No Single Player offline Mode then?

[-c-s-]

If only Newsletter #49 had never happened...

If the announcement of the loss of off-line mode had been given in the way that it has been done in Newsletter #50 then I'm sure a great deal (but not all) of the anger would not have happened. At least it felt in the latest newsletter that there was a degree of respect for the backers, which was sorely lacking from #49.

I really feel for those who can't play solo on-line and those who feel cheated.

I must admit that the policy on refunds is misguided and will only result in more anguish and bad press. Even if it were a refund of the final game price it would be at least consistent across the board and probably affordable too.

Sadly, newsletter #50 only confirmed that David never was never serious when he promised offline support.

I backed at the 90 pound level -- a "Physical DRM-free collector's premium boxed edition" of an online-only MMO is pretty ridiculous; David Braben owes me a full refund because he bait-and-switched me -- I was only ever interested in the offline version that he promised.

 

[Nicholas van Rijn]

Was this because offline players are less likely to get involved in microtransactions? Is this just about the money?
No. We have been clear and consistent. This is about the game experience. I have always been against ‘pay to win’ – in a game like Elite: Dangerous there are a great many opportunities we could have taken already that would have amounted to ‘pay to win’ but we have chosen not to.

This whole issue comes down to what the vision is of the game we are making, and whether people trust us to make the right decisions. We made this decision with heavy hearts but for the right reasons.

Where a Game incorporates dynamic advertising technology, the technology which serves the provision of dynamic in-game advertising is integrated within the Game. This means that if you do not want to receive dynamic advertising, you should only play the game when you are not connected to the Internet.

As I posted in another thread earlier, I note that I will believe the first statement only and only if they will change this second part of their EULA to include an opt-out, even if only for solo players (after all solo playing is so light on bandwidth that it should not be a burden at all on FD servers, right?).

If they'll do that, I'll renounce my (likely useless anyway) claim for a refund, I'll publicy apologize for my cynical outlook to all this, and I'll eat a ton of crow admitting that it was all a matter of good-willed Vision for the good of the game.

 

[Juniper]

We already know the difference and it is quite significant. If I may?

In Offline mode: I stop playing at a point in time at which commodity X costs Y credits at system 1 and sells for Z credits at system 2. Systems 1-100 have been explored and I am getting news on them. Systems 1-50 "belong" to the Empire and there is a reward of 1 meeeeeeeeeelion credits for bounty hunting the Dread Pirate Roberts in system 69.

2 weeks later I go back and everything is the same as when I left it. My cargo hold full of X is a sound investment, my allegiances aren't suddenly biting me and I think I'll have a gun for Roberts and then explore systems 101-110

However, in online Solo (dynamically affected by other players) if I leave at the same point as above, when I come back in 2 weeks:
I am now in a system that belongs to someone I have upset, Roberts is well dead, systems 1-100000 are now explored and my cargo hold full of X is worth half what I paid for it. And as a casual player I have to start learning about trade routes, allegiances, politics etc. all over again because they bear no resemblance to last time I played the game.

Can't rep you any more, but this is it exactly. Well put.

 

[Jonbe54]

I like the idea of a moddable universe that LT seems to be shooting for, I've played the entire Elder Scrolls series and have a highly modded Skyrim (approx 30 mods) running on ultra settings (truly mouthwatering graphics) as well as Morrowind and Oblivion with all their expansions simarly modified and also Morroblivion grafted onto both.

ID software - the people responsible for Doom - and coincidentally the entire online shooter genre - started out as modders, my son has participated in many modding cadres and projects as part of his gaming college credits so I have a HUGE respect for the modding community and sadly note that ED will NEVER be any better than a corporate compromise.

 

[-c-s-]

You have a fair argument with incompetence, not a solid one though, but deceit like some people here are raving about is just bloody ridiculous!

Perhaps you haven't read this excellent writeup about just that thing.

 

[synchromesh]

Your maths is flawed on so many levels. Firstly I make it 1086 unique posters, but I accept my maths may be slightly less than accurate, however without examining each poster's intent we have no idea how many are happy, unhappy or neutral. Secondly, there may be 24,000 backers but until they all post we can assume absolutely nothing about their state of happiness. you have no data to assume anything at all about those who have not made their position clear, other than that they have not made their position clear.

If you want to extrapolate data you need to identify the 1000+ posters and then categorise them as happy, unhappy, neutral and give stats on that. You can look at it as a challenging and rewarding projectette.....

