People will just hack the code and use whatever ship paint job they want to in offline mode...ohh wait
yes you get ppl like that.
but not everyone is like that.
I buy all my games and dlc's.
No Single Player Offline Mode then? [Part 2]
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
yes you get ppl like that.
but not everyone is like that.
I buy all my games and dlc's.
I myself want to say sorry about the bad words i said because of the removed offline mode.(i said they either stupid or bad) I still feel sorry about it but i understand that it would be a bit ..linear gameplay so to say.
That influence of others players deeds can be interesting and challenging.
As long as i dont get forced into pvp and i dont meet other players all is good
That influence of others players deeds can be interesting and challenging.
As long as i dont get forced into pvp and i dont meet other players all is good
People will just hack the code and use whatever ship paint job they want to in offline mode...ohh wait
Most of those probably wouldn't have bought them anyway (I wrote a longer post with my opinion on "piracy" - and Braben's, and Neil Gaiman's - if you're interested).
Last edited:
As I said: "...or have made damn sure I'm prepared to take on the issues, at least the ones I have control over."
What is out of your hands, is the peoples routers and components at home, the backbone providers and may be even your provider's network, depending on SLAs.
The real problem is: The customer won't care. You can of cause prove to him, why, the game servers are not reachable and that it's not your fault, but that would not help the gamer... the result is, if he gets "server unreachable" all the time he will get angry, then try another game and move on. If you are lucky he will have a look at your game later and try again... but he will tell others about it, quite sure.
Goes like this: guiy asking: "Hey, you bought XYZ-Game? How is it?" - "Yesterday damn XYZ-Game crashed all the time! Servers down again! Hate it...".
Well, why do you think Steam, Ubisoft and EA added Offline as a "reduced feature" Version to their games?
I bought skins to support FD even though I play 100% solo and would have played offline when available. I absolutely will not be spending another penny after what they have done.
I myself want to say sorry about the bad words i said because of the removed offline mode.(i said they either stupid or bad) I still feel sorry about it but i understand that it would be a bit ..linear gameplay so to say.
That influence of others players deeds can be interesting and challenging.
As long as i dont get forced into pvp and i dont meet other players all is good
i am glad to hear that you will see you are going to like it
a shame you don't want to meet other players i would have been fun
MorkFromOrk
Banned
Does that mean you think FD should have made an offline version and waited until the world upgraded it's networks before creating a multiplayer game? Interesting angle, not seen that one before.
Do I still need to fire my team? Be good to know of the skills they have now, even though they help the company earn money, are ultimately pointless.
I didn't but would have done the same thing to supported FD... Also ( i am not a coder so don't lol at what i am going to say) it could have been coded in the offline mode that skins give you different NPC reactions. Right?
Cheers,
Last edited:
Just for the sake of reminding:
I will be playing the game.
I will tell people I think its great.
If they ask me about future plans I will ask them how much time they have to hear about how Frontier handles future plans. But I will lead with "Make sure you see the word promise, or pinky swear, cross our hearts, or something because by their standards its ok to say one thing and do another as long as no one can find the word "promise" anywhere,,,,,,,,
I will be playing the game.
I will tell people I think its great.
If they ask me about future plans I will ask them how much time they have to hear about how Frontier handles future plans. But I will lead with "Make sure you see the word promise, or pinky swear, cross our hearts, or something because by their standards its ok to say one thing and do another as long as no one can find the word "promise" anywhere,,,,,,,,
People will just hack the code and use whatever ship paint job they want to in offline mode...ohh wait
Some may, most won't. Nothing new there, of the ones who do most of them wouldn't of bought a skin anyway and by hacking their client they will be cutting themselves off from playing online when/if they want to and will need a new hack each time expansions or updates are released or they won't be able to use them. The piracy issue is really a non-starter especially when it comes to a successful game, the damage done by piracy is more than offset but the extra exposure. Where piracy can really hurt is small less well known games but even then is debatable.
Of course skins is a pretty minor component of the game and I doubt if Frontier are relying on their sales for anything other than a bit of extra change. Other forms of content rich dlc are generally a better source of income and are just as viable (if not more so) for an offline game (although there are plenty of single player games that sell skins or something very like them).
