No Single Player Offline Mode then? [Part 2]

[paralipsis]

That was never the intended interpretation. We set out to make a vision of a game which we're proud of and we're achieving. We had intended to do a cut down version to support offline. The scope of the game has increased dramatically since Kickstarter and more of the game has needed to be done online. This has meant that we're unable to support offline. I completely understand that this upsets some people, I wouldn't pretend otherwise. But the fact came that we had to make a tough decision and we've made it. There has been quite a few posts that this was deliberate in some way to serve an agenda. The only agenda is to follow the vision of the game that David and ourselves have set out to meet. The other issue was timing of the announcement - again it coming so late in the day has upset people (in some cases more that the decision itself) that came about because we genuinely wanted to proved an offline mode. Ultimately we reached a point where it wasn't going to happen so we announced it. We would much rather not had to release such news a week before a launch event, but we had to tell people what was happening.

Michael

I appreciate you taking the time to write this, but it is restating what has already been said several times previously. I'd like to try to explain why I find this an insufficient explanation. It may also be why others find in vexing to read the statements coming from Frontier about this issue as well.

First off, why not simply cut it down further? So the online game has increasingly more features that the offline game might have ended up having. Why is that it was better to abandon it entirely rather than spell out to the community what was going to be missing from the offline experience? Even if that news were to upset a great many people, don't you think that would likely have been far fewer than are upset now? Why ditch offline entirely? This leads me to my other major issue here, namely;

How far did the offline mode get? Given that the announcement was made only five weeks from launch, one can only assume one of three things, either the offline mode was five weeks away when it was decided that it just wasn't good enough and there is a nearly-complete but unsatisfactory offline game within FD offices, or the offline project was in total shambles, and was never going to make it anywhere near launch in any state (hence, the oft asked question, why only now do we learn this?), or lastly, some major roadblock was unexpectedly encountered that was presumed almost working, but for some reason never quite came together. These are widely differing scenarios, and we simply have no way of knowing which, if any of these, matches what happened last week. Without some detail, the community is left to speculate, seemingly to no good end. So, my final point is simply a straight up question;

Why the silence? Everything is given in vague generalities. Conspiracies thrive in a vacuum of information, so why feed them at the cost of the game's reputation?

Also, just one last thing, if you can refrain from using the word "vision" when discussing the reasons for dropping offline support, it would come across a whole lot less patronising.



EDIT: Michael, if you do reply to this, I'm sorry I won't get a chance to read or respond for another eight hours or so. But such are the vagaries of discourse across many time zones.

 

[Greyshadow]

Hi everyone,

Thank you so much for posting your feedback and thoughts on the offline matter over the last few days. It's been an amazing week, and I've seen just how passionate people can be about this game (this thread being 'part 2' is a fine example). Sorry we haven't been as vocal on the threads as we should've been - we've been waiting on a collected official word to put in the newsletter to make sure the message is as clear as it can be. All the information in one place is better than putting scattered responses everywhere.

I can only apologise for the frustration that all of this has caused. David's said it best himself before - it was a hard decision to make, and not one that was made lightly. Unfortunately, it was the right decision to make - this is the Elite for 2014, and dropping offline was the only way to make the best version of the game.

I agree, we should've mentioned this to everybody sooner, but the development team genuinely thought they would be able to find a suitable solution in time. From my perspective, as somebody new to the company, I can honestly tell you that the decision was not taken lightly. I am lucky enough to be spending time with talented game developers, and I was in meetings with David B and Michael B when these decisions were being made. You could see how hard this one was for them, because they value the community, and the community's opinions on the product, more than you realise. The game couldn't be as good as it is without your support, and the many hours you've put in to testing, and they know that.

Also, the moderators have been pulling 24 hour shifts looking through these threads - so a big thanks to them, too! Please give them the respect they deserve... it's important to note that they weren't any part of this decision, and they didn't know about it before we announced it on Friday.

This community is the best, and I'm honoured to be a part of it. Send me an email at elewis@frontier.co.uk, or send me a PM on here if you want a faster response. I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

Ed

Thank you for the post. Its not only a matter of the offline aspect being cut with no good notice but its also the fact that for a lot of people the online side of Elite Dangerous is horrible, and for a lot of people is not worth playing.

If online was smooth as butter then this topic may not ever have happened. We are all being told that Elite Dangerous vision has always been online. If you can't get both the solo and the open play to work with out so many disconnects then this should not be the only way to play this game.

