No Single Player Offline Mode then? [Part 2]

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Just out of curiosity I read the front page of kickstarter, and haven't seen any mention of off-line play. Sooo, what was so fundamental about off-line play that its not mentioned on the kickstarter page?

It's right there on the FAQ:

The above is the intended single player experience. However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server. You won't get the features of the evolving galaxy (although we will investigate minimising those differences) and you probably won't be able to sync between server and non-server (again we'll investigate).

There are also several confirmations by Braben, Brookes, et al in the comments and elsewhere on the internet (including this forums) almost up to the moment offline was revealed as having been scrapped; they've been linked to repeatedly in this threadnoughts.



EDIT: Hm... why wasn't this automatically merged with the previous comment? My comment count is more than large enough already... :eek:
(Yes, I should have checked and done it manually, but still...)




It's more the fact that the EULA's are designed to be -absolutely- watertight, but then the devs don't generally enforce them.

Until they do.

It gives them the legal cover to enforce bans and suspensions, because if they need to, then they simply point to the relevant bit of the EULA and say "You signed it, that's your problem."

Hm... once we get in-game advertising, could we use section eight ("if you do not want to receive dynamic advertising, you should only play the game when you are not connected to the Internet") to "enforce" an offline mode..? ;)
 
Last edited:
I admit English is not my first (nor second) language, but I completely fail to see how "there will also be an offline single player mode" can be interpreted to have the same meaning as "we will also attempt to implement an offline single player mode, but we can't promise anything".

If you'd be so kind as to illuminate me on this matter, so that I can increase my admittedly poor comprehension of the beautiful English language, I'd really appreciate it.

Thank you in advance. :)

It means pretty much the same as this:

Stating the obvious, all projects, whether building a bridge, making a film, studying for an exam or whatever, carry risk. Projects can run out of time or money, people can leave, assumptions that were made at the start may prove to be mistaken, or the results may simply not be as good as expected. Games development is no different.

When you support a kickstarter campaign, read the entire page, and save your keyboard from wear and tear(s).
 
Not posting as a mod here.

What's the endgame to this action? Is there some sort of satisfaction to be garnered from attempting to cause the game to fail because of the absence of a certain feature? Personally I think it smacks of "If I can't have the game I want then no-one can have it". If that sits well with you... well I know it wouldn't with me.

I don't think that's the objective at all. FD is not a two man team in the boondocks (The kind of teams that are flooding Steam with shallow games that require little graphical polish because they so indie.), but a proven studio with a track record.
Things were said by Frontier Development to reach the kickstarter-goal, that has been overly proven by now. I do believe that it's worth it to question KS about that, because a dangerous precedent has been set by Frontier Development.
You must also understand that already, long before this happened, a real apprehension within the marketplace exists towards the KS-ideal and other forms like Early Access programs. That apprehension did not grow out of nothing; it grew out of people repeatedly being roped in by pretty promises.
KS and many other forms developers have these days to generate income without even having a viable product are devoid of one important thing:
Consumer protection.
The advantage is totally one-sided in the favor of a developer.

What's going on is a natural effect: Balancing.
I don't think that'll happen overnight though, many more people will continue to pour money into projects before those systems truly protect customers. And yes, some developers will fold, but they will be the worst offenders. I don't think that a desire to have studios fold is in play here, but I do think that regulation is needed.

Looking at it emotionally just clouds the issue.
 
When you support a kickstarter campaign, read the entire page, and save your keyboard from wear and tear(s).

Oh, don't worry, I seriously doubt most of us will be backing any kickstarter campaigns any time soon, after this debacle.

Live and learn and all that.

Still, it's a shame to see a game I love(d) and a company I respect(ed) go down the drain due to bad management.
 
Last edited:
To Frontier Development,

I just want to say thanks for making an amazing game that I'm thrilled to own and play.

When I first heard about this situation, I wrote it off as silliness of a few individuals. Then I saw the press jumping on this like it was some scandal which is disappointing but the vultures need any blood in the water they can find to raise their traffic and I guess there's not a lot to talk about at the moment (I'm looking squarely at you Brianna Royce at Massively).

It's a shame a vocal minority has shed this much negative press on an amazing team that has worked so hard to produce a truly epic gaming experience. Unlike other current crowd funded space sim developers (that I have also financially invested in), I've seen great pains on your part to under promise and over deliver. It's ironic that your integrity is being called into question when that is something I would say is an unquestionable characteristic of your company. And your ability to hit deadlines is simply impressive.

