No Single Player Offline Mode then? [Part 2]

[paralipsis]

I have sympathies for everyone in this forum that is angry on both sides. While I personally want a refund, I can also see how the ongoing anger and demand for answers is eroding the foundations of the game's community, damaging its reputation with prospective future players, and generally casting a dark cloud over everything that people have been eagerly awaiting for years, long before even the kickstarter began. It's my sincere hope that FD take steps to diffuse this issue. I don't just mean with money, I mean a frank and open discussion. The ill will generated by the scattered official forum posts on this issue to date and the last two newsletters have fuelled a lot of the resentment that has boiled over in this thread, across the forums, and beyond. Whether I end up ever being able to play it or not, I want to see Elite Dangerous survive and thrive. Far too many people, both within FD and within the wider Elite community, have put in far too much effort to see things falter at this stage.

But like it or not, the community is fractured, and near to breaking. Frontier can do something about this, and not just by processing refund requests. In fact, I think if all they do at this point is quietly try to resolve this one refund support ticket at a time then this rift is never going to properly heal. It's my hope that Frontier see this as the single most pivotal moment to happen in the Elite's development since they launched the kickstarter. Just as the kickstarter involved a whole lot of communication with fans, that need has arisen again. Most folks over there are probably all hands deep in crunch time, so I know it's hard to balance priorities at this point. But now is not the time to hunker down, and let the anger of people who have no power to do anything about this situation define the discourse on this issue.

 

[Zuikaku]

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.

So according to FDs logic - the final game will be free for everybody?! After december the 16th if someone wants to buy elite, it will cost him 0 pounds/euros/dollars?!

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Thread reopened. We're all on this rollercoaster together, and we've all gone through a rough patch this week. This thread will be a nice place to hang out from now on, so I'll open the floor up for someone to say something nice about someone they disagree with...

It is very hard to stay positive on this matter. Especially without support or emphaty from the rest of community (who obviously consider us as a threat now) and unknown status of refunds or possible future of offline mode (remember that many of us are still pending requests for refunds because of that). So excuse us in advance if we can not be overly positive at the moment, since we would like to be

 

[SalsaDMA]

I got better things to do with my life than continnously follow this issue.

As things are, Brabens switcharoo cost us not only money in the past (I'm still waiting for my refund request to be honoured), but also costing us time now by trying to keep up to date on the thing.

To put it bluntly: I personally consider Braben as someone I will never in the future give any of my money to because of his actions here. Him canning offline and then returning our money unconditionally I could have lived with (even if it would have been an unethical move for him, as it's basicaly an interest free loan he took), but the fact that he tries to keep the money just pushes things into the "never again" box of things.

The whole issue becomes laughable when he's even stated that they COULD give us an offline version but choose not to. His promise that this offline version would hapen if they can the game itself is something I find hard to believe given his recent track record of keeping promises. Especially as he cannot predict the future better than any other person. To calrify, if FD went into administration (certainly wouldn't be the first company that tried getting into the always online business it happened to) what guarentee can he give that he would even be allowed to freely give out something that could very well be seen as a sellable asset and thus something that by law should be used to secure money with?

I'm not gonna bother with Brabens failure (which I consider this whole thing as now) more than once a day, cause I frankly need to spend my precious time on other stuff than defending my rights against people I consider to be quick to give up theirs and others rights just for a quick fix of gaming.

 

[Zuikaku]

The whole issue becomes laughable when he's even stated that they COULD give us an offline version but choose not to. His promise that this offline version would hapen if they can the game itself is something I find hard to believe given his recent track record of keeping promises. Especially as he cannot predict the future better than any other person. To calrify, if FD went into administration (certainly wouldn't be the first company that tried getting into the always online business it happened to) what guarentee can he give that he would even be allowed to freely give out something that could very well be seen as a sellable asset and thus something that by law should be used to secure money with?

.

Great point here!

 

[Irre]

yeah "we can´t do it".. LOL............
this is just a clumsy way to justify DRM because they want to maximize profit for their shareholder and prevent some guys from pirating their game, or protect their random generator code for the universe.

This open world is LESS dynamic than any GTA or even X3 or Xrebirth and it can *only* run on a server and not locally? Come on who are they trying to hoax?
They dropped offline mode probably before Kickstarter even finished, just like they knew they would never make the finishing date on Kickstarter.
It was all just polishing of the campaign infos to maximize profit

Sim City debacle strikes again

 

[paralipsis]

yeah "we can´t do it".. LOL............
this is just a clumsy way to justify DRM because they want to maximize profit for their shareholder and prevent some guys from pirating their game, or protect their random generator code for the universe.

I doubt that. That sounds more like an argument from final consequences. I do think control has a lot to do with why they let offline mode go into a development death spiral, but the fact that all players are now lumped with DRM as a consequence seems like an unfortunate side effect. It's an explicit breach of contract side-effect, but I doubt it was ever the primary intent.

 

[musojon74]

Seems like there are significant issues with station jumping destroying player ships again. We will be unable to play offline, but the net code may still not be robust enough for open play to work. I had offline mode as my backup plan to avoid these issues...

 

[Wellington]

Able to post the article Wellington?



- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I envy your level of dedication and support! Hopefully the day won't come when FD sticks it to you.

UPDATE 21/11/2014: Frontier has had a rethink and is looking again at its controversial Elite: Dangerous refund policy.

Posting on the Frontier forum, David Braben said the Cambridge-based company would investigate requests for a refund it had initially denied because people had already played the game.

