No Single Player offline Mode then?

[deusx_ophc]

Er... this whole debacle started three days ago. Before the weekend. Give it time. (Launch will probably be even worse, though).

now those FDEV shares are illiquid as hell and only 16% are on the market really (rest is in the hands of 5 exces at FDEV and 4 key long term investors). a puny 10k shares changed hands today, mainly on buy. so that share price will not drop anytime soon, i wish it would

 

[Wolframium]

I do hope this is the only major thing dropped that can't be considered at all. If we're destined for a slow dripfeed over the next month of 'actually... we're not doing that either' then I wouldn't want to be in FD's shoes.

As for this specific? Disappointed but not surprised. Nobody seems to make decent offline games any more. It must be a lost art to all these new developers who ask 'but where's the server?'

To be honest, I think the reactions of many in the community disappoint me more - the moment something doesn't affect someone personally, all that can be heard is 'sucks to be you', 'I feel for you', 'you should move on', 'don't see what the fuss is' etc. Whether personally I want offline mode or not, I look around this forum and ask 'do I really want to spend quality time with these anti-social people in a persistent universe? I'm not sure I want to in a forum, let alone real life, so why would I in ED, where I'm paying for the privilege?'.

This. Very much this. For some reason, all gaming companies get these die hard supporters that will defend them even when their actions are utterly indefensible, which is why they keep getting away with stuff that would send most other businesses bankrupt. I mean, when people buy a car, a remarkable feat of engineering requiring the combined efforts of experts from several different fields ranging from mechanics to metallurgy to electronics, they rightly expect it to be exactly as described and to work flawlessly from day 1, and there would understandably be a major uproar if it was "buggy" or if they announced one month prior to release that "the CD player has been discarded because CDs are so 1990's", and people would also quite rightly become upset if, at some point down the road, the car company decided to repaint everyone's car bright pink because "a substantial part of the user base has voiced their preference for the colour pink". Yet when it comes to the remarkably less delicate task of designing software, it seems like companies can get away with just about anything, especially when it comes to laughing in the face of their old fan base.

 

[vjek]

V nice, just reading the Drew Wagar blog and it's spot on with how I feel about the situation, especially re: KS refunds etc

http://www.drewwagar.com/progress-report/elite-dangerous-and-playing-offline/

Just finished reading it as well. It's well written (as expected, from a writer), but I know a shill when I smell one.
Nothing in that blog post is anything except inoffensive pablum, expressed as compromising opinion.
To me, it reads as a diffusion piece. The expected goal is to diffuse criticism based on not agreeing or disagreeing with anything on topic. Which is fine, that's his soapbox on the internet to say whatever he wants, but it's nothing insightful nor special, imho.

 

[stimutacs]

Just finished reading it as well. It's well written (as expected, from a writer), but I know a shill when I smell one.
Nothing in that blog post is anything except inoffensive pablum, expressed as compromising opinion.
To me, it reads as a diffusion piece. The expected goal is to diffuse criticism based on not agreeing or disagreeing with anything on topic. Which is fine, that's his soapbox on the internet to say whatever he wants, but it's nothing insightful nor special, imho.

Yeah I think they're clearly going for the low energy smother and burn out tactic at FD. What's amusing is that in trying to vigorously defend these actions online, their biggest supporters seem to be going full speed ahead with the exact opposite plan, drawing more and more attention to it

 

[-c-s-]

I am sad and a little disgruntled at the decision to forever abandon offline support. Without that support, I do not consider E : D to be "DRM-free".

Furthermore, the reasons provided explain why offline isn't a feature right now; they are extremely shallow in explaining why it was abandoned forever.

My hope is that they soon announce that offline is only delayed not abandoned. But then they could just change their mind again at a later time...

 

[Seonid]

Interesting. You seem to be suggesting that DB's behaviour is comparable to that of some of the less stable contributors on this thread.

Whoosh. No I'm not, never mind...