The biggest issue with always needing an internet connection and ED right now are:

Losing out on mission because of diconnects. Having to pay fines because of issues like this is not enjoyable at all.

Losing bounty targets because of disconnects.

The list goes on. None of these concerns have ever been addressed. You can't penalize people in an Online game as severally as ED does of there are going to be disconnects especially those beyond the players control.

Elite has always been an offline game and saying that this elite would be empty with out the online aspect really doesn't make any sense because no one here would ever say the other elite games are empty.

They are trying to make a game that is challenging and unforgiving at times which is how it should be but not if the unforgiving parts come from network disconnects. If the devs can guarentee that server disconnects will not effect my enjoyment of ED in solo mode then that would make me happy. Sadly that will never happen and I am sure they know this.

I have not had an enjoyable experience in both Solo or Open play since this beta started. Fine its beta its about testing. Now gama is starting and I am still not enjoying the experience. Still getting random disconnects when trying to do missions or purchase time out issues. I was hoping for offline because if the issue keep happening in solo or open I can go offline. That is not the case anymore and if I get diconnected even once while playing solo mode after launch i am done.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

The current EULA also refers to playing the game in off line mode. There are numerous other examples of it being advertised.

No, ED has never been *advertised* as offline. It has been confirmed and hinted, but never advertised.

 

[Wellington]

I appreciate you taking the time to write this, but it is restating what has already been said several times previously. I'd like to try to explain why I find this an insufficient explanation. It may also be why others find in vexing to read the statements coming from Frontier about this issue as well.

First off, why not simply cut it down further? So the online game has increasingly more features that the offline game might have ended up having. Why is that it was better to abandon it entirely rather than spell out to the community what was going to be missing from the offline experience? Even if that news were to upset a great many people, don't you think that would likely have been far fewer than are upset now? Why ditch offline entirely? This leads me to my other major issue here, namely;

How far did the offline mode get? Given that the announcement was made only five weeks from launch, one can only assume one of three things, either the offline mode was five weeks away when it was decided that it just wasn't good enough and there is a nearly-complete but unsatisfactory offline game within FD offices, or the offline project was in total shambles, and was never going to make it anywhere near launch in any state (hence, the oft asked question, why only now do we learn this?), or lastly, some major roadblock was unexpectedly encountered that was presumed almost working, but for some reason never quite came together. These are widely differing scenarios, and we simply have no way of knowing which, if any of these, matches what happened last week. Without some detail, the community is left to speculate, seemingly to no good end. So, my final point is simply a straight up question;

Why the silence? Everything is given in vague generalities. Conspiracies thrive in a vacuum of information, so why feed them at the cost of the game's reputation?

Also, just one last thing, if you can refrain from using the word "vision" when discussing the reasons for dropping offline support, it would come across a whole lot less patronising.

I second that! Also I would like to point out that FD expect us to sit here swallowing vague explanations yet have handled the refund issue very badly indeed. You would think that they would bend over backwards to rectify this issue and at least TRY to recover some credibility instead of coming off as the uncaring money grabbing evil corporate monster.......

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

I appreciate you taking the time to write this, but it is restating what has already been said several times previously. I'd like to try to explain why I find this an insufficient explanation. It may also be why others find in vexing to read the statements coming from Frontier about this issue as well.

It will never be enough. Just let it go. They explained that they couldn't get it working in way they wanted. What they wanted, how they wanted - it's theirs to worry about. Everything done about game indicates FD doesn't make such decisions neither lightly nor they lack knowledge about project and/or technical expertise.

Also vision is anything but patronizing. It was always a vision. It was sold for huge majority of people on vision. Vision is always perfect, implementation always lacking. But offline mode has been always something tackled on, and no amount of "it was core feature" won't change it.

 

[JeffRyan]

The scope of the game has increased dramatically since Kickstarter and more of the game has needed to be done online. This has meant that we're unable to support offline.

My own hypothesis is that this is down to the limitations of the P2P. During Alpha and Premium Beta the P2P just really wasn't up to the job. There was a lot of work needed (and possibly still needed) to get it to do the job it was supposed to do. One (of I'm sure many) solutions that Frontier came up with was to shunt a lot of the stuff that was originally player to player side over to the server. I don't know if that's when they realised that singleplayer wouldn't work, but that was probably the critical decision that meant that offline would suffer compared to online and the two games if both developed would have gone down separate paths.