"We initially declined some people's request for refund as our records showed they have already played Elite: Dangerous online," he wrote.

"After listening to many of the comments I received after my AMA here, we have since re-opened these requests and informed those people that we will be contacting them so that we can fully understand their individual situation before making a more informed decision.

"We will be contacting them each in the next few working days."

Braben's comment was posted yesterday evening after a gargantuan 10,000 post thread packed with heated debate on Frontier's decision not to include an offline mode in the space game.

ORIGINAL STORY: Frontier has moved to clarify its Elite: Dangerous refund policy following the backlash against the game's lack of an offline mode.

Last week Frontier announced Elite: Dangerous requires and internet connection at all times - angering those who had backed the game based on the belief an offline mode would be included.

1
Do you think people are entitled to a refund?
Many called for a refund on their Kickstarter pledge and alpha and/or beta purchase.

Now, Frontier chief David Braben has said those who have pre-ordered the £35 release version of the game from Frontier's online store, and therefore are yet to play the game, can get a refund.

However, Frontier said it will not refund those who have already played the game.

"We have started responding to requests where there is a clear outcome," Braben wrote in the latest Elite: Dangerous newsletter.

"Those who have pre-ordered an Elite: Dangerous release version from our online store and have therefore not yet played the game are eligible for a refund.

"Those who have already been playing the game online in the Alpha and/or Beta phases, regardless of whether they backed the project via Kickstarter or purchased access to Alpha and/or Beta through our online store, are not eligible for a refund."

That's pretty clear cut, but there seems scope for a refund in other circumstances, too.

"We want to make sure we treat each person's situation with the thoroughness it deserves," Braben added, "and have contacted each of them to ask that they bear with us over the next few working days if their circumstances do not fit either criteria above as we look into individual requests."

The furore over Elite: Dangerous' lack of an offline mode has sparked a debate about the kind of game its developers intended it to be compared to the expectations of backers.

"Many of the conversations we have had during development focussed on backers wanting to play the game without the downside of online - griefing especially - ie a single player experience," Braben said.

"We considered this to be the main issue and focussed on making sure we had a great single-player offering. We have also ensured that the solo play mode has a minimal network requirement (about 10 kbps). "

There's also a debate about whether Elite: Dangerous should be considered a massively multiplayer online game such as World of Warcraft.

"Technically, it has always been," Braben said. "There are already over 100,000 people playing in the same world. We believe that always-online entertainment is already a reality for the majority. We are delivering a truly huge game using the best technology and designed to stand the test of time, played for many years to come and still be relevant."

The last Elite: Dangerous beta build goes live on 22nd November. Elite: Dangerous 1.0 launches on 16th December.

Has Frontier denied you a refund on Elite: Dangerous? If so, I'd love to hear your story. wes@eurogamer.net.

 

[Michael Brookes]

yeah "we can´t do it".. LOL............
this is just a clumsy way to justify DRM because they want to maximize profit for their shareholder and prevent some guys from pirating their game, or protect their random generator code for the universe.

This open world is LESS dynamic than any GTA or even X3 or Xrebirth and it can *only* run on a server and not locally? Come on who are they trying to hoax?
They dropped offline mode probably before Kickstarter even finished, just like they knew they would never make the finishing date on Kickstarter.
It was all just polishing of the campaign infos to maximize profit

Sim City debacle strikes again

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

 

[paralipsis]

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

I appreciate that the decision has been made, but I really wish you could say in such a way as to imply that people really wouldn't have wanted to play it offline because it would have been no good. If that were the case, then that's an assertion that really demands an exhaustive explanation, not the vague generalities I've read to date. Otherwise it just reads like "we know what's good for you".

 

[Wellington]

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

I'm sorry Michael but I for one dont believe you. Having seen for myself Mr Brabens stance on DRM etc (The quotes are widely available), I can fully understand peoples ire.

 

[Michael Brookes]

I appreciate that the decision has been made, but I really wish you could say in such a way as to imply that people really wouldn't have wanted to play it offline because it would have been no good. If that were the case, then that's an assertion that really demands an exhaustive explanation, not the vague generalities I've read to date. Otherwise it just reads like "we know what's good for you".

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

 

[moonsword]

Great point here!

But this won't be an offline version I and many others won't like to get, because I expected a dynamic offline version and not a static one.
Now we will get a dynamic but not really offline version.
Now for me this is the better pill to take.

I am still looking forward on the single and multiplayer version.

I do not know any such complex development project which at the end looked not exactly the same as it was originally planned.

In Germany we say to these sort of reactions "Ihr solltet mal die Kirche im Dorf lassen."

 

[Alf]

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

How long until you start processing refunds Michael?

I'd guess there are quite a few people like myself who just want their money back and information on when that process will start and how long it will take to complete would be appreciated.

 

[Crazy Earl]

Where do you live?

Country NSW, Aust. The cables are coming but it could be years.

 

[Polared]

The quote above (which is a year old..)

and as far as everybody knew or had been informed still held true, until somebody far more clever than I, read between the lines of an on the face of it innocuous statement in newsletter 49 and started asking questions, so therefore, it's irrelevant as to when the quote was made.

 

[Alf]

The quote above (which is a year old..) is surely only an indication of their intentions at that time.

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

 

[Wellington]

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

You mean, its better to let the cat out of the the bag NOW instead of the launch gig? Can you imagine them dropping THAT bomb on an unsuspecting fan base at the launch gig

 

[Iain M Norman]

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.

 

[Adept]

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.

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.