Part of me regrets even posting since I'm sure Brianna and her ilk will use the thread page count as yet one more way to insinuate this scandal has blown to record proportions.

So without dragging it on any further, I will simply say thank you again and please, please, please keep up the great work. I will certainly continue to support this fine game.

Cheers!
 
When this thread reopens, I want everyone to say something positive about a position you find disagreeable, dangerous or in need of correction. Find someone you've tustled with and tell them how you respect the pain they've suffered; argue the logic of a position you've railed against; or just tell us about another forumite that's changed your mind on a major issue. I've said enough positive things now to last me a good long while, and will look unfavourably on any reluctance to help heal our community.
I find this quite bizarre. If followed it would imply that I haven't really meant what I've said already and was just trolling.

I agree that it's good to try to appreciate the opposite point of view, but to be instructed to do so seems to be off topic and pointless.




PS I hope you noticed I said something nice about this position which I disagree with. :)
 
Last edited:
Actually, all it takes is one to prove that it is so. Even one sale is an increase, but I'm sure the number is a heck of a lot higher than one. I think you are probably right though about people leaving for other places.

I'm just here because my refund ticket is still "new" after four days now. Yesterday I bought Inquisition and GTA5 for my PS4. They're fully offline, BTW. (Probably because the platform they're on in that regard, I don't know for sure.) Anyway, I'm just trying to stay informed, because Frontier has chosen to communicate on here only, and not to the people who have tickets outstanding.
If they did that, I wouldn't have any reason to show my face any longer. Until then, I'm in my full rights to be here and share my opinion. Stat.
 
I admit English is not my first (nor second) language, but I completely fail to see how "there will also be an offline single player mode" can be interpreted to have the same meaning as "we will also attempt to implement an offline single player mode, but we can't promise anything".

If you'd be so kind as to illuminate me on this matter, so that I can increase my admittedly poor comprehension of the beautiful English language, I'd really appreciate it.

Thank you in advance. :)


The quote above (which is a year old..) is surely only an indication of their intentions at that time. It's not something that can ever be construed as being carved in stone. Development is a flexible process and thus, things can and do change. If that's something that cannot be accepted then one can only advise to only purchase things after they have been made.

At the same time, I do appreciate that not getting an offline mode sucks for those that were banking on it. I just find this claim of "proof of intent" objectionable.
 
I will genuinely miss some of the folks that I have met since joining the Elite community almost 2 years ago. I have had some pretty cheerful, witty, and downright fun exchanges during and right after the kickstarter. I will miss those that I was looking forward to getting to know better trading stories with.

This mess is all so unfortunate. But it wasn't my doing -- I chipped in; I did my part. It was David Braben. It was his "creative decision" (or so he says) -- however long ago (certainly wasn't a week ago) -- to abandon the commitments he made to me and many others.

But then it got worse. Instead of just taking Elite from me, David Braben also wants to keep my money. And then it got worse again.

I find out that he is convinced that all games should only ever be online and more-so that there really is no such thing as owning software, that things like first-sale doctrine are a cancer eating away at corporate profits.

It is then that I am again filled with emptiness...David Braben nor Michael Brookes likely never had any real intention of delivering the offline, DRM-free game that they led me to believe they wanted my help to create.

At the very least, David Braben owes me 105 pounds, and I would appreciate your support in making that happen.

EDIT: To be clear and to avoid sounding too timid and needy (a reference from someone's previous post), I am both devastated and livid. My journey through this has me convinced that David Braben's ethics are incompatible with mine at best (a shark) or suspect at the worst (fraudulent); I strongly urge caution when considering your continued involvement with him and Frontier. I am also very tired -- perhaps following a prolonged squak ;)
 
Last edited:
Oh, don't worry, I seriously doubt most of us will be backing any kickstarter campaigns any time soon, after this debacle.

Live and learn and all that.

Still, it's a shame to see a game I love(d) and a company I respect(ed) go down the drain due to bad management.

Well that's the thing, it's only gone down in yours and few others estimation. Hardly down the drain.
It's a shame, I wouldn't want people excluded, but do feel some are excluding themselves without good reason (not sure if that applies to you mbpoblet).

I'm also all for campaigning (nicely) to have it re-investigated at a later date IF possible, or maybe like a Squadron 42 approach, but for now we know that isn't going to happen and those that can play online should play online at least in solo mode post release to see how things go.
 
