No Single Player Offline Mode then? [Part 2]

[Rafe Zetter]

My suspicion as to the real reason there will be no offline mode:

Terms EULA section 8..

8. In-Game Advertising
The Game may incorporate technology (which may be provided by Frontier or third party service providers engaged by Frontier (each a "Dynamic Advertising Provider")) which enables advertising to be uploaded into the Game on your PC, and changed while the Game is being played on-line. In order that the Dynamic Advertising Provider is able to direct advertising appropriate to your Game and geographic region, as well as to the correct location within the computer game, certain non-personally identifiable data and information may be retrieved and retained by the Dynamic Advertising Provider including your I.P. address, geographic location, in-game position, and information concerning the appearance of advertising visible during your gameplay (for example, the length of time an item of advertising was visible, the dimensions of the advertisements). In addition, the Dynamic Advertising Provider may assign a unique identification number which is stored on your PC and which is used to monitor and calculate the number of views of dynamic advertising during gameplay. None of the information collected for this purpose including the identification number can be used to identify you.

The technology employed by Dynamic Advertising Providers may be located outside your country of residence (including outside of the European Union).

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.



..because nothing else they said really makes any sense.

Oh dear, please don't say that makes absolute sense as to why no offline. FDev's contractual obligation to some 3rd party corporate companies advertising stuff I have no intention of paying any attention to, because that would make FDev a sell out - sorry but that's how I see it.

Unless I'm wrong the whole point of a kickstarter program is that it's the general public who provide the funding - in this case the fans of the game who invest at various levels in exchange for a copy of the end product as advertised- and that the KS route was taken to avoid the complexities and limitations of corporate sponsorship.

If Corporate came later once the KS was successfully funded (as they'll jump on anything they think might make them money) - fine take the $$$ if you think it will help ensure the success but DO NOT accept any of their conditions that will affect / bypass or otherwise nullify your original KS plan promised to the backers. Have a bit of integrity for deus sake.

If they have done the "no offline mode" to please 3rd party corporate advertisers, then they should have asked them for all the money instead and left the public out of the equation (and therefore avoid breaking any promises made).

"Kickstarter - a great way for fans to finally get something made after waiting 15 years (but be aware any promises on delivered content could be utterly disregarded in the developers desire to please 3rd party corporate obligations who didn't even make a donation to the kickstarter **"

(** or did they but FDev didn't mention that corporate financing was also a big component of the KS program).

It gets worse doesn't it? This info (which I'll admit I wasn't aware of) doesn't show FDev in a favorable light considering the implications.

Edit: I've just re-read that post and the implications of the above are just horrifying. A successful KS program getting overtaken by the very corporate financing that would not invest when it was just an idea as it was too financially risky.

 

[StuartGT]

I made no argument... I was answering a question which required a further question to do so.

If you have an answer, please... *bows and stands aside* Be my guest.

Haha touche! Have a rep for recalling my prior reply

 

[Adept]

Juniper, the subscription model is a dying dinosaur. If they ever change, I expect Elite to become F2P in the style of World of Tanks. It's a much better model, and financed by those who get into the game so much that they want to put money into it.

WoT is a genuinely nice game (if you like team based PvP and tanks), and Braben did refer to liking ir's business model during the KS (maybe it was in an interview). I think the premium model they went with is both bold and a little retro, but it may end up being the best of both worlds. It gives a financial barrier that stops throwaway account use (not that it's really a problem in WoT, you want to progress in that game).

It may be that some day Elite becomes f2p. I wouldn't be upset, if they do it well.

 

[kwh]

The server is not controlling the NPC ships. It's telling the client what type of NPC has been encountered. That's why when you play solo there is no lag what so ever in the fights, that is all on your client.

The server does a whole lot of heavy lifting in simulating and keeping track of the changing galaxy, but the NPC you fight is on your own machine.

...and that server could be running in a VM in your local machine! There would be no heavy lifting per se, because all the complex algorithms dealing with responding to other players behaviour could be replaced by random number generators for the most part... you wouldn't even want let alone need supercruise available in an offline version, which is a multi-use construct; just bring back time dilation in the style of the original Elite and add a pause button... and as I suggested earlier, if FD used the FE2 Galaxy converted to ED format, it wouldn't even spoil the online Galaxy!

