Newsletter #49 is OUT

[trekman]

A pretty disappointing newsletter I think. Firstly there will be no offline mode. I'm not too bothered about this personally since I have a pretty good internet connection (most of the time) What does concern me greatly is that there will now not be 25 ships at launch as I was led to believe would be the case. Instead these will be rolled out over time. Secondly it seems that you will be releasing a game with less content than planned. And finally something that was mentioned by Ambassador Kerrash himself on his stream on Friday and that is that he is under the impression that the area that we are currently allowed to travel in beta 3.05 will only be expanded slightly. I believed, and I'm sure I'm not the only person that did, that the galaxy map would be expanded to its maximum with the exception of the areas closed off for future expansion which was already known. I really hope that Frontier pull something major out of their hats for either 3.9 or Gamma otherwise I could see their being a serious problem with disgruntled backers at their premier event.

[mike123pro]

I don't always have access to the internet.

He is implying that you will only need to connect once a day or some set period of time to receive the galaxy changes that have taken place over the course of that time period.

[mike123pro]

Based on how the offline play thing is worded you can still play without internet you just need a connection once a day in order to get the galaxy updates based on the players on the online mode.

[Petiu]

On the offline mode debacle...

I cannot fully empathize with backers who are clamoring for offline mode since I'm more interested in the online portion but I can understand their frustration if they backed the project specifically for that reason. Not delivering that mode (while promised) is clearly an error on FD's part.

And I want to address some points that others brought up regarding launch features...

David clearly stated in the newsletter that we can expect some (not many!) new features/content till release but the game will largely look the same as it is now.

The expectation that the development team has a much further developed product than the live beta version waiting in the wings is bordering on ridiculous (even if that scenario is technically within the realm of possibility).

The Design Discussion documents were never intended to be indicative of the launch product. They are all outlines of what the team wants to achieve in the long term (i. e. after launch over several upgrades and expansions).

The development of a game is an arduous process with a lot of unpredictability. FD have a dealine to meet and they decided to ship the launch product in the best shape possible and thats how many systems and features they managed to squeeze into it without compromising its polish and stability (that's what David alluded to in the cutting room analogy).

They will add the remaining features and systems after launch.

There's my two cents, hope this helps put things into perspective.

[dlocke]

I think the damage is minor and all those, like you, who loudly lament the despair of their betrayed and broken soul... it is rather overreacting and, something I can be guilty of myself a whole lot, are rather... presumptuous.

First of all, it is a game, not the story of your life. FD are making it, not you. Secondly, they will welcome ideas and suggestions, but they follow David Braben's quite spectacular vision that goes back to the early 80's. You are an example of the feeling of self-entitlement that rages through consumers these days. I am all for customer rights and transparency and all that. But you are talking here to an Executive Producer of a respectable company with a good history and a good philosophy on how to run a proper and moral company. You are not on the same level as Mr. Brooks is. I think the way some people talk to developers as if they are having a discussion of equals in a bar is not right.

We are along for the ride and can choose to support them in their vision or not. And it seems to me that even adults these days have trouble understanding that very simple concept that you cannot always get everything you wanted, which, I believe, is a stage toddlers go through round the age of four. I have great admiration anjd respect for the efforts being presented soon on launch.

You bet many of these developers have spent countless long hours working - and will be doing so continually - putting pressure on themselves and possible their families and social lives because they believe in this project. And there come people on a forum all high and mighty with their petty ego's hurt holding producers accountable and demanding apologies! Suddenly trust is gone or reduced. Get over yourselves people. There cannot ever be a perfect game for everyone and it is FD who will make the decisions they feel are needed for the best possible success. This is not a negotiation between you and FD. This is not a democracy where all forum members can vote on how this game is going to end up as.

The tone towards the Devs is crude, sometimes rude and condescending and disrespectful. But they cannot defend themselves because they have to be nice otherwise some people will go totally ape. They must ignore overly blunt posts, respond to reasonable questions and weigh ever word they write on a scales as to avoid people either panicking or being hurt in some way or another. Is it then strange they are overly careful in their newsletters with information, when a raving mob stands ready to pick every sentence apart?

