On behalf of people in my profession, we thank you for statements like that for keeping us in work.
No Single Player Offline Mode then? [Part 2]
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
On behalf of people in my profession, we thank you for statements like that for keeping us in work.
Thank you, but clearly still not up to your standards.
Would "by some of us" be more to your liking?
Well, I'm in Spain (for now), so... apart from the civil war thing... good guess..?
Last edited:
Vlodec
Banned
You'd certainly have a version of it, though judging by the posts from so many of the online supporters (for want of a better term) I suspect very few of them would be happy with that. And I've no doubt at all that we'd be hearing about it. At full volume and at considerable length.
Thank you for your straight answer. It's appreciated. But I believe you're in a very small minority on that.
Surely beta backers are entitled to a refund of the product NOT the beta phase? as beta backers we paid extra ontop of the product price albeit a discounted product price.
Asking for respect to be given to someone else while the company you represent gives none to the people affected is quite a preposterous statement.
It has been made clear that it was a deliberate choice to drop offline mode and it was not because it was impossible to create.
All you can say is that maybe now it's too late to still reverse the decision because you (FD) have conveniently waited long enough to make the decision public so that even if 100% of the costumers would be in favor of a reversal you would say that there isn't time anymore to do so.
So given that offline mode was dropped willingly you failed to deliver half of the game to the people who supported its development trough trust and good faith.
Now there's two option to set the matter straight.
You either make the offline experience anyway at a later date, or you refund people who wish to have a refund on the basis of them not receiving the game which they were told they would be purchasing.
And these refunds have been handled in a very unrespectful and coldhearted way towards the customer.
Apparently people who have downloaded and help test your game during alpha and beta in their own free time are not allowed to get a refund, while people who have downloaded and tested nothing are.
On what grounds was that distinction made?
Was it because people who have downloaded and played the game proved that they could still in some form or fashion make use of the end product?
If so that would be a very short sighted way of trying to deal with this matter.
The offline experience is more than just a way to enable people with no internet to play.
It was literally half the game which you advertised.
The advertised game gave people a choice between playing the MMO or the offline version.
However this choice was not black and white, choosing to play one did not exclude the option playing the other as well.
There are many reasons why even people with stable and fast internet would want to have the option for an offline mode.
-Playing in your own universe and have noone directly or indirectly influence your game.
-Ability to play earlier versions of the game, not all game updates are favourable.
-Ability to pause when needed.
-Possibility for modding.
-Assurance of playing the game even after the servers shut down.
-Not having to rely on server stability to be able to play.
-No micro transactions.
-No possible ads being force fed to them.
-No possible FTP model limiting their gaming experience.
These are all things that have been removed now with the decision for dropping offline mode, and this is why the game is much less valuable than first advertised. Refusing to refund people on the ground that they can still play or that they already played is ignoring the fact that they can only play half the advertised game anymore when they paid for a full one. If you really have no malicious intent, then you certainly appear to be doing everything in your power to make sure that noone knows.
EDIT: Changed the first line so that it's clearer that i don't appear to be saying the mods don't deserve the respect.
Last edited:
Thanks for taking the time to respond to these questions Mr. Brookes... I can't imagine the stress you guys are under right now.
As someone with a stable internet connection, the news doesn't affect me too much. Although I would still like to see an offline version for those times that the servers go down or my internet does drop... I can understand the technical difficulties behind this decision.
But with that in mind, I know that you all are pushing for release, so time can't really be spent on the offline version at this time... would it be safe to say that the team will be having another look into this option post-release when everything has calmed down a bit?
As someone with a stable internet connection, the news doesn't affect me too much. Although I would still like to see an offline version for those times that the servers go down or my internet does drop... I can understand the technical difficulties behind this decision.
But with that in mind, I know that you all are pushing for release, so time can't really be spent on the offline version at this time... would it be safe to say that the team will be having another look into this option post-release when everything has calmed down a bit?
Both Static prices and completely random prices would be trivial to have offline for sure. Only thing is they could make for a pretty poor game. If they're static you find one profitable trade route and just repeat it until you get bored of the game. If its random each time you visit a system it would be much worst then what people fear online single player experience will be like for sure.