I just want to say thanks for making an amazing game that I'm thrilled to own and play.

It would also be worth bearing in mind that those of us disappointed at the exclusion of offline play like the game no less than those that didn't care for the feature.

There are some fantastic YouTube videos out there now, showcasing the various features that Elite Dangerous is sporting, and there can be no doubting that they've built a great game. All of my time has been spent playing it with the Oculus Rift DK2, and the immersion that you feel when you pass through the station entrance into the area beyond is absolutely second to none. It is mesmerising.

Unfortunately, it's unlikely I'll ever play it again, because of this, but those that prefer online would do well to remember that they're far from being Elite's only fans. Indeed, that couldn't be further from the truth.
 
When this thread reopens, I want everyone to say something positive about a position you find disagreeable, dangerous or in need of correction.

Something positive about a position I find disagreeable... let's see... I admit it may make sense to not refund beta-access money, considering that as far as beta is concerned, people got what they paid for (although I still think the only moral thing to do would be to refund at least the money they paid for the full game, regardless of whether people already played beta, since that is still untouched goods).

Having said that, is this thread still open for debate? Correct me if I'm wrong (it is entirely possible that I may have misinterpreted) but from what you said, it sounds like we're not allowed to disagree any more. I appreciate the fact that moderators have been working extra shifts to keep this under control for the past week, but to adopt a "positive things only" policy sounds like a diplomatic attempt to kill the thread.
 
A letter of support

Edit: I've had my post redirected here so I'll just drop it into the maelstrom and see what comes out :)

Hello there,


I've been a backer for Elite Dangerous for a few months now and as a life long fan of the games it's so amazing to see this game being reborn with modern day game tech.


I wanted to write an open letter to David Braben and his team, supporting your game but more notably offering my support for the recent change to the games inclusion of an offline mode. I have been horrified by how such a small change to the game could turn so bitter. The official forums for this game up until these last weeks have really reflected a more mature and pleasant type of gamer, sure there are a few characters but it's such a good group. It's upsetting then to see a small percentage of this community attack the developers with such relentless bitterness. I felt like it was important someone show there are many who still fully support this game (starting with the hundreds of members in my own gaming community) and the incredible places it will go.

The development of a game is no set thing, often a game will barely resemble the original concept with features being added as well as some that don't work dropped. I would argue that this game is one of the most ambitious games I've ever seen attempted, the team are literally creating am entire working galaxy.. that in itself deserves an award. I would also argue that when the team set off making this game they clearly did think an offline mode would be possible. However as they work on the games meta systems it has become clear an offline mode would severely dull the game and as such they had to make the decision to drop that part (the only course of action any good developer would make). I struggle to see how this is something they should have to say sorry for, as the game has developed it's become apparent an offline mode can't work with what they are trying to accomplish. This is not going back on commitments, this is not betraying the backers. A game this complicated absolutely must be in a constant state of self assessment as new systems come online.

This notion feeds into my next point, when you back any project (not just games) unless you have a legal contract stating otherwise your cash is none refundable. Lots of people are talking about getting their money back or even pursuing legal action. It's a gift of faith that the people you are giving the money to will make a product you believe in. It's not what some clearly think it is, a stick to pull on when things don't develop exactly as you want. In my opinion FD have made an incredible game which already is like nothing out there. You just have to meet David or watch one of his dev diaries, you can see up he's such a humble, lovely bloke with a dream of making this game for us. This is why I've been frankly embarrassed this last week by the way which a small percentage of my fellow gamers have turned on him and made a huge fuss over something that while sad isn't something the team could have known at the start.

I do sympathise with early backers, I know a game totally independent of the internet was an important feature which appealed to many. However as I've stated above, the people acting like they've been betrayed need to remember how a game develops and that sometimes an end product does have to differ from the original design. That's why games are developed and don't just appear (although COD might do that) :)

Let's move forwards guys, we are so close the release now. This game is going to be incredible and the best thing we can do is play as much as we can and pour our constructive feedback onto these forums.


Best regards,
Genophix.
 
Edit: I've had my post redirected here so I'll just drop it into the maelstrom and see what comes out :)

Hello there,


I've been a backer for Elite Dangerous for a few months now and as a life long fan of the games it's so amazing to see this game being reborn with modern day game tech.