I may be some out but since I did the math another 40 may have joined in.....
Even so...there are actually 140,000 backers now......you would need at least 40,000 to really start concerning those who are ok with it all ..

 

[Warbler]

If only Newsletter #49 had never happened...

If the announcement of the loss of off-line mode had been given in the way that it has been done in Newsletter #50 then I'm sure a great deal (but not all) of the anger would not have happened. At least it felt in the latest newsletter that there was a degree of respect for the backers, which was sorely lacking from #49.

I really feel for those who can't play solo on-line and those who feel cheated.

I must admit that the policy on refunds is misguided and will only result in more anguish and bad press. Even if it were a refund of the final game price it would be at least consistent across the board and probably affordable too.

Do you understand that in newsletter 50 DB says that they don't want to make offline not that they can't? They simply have decided not to do it. After taking money from backers who backed on the understanding that they would get offline mode, while at the same time they're saying any backers from Kickstarter won't get a refund. You call this respectfull!

I count myself amogst the luckier offliners having spent only £700 on a system unit. I decided to hold on for the HD monitor & gaming peripherals till after release thankfully.

 

[Adept]

I'd been polite but hey wonderful examples such as yourself I've decided to flip over to the dark side, over reaction perhaps, I'm not doing a charge back I'm not calling for lawyers. I'd have happily walked away with the refund and said thank you and good luck.

Might as well get my moneys worth as the white knights have at our disgust and outrage eh?

As for promoting the business dealings I consider seriously shady. If it prevents others getting themselves into a similar situation then yes I'll be more than happy to extol my views and experiences as a cautionary tale. Might as well "test" the limits of this product witnin its legal bounds as I'm stuck with it

Sounds like an excuse for bad behavior to me. Clearly can play online just fine, and are planning to put time and effort into being a griefer. If you didn't have a fascination for such already, this wouldn't be a viable way of "getting your fun" anyway.

Go ahead, test away. You are actually playing the game you pledged to support. Funny thing that.

 

[Diamond Dog]

Imagine the #ShirtStorm when Star Citizen fails to deliver...

lol, I was just thinking the same thing. Roberts does tend to talk too much. I can see his team behind the camera pleading him to stop! (still a fan of both Elite and SC)

 

[Demosthien]

Perhaps you haven't read this excellent writeup about just that thing.

Just cause I think you'll appreciate this...

The timing of this no offline announcement seems to me to be suspect. Leaving the announcement for so long, you cannot tell me that it has taken them all this time to realise, "Damn! You know what? Offline just aint going to work! We'll need to ditch that promise." is just ridiculous. There are potentially positive financial incentives for leaving the announcement till this late in the development.

Think about it like this;

1. Devs want to make a game but have no money.
2. Business planning... Including estimating the number of people you expect to fund the project and amount of money you might lose (£Z) if you drop promised features.
3. Kickstart the game and tell people all the cool stuff that will be in it (including features you don't know or think will be possible).
4. Clear £X of Kickstarter funding.
5. Use the Kickstarter funds to begin development.
6. Identify what features you might need to drop.
7. Start selling other things; early access, lifetime passes, paint jobs, ships etc.
8. Begin receiving additional funds from post-Kickstarter sales. £Y income is generated.
9. Determine that; (X + Y) - Z = enough money to be financially successful.
10. Announce the key features that will not be in the final product.
11. Refund requests that you must by law fulfil.. Ignore/deny any you aren't under legal requirement to fulfil.
12. Release financially successful game and let the storm blow over.

As you can see, at some point the post-Kickstarter sales will reach a point where they will more than cover any potential losses from refunds. Any person worth their salt going into business (especially when managing multi-million currency budgets) will have done the financial projections and estimations for everything I've mentioned here. This stuff isn't fantasy... Whether or not the plan was intentional from the beginning or it just became a cost of doing business for them, only they can say for sure.


NOTE: Before Anyone replies to this post and flames me for never having posted on the forums or being a noob or that you like the game being online so I can sod off or some other childish rubbish. Know that I have paid almost £200 toward the Elite Dangerous project and *that* gives me the right to post whatever criticism I wish.

I will be considering the situation carefully and possibly exploring my legal options for refund as a key reason for my pledging to this project was the desire to play Elite offline. Others may be happy with the decision that has been made and I am happy for you. For me it is a clear breach of the trust I placed in the developers and that is not acceptable. I have yet to decide what action I intend to take.

 

[synchromesh]

lol, I was just thinking the same thing. Roberts does tend to talk too much. I can see his team behind the camera pleading him to stop! (still a fan of both Elite and SC)

Hell ye....ITS OFFLINE ONLY !!!