I feel...annoyed and disappointed. Take your self entitled consumerism and demanding demeanors somewhere else. This is the real world where companies make business decisions and cannot avoid making tough decisions that impact someone or another.

What he says

[KING5TON]

Edit - Removal of drunk posting

[RAMJB]

I feel the pain of no offline as I'm sure a lot of people don't have daily access to trustworthy connections and for them is indeed a big hit.

I sincerely don't understand the reasoning behind the dropping. "It's going to be stale and unnaceptable for our vision". Ok, so what, let players decide if they want to play a more limited game in scope which is less "lively" than the multiplayer galaxy. I don't really get the problem. But maybe I don't know all the technical details so I won't judge.

but I think that if they want is for actions to be meaningful and for the galaxy to evolve dynamically even for those who play solo, an semi-offline gamemode should be available where maybe you only need to update once each 24 hours, while right now it updates constantly. Which is nice, mind you, if you play solo, but places a stressing need of connections that maybe not everyone can have an access to. That would be tolerable and cover for most of the affected players' needs, because if you only need to update once a day, even if your connection is not really good, or if you don't want, or you can't, be connected all the time you're playing, you still can play, your actions will still affect the galaxy (albeit with a 24h delay at the worst), and the galaxy updates will affect you (even with the same 24 hour delay tops).

Not sure if what I describe is feasible or not, but I'm sure it would at least calm down a lot of concerned customers who have a reason to be so. I don't have the slightest symphaty for anyone who has gone ballistic about it and has been yelling all across the internetz that "he quits and demands a refund". But I do feel for those who really depend on an offline mode because of whatever reason, and they don't get what they're promised.

One more thing on this particular issue: FD would win a lot of trust back if they explicitly state that if their servers get closed and the support for the game ends, that the players will get a game they can play offline. Even without the "dynamic experience" this game is a hell of a sandbox and enjoyable. And I don't want a game I paid for to be rendered unplayable the moment the company that launched it stops the support. Of course I hope that doesn't happen for many years to come ,but even then...a purchased game is a game I should be entitled to play at any time in the future.




The rest of the news letter is "some things cut out, some things delayed". I don't give a crap. For each thing that got cut out we'll get two equally neat things in the future...and maybe even the thing that got cut out now will make it into the game in a later update. I'm a long time Elite fan and I was one of those who had to suffer the consequences of the rushing out (against stern opposition from David Braben who didn't want to publish the game yet) of a half finished, buggy as heck, horribly flawed (upon release) game. And at that time internet access and online patches were unheard of so it remained in that state for me for YEARS. As such I fully understand his desire to polish over rushing stuff, and to ensure the game features intended for release work as they should and aren't full of bugs or problems. There's time after launch to progressively bring out updates to bring features that didn't make it in time for release. On that side of things I not only don't care, is that I'm on his side. I'd rather have a polished working game with less stuff into it for Release (under the undertanding that extra features will be available later on), than a game with a lot more stuff, half of which is not working.

The game as it is now I'm enjoying quite a bit, and it can only get better with time. This newsletter has brought some bad news (no offline mode honestly is something I didn't expect - specially from someone who I know really cares about living up to his promises, as Mr. Braben, or at least that's what I've grown to believe about him) and some not good-not bad news (lots of attention to polish, stability and quality at the cost of less stuff included upon release). Not exactly something to feel happy about ,but neither to be overly concerned about either.

I'm still looking forward playing this game for a long long time. And I still think its one very special piece of software that well developed (and I think the developers are capable of developing it well) will simply have no equal nor comparison. And in the end is what I really care about. The game living up to it's potential. Which I believe it will as strongly as before this newsletter.

[Volkira]

I want an off line game.
Geezus if Egosoft X3 can do it why the hell can't FD.

I don't want my game universe pollluted by others.

[Liqua]

Based on how the offline play thing is worded you can still play without internet you just need a connection once a day in order to get the galaxy updates based on the players on the online mode.

No - every "transaction" (docking request; trade - buy / sell; ship upgrade; mission; etc) requires server authentication.