I wanted to write an open letter to David Braben and his team, supporting your game but more notably offering my support for the recent change to the games inclusion of an offline mode. I have been horrified by how such a small change to the game could turn so bitter. The official forums for this game up until these last weeks have really reflected a more mature and pleasant type of gamer, sure there are a few characters but it's such a good group. It's upsetting then to see a small percentage of this community attack the developers with such relentless bitterness. I felt like it was important someone show there are many who still fully support this game (starting with the hundreds of members in my own gaming community) and the incredible places it will go.

The development of a game is no set thing, often a game will barely resemble the original concept with features being added as well as some that don't work dropped. I would argue that this game is one of the most ambitious games I've ever seen attempted, the team are literally creating am entire working galaxy.. that in itself deserves an award. I would also argue that when the team set off making this game they clearly did think an offline mode would be possible. However as they work on the games meta systems it has become clear an offline mode would severely dull the game and as such they had to make the decision to drop that part (the only course of action any good developer would make). I struggle to see how this is something they should have to say sorry for, as the game has developed it's become apparent an offline mode can't work with what they are trying to accomplish. This is not going back on commitments, this is not betraying the backers. A game this complicated absolutely must be in a constant state of self assessment as new systems come online.

This notion feeds into my next point, when you back any project (not just games) unless you have a legal contract stating otherwise your cash is none refundable. Lots of people are talking about getting their money back or even pursuing legal action. It's a gift of faith that the people you are giving the money to will make a product you believe in. It's not what some clearly think it is, a stick to pull on when things don't develop exactly as you want. In my opinion FD have made an incredible game which already is like nothing out there. You just have to meet David or watch one of his dev diaries, you can see up he's such a humble, lovely bloke with a dream of making this game for us. This is why I've been frankly embarrassed this last week by the way which a small percentage of my fellow gamers have turned on him and made a huge fuss over something that while sad isn't something the team could have known at the start.

I do sympathise with early backers, I know a game totally independent of the internet was an important feature which appealed to many. However as I've stated above, the people acting like they've been betrayed need to remember how a game develops and that sometimes an end product does have to differ from the original design. That's why games are developed and don't just appear (although COD might do that) :)

Let's move forwards guys, we are so close the release now. This game is going to be incredible and the best thing we can do is play as much as we can and pour our constructive feedback onto these forums.


Best regards,
Genophix.

Eloquently said sir, have some rep!
 
I have been horrified by how such a small change to the game could turn so bitter.

Unfortunately, an eye for an eye is very human. In other words, negative actions typically provoke negative responses, and you could no sooner prevent that on this planet than you could stop the sun from coming up again tomorrow.

We are but apes, I'm afraid, and such behaviour is very much in our nature.

There are those that believe Frontier set out to deliberately deceive, even back during the Kickstarter itself, and, while I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt, if I had to put money on it, I don't think I would. As has also been said, I certainly don't believe it was a decision they came to only a week ago.

My point, of course, is that this wasn't a very cool thing that they did, and those that were passionate about this feature feel like they've been swindled out of their hard-earnt money. Anger is typically the emotion that follows being treated in such a manner, and, unfortunately, it's made it a bit of a nightmare for the mods in these parts.
 
I really love the Game and it hard for me that right now I can´t play because I ask for refund so it will not be honest to continue to TEST the Beta/Gamma.
(See its nothing Internet releated...is an RL Decision...).
About Kickstarter .... if they didn´t promise that there WILL be an Offline mode, this Game will not exists, because Kickstarter has than Failed....even if only 20% missing for Success.
So even who play now and has no problem with Online allways or DRM ...... you can´t play this Game with out that Promise.( And its writeen about DRM free)
 
The quote above (which is a year old..) is surely only an indication of their intentions at that time. It's not something that can ever be construed as being carved in stone. Development is a flexible process and thus, things can and do change. If that's something that cannot be accepted then one can only advise to only purchase things after they have been made.

At the same time, I do appreciate that not getting an offline mode sucks for those that were banking on it. I just find this claim of "proof of intent" objectionable.

You can change some features during development. That is OK. But what is not OK is to change/abandon the way game can be played and pretent that is not a major issue. Especially since they obviously didn't even bother to do their homework and figure out that certain way of the gameplay is the only one prefered by the part of their fanase and potential future fanbase. Yes, some people who are not Elite fans and do not like online games would also buy Elite in the future if offline mode was availabla.
 