 

[Adept]

...and that server could be running in a VM in your local machine! There would be no heavy lifting per se, because all the complex algorithms dealing with responding to other players behaviour could be replaced by random number generators for the most part... you wouldn't even want let alone need supercruise available in an offline version, which is a multi-use construct; just bring back time dilation in the style of the original Elite and add a pause button... and as I suggested earlier, if FD used the FE2 Galaxy converted to ED format, it wouldn't even spoil the online Galaxy!

It would have to be something like that. A few problems:

a) even using the "ready" data from Frontier it would be a big project. Half a year at least for a small team of developers.

b) the result would not be anything like the quality Frontier are shooting for with ED, yet it would carry their name and be associated with the product. It would be a lower level product, eating away at the brand (also it would be cracked and pirated, so it would get around a lot. The inferior product would be the default ED people see.

c) the financial incentive just isn't there. When they thought they could just create it as an aspect of ED, it made sense, but as a whole separate, inferior game? It won't be worth the investment and dev time.

That's my estimate. I'm just a private individual, and do not represent Frontier.

 

[Makasuro]

It would have honestly worked better as a sub game, but hey this model seems kind of neat and I want to give it a chance. I don't care they took away offline mode, that would have been incredibly boring and empty for me. Some of the people on here are quite toxic about it though, I don't mind them leaving the game either.

 

[poet1960]

It would have honestly worked better as a sub game, but hey this model seems kind of neat and I want to give it a chance. I don't care they took away offline mode, that would have been incredibly boring and empty for me. Some of the people on here are quite toxic about it though, I don't mind them leaving the game either.

That's nice. Just a hint, not everyone is like you.

 

[Juniper]

Juniper, the subscription model is a dying dinosaur. If they ever change, I expect Elite to become F2P in the style of World of Tanks. It's a much better model, and financed by those who get into the game so much that they want to put money into it.

WoT is a genuinely nice game (if you like team based PvP and tanks), and Braben did refer to liking ir's business model during the KS (maybe it was in an interview). I think the premium model they went with is both bold and a little retro, but it may end up being the best of both worlds. It gives a financial barrier that stops throwaway account use (not that it's really a problem in WoT, you want to progress in that game).

It may be that some day Elite becomes f2p. I wouldn't be upset, if they do it well.

The thing is, the really heinous part of online-only play (and a chief reason why it "outrages" me and I want no part of it) is that it does nothing but monetises the player base.

So, perhaps subscriptions are a dying trend, and other ways can be found to continue to make money out of people while they play the game they've rented. The EULA is quite enlightening in that regard, as others have already pointed out. Subscriptions are only one possible outcome of this.

I admit I'm not particularly au fait with all the vagaries of online game financing, because quite frankly, I don't play them so I don't care. I'm a working single parent, and I've no interest in sharing my precious gaming time with the great unwashed. I've been there (EVE, EQ, LOTR, ST: O) and been stung enough times & had my gaming experience ruined by 12 year olds with too many hormones running around their innards to know that it's just not for me.

That's why offline was such a critical component of E: D for me, and why I plumped my money down on it... also why I feel badly let down by Frontier's 180. It felt (and still does) like a punch in the face. Solo-online is not a substitute, any more than a slug is a replacement for a Norwegian Blue.

 

[Gaijin]

The thing is, the really heinous part of online-only play (and a chief reason why it "outrages" me and I want no part of it) is that it does nothing but monetises the player base.

So, perhaps subscriptions are a dying trend, and other ways can be found to continue to make money out of people while they play the game they've rented. The EULA is quite enlightening in that regard, as others have already pointed out. Subscriptions are only one possible outcome of this.

I admit I'm not particularly au fait with all the vagaries of online game financing, because quite frankly, I don't play them so I don't care. I'm a working single parent, and I've no interest in sharing my precious gaming time with the great unwashed. I've been there (EVE, EQ, LOTR, ST: O) and been stung enough times & had my gaming experience ruined by 12 year olds with too many hormones running around their innards to know that it's just not for me.

That's why offline was such a critical component of E: D for me, and why I plumped my money down on it... also why I feel badly let down by Frontier's 180. It felt (and still does) like a punch in the face.

In what way? Many single player games have DLC...nothing in what FD has done to this date has indicated they will change their business model...

But...there are 400 billion star systems. How is some random 12 year old going to ruin anything for you? I am seriously asking -- the galaxy is not going to fundamentally change if you don't play for a week...