 

[DaveS1]

Again, sorry but maths says you are wrong.

There are not many stars you can't get to with a cobra and you certainly wouldn't be going deep space exploring with anything less. You are right in that the disc is more or less flat but that disc at it's thinnest is about 1000 light years across. Considering jumps between stars are approximately 5 and 10 light years apart the sphere model still fits well.

I'm not trying to nit pick with you, I'm just trying to point out that some of the reasons people are giving for not wanting the online solo mode are not relevant...

...that's not to say there aren't relevant reasons to be ****** with the recent announcement because there are. I just don't think not being able to keep up with people who can play more than you is one of them...and I fit into the category of not being able to play as much as I would like.

The maths supports me even more if we have to spend H hours of game time working towards buying a Cobra before we can go a-wandering. That would put me months of real time behind the serious players. Add the fact that I would only have a finite attention span for trying to explore through already explored space before I just gave up and I still maintain that in online solo exploring is a non-starter for people like me. I think I would need some actual maths to convince me otherwise other than just powering things up every time. You realise that although 400 Billion is a large number it is very soon swamped when you start squaring things, let alone cubing them - by that I mean the argument that the number of possibilities cubes every time falls down as soon as the upper limit is reached.

But, us arguing from gut feelings about the maths is not really getting an answer - I feel exploration is pointless if you are competing with tens of thousands of people who can play 20 times as much as me a week and I am not convinced by your optimism.

 

[Brodie]

Perhaps you haven't read this excellent writeup about just that thing.

Yeah, but his who argument is based around the DB's words "It is a creative decision", highlighting that they made a choice, but come on not jumping off a cliff is a choice, it's not a bloody good idea, (although after reading some of the posts on this thread the idea has a certain appeal if I can take a few passengers).
The short of it is, Frontier where confident a year ago that they could deliver something, a minor part of the whole, but still they fully believed it could be done.
However throughout development is became apparent that whilst it could be done, it could not be done well and so they CHOSE not to.
Does it effect me? Yeah, I have a bloody boring job at times, and I was looking forward to firing up ED on my MS Surface and grinding away a few hours (around 3am you very rarely get IT support calls), but if i'm honest the majority of my play will be online when at home. I'm disappointed but not devestated.

 

[-c-s-]

I may be some out but since I did the math another 40 may have joined in.....
Even so...there are actually 140,000 backers now......you would need at least 40,000 to really start concerning those who are ok with it all ..

Before you start dancing a celebratory jig, know that it has been reported that the Elite forum is not limited to Elite backers.

 

[killminster]

Do you understand that in newsletter 50 DB says that they don't want to make offline not that they can't? They simply have decided not to do it.

And that is totally disingenuous, they have decided not to do the offline version because they can't deliver what they think would be a product worth paying for. At least that's what they say.

Your implication that they simply have decided not to do it (on a whim perhaps? or to generate publicity maybe? any publicity is good right? or for the sake of screwing people over?) is asinine.

Still they probably should be offering refunds to everyone who wants them.

 

[poet1960]

Check this out from the KS page.

Here's the support ticket I just submitted to KS:
"I wish to direct your attention to what increasingly appears to be fraud having been perpetrated against the backers of the Eliteangerous project by its creator.
Several commitments (including concrete deliverables) were part of the campaign and the creator (David Braben, Frontier Developments) has recently revealed that they will not be fulfilled.
While I (and hopefully most KS backers) understand that project definitions are somewhat speculative by nature and nothing can be predicted with 100% accuracy, the concern with this issue stems from the evidence that these commitments were abandoned willfully, by choice, and not as a result of unforeseen circumstances nor even good ol'fashioned mismanagement.
In short, we have the distinct impression that these (non-trivial) commitments will not be fulfilled by the creator, largely because they've simply chosen not do to so, and in fact conducted themselves in such a way as to guarantee that the fulfillments would not be made, without having revealed this to the backers until just now, when the project is set to be exposed for a retail release for general consumer purchase.
This is engendering a severe collapse of trust in the Kickstarter method of crowd-funding, among this group of backers, who (as you might imagine) won't go away quietly keeping this bitter lesson to themselves. Many have (in the heat of the moment, at any rate) already sworn off not just video game development via Kickstarter, but Kickstarter in its entirety, feeling as though this episode illustrates that it is a fool's gambit and that project creators can in fact just choose at their own discretion whether or not to uphold their end of the bargain.
Again, I wish to stress that this is not a case of frustration born of the fact that something isn't turning out exactly as it had been pitched. Rather, this increasingly appears to be a case of a project creator intentionally misrepresenting the nature, priorities, and progress of the project, in such a way as to secure a higher degree of initial funding without having to make good on the commitments that motivated that funding. The creator isn't even being particularly coy about it, but seems to be of the opinion that choices they make in pursuit of a vision is justification enough to not have to fulfill commitments to the Kickstarter backers, whose funding allowed the project to exist in the first place. I and other backers believe that this is a clear violation of the Kickstarter Terms of Service.
Thank you for you attention."