I can see why frontier might feel that would make for a poor game compared to a dynamic economy but would it still be a poor experience if thats exactly what people are looking for?
Random doesn't have to imply sudden changes, though; just look at Perlin noise, for instance... it can be as smooth as you want...
Yes exactly all David Brabens loyal followers are being stiffed! Thanks Mr Braben! You go have yoru dream sod those that funded it!
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
Damn I really was not going to post in another one of these threads but...... .....
he was asking you to respect the mods of this forum, these guys did NOT stop your offline mode and deserve to be treated politely**, and are just trying their best to keep the forums from becoming a complete mess.
**I am not saying the devs dont deserve respect either...................., but I am not getting involved on that, I said my piece many (many) posts ago.
David also mentioned there would be an offline mode.
no...he is referring to Elite Dangerous the multiplayer experience vs what a offline experience would offer. The game was always designed from a MMO perspective.
Previous elite games were designed as solo experiences because at the time multiplayer tech was not technically feasible.
That's my take on it.
Removed by poster
Last edited:
And since they promised there would be an off-line mode from the start e.g. during the kick-starter it should also have had to be a basic constraint of the design that simple things like a dynamic economy not based on shared player data would be developed for off-line mode along with their online evolving galaxy equivalents. While things like which group controlled a system, etc. would remain fairly static off-line. With such a big universe to explore that would not really have been an issue anyway.
The issue I have with this is just this despite being promised very early on before full production started, they have not treated the need to deliver a basic and fairly static off-line mode in mind during later design and development they have treated it as a nice to have they might do towards the end if it’s not too much effort to retrofit and hence had to abandon it at the last moment.
You don’t offer a basic feature like this then fail to keep that in mind during later design and development it’s unprofessional and unethical.
The issue I have with this is just this despite being promised very early on before full production started, they have not treated the need to deliver a basic and fairly static off-line mode in mind during later design and development they have treated it as a nice to have they might do towards the end if it’s not too much effort to retrofit and hence had to abandon it at the last moment.
You don’t offer a basic feature like this then fail to keep that in mind during later design and development it’s unprofessional and unethical.
I think it's entirely fair to ask that the moderators be afforded respect for their hard work.
As has been noted a number of times now, forum moderators are not paid employees of FD. They are community members and enthusiasts. They are volunteers.
What, may I ask, is preposterous about a request that unpaid volunteers, doing a thankless job, should be given "the respect they deserve"?
According to the law when you pay for digital content even after you access the download it has to "meet any description" promised, otherwise you could advertise some content, deliver something else and claim that a refund after the download is not due. If the content doesn't meet the description completely the law mandates either repair or replacement when reasonable or a refund of part of the payment otherwise.
Do you consider the statements from Frontier that the game would include offline mode not to be enough to "describe" part of the digital content users were expected to receive?
I know he asked it for the mods, and the mods already had mine. But seeing as FD apparently aren't ones that seem to be willing to give respect they shouldn't also be the ones to request it to be given to whoever they refer to.
This is a continuation of the previous thread here https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=58789.
The previous thread has reached 10,000 replies, and has become rather large. Rather shutting everyone out of the original thread, we'd like to direct your attention to this thread to continue the discussion of the 'No offline mode' discussion.
Please remember to be on-topic and respectful to your fellow forum members while discussing this issue. Posts that are not in adherence to the forum rules will be moderated. Thanks for understanding.
I'm sorry but I really cant understand why this subject needs another thread started? I know people are upset by this decision but both Michael Brookes and David Braben have been on the forum explaining the reasons behind this decision. I would also imagine that David will again be questioned further about decision at the premier event tomorrow and explain in more detail so there really isn't a need for another thread. Forum members and moderators should just draw a line under this and move on.
And again ... There was no promise, there was a plan... and it had a proposal, but a proposal is NOT a promise, it is a Want List. And, for the most part, most of the proposal is there. And a game is what they promised, and THAT you will get.
(...and in the beginning there was darkness.... oh, wait, wrong proposal, sorry Universe)
Last edited:
But you have to admit, that there are always people jumping on moving trains. That's why i can understand that they will look into their refund policy and deal with it case by case. How? that is beyond my imagination.
- Status