An Offline version or mode actually provides Frontier with significant new possible revenue streams and increased exposure. It expands their available market considerably and if done right with modding support will help to keep the game alive and expanding for free. All those developer hours provided by the community not only creates content, it creates buzz, news stories, all the extra youtube videos and the exposure they bring, it really is a win win. Yeah it'll take a little more time and investment upfront but there is no reason not to expect that to be re-payed to Frontier many many many times over.
Frontier have made comparisons to Minecraft which is an excellent example of a game that owes much of its success to the modding community that exploded around it. An Offline Elite Dangerous can compliment the online version providing a different but equally engaging AND evolving (though modding work) experience by making use of the advantages that only a single player game can offer, just as the online mode delivers features only an online game can. These two visions are not mutually exclusive if the developers can just have the courage to try I truly believe they can create a game that would be wildly more successful than either a purely online or a purely offline game could be.
Last edited:
What do you guys thinks of this article ? - Serious Replays Only Please -
"Action We Can Take On The Pre-owned Problem" by David Braben
There have been all sorts of statements about so-called pre-owned games, and quite a lot of people spouting hyperbole. To be honest I have been one of those people, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a truth to it.
We see more and more developers and publishers speaking out against pre-owned, while more and more retailers – even supermarkets now – are getting their wide-bore snouts deep into this trough. But, apart from speaking out, we are really doing very little about it.
Since I last wrote about it nearly a year ago, little has changed, other than my fear (a plethora of type-in codes and ‘memberships’) having largely come to pass.
The deck is sloping, the band is playing, and we are shouting and gesturing angrily to each other about the iceberg. One or two people are building rafts, but no-one is plugging the hole. We’re all waiting for someone else to move first.
If you don’t believe pre-owned is causing a huge dent in our sales, then look at the figures: In the US in 2008/2009 42 per cent of GameStop’s profits (as the biggest specialist retailer in the US) came from pre-owned game sales, and gross profit on pre-owned alone climbed to just under $1 billion. It is no wonder supermarkets and corner shops are joining in the plunder.
We need to look at it sensibly – we need to think not just of developers and publishers, but players and retailers too.
PLAYERS
There is a strong argument that players want the prices of games to come down, which sounds obvious enough – and that is effectively what pre-owned does, if you return the game after playing it.
Our fragmentary response to the problem, one-time codes and so on, is in danger of reducing the incentive to keep them anyway, devaluing a collection if it is bound to numerous different accounts and codes, with no certainty that in the future these codes will continue to work.
RETAILERS
High Street retailers were having a hard time of it before they started with pre-owned – new games are rarely sold for anything close to the RRP these days, going for not a great deal more than the trade price in some cases (especially online). So retailers’ margins are now very slim on new games. This process of margin erosion is starting to happen to pre-owned too, and will increase as the supermarkets get up to speed.
Such a decrease in the profit from pre-owned to retailers makes it less valuable to them, so may make them rather less resistant to change.
It is not completely bleak; pre-owned does – effectively – put some money back on the table, as the cost of goods is saved each time a game goes around the loop. But fundamentally there is now less money to go around as retailers have educated gamers to think that a lower price is what they should expect.
It would be possible for retailers to pay a slice of the pre-owned revenue to publishers and developers, but I can hear the calls already: ‘Why should we?’ Perhaps they are right. The inaction of our industry so far has essentially given them the go-ahead. There needs to be a real likelihood of things changing imminently right across the industry for any action to be taken.
ACTION
There are six ways we can go:
1. Carry on with the array of ad-hoc one-time codes, online ‘passes’, DLC, to tilt players toward new purchases.
2. Introduction of cross-industry serial numbering of discs. This shouldn’t mean the complete freezing out of pre-owned – it would be up to developers and publishers what to do – but it does give the option of a whole range of possibilities, including ones currently covered by the one-time codes.
3. Industry participation in pre-owned sales. This has to be with the retailers’ agreement, but this may come, as long as there is an upside to them, and that upside could be as part of holding off on the worse excesses of (2).
4. Bring in ‘Not for Resale’ SKUs. Why is there no parallel with DVD sales? It is because they do not allow resale or rental – and in fact have special ‘for rental’ SKUs at a significantly greater price.
5. Make the discs just data discs costing say, £5, perhaps containing an extended demo, but requiring online validation to become a full game (eg by withholding the executable file), even for the first user.