 

[Diziet Sma]

I fear it is too late, the damage is done, ED will be lucky to survive this one and I suspect we can kiss the DLC's goodbye.

And, of course, it'll all be the offliner's fault, right? Not FD's for not having the courage to be upfront with us, way back when they first realised they were painting themselves into a corner? Nah, 'course not..

I'm done here

If only you meant that.. but I'm sure I'll see more of your feeble attempts at wit and snarkiness in this thread, before long.

 

[Namix]

This. Very much this. For some reason, all gaming companies get these die hard supporters that will defend them even when their actions are utterly indefensible, which is why they keep getting away with stuff that would send most other businesses bankrupt. I mean, when people buy a car, a remarkable feat of engineering requiring the combined efforts of experts from several different fields ranging from mechanics to metallurgy to electronics, they rightly expect it to be exactly as described and to work flawlessly from day 1, and there would understandably be a major uproar if it was "buggy" or if they announced one month prior to release that "the CD player has been discarded because CDs are so 1990's", and people would also quite rightly become upset if, at some point down the road, the car company decided to repaint everyone's car bright pink because "a substantial part of the user base has voiced their preference for the colour pink". Yet when it comes to the remarkably less delicate task of designing software, it seems like companies can get away with just about anything, especially when it comes to p***ing in the face of their old fan base.

http://www.wired.com/2014/07/homer-simpson-car/ springs to mind

 

[Globusdiablo]

I was just thinking of happier times and then suddenly this image took on a more cynical twist.

Ha! Excellent! Very funny.

No rep to give at the moment, sorry.

 

[RGS]

Along the lines of the 'spin' I felt from the recent newsletter, and I could be wrong on this one, but weren't there meant to be 25 ships at launch? If so, MB has confirmed in another thread that there won't be 25 on the 16th December, rather they will come later. Personally I'm totally cool with this as I imagine most people are, but much as the 'offline mode is out' was glossed over with 'online's so good,' rather than saying "unfortunately we're not going to hit our target of 25 ships at launch as per the KS goal, however the good news is we'll be delivering 30 over the coming months," they instead just skip the part about that particular goal being missed entirely. No 'unfortunately,' no 'sorry we're slipping just a bit on this one,' just - "Hey guys, good news - 30 ships instead of 25!"

I don't really mind this all that much, it's a relatively minor thing, but considering how the offline issue was dealt with, I looked again at the other bits of info.

I get the feeling that the majority of us here like what they've done with the game generally + we have (had maybe in some cases...) faith in where they're taking it - Why have they started to 'spin' us now? At bit more upfront honesty would have gone down so much better IMO. It's the way things are being communicated ATM which is the big issue for me. Newsletter feels a bit more like a sales brochure.

 

[Gazz]

I did not back the Kickstarter because while single player was mentioned in passing, the glory of multiplayer was preached in every other sentence.

That was a big fat warning sign and all the single player comments afterward usually came with some hemming and hawing.
I still kept an eye on this one because I like space games. (I don't own an Assassin's Creed or COD game)

Oh, I have backed a lot of Kickstarters. Some work out great, some fail gloriously. But when a Kickstarter does not deliver the promised features it must be considered a failure, no matter how shiny the website is.
"Gave it a good try" doesn't win you any prizes. Not in the real world.

Now that the release is looming on the horizon, the feature hacksaw comes out. Ships? Cut. Offline play? Cut. Any bets on what's next?
It's not like this is the first time this happened in gaming history. I saw it "live" with Battlecruiser 3000 (the inside scoop) and I played what was left of Outpost when they shipped it. (yeh, I'm a dinosaur)
Always sad to see but... sacrifices have to be made for the good of the company. The game is just a product and when you have so many preorders, the expected refund demands are simply part of the calculation.