And FD, kept down the online path hoping to return to the offline path at a later date that never materialised, tickets and development of the released betas and only so many man hours kept that from happening. It's an entirely understandable development for me.

Please note, I am NOT an FD apologist, I've been mad as hell and came very close to quitting the community (and possibly some FD no longer like me because of stance I took). MY anger had to do with promises not being kept, bad PR and terrible PR spin. The technological side has NEVER been an issue for me, I totally understand the position FD eventually took. It was how that decision was handled that I took umbrage at. And I only backed down when David announced he'd look into the refund situation again.

This isn't to bring up old wounds, but to point out that when I defend FD's technological development, it's from a relatively biased view in favour of those who're unhappy with no offline. There's no conspiracy here, just some badly handled management and underestimation I think of how this would be received.

 

[Wellington]

It will never be enough. Just let it go. They explained that they couldn't get it working in way they wanted. What they wanted, how they wanted - it's theirs to worry about. Everything done about game indicates FD doesn't make such decisions neither lightly nor they lack knowledge about project and/or technical expertise.

Also vision is anything but patronizing. It was always a vision. It was sold for huge majority of people on vision. Vision is always perfect, implementation always lacking. But offline mode has been always something tackled on, and no amount of "it was core feature" won't change it.

How can you say that when OFFLINE mode was a selling point for many people? Also you cannot tell me that these professional guys who made this product DID NOT KNOW until a week ago that offline mode was a no-go. I find that highly implausible. It is STILL in the EULA for crying out loud..........

P.S. I WILL "Let it go" the minute they refund my money.....Thats the ONLY reason I'm still here, I certainly wont be going anywhere near an FD product again.

 

[WeirdWizard]

No, ED has never been *advertised* as offline. It has been confirmed and hinted, but never advertised.

Lets not start debating semantics again shall we.

To everyone at Frontier Developments I just want to reiterate my passion for and commitment to the idea of you guys eventually returning to the offline mode idea. I know its possible the "review" that David mentioned may have just been a deflection tactic or maybe even plain old British politeness in not wanting to dismiss it out of hand (something I'm sure I've been guilty of at times). However I really would encourage you in the strongest possible way to give it another serious look and do so with the involvement of the community. Any technical issues can be overcome, all that matters is the basic principles of a) is it good for Frontier developments financially and b) is it good for the game. I think the answers to both those questions is a clear yes, if the offline mode is handled properly.

Its totally understandable that time constraints prevented it being feasible for release. The original design vision of an online galaxy was harder and more complex to achieve than originally planned (isn't it always!) but you have the luxury of time now. Look again, crucially look at how you guys can provide the framework with decent modding/scripting tools then let us worry about making the experience a deep, rich and engaging one. Let online and offline stand together, each with its own strengths and yes weaknesses. But surely its better to have a platform that gives its users the ability to enjoy it in as many different ways as possible.

Offline Elite Dangerous can be magnificent, it can be profitable and it can become a force that strengthens and enhances the community and the game for year and years to come.

 

[mbpoblet]

That was never the intended interpretation. We set out to make a vision of a game which we're proud of and we're achieving. We had intended to do a cut down version to support offline. The scope of the game has increased dramatically since Kickstarter and more of the game has needed to be done online. This has meant that we're unable to support offline. I completely understand that this upsets some people, I wouldn't pretend otherwise. But the fact came that we had to make a tough decision and we've made it. There has been quite a few posts that this was deliberate in some way to serve an agenda. The only agenda is to follow the vision of the game that David and ourselves have set out to meet. The other issue was timing of the announcement - again it coming so late in the day has upset people (in some cases more that the decision itself) that came about because we genuinely wanted to proved an offline mode. Ultimately we reached a point where it wasn't going to happen so we announced it. We would much rather not had to release such news a week before a launch event, but we had to tell people what was happening.

Michael

On the subject of hypothetical "hidden agendas", I've previously exposed in greater detail my reasons for not believing your justifications on this matter.

In any case, given Frontier's developers' proven talent and professionality, I find it very hard to believe that such a change can happen so late in the development cycle unintentionally.

The possibility of playing the game offline is not something you leave for the late stages of development, it's something you take into account and plan for since the early design stages.