6. Move to online-only. This is where the retailers seem to want us to go after all, so perhaps it’s time to make the jump.
Whatever the tactic, let’s do something soon, and stop all the shouting about the unjust iceberg
"Action We Can Take On The Pre-owned Problem" by David Braben
There have been all sorts of statements about so-called pre-owned games, and quite a lot of people spouting hyperbole. To be honest I have been one of those people, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a truth to it.
We see more and more developers and publishers speaking out against pre-owned, while more and more retailers – even supermarkets now – are getting their wide-bore snouts deep into this trough. But, apart from speaking out, we are really doing very little about it.
Since I last wrote about it nearly a year ago, little has changed, other than my fear (a plethora of type-in codes and ‘memberships’) having largely come to pass.
The deck is sloping, the band is playing, and we are shouting and gesturing angrily to each other about the iceberg. One or two people are building rafts, but no-one is plugging the hole. We’re all waiting for someone else to move first.
If you don’t believe pre-owned is causing a huge dent in our sales, then look at the figures: In the US in 2008/2009 42 per cent of GameStop’s profits (as the biggest specialist retailer in the US) came from pre-owned game sales, and gross profit on pre-owned alone climbed to just under $1 billion. It is no wonder supermarkets and corner shops are joining in the plunder.
We need to look at it sensibly – we need to think not just of developers and publishers, but players and retailers too.
PLAYERS
There is a strong argument that players want the prices of games to come down, which sounds obvious enough – and that is effectively what pre-owned does, if you return the game after playing it.
Our fragmentary response to the problem, one-time codes and so on, is in danger of reducing the incentive to keep them anyway, devaluing a collection if it is bound to numerous different accounts and codes, with no certainty that in the future these codes will continue to work.
RETAILERS
High Street retailers were having a hard time of it before they started with pre-owned – new games are rarely sold for anything close to the RRP these days, going for not a great deal more than the trade price in some cases (especially online). So retailers’ margins are now very slim on new games. This process of margin erosion is starting to happen to pre-owned too, and will increase as the supermarkets get up to speed.
Such a decrease in the profit from pre-owned to retailers makes it less valuable to them, so may make them rather less resistant to change.
It is not completely bleak; pre-owned does – effectively – put some money back on the table, as the cost of goods is saved each time a game goes around the loop. But fundamentally there is now less money to go around as retailers have educated gamers to think that a lower price is what they should expect.
It would be possible for retailers to pay a slice of the pre-owned revenue to publishers and developers, but I can hear the calls already: ‘Why should we?’ Perhaps they are right. The inaction of our industry so far has essentially given them the go-ahead. There needs to be a real likelihood of things changing imminently right across the industry for any action to be taken.
ACTION
There are six ways we can go:
1. Carry on with the array of ad-hoc one-time codes, online ‘passes’, DLC, to tilt players toward new purchases.
2. Introduction of cross-industry serial numbering of discs. This shouldn’t mean the complete freezing out of pre-owned – it would be up to developers and publishers what to do – but it does give the option of a whole range of possibilities, including ones currently covered by the one-time codes.
3. Industry participation in pre-owned sales. This has to be with the retailers’ agreement, but this may come, as long as there is an upside to them, and that upside could be as part of holding off on the worse excesses of (2).
4. Bring in ‘Not for Resale’ SKUs. Why is there no parallel with DVD sales? It is because they do not allow resale or rental – and in fact have special ‘for rental’ SKUs at a significantly greater price.
5. Make the discs just data discs costing say, £5, perhaps containing an extended demo, but requiring online validation to become a full game (eg by withholding the executable file), even for the first user.
6. Move to online-only. This is where the retailers seem to want us to go after all, so perhaps it’s time to make the jump.
Whatever the tactic, let’s do something soon, and stop all the shouting about the unjust iceberg
Last edited:
Hey commanders,
Personnaly, I don't care about an offline mode
It only worries me because there will be no mods for this game.
And sometimes, mods improve the game really well (look at X3 for example).
That said, no offline mode mean online game.
And online game mean multiplayer interaction (PVE PVP etc...)
That is the major problem IMO.
They are trying to convince us that an offline mode is not necessary but they did nothing about the multiplayer part since Beta 2.
So, there is something I don't understand in their plan ...
Releasing a game with no real solo mode and no multiplayer interaction is quite 'dangerous' in my opinion...