 

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

Juniper, the subscription model is a dying dinosaur. If they ever change, I expect Elite to become F2P in the style of World of Tanks. It's a much better model, and financed by those who get into the game so much that they want to put money into it.

WoT is a genuinely nice game (if you like team based PvP and tanks), and Braben did refer to liking ir's business model during the KS (maybe it was in an interview). I think the premium model they went with is both bold and a little retro, but it may end up being the best of both worlds. It gives a financial barrier that stops throwaway account use (not that it's really a problem in WoT, you want to progress in that game).

It may be that some day Elite becomes f2p. I wouldn't be upset, if they do it well.

World of warcraft is back up to 10 mil subs. It's not a dying dinosaur by any means. It's just that World of Warcraft sucked out all the oxygen from the monthly subscription marketplace. You're being disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Other monthly sub games out there are still doing pretty well and would also like to have a word, such as EVE online, and the games that haven't managed to carve into the monster juggernaut that is WoW have found ways to innovate on the payment model (Such as The Secret World).

The closest analog Elite would have is Guild Wars 2.

 

[-c-s-]

Well that's a pleasant surprise.

Regardless of your feelings for no offline, you gotta hand it to frontier for being responsive and doing some great damage control.

Damage control would be putting this statement on the front of their website or via the company twitter/social media channels.

 

[poet1960]

In what way? Many single player games have DLC...nothing in what FD has done to this date has indicated they will change their business model...

But...there are 400 billion star systems. How is some random 12 year old going to ruin anything for you? I am seriously asking -- the galaxy is not going to fundamentally change if you don't play for a week...

Gaijin does have a point. Nothing will fundamentally change even after a week. It will still be full of a bunch of people causing grief, you know, kinda like this forum lately. It does give a rather poignant example.

 

[-c-s-]

It would have honestly worked better as a sub game, but hey this model seems kind of neat and I want to give it a chance. I don't care they took away offline mode, that would have been incredibly boring and empty for me. Some of the people on here are quite toxic about it though, I don't mind them leaving the game either.

At this point, your closing statement can easily be considered inflammatory and against forum rules -- but I can't fault you if you just got here.

The attitude that you are expressing, however, is the primary reason for the rift in the community that has occurred this week.

 

[Juniper]

In what way? Many single player games have DLC...nothing in what FD has done to this date has indicated they will change their business model...

You mean apart from forcing you to be on their servers all the time to play you mean? I think that's a pretty big change from the original design. What I'm speculating about here is what that enables them to do down the line. DLC is one thing, but they're not necessarily going keep that up forever.

But...there are 400 billion star systems. How is some random 12 year old going to ruin anything for you? I am seriously asking -- the galaxy is not going to fundamentally change if you don't play for a week...

400 billion star systems maybe, but 99.9% of them we will never actually see. The usable play-area will be in the realm of thousands of systems.

To take a simple example, I'm in a Federation system & I might fill my cargo hold with 50t of Aquaponics which I know are worth money in the next system. I accept a mission to kill the Dread Pirate Liqua, and then - oops - my child is sick, or the phone rings, or the door bell rings and some mates come over & I find I have to log for the evening. With one reason or another (work, other plans, etc), I don't get back into the game for a few nights.

Only this time, the system is Empire controlled (and I'm a criminal in the Empire), my Aquaponics are worth half of what I paid for them, and Dread Pirate Liqua has been dead for two days. I've then got to find my way out without getting shot at, and re-learn all the political landscape & the knock-on effect on trade routes.

An evolving galaxy is a wonderful thing if you're prepared / have the time or inclination to live in it 24/7 and experience it first hand.

Having it move from under you while you're not there is just frustrating, annoying, and Not Fun.

If I was playing offline like I'd originally planned, I could have just paused or saved the game, and come back to it whenever I could - and carry on from where I left off.

Really, I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand this. :S

 

[amigacooke]

I suppose given the nature of an offline version, alarm bells should have been ringing that neither hide nor hair had been seen of it with only a few months to release. Easy to be wise after the event though.

 

[-c-s-]

World of warcraft is back up to 10 mil subs. It's not a dying dinosaur by any means. It's just that World of Warcraft sucked out all the oxygen from the monthly subscription marketplace. You're being disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Other monthly sub games out there are still doing pretty well and would also like to have a word, such as EVE online, and the games that haven't managed to carve into the monster juggernaut that is WoW have found ways to innovate on the payment model (Such as The Secret World).