Not only that, but given the sheer size of the game as compared to the potential number of players, who even in the best of cases will be outnumbered by NPCs and stars hundreds of thousands to one, even if player influence is artificially enhanced by skewing the numbers mechanisms need to have been implemented to generate dynamism and change in the galaxy beyond those caused by players (or direct Frontier action), lest the game quickly become static, repetitive, and stale; mechanisms that should also be useable in an hypothetical offline mode.

This leaves, to me, only three possibilities: either offline mode is technically possible in the current code base but is being withheld for non-technical reasons, or it was never planned to offer it, despite your statements to the contrary.

Or the third possibility, which I find extremely hard to believe, but obviously can't discard: that I'm overestimating the capabilities of Frontier's developers.

Of course, the fact that this exact situation has already happened two separate times in this industry (Diablo 3 and Simcity), both times with extremely similar claims by the developers involved, and both times with those claims having been proven false, doesn't help to believe this case is any different, either.

Let me repeat, though, that I bear no ill will whatsoever towards Frontier or any of its employees. As I said in an earlier post, It's precisely because I care(d) about the game and I highly respect(ed) the people making it, that this incomprehensible and unjustifiable decision angers and saddens me so much.

---

Righto you're back on. Apologies for that just sometimes need some time to catch up with you guys.

Okay back to the discussion then.

I see what you did, by the way. You got rid of my freudian slip comment (and fixed the source)! It even got me two good reps while it lasted! It was comedy gold! Not cool, man, not cool at all.
(I doubt you had a choice on the matter, though; keep up the good work. )

 

[kwh]

That was never the intended interpretation. We set out to make a vision of a game which we're proud of and we're achieving. We had intended to do a cut down version to support offline. The scope of the game has increased dramatically since Kickstarter and more of the game has needed to be done online. This has meant that we're unable to support offline. I completely understand that this upsets some people, I wouldn't pretend otherwise. But the fact came that we had to make a tough decision and we've made it. There has been quite a few posts that this was deliberate in some way to serve an agenda. The only agenda is to follow the vision of the game that David and ourselves have set out to meet. The other issue was timing of the announcement - again it coming so late in the day has upset people (in some cases more that the decision itself) that came about because we genuinely wanted to proved an offline mode. Ultimately we reached a point where it wasn't going to happen so we announced it. We would much rather not had to release such news a week before a launch event, but we had to tell people what was happening.

Michael

OK, so can I ask you this directly? You have Elite 3 in your stable, and Elite 3 had a second life in the community in D3D guise, basically as a community graphically enhanced version of FFE - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNIbekG4wLw for a comparison of the original with the graphically enhanced version. If the gameplay of FFE had been as badly bjorked as the graphics looked by the time it became of the D3D project, nobody would have bothered to engage with that. And yet they did! And D3D is as far advanced graphically from FFE as ED is from D3D. So, why can't you just bolt that proven, debugged, play tested game engine in behind the digital assets & micro gameplay of the Elite Dangerous client? I know not everything in FFE is _in_ the ED client yet - ship types, thargoids, planetary landings - but the hope has to be that it's coming, right? And even with limited ship types & some things not yet implemented, a stand alone FFE/ED hybrid would be a game that people unable to play online would enjoy playing, it would be DRM free, it would tick the 'honouring the kickstarter pledge' box, and it would be comparitively low effort to implement, given that all the key components are already built. Please, explain why you would chose not to build this, or at least ask the community in a poll whether they would be happy with this? Tell me it would cost more than the value of the lost goodwill & of the refunds you are going to have to pay people & the cloud hanging over the product launch?

Thank you...

 

[Polared]

such a small change to the game...

that, is where you lost me!

see, I've been a backer of elite dangerous for a few years now and been hoping that it would be made for ooh, 20 years more or less.
I've been a backer of FDEV since 1993 (Frontier on Amiga and then repurchased for PC (was the reason, along with x-wing, why I got a PC in the first place), and then FFE in 1995).
I would also consider myself to be a supporter/backer of DB since September 1984 (purchased elite for almost every single platform of computer I've ever owned, the only exception being Mac, but I did get it for an Apple II I had for a bit).

so, whilst I admire, support, agree and share your enthusiasm for ED online, I just can't find myself inline with what you are saying or the assumptions you make about FDEVs development process and the decisions they have taken, i'm fairly certain i'm correct in saying, you weren't there or part of their discussion and so couldn't possible know.

as for your being horrified, believe me so am I, but not for the reasons you state! this whole unfortunate and avoidable mess was not caused by any of the forum members posting here! and from the minute it kicked off, it could have been contained, maybe not completely solved to the satisfaction of everybody, but certainly should never of been allowed to grow to the monster it has become!