I really hope to see some multiplayer/cooperative/PVP/PVE feature at the release but I think that nothing will really change until the release.
My 2 cents,
Good fly.
Personnaly, I don't care about an offline mode
It only worries me because there will be no mods for this game.
And sometimes, mods improve the game really well (look at X3 for example).
That said, no offline mode mean online game.
And online game mean multiplayer interaction (PVE PVP etc...)
That is the major problem IMO.
They are trying to convince us that an offline mode is not necessary but they did nothing about the multiplayer part since Beta 2.
So, there is something I don't understand in their plan ...
Releasing a game with no real solo mode and no multiplayer interaction is quite 'dangerous' in my opinion...
I really hope to see some multiplayer/cooperative/PVP/PVE feature at the release but I think that nothing will really change until the release.
My 2 cents,
Good fly.
That's from 2010.
There's also a similar article from 2012.
At the start of this year he seemed to have had a bit of a change of heart, though...
Of course, he might have changed his mind again. *shrug*
Last edited:
Kill some pirates for us !!! and thanks for Posting!
and thanks for Posting! Hey commanders,
Personnaly, I don't care about an offline mode
It only worries me because there will be no mods for this game.
And sometimes, mods improve the game really well (look at X3 for example).
That said, no offline mode mean online game.
And online game mean multiplayer interaction (PVE PVP etc...)
That is the major problem IMO.
They are trying to convince us that an offline mode is not necessary but they did nothing about the multiplayer part since Beta 2.
So, there is something I don't understand in their plan ...
Releasing a game with no real solo mode and no multiplayer interaction is quite 'dangerous' in my opinion...
I really hope to see some multiplayer/cooperative/PVP/PVE feature at the release but I think that nothing will really change until the release.
My 2 cents,
Good fly.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Many games that require you to make an account online cannot be sold on to a second person...This is true for most modern online games i have played.
Of course its their business if it affects their business. They sell you it for you to play its not a public license
Last edited:
I was thinking the same thing. First thing that came to my mind was if I buy $100 toilet-paper... don't tell me how to wipe my ass with it or what to do with it!
All those clamouring for offline with game as is are kinda missing the point I'm afraid.
You cannot release a rubbish and empty product and call it offline. Anyone who reads game reviews on a regular basis knows how much crap you get if you release a shoddy product, whether it's offline or a single player story mode.
On top of it the missions and actions of the AI are pretty reliant on the evolution and simulation. Without it, nothing happens. You as a single player simply do not affect the game enough.
It is static, lifeless, void of anything to do other than dabble with some of the mechanics like trade and mining. But there is precious little you can achieve.
Yes its a design decision, but one with serious technical and development costs associated. It really isn't a "it won't be true to vision so scrap it", but much more a "woah it seriously won't work at all well without serious more development time" and at that point it's better off as a new game or heck, maybe. A later expansion, who knows.
What I do know is that there are legitimate reasons for people being upset and there are IMHO flawed ones. But clamouring for a release of some empty lifeless void will not happen. You think the press made anything of this? Try what they would do if offline mode was released as some of you have suggested, for what? To placate a few? Take the rep hit and refunds now and release a quality product.
Am all for debating the rest, but the idea of any form of offline release of current build is an understandable no no.
You cannot release a rubbish and empty product and call it offline. Anyone who reads game reviews on a regular basis knows how much crap you get if you release a shoddy product, whether it's offline or a single player story mode.
On top of it the missions and actions of the AI are pretty reliant on the evolution and simulation. Without it, nothing happens. You as a single player simply do not affect the game enough.
It is static, lifeless, void of anything to do other than dabble with some of the mechanics like trade and mining. But there is precious little you can achieve.
Yes its a design decision, but one with serious technical and development costs associated. It really isn't a "it won't be true to vision so scrap it", but much more a "woah it seriously won't work at all well without serious more development time" and at that point it's better off as a new game or heck, maybe. A later expansion, who knows.
What I do know is that there are legitimate reasons for people being upset and there are IMHO flawed ones. But clamouring for a release of some empty lifeless void will not happen. You think the press made anything of this? Try what they would do if offline mode was released as some of you have suggested, for what? To placate a few? Take the rep hit and refunds now and release a quality product.
Am all for debating the rest, but the idea of any form of offline release of current build is an understandable no no.
- Status