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/comments

 

[DaveS1]

Can't rep you any more, but this is it exactly. Well put.

I don't deserve anything from this, I am just condensing what others have already posted, ad nauseum, in response to the countless "just play Solo" comments.

 

[Brodie]

Check this out from the KS page.

Here's the support ticket I just submitted to KS:
"I wish to direct your attention to what increasingly appears to be fraud having been perpetrated against the backers of the Eliteangerous project by its creator.
Several commitments (including concrete deliverables) were part of the campaign and the creator (David Braben, Frontier Developments) has recently revealed that they will not be fulfilled.
While I (and hopefully most KS backers) understand that project definitions are somewhat speculative by nature and nothing can be predicted with 100% accuracy, the concern with this issue stems from the evidence that these commitments were abandoned willfully, by choice, and not as a result of unforeseen circumstances nor even good ol'fashioned mismanagement.
In short, we have the distinct impression that these (non-trivial) commitments will not be fulfilled by the creator, largely because they've simply chosen not do to so, and in fact conducted themselves in such a way as to guarantee that the fulfillments would not be made, without having revealed this to the backers until just now, when the project is set to be exposed for a retail release for general consumer purchase.
This is engendering a severe collapse of trust in the Kickstarter method of crowd-funding, among this group of backers, who (as you might imagine) won't go away quietly keeping this bitter lesson to themselves. Many have (in the heat of the moment, at any rate) already sworn off not just video game development via Kickstarter, but Kickstarter in its entirety, feeling as though this episode illustrates that it is a fool's gambit and that project creators can in fact just choose at their own discretion whether or not to uphold their end of the bargain.
Again, I wish to stress that this is not a case of frustration born of the fact that something isn't turning out exactly as it had been pitched. Rather, this increasingly appears to be a case of a project creator intentionally misrepresenting the nature, priorities, and progress of the project, in such a way as to secure a higher degree of initial funding without having to make good on the commitments that motivated that funding. The creator isn't even being particularly coy about it, but seems to be of the opinion that choices they make in pursuit of a vision is justification enough to not have to fulfill commitments to the Kickstarter backers, whose funding allowed the project to exist in the first place. I and other backers believe that this is a clear violation of the Kickstarter Terms of Service.
Thank you for you attention."

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/comments

Not a leg, not even a little wooden peg one, to stand on sir.
Nice letter tho, it will get you nowhere.
Sorry KS dont care, read the T&Cs

Understand i'm not saying this to be hurtful, its just, in your case, the unfortunate truth.
Sorry

 

[-c-s-]

Yeah, but his who argument is based around the DB's words "It is a creative decision", highlighting that they made a choice, but come on not jumping off a cliff is a choice, it's not a bloody good idea, (although after reading some of the posts on this thread the idea has a certain appeal if I can take a few passengers).
The short of it is, Frontier where confident a year ago that they could deliver something, a minor part of the whole, but still they fully believed it could be done.
However throughout development is became apparent that whilst it could be done, it could not be done well and so they CHOSE not to.
Does it effect me? Yeah, I have a bloody boring job at times, and I was looking forward to firing up ED on my MS Surface and grinding away a few hours (around 3am you very rarely get IT support calls), but if i'm honest the majority of my play will be online when at home. I'm disappointed but not devestated.

Frontier had to be convinced to add full offline support to the kickstarter project -- it was only after they did so, that they passed the goal and got funding.

Can you really not see that if people backed the project explicitly for offline support, that they would be rightly entitled to a full refund if they were so inclined? Yet you are still defending Frontier's decision to backstab the very people that got them the funding they needed after they made a "creative decision" to pull the plug on offline support.

 

[poet1960]

Not a leg, not even a little wooden peg one, to stand on sir.
Nice letter, it will get you nowhere.
Sorry KS dont care, read the T&Cs

Understand i'm not saying this to be hurtful, its just, in your case, the unfortunate truth.
Sorry

Uh, I didn't write it. So you didn't hurt me one bit.