 

[spacedyemeerkat]

If it was up to me, I'd lock this thread and leave the last post from MB as the final remark. Those who just categorically won't believe him will not change their tune, and we'll just keep going in circles.

I agree with you. It's an enormous amount of dead horse flogging.

 

[MorkFromOrk]

That isn't the case. There are no sinister reasons behind the decision to not include offline. We're just not in a position to support both versions to the extent that a release would deserve.

Michael

Michael this was wrong. If you misspoke and think it should be said better then edit your own post. Getting the moderator to do it (or the mods deciding to do it off their own back which is far worse) is not a good thing.

The sinister thing was correctly said but could be interpreted both ways but only if taken completely out of context. You would be right to fix it but there are better ways than this.

 

[DarkWalker]

No, ED has never been *advertised* as offline. It has been confirmed and hinted, but never advertised.

Depends on how advertised is defined where you live.

Here, the legal definition for something being advertised is if it was stated in any communication issued by the dev, manufacturer, supplier, etc, or any communication authorized by them. The FAQ in the Kickstarter page, the answer in the AMA, the forum posts by members of Frontier, the fact it was listed as a feature in the store? Legally all of those are considered advertisement where I live.

(Which, BTW, has an interesting consequence here: advertisement is considered as part of any relevant boilerplate contract. Not delivering any promised feature is thus, legally, a breach of contract here, with all legal consequences that entails.)

I'm not sure how it works in other parts of the world, though.


BTW, to be quite clear, I'm not angry at Frontier for dropping offline mode. Disappointed, yes; after all, I have never pledged, nor will I ever pledge, for a game that does not have a DRM-free offline mode, even for games I intend to mostly play online. What I'm angry with is the absolute mess Frontier made of the announcement and the refunds. They should have made clear that the offline mode wasn't set in stone far earlier, and offered refunds to everyone that pledged due to the offline mode being available, at a minimum.

Also, I see the fact offline was only added halfway through the KS as even more damming. It means that Frontier saw a demand and made a promise in answer to that. In other words, it was not part of some design document they prepared and presented as is, but a promise made in answer to specific inquires.

 

[DarkWalker]

If it was up to me, I'd lock this thread and leave the last post from MB as the final remark. Those who just categorically won't believe him will not change their tune, and we'll just keep going in circles.

If you want all that is contained here to explode all over the whole forum, sure.

There is a good reason to keep one thread open and merge into it all posts about the same topic; it's standard practice not only here, but in about every game forum I've participated that is controlled by the dev or publisher. If you think having this thread is bad, not having it would be far worse.

 

[Alf]

No, ED has never been *advertised* as offline. It has been confirmed and hinted, but never advertised.

Speaking about the UK only, you are incorrect.

 

[Vargur]

That was never the intended interpretation. We set out to make a vision of a game which we're proud of and we're achieving. We had intended to do a cut down version to support offline. The scope of the game has increased dramatically since Kickstarter and more of the game has needed to be done online. This has meant that we're unable to support offline. I completely understand that this upsets some people, I wouldn't pretend otherwise. But the fact came that we had to make a tough decision and we've made it. There has been quite a few posts that this was deliberate in some way to serve an agenda. The only agenda is to follow the vision of the game that David and ourselves have set out to meet. The other issue was timing of the announcement - again it coming so late in the day has upset people (in some cases more that the decision itself) that came about because we genuinely wanted to proved an offline mode. Ultimately we reached a point where it wasn't going to happen so we announced it. We would much rather not had to release such news a week before a launch event, but we had to tell people what was happening.

Michael

Not everyone is interested in buying into an ambiguous vision.
Many people bought into it for the list of features which were presented.
If this features list was just this line :'Whatever that may fit into the vision' , i doubt any people, except for a few dedicated worshipers, would have bought into it.
One can only wonder about what will be axed next cause it didn't conform to 'the vision', because none of us can peer into DB's mind.

Three different avenues are there to continue .
- Bring back the feature.
- Pay back the people who lost what they paid for.
- Pay with reputation.
The latter happens automatically if none of the other avenues is chosen. Neither is there deliberate malicious intention from people to slander FD. But people just wont have anything good to say about a company after being treated the way they are, i think that's quite obvious.