What really saddens me, though, is that apparently for a demonstration they had at one time the "server" running on the same box as the client so it does work offline.
It's just not "the vision" they want to force on us.
Sorry pals but I have my own vision, my own idea of what is fun and what isn't, TYVM. <snip>

Am I angry? Nah.
Sad, wistful. This could have been a real successor to Elite 2. I would have liked that. =/

 

[Skizomeuh]

And this is one of the biggest disappointments for me. Its the same issue I had with Landmark. Big companies come along and make use of funding methods that have been a fantastic boon to indie developers. Big companies that arguably shouldn't need such funding streams or development models. They then screw over people by reneging on promises and put off people from using these crowd funding or early access models in future which will only hurt the indie companies in the end.

Shame on you Frontier. You're not just damaging your own reputation your damaging the reputation and future of the crowd funding model.

Sorry, maybe I missed something but I thought crowdfunding was a way for anyone to try to gather donations to be able to freely create the project they want, without any external force to constrain or dictate, and to preserve the Intellectual Property.

Post like this show how despotic an end-user can be. Bobby Kotick is jealous. Actually you too are "damaging the reputation and future of the crowd funding model."

 

[undercovergeek]

for all the 'some legal action must be taken and then the whole evil FD empire will crumble under the weight of my mighty court case' strategists

consider if you will these 2 scenarios last Friday afternoon

<<ring, ring>>

'yeah, big dave speaking'

'David, its the devs, weve got a problem. That whole off line thing, im not sure we can do it properly, we might have to can it'

'Oh crap.................... i know, pull it, pretend it never happened and then post it in the newsletter, we'll be fine'


OR


<<ring, ring>>

'hello, very expensive solicitors limited'

'its big dave at FD, i dont think we can fulfil one of our KS pledges and we probably have to pull it, im just ringing to make sure were covered before a mob of angry torch bearers starts talking about legal action and taking us to court'

which do you really think happened?

 

[Erik Marcaigh]

Maybe the American soldier which can't play now offline must ask some lawyer in USA.

I ran a Neverwinter Nights server/persistent world for over 3 years. There were American soldiers who played on it. Some were stationed in the Middle East. One was on a carrier in the Gulf. They've got internet access.

 

[Ref Minor]

Anger
Denial
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance

I wonder what stage David Braben is at?

 

[Zuikaku]

What really saddens me, though, is that apparently for a demonstration they had at one time the "server" running on the same box as the client so it does work offline.
It's just not "the vision" they want to force on us.
Sorry pals but I have my own vision, my own idea of what is fun and what isn't, TYVM. Yes, I'm an arrogant b****** like that.

Sad, wistful. This could have been a real successor to Elite 2. I would have liked that. =/

It is so sad that they have abandoned the concept of Frontier for the sake of multiplayer histeria. And if that what have you written about the offline server is true, than I'm really angry on FDs!

 

[pgargon]

We have no plans to shut the servers down anytime soon. This is a core project for the company and we intend developing for it as long as we can.

Michael

Unbelievable but unfortunately ... if the offline mode for FD is true even as impossible as it looks like with planetary landings or another features? I trust FD no longer ... You have the Backer deceived and you will do it again ...

P. S. Incidentally small independent programmers create what you fail ... an entire universe and planet landings and offline with about 300 MB ... I'm just saying ... PIONEER because I can again explore the universe like in the old Elite Frontier .. ,

 

[Bargib]

I love ED as it is, and think it is the BDSSE - just to quote a different company. More and more games are connected to an online part, and it is just as it is. Get over it, and enjoy the game! It is great and lots of fun... )

 

[Skizomeuh]

Ships? Cut.
/

Wrong. The remaining 14 ships are not cut, just postponed to after the release. I bet there will be one or two to come before d-day. And they annouced 5 more to come too.

 

[kthulu]

Exactly

...

What really saddens me, though, is that apparently for a demonstration they had at one time the "server" running on the same box as the client so it does work offline.
...

=/

Yes that is bothering, having a function readily available when demoing the game but refuse from getting it into the final release.

Having said that, I do look really much forward to have Elite Dangerous up and running , it just could have been so much better with a true offline mode.