require some sort of connection to the interweb to function. I don't see that they have done anything wrong.
It's a shame that you can't just install it on your laptop and play anywhere but for me that is not an issue.
The way I see it Is that Elite Dangerous is about bringing the franchise into the 21st century not keeping it stuck in the 80's. Therefore I shall be sticking with my purchase.
Last edited:
I have to agree with you with the "Clean Break Part" but that is where it stops.
There was 25,681 backers who gave £1,578,316 to make this project a reality!!! This was not my first KS rodeo and as one of those peeps who made it happen. As a supporter of this project I expect to be asked and informed when a MAJOR decision like off-line playing mode and DRM free pledge rewards was changed.
It is VERY simple to do a KS poll and update. The company chose not to do so! Instead they made a one liner update few weeks before this game was supposed to become a reality. THIS IS WRONG.
"Is offline mode an impossible problem, or just unfeasible? It is a creative decision, not wanting to produce an empty game."
This was a choice, not an unavoidable consequence of technical or even budgetary constraints. Braben & FD *CHOSE* not to develop a game that matched the things they originally said which convinced us to give them our money. Sure, they can mince words about it if they want, to shirk the moral obligation to provide refunds or any kind of recompense to those of us that didn't read between the lines and understand that they were making an online-only, multiplayer-only, DRM-laden game.
Fine, if it's not an issue for you, but we're trying to say that it is for many others who backed the game because of the promise of it. And you shouldn't really accept the fact that more software companies are using DRM on their customers. There are always alternatives
Deleted member 47764
D
Actually Star Citizen will be released with offline mode, player run server software and full mod support (Unless they pull a Elite Dangerous).
The problem is that they won't give us a refund.
Last edited by a moderator:
What I see is that FD tries to listen and to deliver to the wishes and suggestions of its customers in a way I haven't seen it before.
Nothing emphasies this better than the DDF.
At least THEY are responsible for the quality of their product and therefore THEY need to decide if they need to change or decline a requirement and no one else.
If a promised feature of MANY already delivered promised features can not be deliverd because of technical reasons which were not feasible at the beginning but all the other features have already been deliverdy by the supplier and used by the customer, the supplier should have the right to decide how he treats this problem.
I am not a lawyer but for me there is no fraud by the supplier detectable.
The supplier was forced by technical reasons to change one of his promises or better say requirements of the product.
This is something usual and happens not even in companies but everywhere.
I do not see any sort of fraud or deception...
Please explain to me, how being online with a bunch of people, is somehow "better," than just playing a game offline? Why is it that people like you, automatically assume everyone wants, and must be required to play, the same way you do? Stuck in the 80's? You mean, play a game offline and have a blast playing by yourself for many many years?
Yeah, that sounds horrible. */sarcasm
Vlodec
Banned
Most aren't getting a refund.
And have you considered that it's people like yourself who come into this thread purely to needle those who already feel aggrieved that ensures its longevity? Were you all to leave the thread would run out of steam in no time. But, call me a pessimist, that's not going to happen is it?
Where do you work? I'd like to avoid using your services or purchasing your products. If you don't see anything wrong with this, then I imagine ethics are not your strong suit.
Must...not...go...full...Godwin...
Software developer here: yes, we can write software and keep saying "I'm getting farther and farther from the point where adding x feature will be easy, but I still think it will be doable." And eventually we get so far that we have to decide it's no longer feasible.
I think we've been beta testing what a "quick and dirty game of catch-up" would look like in solo offline. As I said earlier, a lot of us have called it dull and shallow and worried that this was all there would be. DB said that wasn't an option, that he wouldn't make that a game mode, and the alternative (a new static storyline in addition to the grunt work of decoupling the server pieces) would take too many resources and was not feasible.
I am glad you are not a lawyer because if you were... you would be out business! But then that is my opinion.
- Status