The closest analog Elite would have is Guild Wars 2.

I cannot recommend this video enough : Un-Ruining the MMO
[video=youtube;nvK8fua6O64]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvK8fua6O64[/video]

One the reasons that I was so looking forward to Elite : Dangerous.

 

[phlOgistOn]

I agree that it is difficult to go from a client based model to a client/server based model. HOWEVER, in this day and age with the VMWARE Hypervisor it really isn't that difficult to run a client AND a server on one machine. What does that mean? It's not too difficult to go back the other way.

If the server is doing enough gruntwork that it would melt a domestic PC (something has to monitor and simulate those 400 billion systems) then VMware wouldn't work. At that stage you have to think about recoding a smaller scale spoof version somehow. Interestingly I literally just noticed a new article on PCGamer about the Eve servers after going out for some cigarettes: http://www.pcgamer.com/eve-online-1/
4TB of RAM and 3THz of processing <gulp> although of course Eve literally runs EVERYTHING on the servers and doesn't have the separate instances for combat and encounters.

That may be, but then it also suggests, at least to me, they were either being lazy, or I guess you could call it, killing two birds with one stone. What it definately says is, that mmo took precedence over the offline version. It doesn't even make sense really when you think about it. They promised an offline mode, you've seen the quotes I'm sure. NO connection required. Well, if they were making a stand alone game but pulling the info from their mmo part, how the hell was that ever going to not need at least some kind of connection?

If they initially thought that a tacked on subsystem to approximately spoof the online component would work effectively and be possible to quickly code then I can see how the mistaken belief arose. This is really pushing the limits of my knowledge of server architecture and coding though so I'm not really qualified to pass judgement either way.

 

[Juniper]

If the server is doing enough gruntwork that it would melt a domestic PC (something has to monitor and simulate those 400 billion systems) then VMware wouldn't work. At that stage you have to think about recoding a smaller scale spoof version somehow. Interestingly I literally just noticed a new article on PCGamer about the Eve servers after going out for some cigarettes: http://www.pcgamer.com/eve-online-1/
4TB of RAM and 3THz of processing <gulp> although of course Eve literally runs EVERYTHING on the servers and doesn't have the separate instances for combat and encounters.

If they initially thought that a tacked on subsystem to approximately spoof the online component would work effectively and be possible to quickly code then I can see how the mistaken belief arose. This is really pushing the limits of my knowledge of server architecture and coding though so I'm not really qualified to pass judgement either way.

They wouldn't need to simulate 400 billion systems - especially not in offline single player.

The only part they would need to simulate is a bubble around the player, so the system they're in in fine detail and possibly a few immediately adjacent ones in rough detail. That's it. Space is pretty empty, so it really wouldn't take much processing to do.

The current servers don't simulate 400 billion systems. They only simulate the parts where players are. An offline server would intrinsically be doing a lot less, as there would be only one player to worry about.

 

[-c-s-]

If the server is doing enough gruntwork that it would melt a domestic PC (something has to monitor and simulate those 400 billion systems) then VMware wouldn't work. At that stage you have to think about recoding a smaller scale spoof version somehow.

Not sure if you understand what procedural generation is.

You don't have to maintain anything in memory as you can generate any component at any detail level because everything is mathematically bound to a single string or number, called a seed. At any point in time, any process can look at any part of the galaxy and know exactly what is there because of this. Eve is not procedurally generated and requires all of that memory because everything about the universe must be stored individually because it isn't organized by mathematics.

This means that the servers in Elite : Dangerous are doing significantly different tasks than what you think they are. For Elite : Dangerous, the challenge is synchronizing all of the changes being by players and other events. If you are genuinely curious, this is an excellent writeup of what is involved and why offline support isn't that far fetched.

 

[Juniper]

I suppose given the nature of an offline version, alarm bells should have been ringing that neither hide nor hair had been seen of it with only a few months to release. Easy to be wise after the event though.

I know. I just naturally assumed that the alphas and betas were concentrating on the online galaxy because they didn't need mass testing of a local environment, they could do that effectively in their own QA teams. As I said earlier, it proves the old adage that the best way to hide something is in plain sight.

It was obvious now, looking back, but nobody noticed.