Not such a good example because you can use any mail server.
You are not tied to the servers of one particular company.
No Single Player offline Mode then?
- Thread starter Brandon31
- Start date
- Status
You are not tied to the servers of one particular company.
psyron
Banned
lol you're hilarious. How big of a snapshot? How soon will they add all these amazing improvements and expansions? Enough to save them from being scourged by review sites for releasing a buggy, incomplete, misadvertised game? What faith you have.
Go back to the Star Citizen community you obviously belong to. (The place where promises are facts!)
And my recommendation for all those who want their money back: Do so on go over to the SC community! Since you don't see the real beauty of ED you simply don't deserve it.
They have, but if you like what they are saying, I don't know...
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=59481
Yes it could. If your offline database grows as new systems are discovered (which is hardly rocket science) then that's exactly what could have been delivered. It would form part of your offline save... just as it does now in the cloud.
It's nothing to do with being hard (though I'll bet it's harder than you think). The problem is that everything that's done on the server side (and that's a lot) would need to be reimplemented on the client side. And it's not just a clone of what's on the server, because what's on there is necessarily more complex than what would be on the client, as the client wouldn't be able to cope with the demands of playing the game and simulating the galaxy. So all that server functionality has to be specified again for the client. Imagine taking everything that's been developed over 2 years, boiling it down to something more simple but still usable and entertaining, then doing the work again. That's the reason that Michael says it's infeasible to do; Frontier simply don't have the manpower or finances to do it.
If Michael says so, I have no reason to doubt him. When he posts here he's an official representative of the company, so what he says is done with every due care. It's why he's so terse.
It may be that implementing offline mode would necessarily require some of the offline functionality (client and server) to be refactored. That would introduce further bugs. It may be that they weren't happy with the idea of a static galaxy where nothing changes. Bear in mind that if there's an offline version of the game, it will be reviewed, and it will be seen as being indicative of the quality of the work that Frontier do. If they think such a mode would be detrimental to the quality of the game, it's their prerogative to omit it.
I think they have been honest from the start. During the Kickstarter they thought they'd be able to create a compelling offline mode. Over the course of development more and more stuff that they thought would be client-side has been moved server-side, so the scope and complexity of maintaining a separate offline mode has also increased. Clearly at some point between then and now we reached a tipping point where it wasn't worth the resource to continue with the offline version. I completely agree that it should have been announced earlier.
I don't think the timing fits with this theory, nor the apparent willingness to accept refund requests. If this were a way to slip DRM into the product, they could have left the announcement later.
As above, it's not just about the feelings of the "offline players". If Frontier feel a crippled offline version would be badly received, it's their prerogative to cancel it. I would like a frank and technical detailing of why it would be so complex to implement the offline mode, but that's simply so that people who say "it wouldn't be hard to implement" are comprehensively refuted. Unless that happens, it's easy to imagine that writing software is something easy and that there's no complexity in an offline mode.
I agree that it's a bad idea, but criticising the developer input to the thread is a bit silly. Michael is clearly spokesperson on this issue and other devs will have been told to leave communication to him. He went out of his way to post responses over the weekend, and as we've been informed they are putting together a formal response. Rushing that out will only lead to further confusion so it's in everyone's interests to give them time on that matter.
Go back to the Star Citizen community you obviously belong to. (The place where promises are facts!)
And my recommendation for all those who want their money back: Do so on go over to the SC community! Since you don't see the real beauty of ED you simply don't deserve it.
Look. Developers who do bad things can make great games. CCP is one of those. And Ubisoft...
However, just because you make a good looking game doesn't excuse bad behavior.
I just opened a Poll, because i am really curious about how many people actually where influenced by the offline mode in their buying or backing decision.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=60089
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=60089
I think what we really need to ask is:
Who was working on offline mode all this time?
Did that person ever raise the problem of being able to do his job?
Why did it takes years for them to realize this?
Or... Better summed up as:
Did they have anyone there actually working on offline mode?
Who was working on offline mode all this time?
Did that person ever raise the problem of being able to do his job?
Why did it takes years for them to realize this?
Or... Better summed up as:
Did they have anyone there actually working on offline mode?
psyron
Banned
Come on! Just have a look at CIG and Star Citizen! They are doing millions with what? They don't even have a game out there but they have already made millions out of it!
I know people don't like to compare those two games - saying they are completely different - but imo it's obvious that ED will face a harsh competition with SC. Therefore i am willing to do the most to increase FD's position. And i wouldn't tolerate more resources being wasted for an offline-mode only 10% or so will MAYBE use.
Sorry, but no thanks!
And my recommendation for all those who want their money back: Do so on go over to the SC community! Since you don't see the real beauty of ED you simply don't deserve it.
Don't be a twit. I pledged around £1000 all told for this game (far more than any other before, or in the future), I've participated heavily in every DDF thread, and been on this journey with Frontier since day 2 of the Kickstarter. You think I don't see the "real beauty" of E: D?
It's just that we were promised an entirely different game to what we're actually getting. I didn't sign up for an MMO. I signed up because they explicitly said it wasn't.
Last edited:
Just because a group was not a significant portion of the backer base (and KS was only part of the backer base) doesn't mean they should get refunds for throwing a strop.
-
Bear in mind before exploding, I do think that those who wish a refund because of the offline thing, should get one to the value of the pre-order price of the game (£40 I believe) or the total of their backing if it was lower. After all if I pre-order something and I can't use it due to a spec change then I shouldn't be made to buy it.
People like you are good for the corporations. You make my stock portfolio go higher. And what do you get? A good fleecing. If they are willing to do this, what else are they willing to do?
And then apologists will use their own free time to argue the job of a community manager which although I believe FDev has, they seem to be no where in sight.
Seriously stop defending businesses that take people's money. Its what they do. They aren't doing this out of some favor to you. They make these decisions to remain solvent.
Well, I would go play SC, but it's not so big on singleplayer, so I'll pass. My compliments on the kool-aid this evening. Effervescent and fruity, with hints of walnut.
well if that unpaid intern couldn't do it, it just can't be done
psyron
Banned
I understand. But you have to believe them that it really would take too much resources.
They were always honest with the community.
At least wait for what DB will say about this matter - and i am sure he will address this issue.
Edit:
But it's wrong to say "we were promised an entirely different game to what we're actually getting". The offline-mode was thought to be merely a small feature which turned out to make more problems then initially thought. Please stay objective with your comments. You are seriously damaging FD and ED.
Last edited:
Indeed. Perception is everything in this business. And Mr Roberts is doing an excellent job of ensuring that the perception is that Star Citizen will be an awesome game and he is the man to deliver it.
Whether he actually does or not, well... :S
I stand corrected. They have responded. That being said...
No I don't like what they are saying. They are being vague at best. They aren't being specific in their answers as to how or why, or the technical reasons. They aren't even specific as to how good your internet has to be, except saying it has to be there for transactions and other stuff
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
My thoughts exactly.
1000?! ouch
Also, "Michael" implies in the link that an offline game would be worse. I want to know how and why. Remember the old elite games? Or even that mobile gem Galaxy on Fire 2? None of them required online, and they were GREAT.
Maybe I am just blind or old fashioned, but I fail to see how offline is "worse" (Michael quote)
Last edited:
If they were honest about it, why did it take til 1 month before release to be upfront about it.
Why couldn't this have been discovered earlier? Again see my question on who was working on offline mode and why didn't they say anything to the community a long time ago that he couldn't do his job.
- Status