I pledged £5,000 for the making of this game and feel deceived.

Refund requested via store.


**Update: I have since retracted my request for a refund - whilst I do not agree with FD's unexpected change in direction, to seek a refund hurts other members of the community. I was given a few +1s to the launch party which I willingly gave away and so I had to ask myself what is more important: The money back for myself and denying them the ability to go, or allowing them to go to the launch party and forgoing the refund. For myself it was never about the money - I believed in DB/FD and the dream of a new Elite, but I also believe that integrity is worth far more. Not everyone is unhappy with FD and so it would be unfair of me to take out my anger on those +1s.

Suffice to say I am not impressed with FD.

[StarTux]

You are not alone.

I pledged £5,000 for the making of this game and feel deceived.

Refund requested via store.

Yikes, sorry to see you go. Does this also mean they should rename the Founders world as I believe you had a hand in its naming?

[CTR69]

One more thing on this particular issue: FD would win a lot of trust back if they explicitly state that if their servers get closed and the support for the game ends, that the players will get a game they can play offline. Even without the "dynamic experience" this game is a hell of a sandbox and enjoyable. And I don't want a game I paid for to be rendered unplayable the moment the company that launched it stops the support. Of course I hope that doesn't happen for many years to come ,but even then...a purchased game is a game I should be entitled to play at any time in the future.

I believe that's only a licence to play. FD owns the game, not you.

As for pre-shutdown patch, let's get the game first and play it couple of years.

[Patrick_68000]

I pledged £5,000 for the making of this game and feel deceived. Refund requested via store.

Well here is an important information from a backer of your caliber. But I can understand you. Hope that you will stay with us on the forums, and if you get a refund, that you will buy the retail version at least for a few pounds sterling. I would also like to have an offline mode, to feel owner of my game, if Ed came to disappear in the future. I hope with strength that there will be no subscription in the future. It would be scandalous

[Patrick_68000]

One more thing on this particular issue: FD would win a lot of trust back if they explicitly state that if their servers get closed and the support for the game ends, that the players will get a game they can play offline. Even without the "dynamic experience" this game is a hell of a sandbox and enjoyable. And I don't want a game I paid for to be rendered unplayable the moment the company that launched it stops the support. Of course I hope that doesn't happen for many years to come ,but even then...a purchased game is a game I should be entitled to play at any time in the future.

Totally agree with you, and forcefully

[Jack Schitt]

No - every "transaction" (docking request; trade - buy / sell; ship upgrade; mission; etc) requires server authentication.

I pledged £5,000 for the making of this game and feel deceived.

Refund requested via store.

Wow. I really wasn't expecting that. FD might consider losing the offline mode to be a small price in the grand scheme, whether or not it was a difficult decision. But when the single biggest contributor to the Kickstarter -- and a major presence on the forums since the whole process began -- wants to jump ship it can't be a good omen.

Wait until this news hits VRFocus, Reddit and the other third-party gaming sites. This should be a wake-up call to FD that, whether or not dropping offline was the right long-term decision, from a PR and timing viewpoint the whole thing has been handled in the worst possible way.

I admire your stance, Liqua. You have so much invested in this game, financially and otherwise, that it can't have been an easy decision for you either. We haven't always seen eye to eye on every apsect of ED but your love for this game and its legacy over the past two years has been clear and unwavering. For it to have come to this you must be absolutely gutted.

Best of luck with the refund request. It'll be interesting to see how much, if any, of your pledge FD will be prepared to return.

[RAMJB]

I believe that's only a licence to play. FD owns the game, not you.

As for pre-shutdown patch, let's get the game first and play it couple of years.

License or not, that's a technicality. I purchase a game, I expect to play it at any time I wish. If the servers are closed down in the curent state of things (no offline available) that won't happen. And it would be a good thing for them to comment on their intention to let people play afterwards if the servers closing down scenario happens at any time. Would probably calm down some of the drama.

As for "let's play it a couple of years", come on, I seriously expect it's going to be a lot more than that . I really, really think this game, even with the not that great news of lately, is going to be one of the milestones of gaming, and something future games will have to be measured against.