 

[Michael Brookes]

OK, so can I ask you this directly? You have Elite 3 in your stable, and Elite 3 had a second life in the community in D3D guise, basically as a community graphically enhanced version of FFE - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNIbekG4wLw for a comparison of the original with the graphically enhanced version. If the gameplay of FFE had been as badly bjorked as the graphics looked by the time it became of the D3D project, nobody would have bothered to engage with that. And yet they did! And D3D is as far advanced graphically from FFE as ED is from D3D. So, why can't you just bolt that proven, debugged, play tested game engine in behind the digital assets & micro gameplay of the Elite Dangerous client? I know not everything in FFE is _in_ the ED client yet - ship types, thargoids, planetary landings - but the hope has to be that it's coming, right? And even with limited ship types & some things not yet implemented, a stand alone FFE/ED hybrid would be a game that people unable to play online would enjoy playing, it would be DRM free, it would tick the 'honouring the kickstarter pledge' box, and it would be comparitively low effort to implement, given that all the key components are already built. Please, explain why you would chose not to build this, or at least ask the community in a poll whether they would be happy with this? Tell me it would cost more than the value of the lost goodwill & of the refunds you are going to have to pay people & the cloud hanging over the product launch?

Thank you...

This would effectively be a new project. The code for the old versions of the game won't just drop into the new game.

Michael

 

[Michael Brookes]

Michael this was wrong. If you misspoke and think it should be said better then edit your own post. Getting the moderator to do it (or the mods deciding to do it off their own back which is far worse) is not a good thing.

The sinister thing was correctly said but could be interpreted both ways but only if taken completely out of context. You would be right to fix it but there are better ways than this.

He spotted my typo and asked me if he should change it - I said thanks, please do.

Michael

 

[kwh]

Depends on how advertised is defined where you live.

Here, the legal definition for something being advertised is if it was stated in any communication issued by the dev, manufacturer, supplier, etc, or any communication authorized by them. The FAQ in the Kickstarter page, the answer in the AMA, the forum posts by members of Frontier, the fact it was listed as a feature in the store? Legally all of those are considered advertisement where I live.

(Which, BTW, has an interesting consequence here: advertisement is considered as part of any relevant boilerplate contract. Not delivering any promised feature is thus, legally, a breach of contract here, with all legal consequences that entails.)

I'm not sure how it works in other parts of the world, though.


BTW, to be quite clear, I'm not angry at Frontier for dropping offline mode. Disappointed, yes; after all, I have never pledged, nor will I ever pledge, for a game that does not have a DRM-free offline mode, even for games I intend to mostly play online. What I'm angry with is the absolute mess Frontier made of the announcement and the refunds. They should have made clear that the offline mode wasn't set in stone far earlier, and offered refunds to everyone that pledged due to the offline mode being available, at a minimum.

Also, I see the fact offline was only added halfway through the KS as even more damming. It means that Frontier saw a demand and made a promise in answer to that. In other words, it was not part of some design document they prepared and presented as is, but a promise made in answer to specific inquires.

Not having an offline mode is costing them a great deal, in refunds & lost goodwill,& possible pending legal actions & negative publicity, and the way that decision was presented and handled is costing them a lot more, and it will continue to cost them sales & goodwill in the future because history has a long memory. I find it hard to believe that their internal decision making process factored in the giant excrement storm that has resulted from this elective choice. When it comes down to it, we are talking about perhaps funding a single developer on their team to build & support an offline version of ED using mostly assets FD already have or have built specifically for ED online. How much does one developer cost per year? Presumably more than ED thought that dropping an offline mode for the game from the plan would cost them when they made the decision. I imagine that if you counted the cost of all the refund requests and kickstarter backer unhappiness in these two threads alone, you'd have enough cash to fund a whole team to work on an offline version of ED. If people start going legal, it all gets far worse. In the UK, the sums involved, even for the kickstarter, would be within the scope of the small claims court. Frontier can't win any of these fights - the sums individually are small, collectively large, and the cost of defending them in court is higher than the sum at issue... plus win or lose, every time you go to court and point to the small print to try to shatter the dreams of some other outraged guy who backed the kickstarter so he had something to play during his long days in the desert or whatever, you get hit again and lose in the court of public opinion. Even if developing an offline version of ED really was nothing but downside for Frontier, the downsides of not developing one would appear at first sight to be much much larger than developing an offline version of ED could possibly have...