The quote above (which is a year old..) is surely only an indication of their intentions at that time. It's not something that can ever be construed as being carved in stone. Development is a flexible process and thus, things can and do change. If that's something that cannot be accepted then one can only advise to only purchase things after they have been made.

This. Of course many here have indeed stated that they will never again back a KS project. That is probably wise for them.

The game has been getting better in leaps and bounds, and I'm very much looking forward to seeing the revelations in the premier.
 
Frontier has actually already accounted for this -- but here is what you need to know to unwrap their trickery embedded in their definition of "what you paid for".

Look at http://elitedangerous.com/backers > My Rewards and then compare with the Orders in http://store.elitedangerous.com

I backed for £90 at the physical DRM-free premium boxed edition tier and my screen shows a total of 3 orders:
1) Elite : Dangerous -- cost: £0
2) Beta access -- cost: £35
3) Expansion pass -- cost: £55

See? They switched what is documented as what you actually paid for. As far as their books go, no one paid money for the game, they only paid money for early access.

Their legal positioning so far should make sense now: "You downloaded the beta, which means you accepted delivery of the product that you paid for. You are not entitled to a refund of any money."

Dont know about other countries laws, but in Czech Republic this fullfils legal definition of Fraud

All that Czech backers need to do is to drop by at any police station an put Criminal Charge there. Since fraud is part of criminal law, you dont have to get lawyer, it basicly becomes state (as your representative) vs Frontier.
 
Edit: I've had my post redirected here so I'll just drop it into the maelstrom and see what comes out :)

Hello there,


I've been a backer for Elite Dangerous for a few months now and as a life long fan of the games it's so amazing to see this game being reborn with modern day game tech.


I wanted to write an open letter to David Braben and his team, supporting your game but more notably offering my support for the recent change to the games inclusion of an offline mode. I have been horrified by how such a small change to the game could turn so bitter. The official forums for this game up until these last weeks have really reflected a more mature and pleasant type of gamer, sure there are a few characters but it's such a good group. It's upsetting then to see a small percentage of this community attack the developers with such relentless bitterness. I felt like it was important someone show there are many who still fully support this game (starting with the hundreds of members in my own gaming community) and the incredible places it will go.

The development of a game is no set thing, often a game will barely resemble the original concept with features being added as well as some that don't work dropped. I would argue that this game is one of the most ambitious games I've ever seen attempted, the team are literally creating am entire working galaxy.. that in itself deserves an award. I would also argue that when the team set off making this game they clearly did think an offline mode would be possible. However as they work on the games meta systems it has become clear an offline mode would severely dull the game and as such they had to make the decision to drop that part (the only course of action any good developer would make). I struggle to see how this is something they should have to say sorry for, as the game has developed it's become apparent an offline mode can't work with what they are trying to accomplish. This is not going back on commitments, this is not betraying the backers. A game this complicated absolutely must be in a constant state of self assessment as new systems come online.

This notion feeds into my next point, when you back any project (not just games) unless you have a legal contract stating otherwise your cash is none refundable. Lots of people are talking about getting their money back or even pursuing legal action. It's a gift of faith that the people you are giving the money to will make a product you believe in. It's not what some clearly think it is, a stick to pull on when things don't develop exactly as you want. In my opinion FD have made an incredible game which already is like nothing out there. You just have to meet David or watch one of his dev diaries, you can see up he's such a humble, lovely bloke with a dream of making this game for us. This is why I've been frankly embarrassed this last week by the way which a small percentage of my fellow gamers have turned on him and made a huge fuss over something that while sad isn't something the team could have known at the start.

I do sympathise with early backers, I know a game totally independent of the internet was an important feature which appealed to many. However as I've stated above, the people acting like they've been betrayed need to remember how a game develops and that sometimes an end product does have to differ from the original design. That's why games are developed and don't just appear (although COD might do that) :)

Let's move forwards guys, we are so close the release now. This game is going to be incredible and the best thing we can do is play as much as we can and pour our constructive feedback onto these forums.


Best regards,
Genophix.

Althouhgh I can understand Elite fans who are not affected by scrapping offline mode and their passion for the game (since we do all share that passion), this is basically just another single sided: "Who cares if someone feels hurt, we are not hurt, we got what we wanted so we therefore support you fully. Do not bother about other people who helped us to bring this game to life based on some silly promises. Let them shut up and leave so only we can enjoy the game they also helped to come true. It was a risk they should be aware of".

Yes, it's good to be on the side who was not affected by "design decisions", isn't it?! :D
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom